As many readers will remember, during the debate on motion F17 at Autumn Conference many speeches were made by technically inclined LibDem members describing how the proposed porn blocks would not work, and in particular would misclassify and block legitimate websites as containing pornographic content.

Just in case we needed confirmation that we were right, TalkTalk have provided it… by classifying the LGBT+LD portion of the party website as porn. In addition, the website of LGBT charity “London Friend” has been blocked. These are not isolated incidents. Wired has a more in-depth write-up of sites which have been blocked by TalkTalk, BT and Sky, which include not just LGBT resources but rape crisis centres and educational sites. This was also covered by Newsnight, and there’s a write-up on the BBC website here.

Significantly, both these reports note that some hardcore porn sites are not being blocked by these draconian filters.

It is quite clear that what many of us – too many to all speak in the debate – were saying at the time was right. Web filtering cannot be constructed to perfectly categorise content. It desperately worries me that essential sites on sexual health, gender and sexuality, domestic violence and LGBT+ rights are being blocked, and it is also hugely concerning that parents may rely upon these imperfect filters without realising that not all hardcore content is filtered out.

Clearly, we were right to object to the very concept of blocks. I regret that FCC did not accept the amendment to F17 authored by myself and James Shaddock at the time of the last conference, and we must now take the opportunity to publicise the evidence that web filtering does not work as widely as possible.

We should also make very clear that as Liberals we oppose such draconian measures.

* Alisdair Calder McGregor was Candidate for Calder Valley in 2015 and is a member of the party's Federal Policy Committee