What you’re saying is that you have no problem at all manipulating photos by professional PA photographers to make them seem like they were sent in by readers, but when lifting photos of hospitalised crime victims from Bebo, you won’t even edit out the poor woman’s red-eye? Seriously?

Also, just because the Bebo logo is entirely in lowercase doesn’t mean you write the citation in lowercase. The company name is quite clear on their about page. Learn to read. Or at least, learn to copy & paste.

The problem here is firstly that the bill is far from uncontroversial – a 20,000 strong email campaign opposing it took place only this week, while industry bodies on both sides took out adverts in the national press to press their points. The BBC story about the “stitch-up” that allowed it to pass is currently the third most popular story in their Election 2010 section; no mean feat given that all eyes are now on the freshly-launched election campaigns.

Most damning however, is the lack of attendance in the Commons on the debate itself. As you can see from the BBC coverage, the House was hardly what one would call ‘bustling’. On a local note, here’s how MPs in my area performed:

• Rob Wilson (Conservative, Reading East): No show.
• John Redwood (Conservative, Wokingham): No show.
• Martin Salter (Labour, Reading West): Did actually attend, so some credit there, but voted in favour along party lines.

John Redwood did express his opposition to the Bill on his blog today, but it wasn’t until later in the comments that he explained he was in fact absent for both divisions of the debate, having given up any further opposition as a lost cause. He was present (and quite vocal) for the immediately preceding debate on the Finance Bill.

All of which reminds me of another Internet-related bill passed with very little fanfare almost a decade ago: The Regulation of Investigatory Powers bill, which passed with a mere 30 MPs present. Of course, the resulting law certainly hasn’t made headlines at all… has it?

First off, a photo of Westminster Palace from The Times:

and now the same photo from the BBC website:

The blue tones have the photo have been all but completely washed out, presumably to create a more ‘pristine’ snowy scene, and mysteriously the picture is a bit blurry. There’s also no credit attached (a common feature of BBC News reporting).

Next up, a night-time snowball fight from The Times:

and the same from the BBC:

Now what the hell is going on? The photo is blurry again, no credit given, and it’s been tilted at a jaunty angle for some reason. Just what are the BBC playing at?

Then it occurred to me – are they trying to pass these off as amateur shots?

BBC have been quite aggressive in the last year or so in encouraging user participation, spearheaded by their Have Your Ignorant Rant Have Your Say section, and you can see in the screenshot above the link to their gallery of “Your pictures”. So why were they manipulating the work of Press Associate photographers to make them look less professional and publishing them uncredited? For that matter, why is it that so many of the articles on BBC News have no credit at all? What are they trying to hide?