Today cricket, tennis and football put their case to the DCMS Select Committee asking for a share of betting profits to fight match fixing. On the face of it seemingly absurd.  It is similar to the horseracing industry demanding a slice of virtual racing that Licensed Betting Operators put on (to avoid paying the Levy).

The Levy has two criteria racing’s needs and Licensed Betting Operators ability to pay.  The Levy will soon be determined by Andy Burnham and whilst the Levy has not gone up over the last five years profits from the big Licensed Betting Operators certainly has.  Further the number of races that the horseracing industry has put on has increased substantially.  This should all point to Andy Burnham offering a bumper increase. Yet in all probability he will plump with the status quo.

The Licensed Betting Operators have put in for a massive reduction in the Levy because of Turf TV and the racing industry countered with a half hearted demand for more cash, a stalemate that has drawn in DCMS to make the determination.

Bookmakers were legalised to recycle some of their profits to horseracing so it can improve its product.  Shouldn’t we encourage Licensed Betting Operators to do the same with other sports?

Horseracing is a unique sporting product that wholly relies on gambling.  Clearly a ‘share of betting profits to fix match fixing’ is a thin end of the wedge but it is an idea that the Select Committee should not dismiss out of hand – although I do not hold out for any hope.

On the other hand some people believe the Levy to be an anachronism and instead racing should sell data and picture rights which would take the place of the Levy. In a few years this could easily become a viable alternative – in which case the sporting bodies now find themselves several years behind the curve.

Obama is potentially edging out in-front of Hillary in the number of delegates. Will the momentum take him to a win in Texas on 4^th March – Hillary’s last fire wall?

Back in the Autumn I believed it was Hillary’s to lose; now the once invincible Clinton machine has ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging and marketed like a bar of soap. The result a change at the top with Patti Solis Doyle stepping down.

With the race tightening Hillary has polarised the black vote and attempted to do the same with the Latino vote. She also seeks the ghost delegates from Florida and Michigan to be reinstated.  A re-run of the 1968 Democratic Convention will create a poisoned chalice, but for Hillary it’s ‘whatever it takes’ – the collateral damage to the Democratic Party she doesn’t care. 

Finally, Ralph Nader will also run if he raises $10 million and there is still an outside chance of Michael Bloomberg running. Four possible candidates for president in November…

If you have a moment the “Yes We Can” Obama youtube video, which has got almost 4 million hits in a week, is worth watching. 

Blogs are normally vociferous in the defence of internet freedom but in the wake of the 14^th suicide in Bridgend is now the time to look at the regulatory environment of the internet.

Internet users already expect protection from fraud and illegal content (such asextreme pornography, race hatred and child abuse) so why not take the next step by ensuring children do not have access to harmful content.

Currently eight Government Departments have an interest in internet content:  DCMS, Home Office, Justice, Health, Foreign Office, Cabinet Office, Children, Schools and Families and Business and Regulatory Reform.  This creates a lack of ownership within Government of internet content regulation. 

Why not develop a co-regulatory structure to regulate internet content bringing together, for example, charities, parents, academics, relevant Government departments, law enforcement agencies and the industry itself to decide codes of conduct in grey areas. 

An Advertising Standards Authority for the internet

Harmful content that is content where cultural, taste and decency judgments have to be made would come under the “Internet Standards Authority” remit and could include glorification of violence and terrorism, pornography, cyber-bullying, suicide, internet gambling and anorexia websites – this list is not exhaustive.

The “Internet Standards Authority” would build a dynamic filter and create a blacklist database which would be up-dated hourly.  ISPs would then offer two choices of content one for adults and one for children.  The child content would be the default with adult content accessed with a pin code – or some such protective device.

An “Internet Standards Authority” would be more responsive to new internet trends and lighter on its feet than Government legislation. Perversely ISPs are being held back from implementing “best efforts” to protect customers and children lest they be held liable for over-blocking or harmful content being accessed.

Finally, the “Internet Standards Authority” would have the ability to promote its work and improve transparency whilst also educating parents and ensuring children surf responsibly. 

Internet playgrounds should be supervised in the same way as parks used to be supervised and will be supervised under a Conservative Government (ChildhoodReview). 

We should ensure internet companies which advertise carry responsibility messages such as we see on alcohol advertising and cigarette packages. There is a hotline number in the UK operated by the excellent Internet Watch Foundation which should be displayed.

We need to empower parents, teachers and children in their responsibility and risks of going online.

Finally, any internet ready platform should be sold with a robust self updating tamper proof internet filter pre-installed.

We cannot remove all risk to children but when your kid is using the internet you have opened the door to another world.  Would you let an eight year old walk to the shops without teaching them to cross the road?

With the American primaries getting nasty and tight has optimism been replaced with fear? 

The Republican race is polarising between two issues a faltering economy (Mitt Romney’s supposed “strength”), the evil of terrorism (John McCain supposed “strength”). Will the darkest fears become the new vision as the election heats up?

The Democratic race has been thrown of course by a double-barrelled attack led by the attack dog with a touch of the mange – Bill Clinton.  Obama has been forced to go negative and defensive by the Clinton “swift boat” juggernaut. These attacks have further made the contest divide along ethnic and gender lines, not exactly the audacity of hope.

Last week the Conservative Party called for a debate on the modern slave trade – human trafficking.  According to the US State Department 800,000 people are trafficked across international borders each year – approximately 50% of those are minors.

As soon as the debate appeared in the Order Paper the Government announced it was ratifying the Council of Europe’s Convention against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005 that it had previously signed.

A conservative estimate by UNICEF of the number of children trafficked into the UKwas 330 over an 18 month period. Some of these children arrive at airports but there are no global standards for children travelling alone.  For example you cannot travel unaccompanied on Virgin Airways until you are 16. On BA it is 12 and Air France it is four!

Airlines have an important part to play in deterring child trafficking. Some simple questions at check in and on arrival would also make a difference.

Amazingly of the 330 children 183 went missing from the care of social services. Even when under “care” of the social services some of these children are still controlled by their traffickers.