Right, let's clarify and update the situation.
It wasn't blocked from the staff POV-I don't know about that, it was blocked on patient's TVs, I wasn't a member of staff, I was a patient. It's not only that hospital, this entertainment provider are the ones responsible to provide TV/internet/radio etc for Suffolk (the county I live)+Essex hospitals. This entertainment provider uses the same internet server, and I asked a friend to find out, and it's the same situation in the other Suffolk and Essex hospitals-so it has something to do with the internet server/provider. The problem lies with the fact that while Suffolk is almost completely non-Muslim-Essex is very Muslim. Colchester has a university with 50% foreign population and around 40% of those are Muslims, it also has many South Asian Brits, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Thurrock, etc etc all have so many Muslims, so this could be a collective problem. I know it's just a hospital and I'm not sure if the same thing applies to staff, but it's the principal, how many other networks/servers are blocking this site due to the name-that's what worries me.....
I'm working on both a letter and finding out the contact address right now.
Thanks for the advice as to content, I will follow it.
I wouldn't rely on a letter to just the ISP/entertainment provider. I would send the same letter to the ISP, the local hospital administration, someone at the NHS national level, and local, potentially-friendly politicians.
In my opinion, the letter should include the following points
(1) COEM is a moderate site that in no way runs afoul of the UK's lovely "hate speech" laws
(2) Blocking a site simply because it has a secular political agenda is unacceptable censorship
(3) The fact that views expressed on the site may offend some people due to their religious beliefs is not justification, in and of itself, for censoring the site due to political/religious content
(4) The ISP either needs to change its policy regarding COEM or the local hospital needs to choose another ISP when the contract expires
When I send letters like this I find it helps to send them to multiple parties and to research statutory law and, where possible, relevant case law, and include citations accordingly. I'm not talking about a full-on post hearing legal brief here, it's just that this hospital may be running afoul of the law by censoring this site (and may even be violating NHS's own policies) and if so, that would be good to know and put in the letter with some citations to back you up.
I wouldn't deem this to be censorship. This is a normal productivity-threat block. I would think that most agree that a company has the right to block employees from visiting clearly non business related sites while at work?
I would not recommend trying to circumvent it - you will most probably be reprimanded, maybe even fired.
/Stefan
If you are referring to a.ghazali's post, I'd be inclined to agree. I'm no expert on UK employment law, but if one of my union members here in the US asked me what they should do, as their rep I would certainly advise against attempting to circumvent it, as it could be viewed as "willful misconduct" and thus just cause for discipline, perhaps even summary discharge.
IsLame, are you seriously arguing that it is ok to chill out, chatting in communities and/or surfing porn when you are paid to be working?
Spending one full paid work week out of each month not doing any work is definitely grounds for termination, and it is also most certainly not good for your career, should you get away with it.
/Stefan
Dude, what are you? An HR manager or shop foreman?
Topic: COEM blocked/filtered and censored