Thanks for the comment. What I'm trying to get at is that this is the start of something I find worrying.
The BT block is based on CleanFeed. This was originally set up to block images of child abuse. It's hard to have a rational discussion about blocking such sites - but I'll try!
Firstly, CleanFeed has malfunctioned several times - most notably blocking Wikipedia.
Secondly, it's very hard to determine which images should be banned. The Sun published topless photos of Sam Fox when she was 16. Today, that would be considered beyond the line.
Thirdly, when CleanFeed was set up many people feared that it would be eventually used for other "objectionable" content. We were told we were paranoid. But, you can be paranoid and still be right!
So now we have a situation where filesharing sites are considered as necessarily dangerous as child abuse and must be blocked.
Even though there are artists and developers using The Pirate Bay for promoting their work (such as Dan Bull) the whole site is now considered illegal.
How much of a site has to be illegal before it's banned? I notice a blog post of yours which contains musical notation and an image neither of which you own the copyright to.
I honestly believe that this is how it starts. Yes, you can organise a protest or overthrow a government without the Internet - but it is harder. Much harder.
It's dangerous for me to use the slippery slope argument, I know, but this has actually happened in Iran and China.
Do you really think it can't happen here? And if it does happen here, are you happy to do without Twitter, Facebook, BBC News - all on the say so of a Judge?