It's not legislation yet, but it's official government policy, and with threats to make it into law if the government is not satisfied:

"Cameron gave the companies an October deadline to comply with the demands to filter the terms. He said that if the government is not satisfied with the progress it is prepared to take legislative action."

This actually is a very scary way for the government to make things happen.

The democratic process is for new laws to be debated in the houses. Cameron circumvented this process quite deliberately.

Except now we have a bunch of concrete evidence of just how stupid and flawed these filters are if the gov tries to force them into legislation. (For example, to force filters onto all ISPs.)

And a chorus of silence from the general population. The bad guys won here, no matter how upsetting it may be to the general HN crowd (at least, if I've read the mood correctly).

There was a private members bill called the online safety bill / act.

These rarely become law and that one didn't have government support. Hague at the time said the gov opposed claire perry's "on by default" request.

Perhaps people are confused by that bill?