tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-60907845597019995292024-03-18T00:19:34.127-07:00The London Legal SalonLondon Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-51450994948863852372015-04-07T05:46:00.002-07:002015-04-07T05:48:08.302-07:00Election Club Night!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">Ticklets are now available for our Election Clubnight. Come and enjoy a drink as we welcome the next government with some of the country's leading political minds. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">* Analysis and predictions throughout the night</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">* Balloon debate: which UK politician, past or present, deserves to be kept in a doomed hot air balloon? </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">* Policy pitch open mic: come and pitch your vision for the future of the UK to the audience. The winning policy wins booze!</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">Plus live music from some great South London acts. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px;">Tickets are available through Eventbrite: </span><a href="https://www.eventbrite.com/e/london-legal-salon-election-club-night-tickets-16480420381" rel="nofollow nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-family: helvetica, arial, 'lucida grande', sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 10.7200002670288px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">https://<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break" style="display: inline-block;"></span>www.eventbrite.com/e/<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break" style="display: inline-block;"></span>london-legal-salon-election<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break" style="display: inline-block;"></span>-club-night-tickets-164804<wbr></wbr><span class="word_break" style="display: inline-block;"></span>20381</a><br />
<br />
<br /></div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com33tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-28011043529456219702015-02-24T05:47:00.004-08:002015-02-24T05:47:18.353-08:00VENUE CHANGE 3rd of March 2015 <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">We have had to change the venue for the debate on the 3rd of March from Kings College to the October Gallery in Holborn </span><a href="http://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.octobergallery.co.uk%2Fcontact%2F&h=sAQHrZULH&s=1" rel="nofollow nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">http://www.octobergallery.co.uk/contact/</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px;">. The debate will still take place on the same day at 1900 but we will be back at the venue where the series began. As usual, spaces can be booked at londonlegalsalon@gmail.com</span></div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-66932902169951606602015-02-11T04:01:00.003-08:002015-02-11T04:01:44.316-08:00Abortion and Protest - Do We Need Buffer Zones?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Institute of Ideas have published the audio from last night's debate. Listen here: https://soundcloud.com/institute-of-ideas/london-legal-salon-abortion-debate/s-Y8LbO</div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com124tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-43651342277355641342015-01-05T09:36:00.002-08:002015-02-09T07:05:37.471-08:00Abortion and the Law<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">The London Legal Salon will be kicking off 2015 with a series of debates on Abortion and the Law, in association with the King’s College London Life Society and Right To Life (RTL), which will examine the political climate around abortion in the 21st Century. Our speakers include those at the forefront of both the legal and political changes in the field.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">‘Abortion and Protest: Do We Need Buffer Zones?’ (February 10th, 19:00, The October Gallery, £5)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">In late 2014 the Labour party indicated their support for legal ‘buffer zones’ around abortion clinics to prevent protests from interfering with the provision of services. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), Britain's largest abortion provider, supported the m</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">ove saying that the pro-life protests outside their clinics cause unwarranted levels of distress to those seeking to access lawful healthcare. Is this an acceptable limitation on the freedom to protest, or an unnecessary expansion of the law into the regulation of free speech?<br />Speakers: Frank Furedi (University of Kent), Tim Stanley (Daily Telegraph).<br /><br />‘Abortion – A Legal History’ (February 17th, 19:00, Upstairs at the Perseverance WC1N 3NB)<br />This seminar will present the history of abortion law in the 20th Century and invite discussion. Readings will be provided in advance.<br />Speaker: Barbara Hewson (Barrister, 1 Grays Inn Square)<br /><br />‘What is the Moral Status of the Unborn Child?’ (24th February, 18:15-20:45, Room KU4.12, King’s College London)<br />The morality of abortion is one of the most contentious ethical issues of modern times. Should a fetus be given moral worth? At what stage does an unborn child become worthy of moral consideration, if at all?<br />Speakers: Ann Furedi (Chief Executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and Peter D. Williams (Executive Officer, Right To Life)<br /><br />‘Abortion and Free Speech: Whose Opinion Matters?’ *(3rd March, 19:00, Room KU4.12, King’s College London)<br />In 2014, a debate at Oxford University between two male journalists was cancelled following a campaign by students. The campaign voiced concerns that the debate would not include a female contributor and would not be fully representative. Do men’s opinions matter in the discussion on abortion? Is a debate on the morality of abortion possible in the absence of a female perspective? Is it a debate open to all or do some views matter more than others?<br />Speakers: TBC</span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;"><br /></span>
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17.9200000762939px;">Please email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com to book a place at a particular debate.</span></div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-65315173447334029532015-01-02T05:37:00.001-08:002015-01-02T05:38:06.114-08:002015 programme<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The Legal Salon is currently putting the finishing touches to an exciting package of debates for 2015. Keep your eyes on the blog and the Twitter account for further information, or sign up to the mailing list at londonlegalsalon@gmail.com<br />
<br />
Happy New Year!</div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-85714664386837207352014-06-14T07:34:00.004-07:002014-06-14T07:34:54.269-07:00Are we all legal positivists now?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;">The next meeting of the London Legal Salon will be on Thursday the 17th of July at 1930. The venue will be the Perseverance pub in Holborn </span><span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;">http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/</span></span><br />
<span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, lucida grande, tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;">To book a place and to receive the readings please email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #141823; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;">The question of the connection between the law and morality is central to the history of legal philosophy. The debate, which has lasted from Ancient Gre</span><span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;">ece to the present day, has been dominated by two broad categories of theory: natural law theory and legal positivism. Classical natural law theorists like Aristotle argued that laws were necessarily connected to man’s moral life, and had as their aim some higher moral – or divine – framework. Legal positivists, whose arguments dominated the 20th Century, argued that natural law theory confused the issue of what the law is and what it ought to be, and that laws could have authority irrespective of whether or not they were ‘good’.</span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show" style="background-color: white; color: #141823; display: inline; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13.63636302947998px; line-height: 16.290908813476563px;"><br />Today, lawyers and Judges tend to think of their role as entirely morally neutral. The idea that the law should reflect, in some way, public morality seems a bit outdated. Why is this? Is it simply because natural law theory has been convincingly defeated? Perhaps the triumph of legal positivism reflects a collapse of moral consensus in wider society? Is there anything from natural law theory worth saving?</span></div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-74605687479690545022014-01-23T05:26:00.001-08:002014-01-23T05:26:36.898-08:00The Consumer Rights Bill: The Death of Contract? 18th February 2014 at the Old Bank of England<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
The London Legal Salon will return to the Old Bank of England (<a href="http://oldbankofengland.co.uk/" style="color: #1155cc;" target="_blank">http://oldbankofengland.co.<wbr></wbr>uk/</a>) on Tuesday the 18th of February at 1930. </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Daniel Lloyd, Head of Consumer Law at BT, will introduce a discussion on the Consumer Rights Bill. A short introduction is below.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
Please RSVP to Londonlegalsalon@gmail.com if you would like to attend.</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
We look forward to seeing you all,</div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
The London Legal Salon </div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b><br /></b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<b>The Consumer Rights Bill: The Death of Contract?</b></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="background-color: white; color: #222222; font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The Consumer Rights Bill, introduced in the Queen’s Speech last year, was described by the government as the ‘most radical overhaul of consumer law in three decades’. It purports to clarify and streamline previous legislation governing the law of contract whilst granting new rights to consumers in their relationship with businesses. In June 2014 the new Distance Selling Regulations come into force. Later in the year the Government aim to introduce, for the first time, private rights of enforcement under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPRs). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What does this overhaul of consumer law say about the role of law in regulating the changing relationship between businesses and consumers? Are new consumer rights always a good thing, and what do they say about they way we view the public? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The London Legal Salon welcomes Daniel Lloyd, Head of Consumer law at BT, to discuss the legal and political context of the Consumer Rights Bill, the CPRs and the DSRs and what it means for the relationship between consumers and business.</div>
</div>
</div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-6200776727312361002013-04-10T10:19:00.002-07:002013-04-10T10:19:58.157-07:00Rape Myths<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
The London Legal Salon returns at 1930 on the 8<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup>
of May 2013 to the Hoop and Grapes Pub on Farringdon Street.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The topic of the discussion is a new paper by
Helen Reece of the London School of Economics titled:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>‘Rape Myths:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is Elite Opinion Right and Public Opinion Wrong?’</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
Many have argued that reform around Rape law has failed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Either it has failed to raise the conviction
rate,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>or worse,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>it has failed to instil confidence in victims
of rape that the state can prosecute these crimes effectively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many attribute the lack in any rise in rape
convictions to ‘myths’ around rape. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is said that the erroneous beliefs of rape complainants and those involved in prosecuting
and trying rape cases are to blame for the lack of any increase in people being
found guilty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
In her new paper,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr
Helen Reece of the London School of Economics argues that the repressiveness of
current attitudes towards rape has been largely overstated,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and that such ‘rape myths’ are not to blame
for the steady conviction rate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Are
misconceptions about rape leading to miscarriages of justice?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should we be doing more to ensure
convictions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is there another
explanation for why more and more people are reporting rape,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>whilst roughly the same number year on year
are being convicted?</div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
<o:p> </o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;">
Join the London Legal Salon at the <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Hoop and Grapes Public House</b> on <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Farringdon Street</b> to discuss Rape Myths on <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Wednesday the 8<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> of May 2013</b> at <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1930</b>.</div>
</div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-13877820907474936872012-10-23T14:37:00.001-07:002012-10-24T13:42:37.105-07:00Are The Dead Entitled to the Presumption of Innocence? 14th November 2012 at the Old Bank Of England<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="uiGrid mvm">
<tbody>
<tr><td class="vTop"><div class="fbInfoIcon fbDescriptionIcon">
</div>
</td><td class="vTop"><span itemprop="description"></span><br />
<span itemprop="description"></span><br />
<span itemprop="description"></span><br />
<span itemprop="description"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_50870d68373f45470398541">
On Wednesday the 14th of November 2012 the London Legal Salon will host a public debate on the Jimmy Savile allegations. We will be meeting at the Old Bank of England Public House on Fleet Street at 1930 on the 14th of November 2012.</div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">
</div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">
Recent allegations of sexual abuse levelled against the late TV presenter Jimmy Savile have caused uproar. Bigwigs at the BBC anticipate a full inquiry. With more and more retrospective accusers coming forward, and apparent evidence of cover ups within the BBC, many think the allegations against Saville are symptomatic of a sexual abuse ‘culture’ which has permeated the institution since the 1960s. <br />
<br />
The papers seem convinced of his guilt. Articles around the case speak of ‘overwhelming evidence’ of ‘appalling abuse’. Charities who have named trusts after him are considering donating all the money held to victims of abuse and abandoning their association with the cigar touting oddball. There can be little doubt that Jimmy Savile’s reputation as a philanthropic British institution lies in tatters.<br />
<br />
But what does this say about society’s attitude towards the presumption of innocence? Do all the rules cease to apply once an accused has passed away? Should we really be dragging up allegations against a person who cannot defend themselves? Does the manner in which Savile has been discussed betray something deeper about our attitudes to innocence?<br />
<br />
Email <a href="mailto:londonlegalsalon@gmail.com">londonlegalsalon@gmail.com</a> to reserve a space in the debate.<br />
<br />
Speaker: Tim Black, senior writer at Spiked Online<br />
</div>
</span><br /></td></tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-64085357319019724082012-06-10T12:39:00.000-07:002012-06-11T02:23:24.285-07:00Should gay people be allowed to marry?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_4fd4f6a9df2689504167907">
At 1930 on the 26th of June 2012 at the Old Bank Of England on Fleet Street, the London Legal Salon will meet to discuss gay marriage. </div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">
</div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">
Over recent months, everyone seems to be coming out in favour of gay marriage. From George Clooney to David Cameron, Kim Kardashian to Lady Gaga, support for gay marriage has clearly become the progressive cause of the moment. But opinion remains divided. A governme<span class="text_exposed_show">nt consultation on marriage reform launched earlier this year, which would have allowed for gay marriages in restricted circumstances, split the coalition with David Cameron eventually allowing a free vote on the issue. <br /><br />Some argue that the current ban on gay marriage is fundamentally a question of equality, akin to women having the vote or rights for ethnic minorities. After all, how can it be right in a liberal society for a group of people to be prevented from taking part in an ancient social institution because of their sexuality? However, others have expressed concerns that allowing gay marriage would devalue marriage as a social institution which has traditionally been associated with procreation. The state’s tinkering with these institutions should be open to scrutiny and critique, especially as there seems to be little public appetite to allow gays to marry.<br /><br />Would allowing gay marriage devalue traditional marriage? If so, is this a problem? Are those who argue against gay marriage simply homophobes and backwards conservatives? What impact should changing attitudes have on our social institutions and how should the law react?</span><br />
<span class="text_exposed_show"></span></div>
<div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">
<span class="text_exposed_show">Email <a href="mailto:lonlegalsalon@gmail.com">lonlegalsalon@gmail.com</a> to reserve your place.<br />
<br />SPEAKER: Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked Online. </span></div>
</div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-36932582476762783932012-05-11T04:57:00.002-07:002012-05-11T04:57:43.151-07:00Thank you<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Thanks to all who attended the London Legal Salon discussion on Free Speech at Football. Those interested in follow up reading may be interested in a new report from Civil Liberties group the Manifesto Club on 'Bubble Matches'. View the report here: <a href="http://www.manifestoclub.com/bubblematchreport">http://www.manifestoclub.com/bubblematchreport</a><br />
<br />
Details of our next discussion will follow shortly. </div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-51664331881361150882012-04-03T09:56:00.001-07:002012-05-11T05:00:08.687-07:008th of May 2012 at 1930: Who is singing anymore? Is the law strangling free speech at football?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
On the 8th of May 2012 the London Legal Salon will meet back at the Hoop and Grapes on Farringdon Street to discuss free speech at football.<br />
<br />
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 16.2pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Up and down the United Kingdom, the law is creeping onto the terraces.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Earlier this month Liam Stacey, a student from South Wales, was jailed for ‘tweeting’ mocking remarks about Bolton Football Club’s Farbrice Muamba whilst he suffered a heart attack during a game.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Scotland, new criminal offences, contained in the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012, mean that Scottish football fans could be arrested for crossing themselves or for singing the wrong song.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In England, high profile prosecutions of players for the use of racist language on the pitch has led David Cameron to pledge in the course of a government Anti Racism summit in February that he would ‘crush’ racism out of football.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His language suggests that upcoming reforms of English laws could follow the Scottish model.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 8pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 16.2pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Proponents of the Scottish law and supporters of reform in England argue that racist and sectarian behaviour at football matches creates a climate of acceptability of such behaviour off the pitch. But critics argue that regulation not only threatens to stifle the atmosphere at matches, but also sets a dangerous precedent for the regulation of free speech in wider society.</span><span style="color: black; font-size: 8pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 16.2pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Should we use the law to crack down on offensive speech at football matches? Or should we let what’s said in the ground stay in the ground? What does the regulation of speech at matches suggest about our approach to free speech in wider society?</span></div>
<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0cm 0cm 16.2pt; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;">Speakers: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Kevin Rooney, Free Spech campaigner and teacher at Queen's School </span><br />
<span style="color: black;">Dan Jones, Journalist at the Evening Standard</span></div>
</div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-30148308785607142732012-01-10T14:55:00.000-08:002012-01-10T14:55:44.001-08:00Tuesday 31st January: The Stephen Lawrence Verdicts<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed" id="id_4f0cbf99dba4e2c45769810">On Tuesday 31st January at 1930 the London Legal Salon will discuss the verdicts in the Stephen Lawrence case. The discussion will take place at the Hoop and Grapes at 80 Farringdon Street.(<a href="http://www.thehoopandgrapes.co.uk/">http://www.thehoopandgrapes.co.uk/</a>). We look forward to seeing you there!</div></div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"> </div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">On the 3rd of January, David Norris and Gary Dobson were convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Crown Prosecution Service called the case the ‘most significant of a generation’. <br />
<br />
Many celebrated the verdicts as a victory for justice over prejudice; one which <span class="text_exposed_show">went some way to purging the bungling police investigation into the murder in 1993. But others felt some unease with the way in which these defendants were treated. Dobson became one of few defendants to be retried following the quashing of his acquittal by the Court of Appeal under provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which abrogated the ancient principle that a defendant should not be tried for the same crime twice. The jury were shown footage of the defendants making racist remarks and acting out violence taken from surveillance cameras secreted in Dobson’s home, evidence which would have been inadmissible before 2003. Further, the pair had suffered such wide spread adverse publicity in the intervening years that many thought a fair trial was impossible.<br />
<br />
Whilst few will feel any sympathy for Norris and Dobson, their conviction raises important questions about the principles that underpin our criminal justice system. Should Dobson have faced a trial for an offence he had been acquitted of? How should the criminal justice system accommodate developments in science and technology? Did the men receive a fair trial? What is the legacy of the Lawrence convictions for the criminal justice system and society as a whole?</span></div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show"></span> </div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show">SPEAKERS<br />
<br />
Rob Lyons: Writer for Spiked Online (<a href="http://www.spiked-online.org.uk/" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.spiked-online.org.uk/</a>); Author of ‘Panic on a Plate: How Society Developed an Eating Disorder’ (<a href="http://www.paniconaplate.com/" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank"><span>http://</span><wbr><span class="word_break"></span>www.paniconaplate.com/</a>).<br />
<br />
Aneurin Brewer: Barrister at 9 Bedford Row, practising in Criminal Law. </span></div></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-68080055713769077862012-01-03T14:58:00.000-08:002012-01-03T15:04:43.204-08:00A Conviction At Any Cost?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is no exaggeration to say that the conviction of David Norris and Gary Dobson for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is symptomatic of a criminal justice system slipping towards totalitarianism. The alarming disregard that the establishment has shown for the rights of these men should be a catalyst for a serious and principled argument for reversing the gradual erosion of defendant’s rights, which began under New Labour and has continued under the Coalition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is time to make a case for rebalancing the scales in favour of defendants and against the incessant bowing of freedom beneath the false god of scientific objectivity.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The mood after the conviction of Norris and Dobson was self-congratulatory and jubilant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul Dacre, who published images of the defendants in 1997 under the headline that simply read ‘Murderers’ whilst he was editor of the Daily Mail, called it a ‘glorious day for British Newspapers proving that the power of journalism, courageous headlines and relentless campaigning <span lang="EN" style="mso-ansi-language: EN;">can act as a huge force for good in society and make a major difference to countless lives’. </span>The Crown Prosecution Service, who brought the prosecution against the men, congratulated themselves on ‘a lot of hard work’ and called it ‘the most significant case in a generation’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The quiet and dignified relief of Stephen Lawrence’s parents was almost drowned out by the billowing back slapping of the media and the lawyering class.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Crown Prosecution Service may be right to describe the case as highly significant,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but not for the reasons they imagine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What was truly significant about the reaction to the Stephen Lawrence verdict was the glossing over of the enormous sacrifices that have been made in terms of traditional freedoms in the course of the Lawrence case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many have pointed out that the ancient principle of double jeopardy, roughly the idea that a defendant should not be tried for the same crime twice, was abrogated in order to secure the conviction of Gary Dobson.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this was just one of the rights usually afforded to defendants which the establishment chose to ignore in relation to these men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Take, most obviously, the presumption of innocence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For many Judges and journalists, Dobson and Norris were guilty long before the jury returned its verdict.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the course of the MacPhereson inquiry into the Metropolitan Police’s bumbling investigation of the murder, Sir William referred to the suspects variously as ‘evil’ and ‘obvious targets for early arrest’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In a special edition of the Tonight Programme, involving interviews with the suspects in 1999, Martin Bashir cross examined the Aicourts, Norris, Dobson and Knight on their accounts of their movements on the night.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bashir invited each of them to comment on unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay before claiming that the inconsistencies in their account made it ‘hard for anyone in the public to believe they were innocent’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The casual disregard for this fundamental assumption of English Law was typified by the ‘courageous’ headline from the Daily Mail in 1997 – but quite what is so ‘courageous’ about publishing slanderous headlines about 3 men who cannot afford to do anything about it remains to be seen.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is hard to remember that until Tuesday, Dobson and Norris were innocent men.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Aicourts and Luke Knight remain so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Then consider the right to silence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The defendants were continually chastised by the establishment for failing to give an account of themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lord Justice Simon Brown, in the course of a ruling which confirmed the obligation on the defendants to give evidence to the MacPhereson Inquiry on pain of prosecution said ‘these defendants twice had the opportunity to protest their innocence and have chosen not to do so’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Quoting Brown LJ, MacPherson concluded in his report that their silence meant ‘the press and the public cannot be blamed for voicing their suspicions about them which are current and will remain alive’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Michael Mansfield QC,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the barrister who undertook the private prosecution of the men in 1994 and who has built a career on purporting to champion defendant’s rights, said in an interview with the Guardian Newspaper : ‘The Lawrence suspects had a right not to answer questions that might incriminate them. But to refuse to answer any questions beyond their names was an abuse’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout the investigation and the inquiry the men were scorned for refusing to bow to Judicial and media pressure to assist the police and for choosing to affirm their fundamental right to remain silent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">And what of the principle of double jeopardy?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This principle of English Law lasted from the Ancient Greeks until the New Labour government decided to disregard it in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Double Jeopardy is often cited as originating in canon law but its routes are more democratic. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Roman republic, the decision of a single Magistrate was only appealable to a Court made up from the citizens of that republic.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because blame was understood as fundamentally social,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>it was thought that society could not be wrong in their decisions as to how they allocated blame.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Double Jeopardy was born from the fundamentally democratic idea that the decisions of the people in deciding whether someone was blameworthy simply could not be wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">But a noble ancestry was not enough for the New Labour government, who in 2003 abolished double jeopardy in the course of a sweeping attack on defendant’s rights. The Act stipulated that the Court of Appeal could quash a jury’s acquittal and order the retrial of a defendant for the same crime in the face of ‘new and compelling evidence’ as to the defendant’s guilt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also allowed evidence of ‘bad character’ to be shown to juries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This was why it was permitted for the jury in the Stephen Lawrence case to be played the ‘racist surveillance’ footage showing the men engaging in racist and violent behaviour in Dobson’s home.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It also placed an obligation on defendants to disclose the nature of their defence to the prosecution months in advance of their trial, including the names and details of all the witnesses that they intend to call. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This removed the long established right of the defence to ‘ambush’ the prosecution at trial.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">All of these reforms were driven by dangerously authoritarian assumption which became a hallmark of New Labour’s approach to criminal justice in response to Lawrence’s death:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that the sole purpose of the Courts is to deliver accurate verdicts efficiently. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course, an accurate verdict is a vital goal for any justice system.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But an accurate verdict means nothing if the state and the citizen are not placed on an equal footing in the course of its determination.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is why the rights accorded to defendants are vital and why any attempt to curb or ignore them should cast a significant shadow over any subsequent verdict.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It goes without saying that society is better off without Norris and Dobson.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But anyone who is dedicated to protecting freedom and ensuring limits on state power should be extremely concerned after their conviction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their trial showcased all the authoritarian developments in our justice system since Stephen Lawrence’s tragic death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is now vital that we reinvigorate the debate around the rights of defendants and strenuously resist this incessant drive towards efficiency and accuracy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No conviction is worth the cost.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><br />
</div></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-84058184591735118672011-11-22T05:41:00.000-08:002011-11-22T05:41:07.749-08:00Can extra judicial killing ever be just?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">The next meeting of the London Legal Salon will be on Monday the 12th of December 2011 at 1930. We have changed the venue this time around. We will now be hosted by the Hoop and Grapes on Farringdon Street (<a href="http://www.thehoopandgrapes.co.uk/Menu.htm" rel="nofollow nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;"><span>http://</span><wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span></span><span>www.thehoopandgrapes.co.uk/</span><wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span>Menu.htm</a><span style="color: #333333;">). Attendanc</span><span class="text_exposed_show"><span style="color: #333333;">e is free as always.<br />
<br />
<span> Moral philosopher Piers Benn will introduce a discussion on the moral and legal questions behind extra judicial killing. An introductory blurb is below. Readings can be obtained by emailing londonlegalsalon@gmail.com</span><wbr></wbr><span class="word_break"></span></span>.<br />
<span style="color: #333333;"><br />
Look forward to seeing you on the 12th,<br />
<br />
The London Legal Salon<br />
<br />
CAN EXTRA JUDICIAL KILLING EVER BE JUST?<br />
<br />
Following the capture of the Nazi leadership after the Second World War Harry Truman, the then president of the United States, insisted that they should stand trial. He said their summary execution ‘would not sit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride…the only course is to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused after a hearing as dispassionate as the times will permit and upon a record that will leave our reasons and motives clear”.<br />
<br />
In contrast, following the killing of Osama Bin Laden in May, Barak Obama proclaimed to the world that ‘justice had been done’. But had it? The White House justified the killing by pointing out that the United States were at war with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden was a military target. Others argued variously that trying Bin Laden would be either impossible or undesirable. But opinion was divided. Many, including Human Rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC, claimed that Bin Laden was entitled to due process and that a trial would have allowed for his ‘de-mystification’ in the dock. <br />
<br />
Bin Laden is just one of many suspected members of Al-Qaeda to have been killed by the United States authorities through targeted assassinations without any judicial sanction. Similar tactics have also been employed by the Israeli government in targeting suspected terrorists in Palestine. These ‘extra judicial’ killings raise important questions about the role of International Law in regulating modern conflicts and international anti-terrorism. Is it possible to try suspected international terrorists and when, if ever, should we want to? Since 1949, the Geneva Convention has sought to set the minimum standards for a state’s behaviour in the course of war. But at a time where wars are fought not just between states, but between states and amorphous and elusive organisations like Al Qaeda, have the old rules of war become out-dated? </span></span></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-37762654818107449752011-10-12T14:37:00.000-07:002011-10-12T14:37:54.920-07:00What are Public Inquries For?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"> </div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed">At 1930 on Monday the 24th of October 2011 Adam Burgess will introduce a discussion on Public Inquiries at the Perseverance, on Lamb's Conduit Street in Holborn (<a href="http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/">http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/</a>)</div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><br />
The last 20 years have witnessed the meteoric rise of the Public Inquiry. 30 were ordered by British governments between 1990 and 2009. Whilst this sounds unremarkable, it was d<span class="text_exposed_show">ouble the number that had been ordered throughout the rest of the 20th Century. <br />
<br />
Their rise has been controversial. The Inquiries Act 2005 placed greater power in the hands of ministers to control the parameters of Inquiries, as well as enabling them to limit access to their findings. This raised concerns that the Act would lead to Inquiries becoming less transparent and less effective in ensuring accountability.<br />
<br />
Others have suggested that Inquiries have become overburdened. At the beginning of the 20th Century, the motivation behind the ordering of an Inquiry was to guarantee independence where issues were raised as to the conduct of the establishment. Examples include the ad-hoc committee of Inquiry established in 1912 to investigate the Marconi Scandal, in which government ministers were accused of insider trading in an American communications company. <br />
<br />
However, since the 1960s, Inquiries have increasingly addressed broader concerns around regulating risks to the public. This is illustrated by the enormous expansion of Inquiries into the healthcare and childcare sectors. The Bristol Inquiry of 1998 was described as the ‘widest ranging investigation into medical standards since the founding of the NHS’ and the Laming Inquiry had a significant impact on child protection policy following the murder of Victoria Climbie.<br />
<br />
What is behind the rise of the Public Inquiry? Has there been a shift in their role in society? Do they allow the Judiciary to become too influential in political issues and is this a good thing? Are they a vital mechanism to ensure transparency or a symptom of a society obsessed with eliminating risk? <br />
<br />
Readings can be obtained by emailing <a href="mailto:londonlegalsalon@gmail.com">londonlegalsalon@gmail.com</a>.</span></div><div class="text_exposed_root text_exposed"><span class="text_exposed_show"> </span></div></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-27831600274328317432011-09-15T05:08:00.000-07:002011-09-15T06:09:33.341-07:00The application of the Centre For Constitutional Rights to investigate the Pope for crimes against humanity is a meaningless vanity exercise<div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">On Tuesday a bundle of documents was lodged with the International Criminal Court in the Hague, which purported to found a case that Pope Joseph Ratzinger had committed crimes against humanity under the Statute of Rome. The papers, <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/13/pope-crimes-humanity-victims-abuse">lodged by a US based NGO called the Centre for Constitutional Rights (the CCR)</a>, accused the pope and other Vatican officials of having ‘direct and superior responsibility’ for many thousands of sexual assaults carried out by Catholic priests across the globe. The CCR had been instructed in the cas<a href="http://www.blogger.com/" name="_GoBack"></a>e by a ‘survivor lead support group’ called the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests (SNAP). According to CCR attorney Pam Spees, when it comes to allocating blame for these assaults, ‘all roads really do lead to <city w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Rome</place></city>’.</span></div><div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">The lawyers at the CCR must realise that their claim is doomed to fail. In order for the <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Vatican</place></country-region> and its leaders to be found guilty of Crimes Against Humanity under Article 7 of the Statute of Rome, it would have to be shown that these assaults were undertaken ‘<em><span style="font-family: Arial; font-style: normal;">pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy</span></em><i> </i>to commit such attacks<i>’</i>. The ICC’s official ‘Elements of Crime’ document indicates that the accused state or organisation must have actively promoted or encouraged attacks and that tolerance or acquiescence is not enough. To imagine that the <country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on">Vatican</place></country-region> had an organizational policy encouraging its priests to commit these attacks is a deranged interpretation of the facts. The lawyers at the CRC are clearly more concerned with becoming the wigged-up darlings of Catholic bashing liberals than they are with actually succeeding in their application. </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Tahoma; font-size: 10pt;"></span></div><div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">But a request for intervention from the ICC is not always about securing results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, the Court is yet to secure any convictions and its arrest warrants are routinely ignored.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather it is often the application for intervention itself that allows an organisation, whether it be a government or an NGO, to showcase its moral credentials, without having to actually do anything of any significant consequence. </span></div><div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><country-region w:st="on"><place w:st="on"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">Libya</span></place></country-region><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;"> is the most recent example. The invitation issued by the UN under the terms of Resolution 1979 to the ICC prosecutor to investigate Gaddafi provided a useful veneer of moral purpose to an otherwise poorly coordinated and purposeless intervention. The prospect of convicting the Gaddafi regime in an international Court provided a soft alternative to sending in ground troops to flush him out.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This soft intervention was supported by the moralistic charge against Gadaffi that he had committed ‘crimes against humanity’.</span></div><div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">Of course this veneer quickly fell away when investigators discovered that <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/13/libya-amnesty-gadhafi-rebel.html">both the rebels and the Gaddafi’s regime had committed acts which arguably amounted to crimes against humanity</a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The morally black and white provisions of the Statute of Rome are clearly ill suited to arbitrating over a situation with any degree of moral or political complexity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="ecxmsonormal" style="background: white; margin: 0pt 0pt 16.2pt;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: #2a2a2a; font-family: Arial;">They are also ill suited to arbitrating over the problems faced by the members of SNAP.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this will not deter the CCR. Their application has the same purpose as those issued by western political organisations like the UN:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>publicly showcasing their own organisation’s moral credentials.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As long as their disdain for Catholic Church gets a public airing, then this cynical and irresponsible application will have served its purpose.</span></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-87559442420458402172011-09-07T15:43:00.000-07:002011-09-07T15:43:03.630-07:00Further reading for Monday the 12th of September 2011 launch debatePlease find below some further reading for Monday’s launch debate. Some key questions to consider are:<br />
<br />
1. What will the Leveson inquiry achieve and is it the appropriate forum for debate on media ethics and regulation? <br />
<br />
2. Is greater regulation in favour of media plurality in the public interest? <br />
<br />
3. What does the scandal say about society’s attitude towards invasions of privacy? Do we think of such invasions differently when they are undertaken by the media than when they are undertaken by the state? If so, why? <br />
<br />
4. How should journalists balance their role as guardians of the public interest with the maintenance of the rule of law? Should either take precedence?<br />
<br />
The Screws No More: How dumb does that privacy debate look now?<br />
By Alex Novarese in Legal Week<br />
‘Lawyers should feel emboldened to make a more robust case for more effective media laws’.<br />
<a href="http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2086853/screws-dumb-privacy-debate-look" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://www.legalweek.com/legal-week/blog-post/2086853/screws-dumb-privacy-debate-look</span></a><br />
<br />
Phone Hacking: More regulation is not the answer<br />
By Barry Turner for Meeja Law<br />
‘(The response to the phone hacking scandal) is typically British: the rules have been broken so let’s have more rules’.<br />
<a href="http://meejalaw.com/2011/07/21/guest-post-by-barry-turner-phone-hacking-more-regulation-is-not-the-answer/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://meejalaw.com/2011/07/21/guest-post-by-barry-turner-phone-hacking-more-regulation-is-not-the-answer/</span></a><br />
<br />
The Leveson Inquiry: Should we care?<br />
By Des Freedman for the New Left Project<br />
‘Inquiries are a useful way of taking some of the heat out of situations that attract great public interest and, by extending debate until it has effectively disappeared from everyday conversation, diminishing the possibilities for change’.<br />
<a href="http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_leveson_inquiry_should_we_care" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://www.newleftproject.org/index.php/site/article_comments/the_leveson_inquiry_should_we_care</span></a><br />
<br />
Monitoring the popular press: An historical perspective<br />
By Adrian Bingham for History and Policy<br />
The experience of the past century suggests that the press is unlikely to engage in a searching self-examination without some external prompting.<br />
<a href="http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-27.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-27.html</span></a><br />
<br />
Why I broke the law<br />
By Tessa Mayes for Spiked Online<br />
Any journalist worthy of the name should have the courage of their convictions to pursue a story that is worth uncovering. If they can stand by the story, and they believe the risk of imprisonment and fines are worth it, journalists should go for it<br />
<a href="http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?%2Fsite%2Farticle%2F7148%2F" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?%2Fsite%2Farticle%2F7148%2F</span></a><br />
<br />
The London School of Economics Media Plurality dossier<br />
Numerous authors<br />
A useful set of materials relating to litigation surrounding the purchase of by BSkyB of 17.9% of shares in ITV and the media plurality provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002.<br />
<a href="http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2011/01/12/media-plurality-dossier-the-case-of-newscorps-bid-for-bskyb/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><span style="color: #3b5998;">http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/mediapolicyproject/2011/01/12/media-plurality-dossier-the-case-of-newscorps-bid-for-bskyb/</span></a><br />
<br />
We look forward to meeting you on Monday.<br />
<br />
The London Legal SalonLondon Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-72555728277845309642011-08-23T13:36:00.001-07:002011-08-24T07:48:17.628-07:00The ICC in Libya: Assuming its stake in the spoils of the uprising<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The capture of Saif Al-Islam Gadaffi by Libyan rebel forces was a short lived victory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> Shortly after his capture,</span> he was able to escape custody and rejoin the</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> resistance to the rebel advance. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">But even this fleeting victory for the rebels has revealed the extent to which western legal institutions will hold sway in Libya if Gadaffi is ever defeated. </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">No sooner had he been captured, that the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor had contacted the rebels to ensure Saif Al-Islam was readily passed into custody at The Hague to await trial before the International Criminal Court.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The rebels unquestioningly agreed to hand him over.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In one sense, this is remarkable. Libya has never recognised the authority of the ICC before today. In fact, the ICC should not even have jurisdiction over Libya as its government has never signed up to the Court's founding statute, the Statute of Rome. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Yet in another sense it is understandable. The rebels have become so dependent on western intervention in the course of the uprising that they lack the political independence to resist the ICC's calls to intervene. Further, ICC has recently used International Law to expand its jurisdiction to countries whose governments have never previously acknowledged its authority. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Statute of Rome grants extensive powers to the ICC prosecutor to investigate whether war crimes, genocide or crimes against humanity are being committed by a state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the prosecutor finds that they are, the Court can issue a warrant to arrest the ind</span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">ividuals responsible in order to try them under International Law. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ICC prosecutor took this step in relation to the Gadaffis earlier this year.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The prosecutor can start an investigation either at the request the state into which they are to investigate, of their own volition, or under the terms of a UN Resolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Libya is the second of two referrals under the terms of a UN Resolution in the Statute’s history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first was in response to the civil war in Darfur, which resulted in a warrant being issued for the Sudanese head of state, Omar Al-Bashir, to be arrested for war crimes and crimes against humanity. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In the case of both Libya and Sudan two doctrines of International Law are relevant.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first is that no acting head of state may be prosecuted under the criminal law of another state in a manner which restricts his activity as that head of state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the doctrine of ‘sovereign immunity’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is designed as a safeguard of national sovereignty, because it recognises that leaders of countries should be accountable to their electorate rather than foreign legal institutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Secondly, a statute cannot create any obligation nor bestow any rights on a state without that state’s consent in the form of that state becoming a party to that statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means, again only in theory, that states cannot be forced to do things under International Law if they have not freely become party to legislation.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The Statute of Rome strips sovereign immunity from heads of state for the purposes of trial before the ICC.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, Libya is not a party to the Statute of Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, the statute cannot, in and of itself, remove Gadaffi’s immunity from prosecution nor compel the rebels to hand him over.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The ICC faced the same problem with Al-Bashir in Sudan, as Sudan was also a non-party to the Statute.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the ICC found a solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Under the UN Charter, Security Council resolutions are binding on all UN member states.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Resolution requesting the investigation into Sudan obliged all UN member states to cooperate in the investigation into the conflict there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> The</span> ICC found that Sudan was under an obligation to assist the investigation into its own domestic affairs by virtue of its UN membership.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">The result was that a warrant could be issued for the arrest of Omar Al-Bashir even though Sudan was not party to the Statute of Rome. The same reasoning is likely to be applied to Resolution 1970 in the Libyan case. The </span><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> ICC will not be prevented from prosecuting Gadaffi simply because Libya is not a party to the Statute under which he stands to be prosecuted. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The examples of Libya and Sudan show how the ICC is expanding its jurisdiction, or perhaps more accurately ignoring its jurisdictional limits, through supporting their investigations with UN Resolutions.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">This is worrying.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Libyan example shows, ICC investigations have a disastrous effect of domestic conflicts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Libyan investigation meant that all the nations bordering Libya were compelled, as UN member states, to cooperate with the ICC and arrest Gadaffi if he crossed their borders.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This meant that Gadaffi was left with nowhere to run.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His only option, other than to stand and fight, was to seek refuge in a non-UN member state such as Kosovo or Taiwan; neither of which presented a realistic safe haven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For this reason, Resolution 1970 contributed to the factors that forced Gadaffi to fight to the end, by cutting off any lines of retreat.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">But if Gadaffi is ever captured, the example of Sudan provides an option to the rebels: they could<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>ignore the warrant completely.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The ICC is dependent on its relationship with national and transnational police forces to execute its arrest warrants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>many of its warrants,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>including that in the name of Omar Al-Bashir, remain unexecuted.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has no inherent powers of arrest. Libya would be legally obliged to honour the warrant as it is a UN member state.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what would the consequences of ignoring that obligation be? </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">The situation would be unprecedented.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whilst the Sudanese government continue to refuse to acknowledge the authority of the ICC, Al-Bashir remains in power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Libya, members of the Gadaffis who are being sought by the Court may soon be captured and ready to hand over.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Refusing to pass the Gadaffis to the ICC would be a powerful statement of self-determination on behalf of the rebels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A trial on Libyan soil could mark a departure from the intervention that sustained the Gadaffi regime for so long.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would demonstrate that the rebels were able to assert Libyan identity against the meddling influences of the West. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">But to imagine such an assertion to be possible would be to misrepresent the nature of uprising.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rebels have become dependent on western intervention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without NATO airstrikes, it is hard to see how the rebels would have had the domestic support they needed to succeed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of this dependence, even though Gadaffi may soon fall, the rebel leadership has yet to emerge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The movement remains shambolic and disorganised.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Notwithstanding their immense bravery, they are yet to present any strong alternative vision of Libyan society for Libyan people to rally around.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until such a vision is formulated, they will remain dependant on the institutions of the west to artificially bolster their credibility as national leaders.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">A trial of the Gadaffis at the ICC will be one symptom of this dependence on western institutions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The risk is that such dependence allows for greater interference by the west in the running of Libya after Gadaffi, as suggested by the immediate and assuming interference of the ICC. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We should hope that the rebels move quickly to distance themselves from the western legal frameworks and institutions that supported them so far.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Otherwise the initial driving force of the uprising, the belief in a free and self-determining Libya, may yet come to nothing. </span></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6090784559701999529.post-31690477708770586082011-08-15T11:41:00.000-07:002011-08-15T11:52:26.215-07:00The London Legal Salon LaunchOur first discussion will be at 1930 on Monday the 12th of September 2011, upstairs at The Perseverance, Lamb Conduits Street Holborn (<a href="http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/">http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/</a>) . An introductory blurb for the session is below. The facebook event can be found here: <a href="http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=142282705860857">http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=142282705860857</a><br />
<br />
Attendance is free, but places must be reserved by emailing londonlegalsalon@gmail.com<wbr>. You will then receive a confirmation email with the suggested reading for the discussion. <br />
<br />
We hope you can join us.<br />
<br />
MONDAY 12th SEPTEMBER 2011<br />
THE MEDIA AND THE LAW AFTER 'HACKGATE' <br />
<br />
The 'Hackgate' scandal has raised pressing questions about the relationship between the media and the law. For some, the scandal exposed the failure of the Press Complaints Commission to effectively regulate the press and demonstrated the need for more effective statutory regulation. However, many have expressed concern that such regulation would be antithetical to the idea of a free press. <br />
<br />
Should the law do more to protect our private lives? What is the likely outcome of the public inquiry and what will its impact be on investigative journalism? Has the media shown itself to be incapable of self-regulation and is it time for the law to intervene?<br />
<br />
SPEAKERS<br />
<br />
Peter Jukes is a BAFTA award winning screenwriter, journalist and author. His screenwriting credits include BBC drama ‘Waking the Dead’ and paranormal thriller ‘Sea of Souls’. He has been a feature writer for the Independent and the New Statesman and is a celebrated blogger on US politics. <br />
<br />
Nigel Calvert is the founding partner of Calvert Solicitors. He is a leading practitioner in Media and Entertainment Law. He has been a visiting tutor at City University since 2000, where he has lectured on the legal aspects of the film, television and music industries.<br />
<span class="text_exposed_hide"><span class="text_exposed_link"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/"><span style="color: #3b5998; font-size: xx-small;">See More</span></a></span></span><br />
<div data-referrer="pagelet_event_wall" id="pagelet_event_wall"><div id="event_profile_wall"><div class="eventsWhiteComposer"><div id="feedwall_with_composer"><div class="pbm"><div class="uiComposer uiComposerHideContent stat_elem uiComposerTopBorder uiComposerOpen uiComposerHideContent uiComposerWhiteMessageBox" id="u359571_16"><div class="focus_target"><form action="/" class="attachmentSelectForm" method="get" rel="async"><ul class="uiList uiListHorizontal clearfix uiComposerAttachments"></ul></form></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>London Legal Salonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12561506708761364370noreply@blogger.com1