Abortion and Protest - Do We Need Buffer Zones?

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

Abortion and the Law

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.

‘Abortion and Protest: Do We Need Buffer Zones?’ (February 10th, 19:00, The October Gallery, £5)
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 move 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?
Speakers: Frank Furedi (University of Kent), Tim Stanley (Daily Telegraph).

‘Abortion – A Legal History’ (February 17th, 19:00, Upstairs at the Perseverance WC1N 3NB)
This seminar will present the history of abortion law in the 20th Century and invite discussion. Readings will be provided in advance.
Speaker: Barbara Hewson (Barrister, 1 Grays Inn Square)

‘What is the Moral Status of the Unborn Child?’ (24th February, 18:15-20:45, Room KU4.12, King’s College London)
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?
Speakers: Ann Furedi (Chief Executive, British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and Peter D. Williams (Executive Officer, Right To Life)

‘Abortion and Free Speech: Whose Opinion Matters?’ *(3rd March, 19:00, Room KU4.12, King’s College London)
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?
Speakers: TBC

Please email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com to book a place at a particular debate.

2015 programme

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

Happy New Year!

Are we all legal positivists now?

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 http://www.the-perseverance.moonfruit.com/

To book a place and to receive the readings please email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com.

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 Greece 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’.

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?

The Consumer Rights Bill: The Death of Contract? 18th February 2014 at the Old Bank of England

The London Legal Salon will return to the Old Bank of England (http://oldbankofengland.co.uk/) on Tuesday the 18th of February at 1930. 

Daniel Lloyd, Head of Consumer Law at BT, will introduce a discussion on the Consumer Rights Bill.  A short introduction is below.

Please RSVP to Londonlegalsalon@gmail.com if you would like to attend.

We look forward to seeing you all,

The London Legal Salon 

The Consumer Rights Bill:  The Death of Contract?

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).    

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?  

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.

Rape Myths

The London Legal Salon returns at 1930 on the 8^th of May 2013 to the Hoop and Grapes Pub on Farringdon Street.  The topic of the discussion is a new paper by Helen Reece of the London School of Economics titled:  ‘Rape Myths:  Is Elite Opinion Right and Public Opinion Wrong?’

 

Many have argued that reform around Rape law has failed.  Either it has failed to raise the conviction rate,  or worse,  it has failed to instil confidence in victims of rape that the state can prosecute these crimes effectively.  Many attribute the lack in any rise in rape convictions to ‘myths’ around rape.  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. 

 

In her new paper,  Dr Helen Reece of the London School of Economics argues that the repressiveness of current attitudes towards rape has been largely overstated,  and that such ‘rape myths’ are not to blame for the steady conviction rate.  Are misconceptions about rape leading to miscarriages of justice?  Should we be doing more to ensure convictions?  Or is there another explanation for why more and more people are reporting rape,  whilst roughly the same number year on year are being convicted?

 

Join the London Legal Salon at the Hoop and Grapes Public House on Farringdon Street to discuss Rape Myths on Wednesday the 8^th of May 2013 at 1930.

Are The Dead Entitled to the Presumption of Innocence? 14th November 2012 at the Old Bank Of England

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.   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. 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. 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? Email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com to reserve a space in the debate. Speaker: Tim Black, senior writer at Spiked Online