Last week the House of Lords considered the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill as it makes its way through parliament. There are a number of controversial aspects of this Bill - mandatory prison sentences for knife crimes have caught the public's attention. Plans to change the rules on judicial review have got Peers, lawyers and children's charities very worried.
Recently, the Government unveiled plans to shave a further £220million off criminal legal aid, generating considerable opposition from across the profession and in charities and campaign groups. Ministers have fought a clever guerrilla campaign. They've salami sliced bit by bit to mitigate the short-term impact of their plans. They successfully divided and ruled the legal profession. They've smeared legal aid lawyers as fat cats and made out legal aid is only used by unworthy criminals. Needless to say, the truth is rather different.
Sri Lankan human rights activists campaigned hard for an independent international commission of inquiry into war crimes during the end of the conflict in 2009. Last month members of the UN Human Rights Council did finally vote to set up an inquiry. To many governments it looks as if the issue of accountability is now being dealt with by the UN and they can put their minds at rest and move on.
New laws introduced this weekend will outlaw the frankly disgraceful behaviour we've seen from some of the dubious characters who have gathered in this industry. We're ending the situation where any old thug can turn up and work as a bailiff. From now on everyone working in the industry will have to be properly trained and certificated before they get started - and if they break our tough new rules they will have that certification taken away. All of this will clean up the industry and protect people from aggression and exploitation.
I have the privilege to share my thoughts whether it is out of anger, frustration or happiness. Although theoretically I've always known this is a privilege, I have only now understood how precious this freedom is. In my recent work, I met women and girls who cannot think freely, let alone speak out...
Surely you must know the adverse effects of bad diet and no exercise. Why should the taxpayer pay for what is, ultimately, the exercise of your freedom of choice? This is the question that Jeremy Paxman asked the former NHS chief Sir David Nicholson, when Nicholson went to Newsnight to describe his transition from being the head of the NHS to becoming yet another NHS patient with diabetes.
It is unconscionable that any self respecting trade union would allow its members to engage in the wilful and systematic sanctioning of benefit claimants without meaningful resistance. It flies in the face of the very principle of social solidarity that is the cornerstone of a movement founded on the understanding that the interests of working people - employed and unemployed - are intrinsically the same.
There is in my view an increasing argument to allow the accused to remain anonymous just like their accusers, at least until after they have been found guilty or cleared of wrongdoing. There is also an increasing case that says the internet must be policed and offenders who are deliberate spreading lies brought to book.