Theresa May and David Cameron say the Queen's Speech will contain proposals to limit the 'harmful activities' of extremists and to promote 'British values' and to stop activities that would undermine democracy. As simplistic political rhetoric it sounds a very obvious and desirable thing to do. Who can argue against that idea? But - it could be damaging to the very thing it is intended to protect.
Labour will defend the public's right to stand up to the powerful. We'll protect our human rights legislation. We'll restore judicial review to its rightful constitutional position. Charities will be released from the undemocratic shackles of the Lobbying Act. And we'll widen access to justice, to ensure that everyone has access to legal representation regardless of personal wealth.
At any rate, the real question raised by the Hopkins affair is this. What type of hate speech laws do we want (or not want)? Do we want the type of laws that would allow authorities to pursue prosecutions against hate speakers simply by showing that they had used hate speech without also having to show that they had intended to or were likely to stir up hatred?
Without animal welfare laws in place the situation is still extremely uncertain for rescuers and the animals alike. Cats are officially not classed as food in China which means they should not be subject to any seizure and quarantine inspections. The constant uphill task which we will all continue to approach diplomatically is how to explain this.
In order to stop this perpetual cycle of abuse... we need to make it easier and more acceptable for people with paedophile tendencies to get treatment. More research also needs to be carried out to help identify the 30% of children who have been abused and who are at risk of growing up to become abusers themselves.
What makes them 'anti-police' (apparently) is that they challenge the misuse of those powers, sometimes emotionally, sometimes robustly, often persistently because they see that things haven't changed or they're not changing quickly enough. They're not waiting 30 years, they're raising it now, because it is happening now. If that's what makes someone anti-police then I, like 'them', am guilty as charged.
The disgraced threesome may have every reason to feel somewhat aggrieved at their treatment. If it is "excusable" for a judge to fall asleep - or appear to do so - during a child's evidence in a rape trial, why should the legal and harmless sexual activities of judges in the privacy of their chambers be "inexcusable"?
The most recent Lancet study on 410 patients in South London with first episode psychosis compares individuals who smoked skunk-like cannabis to never-smokers. It demonstrated that smoking skunk once a week increases your risk of psychosis by two, more than once a week by almost 3 and more than five times a week by more than five times