Mumsnet Talk

Won't be here tomorrow but here's my question.

Please bear in mind there is very little that Liberty gets involved with that I disagree with, but how do you personally reconcile supporting civil liberties that will allow people to escape justice like the DNA records kept by the police even if the person isn't found guilty?

BTW I wholeheartedly agree with not keeping DNA records for people who aren't convicted (and only for the life of the sentence for all convicted of everything except sexually related crimes), but I'm very conflicted. Somebody I know was found guilty from DNA submitted on an unrelated offence (which he was never prosecuted with). What he was found guilty of is an awful crime, somebody else had been found guilty and subsequently found innocent due to better forensic techniques. He totally deserves to rot for the rest of his life in jail for the crime he committed but would never have been caught without the submitted DNA.

StillTryingToSquareThisForMyselfTiggaxx

Good question DawnTigga.

This is my question:

How do you reconcile your seemingly serious role with your endless appearances in Sunday supplements, discussing frivolous subjects? You seem to be more famous than the organisation you represent!

Is there any occasion when obtaining information via torture can lead to a greater good (topically, the capture and killing of bin Laden and whether vital information was obtained by torture from a Guantanamo Bay prisoner)?

There has been discussion about the lack of legal basis in which the US apprehended Bin Laden. Was there any legal justification for doing so, as my understanding is that there was not a mandate and that the 'war on terror' isn't a specific jurisdiction i.e. at war with Pakistan.

Lastly, the Conservative government is reviewing the UK's obligations to the ECHR with some suggesting that the UK will simply pull out. Isn't this a condition per the Treaty of Rome for all member states?

Hello Shami - really brill to have you on.

Christina Od ious one recently wrote in the Tel that the coalition has put you out of a job with their Freedom Bill <snoorts>. So, have you been twiddling your thumbs recently, as she suggests?

Hi Shami, great to have you here. I've often wondered whether you are a Mumsnetter, but very much doubt that you have the time to be one!

Smacking is not a current subject at the moment, but it often comes up. I've never smacked my children (though I've come close to it!) but I feel that a law making smacking children illegal would be interfering with family life. Why would we need such a law? Why aren't children adequately protected by the existing laws dealing with assault?

I know we're only supposed to ask one question, but this is part of the same question: how much should government be allowed to involve themselves with/insinuate themselves into/take control of family life.?

Constant cuts to legal aid have resulted in serious problems with access to justice, the accused, complainants and witnesses are all being done a disservice as a result. Liberty draws attention to many issues concerning an individuals freedom and liberties, but if there isn't funding for the wronged to obtain assistance, any protective legislation is pointless.

What is Liberty doing to encourage governments to underpin the protection afforded by legislation by provideing financial access to justice?

Hello Shami, so good to have you on mumsnet.

I have a very straight forward question,

what do you think about a local authority maintained school sending home bibles with the children that attend, is it ok that they assume pupils and their families follow the christian faith?

The school is as far as I know a non denominational school, which is one of the reasons why we chose it.

I would really be interested to hear what Liberty's views are on pluralist religious views and the individual family's right to self determination in relation to religion.

Hello Shami, great that you're coming on. I may not be able to make it tomorrow so will post my question now.

A great deal of media coverage of Human Rights legislation seems to focus on negative stories or slant - that it is a bother, lacking in commonsense and imposed by Europe - it rarely seems to be championed or credited with being a Good Thing.

Do you think that Liberty is making headway in changing the media's attitude to the Human Rights Act and related laws, and what is the one main change you'd like to see?

Shami, thank you for coming on here, and for the vital work that you and Liberty are doing.

How do you feel about the way the police behave towards members of the public? I'm thinking of their behaviour at the recent demonstrations against the cuts, including the G8, anti-tuition fees, etc, and also the times they appear to have beaten people up when they are in custody.

This is another question, but do you think the people who go on demonstrations run any risk of turning up on police data bases and for that information to be held against them at a later date, or am I just paranoid?

hi shami ,what ae you fav biscuits and do you dunk

What do you think about Helena Kennedy being co-counsel for Julian Assange and the rape myths defence Geoffrey Robertson ran: 'What may be unwanted one moment can with further empathy become desired.'

no question but think you are totally ace and an inspiration to us all (inc our daughters)

I'm massively thrilled to get the opportunity to ask you a question!

What do you think about the (apparent) recent surge in Super-Injunctions? How is the "Right to a Private Life" reconciled with the fact that this 'facility' tends to only be available to the super-rich. It also seems to be used by those who have behaved appallingly towards those whom they claim to be protecting.

Keep up the good work!

Here's my question: Should Osama Bin Laden have been arrested and tried instead of being executed?

I think you're amazing btw and always have a little cheer when I see you on the panel on Question Time.

Hi Shami, am a big fan!

I have a local election on Friday, and having voted Lib Dem for years, I am struggling to know what to do. Since they have acheived a degree of power, they seem to have forgotten their liberal principles and I don't feel I can vote for them at this point. From your point of view, which party's policies are most in line with Liberty's philosophies?

Thanks for your time!

Hi Shami, I'm really pleased that you'll be on here today! I've always felt that Liberty plays an incredibly important role in British politics.

My question: Yesterday, the inquest into Ian Tomlinson's death ruled that he was unlawfully killed. This seems to cast even more of a cloud over the deeply questionable conduct of the Met Police, the pathology service, the IPCC and the CPS.

What would you like to see happen next and how can these tragic situations be handled better in the future?

Hi Shami

Do you think you could be a politician?

My heart often agress with what you say, but not always my head. As a politician responsible for the safety of the people of this country, do you think you'd have to compromise. Can some measures (nb not torture, which the UK govt. have never sought to use) be justified if it prevents a future tube bombing?

With real responsibility do you think compromise of principles is always (regrettably) inevitable?

Hi Shami,

A light hearted question (I am interested in your answers re Bin Laden too)…have two small children waiting to be entertained for the day so must be quick…

I have often wondered over the years, are you related to the journalist Reeta Chakrabarti? I’ve seen both of you over the years on the news…

Will be reading your answers later on with interest…………..thank you

Hi Shami. I was wondering what our general thoughts were on both the policing and reporting of the london demos on the 26th March?

I noticed there were a lot of liberty independent observers there which was great, but personally felt there was a lot of antagonostic policing and poor reporting on the events of the day.

Many thanks

Hello Shami, thanks for coming on.

To follow on from awaywego's question about policing on March 26: I've seen a few posts on UKUncut-type blogs saying that Liberty, in deciding that its remit was restricted to the main march, badly let down the peaceful Fortnum and Mason protesters, whose civil liberties that day seem to have been seriously infringed. This blog says: 'Since when do groups whose stated aim is to protect civil liberties have to act as neutral brokers with the state they're meant to defend us against?'. It also says that Liberty failed to record incidents of police violence, and that your decision 'not to offer legal advice or interevene in events which we witnessed' contradicts your stated aim of 'protecting the right to peaceful protest'.

Do you have anything to say about Liberty's choices that day? With hindsight, would you have approached your legal observer duties differently?

Just wanted to pop in and say thank you.

Thank you for being an eloquent educated female.
There are times I have sat with men with twisted views about the capacity of a womans mind to discuss and understand complex issues. Then you come on and they are transfixed by your opinion!