Tristan Kirk

The Evening Standard’s new court reporter Tristan Kirk has some very big shoes to fill. He takes over this week from Paul Cheston, who was in the role for 23 years and was widely regarded in the court reporting community (they all spend their time buzzing around the same courts so know each other really well) as the best in the business bar none. I know you are all keen to hear from Tristan, but first a word about his predecessor.Paul was famous for filing his stories by phone, only referring to hand-written notes to check keys facts, his storylines forming as he dictated them down the line, his mid-morning deadlines being so far ahead of his rivals’. And I’ve extolled Paul’s legendary storytelling skills in this blog before, describing how he grabs attention with his opening lines like no-one else. Here’s a personal favourite, from a court case we worked on together.  Just count the number of wows in this one sentence:

“The woman who humiliated one of the richest men in the world has revealed for the first time details behind how she delayed a brain operation to make legal history.”

No wonder his court reporting made the Standard’s front page so often. No pressure Tristan, as we all eagerly await your first stories this week!


For all of you who will miss Paul, the very good news is that he hand-picked Tristan as his successor. “There was only one man for the job – and it’s Tristan”, Paul told me before he left. Before joining the Standard team, Tristan was working for Central News Agency based at the Old Bailey. The defining moment of his career so far, he tells me, came during his time covering the phone hacking trial last year, with Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson in the dock. Reporting of the case was a complicated matter, with the courts attempting to restrict journalists’ coverage and the press in turn challenging the court’s right to do so. This was when Tristan found other journalists turning to him to check what they could and couldn’t do and how they might mount their challenges; being by then already a seasoned court reporter, Tristan knew the rules better than any of them. He only realised this himself at this point, and it spurred him to think where he really wanted to take his career next. When Paul announced plans to retire, it seemed too good to be true; for someone keen to make their name as a court reporter, it doesn’t get much better than the Evening Standard beat …and given Paul had been in role over 20 years, obviously the opportunity doesn’t come up that often! I’ve just interviewed Joshua Rozenberg about the planned overhaul of our courts system, so I was keen to know what Tristan thinks is the best and worst aspects of it currently, and what he hopes to see in a reformed system.


“I think on the whole we are right to be very proud of our judicial system.  It’s the best in the world and little wonder how many rich foreigners choose to bring their disputes to London. In terms of reform, what I’m most interested to see is how the courts adapt to our increasingly digital world. It’s a significant challenge for them. I covered what was supposed to be the first paperless criminal trial at the Old Bailey last year, with jurors viewing evidence on iPads rather than paper, and the usual hard copy evidence bundles nowhere to be seen. It was a troubled trial that eventually collapsed (not because of technology), but by which point everyone had long given up on the iPads. It just proved too difficult. I don't know why the "new" technology is such a challenge really.  The pre-courtroom bit works fine electronically, but what the courts haven’t yet mastered is how to handle documents in the hurlyburly of the live courtroom. But we’re only talking about the need to pull out the right pieces of electronic evidence as they are referred to court. You wouldn’t really think it’s that difficult!  The rest of the business world has adjusted to digital as norm.  Why does our judicial system struggle so much?”  I have to say I agree, especially when you consider how keen the courts are to underline the point they are one of the UK’s biggest exports. When it comes to technology they are really not showing their commercial mettle. 

Am I sad to see Paul go. Of course. I’ll miss him. As a keen reader of the Standard, am I worried I’ll miss out now he’s gone? Happily I can tell you Paul has found us the perfect man for the job. We’re going to enjoy Tristan’s coverage. Watch this space!
***
So Lord Lucan has finally been laid to rest.  Last week’s news sparked a memory: when Jon McDonnell QC first launched 13 Old Square, we handled the press interest for him. Despite our meticulous preparation, and repeated rehearsals with our founder spokesperson, when in front of journalists Jon had an uncanny habit of dropping a total gem of a story into the conversation, that he’d completely forgotten to tell us about before. 
One such example was when he casually mentioned in front of a Legal Week journalist “Ah yes, that was about the time I was representing Lord Lucan”.  Lord WHO???  “Yes, I represented Lord Lucan at his trial”. “But we thought the whole point of that trial was that Lord Lucan wasn’t there!” we protested. “That’s quite right” Jon explained, “but someone had to represent his interests In Absentia and so I was appointed to do just that”. 


I learned that day that it was Jon’s argument in court that prevented Lord Lucan ever being declared dead, so responsible in fact for starting a legend. “Either he killed the nanny, so he’d have a good reason to disappear; or he didn’t, which means someone else did, so it’s quite logical to suppose they might be holding his Lordship captive. Whichever, it cannot be correct to assume that the most likely reality is that his Lordship is dead.” It was this argument that gave rise to a cultural legend. That has lasted up until now.
***
Here's a little gift for you...  We thought we'd go through the latest Ofcom stats that track changing news consumption habits, as we know you all keep a keen eye on how the power is shifting from print to digital when it comes to news. Being people who get far more excited about stories than boring facts and figures, (we are PR people after all), we thought we'd use "the medium of fairy tale" to put the information across. So, especially for you, here's a little presentation we've called The Cinderella Effect (thanks to Francesca De Mori for the title idea!) : Print v Online, A Changing Story.

Click here to enjoy ... and feel free to share.  

Joshua Rozenberg

“Adapt or die!” This is Joshua Rozenberg’s answer to a question I asked him on behalf of @CDPSolicitors: “Does he have any ideas on helping the electorate love their high street lawyer?”  I had shared on twitter my plan to interview the UK’s premier legal spokesperson following his Honorary QC appointment. This question is typical of what people in the profession want to know.

“There’s no doubt the high street firms are under significant threat", he answers. "They are squeezed between the withdrawal of Legal Aid; the rise in technologies that can handle high volumes of the routine low grade legal work once done by people; and between Government plans to give our courts system a complete overhaul, with a new modus operandi based on the reality that ordinary people can't afford lawyer representation, so a rise in litigants in person. How are the high street firms to respond? Well they either need to merge, or find an area of work not widely practised where there may be opportunity, or they need to streamline legal services with a mix of lawyers and no-lawyers based in a factory somewhere.”

I was keen to know what Joshua thought of the fact that whilst the lower end of the legal market is suffering under so much pressure, the big-ticket litigation end is one of the UK’s biggest exports. Tycoons from all corners of the world often choose to fight their legal battles in London. So should more of the profits that stream in to the UK legal system be deployed to help the lower end? 

“In many ways that patronage does happen already: the City firms do enormous amounts of pro bono work, which is one way of cascading money from the top through to all levels of the system." We start discussing Gove’s highly controversial idea that City law firms should be charged some form of levy, either cash payment or pro bono work.  Joshua thinks this is a bad idea: “This idea was never going to go anywhere. First, it’s impossible to define who pays; second, it’s effectively taxation, for which you need legislation; third, it’s a massive disincentive to those already contributing hugely in terms of pro bono work. Of course they’re going to think “We’ll pay if they make us, but we'll stop our own pro bono projects. I also think people don’t appreciate that City lawyers make a significant contribution to the wider profession just by being practising solicitors. Many of them don’t need practising certificates because much of the City work is of the “non-reserved” variety, i.e. it doesn’t require a licensed lawyer to do it. So just in volunteering to pay fees they are adding to the coffers used for helping and supporting smaller firms.”

Joshua’s view counts for a lot. He has been appointed as an Honorary QC because of his services to the public in bringing legal issues to their attention and explaining them in ways they can understand...first his work on the BBC's Law in Action, which he launched in 1984 and returned to in 2010 after a 23-year break; then in legal columns in The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, where he remains legal affairs commentator to this day. 

As The Guardian's Roy Greenslade puts it: “Rozenberg’s great skill is in explaining complicated legal issues with calmness and clarity that makes them easily understandable to the public”. He is the first journalist to receive this honour. I’d like to think this is a positive sign that the profession is increasingly outward-looking, that it cares how legal issues are presented to and understood to the general public. I’m certainly very happy that the excellent and important work legal journalists do is being recognised at this level. And if this is the first of a new trend, I agree of course the honour absolutely had to go to Joshua!

***
At least there's good news that, Gove has decided to reverse Grayling’s plans for further cuts to fees for criminal defence lawyers. He’s also ditched the proposal to make lawyers bid for legal aid work at police stations. Whilst I’m pleased at this news as the planned reforms had been so poorly thought through, I was perturbed to the read the reason for the U-turn: apparently it's because the Government is facing so many legal actions about the changes and Gove doesn’t want his department to be tied up for months, (if not years), of expensive litigation. Clearly you have to be careful taking on the legal profession! But I was rather hoping the reason behind the Government's volte-face was a fundamental change of heart … 






***

Exciting news outside the profession is that Mattel has just launched a range of “body positive” Barbie dolls, so Barbies in more realistic body shapes: petite, tall and curvy (ie with thighs that actually meet).  As a mother of teenagers I do think this is a good idea, especially when you consider that scaling up a classic Barbie to life-size gets you a woman 5 foot 9 inches tall with an 18 inch waist, meaning a Body Mass Index of 16.24 which is basically malnourished.

Response has been mixed though, with people joking on Twitter that Barbie’s boyfriend is due a makeover too and asking where the “Dadbod Ken” is.  Personally, given what we learned from last year’s Match.com survey, that single women actually prefer dadbods over a ripped torsos as it signals someone who might spend time with them rather than disappear for hours down the gym, I think this could an inspired next move for Mattel...

Timothy Hill

The Law Society’s Timothy Hill wants to stop preaching to the converted. The people most keen to sign up to the conferences, lectures, seminars he organises on protecting firms from cyber-crime, are by definition usually the ones who need it least: delegates will always be those who recognise the risk already; he wants to reach those who don’t. 

Tim is the Law Society’s Technology Policy Adviser, responsible for helping to support the Society’s members tackle cyber security and cyber-crime. Solicitors, amongst other professionals, are prime targets for cyber hackers because, aside from the obvious attraction to criminals of the client monies they hold, they are repositories for clients’ intellectual property and other commercially sensitive (for which read valuable) information. Moreover, sorry to break the news guys, but law firms are often seen as the “weak link” in the information chain according to some cyber risk experts.  

We met at a Cyber Risk round table discussion hosted by Weightmans EC3 team. The event was chaired by BBC business correspondent Joe Lynam, the man who broke the story of solicitor and sole practitioner Karen Mackie’s plight at the hands of “vishing” fraudsters (she was tricked by an elaborate cyber scam into transferring some 750,000 pounds of client money to the criminals). She has since been declared bankrupt, struck off and faces losing her home. A salutary tale if ever there was one.   

“This is a massive issue for the profession. Hackers are circling law firms on a daily basis and it’s my job to make all solicitors aware, and provide them with the tools and guidance they need to protect themselves. Awareness of risk is still low. You may think this surprising, given how often cyber risk headlines legal press. But the more the topic is pushed in the media the more it can actually be counter-productive; I do think that the more scare mongering the statistics and stories, the more the reality of the risk is undermined. Yes there’s a very real threat and yes people experience losses. But it’s hard to convince people who’ve not experienced it themselves, nor witnessed anyone else’s in their own network experiencing it.”

But what should law firms do to protect themselves from this new category of threat? I was keen for Tim’s advice. “First and foremost, appoint someone with specific responsibility for cyber risk. This should be a senior person, although exactly who this is in terms of job role will of course vary from firm to firm. It could be a Managing Partner, or someone close to that level, who takes ultimate responsibility and promises oversight of the issue, but delegating to someone with greater specialist insight (and spare time).

Second, firms should have a written policy, even if just a brief one, to crystallise the thinking around these issues. I’d go so far as to say even a sole practitioner should have a policy. It’s in the writing of it, i.e identifying and articulating the issues, that firms will find the benefit. The new EU data protection regulations have just been confirmed, which will bring in a new duty around compulsory data breach notification. Drafting a policy will help firms think about what data they hold and how it moves through the firm/business. Once firms have pinned this down, it’s that much easier to think about the risks to that data, how to limit and/or manage certain risks… even accept some risks…..the point being that they would be doing this consciously.

Third, although this applies more to the larger firms, training is an important element in the mix. A good option might be to join the Cyber Security Information Sharing Partnership, a forum for government and industry to exchange information on cyber threats and vulnerabilities that was set up in 2013 by the Cabinet Office. The Law Society can sponsor firms to join. Membership is free. The Law Society has a veritable library of cyber security resources for law firms and I am keen to make sure everyone who needs to know, (not just want to know), knows they’re available. See here for a comprehensive list. Highlights include:

·        Law Society Consulting: Nick Podd, who has over 20 years experience in both physical and data security within the military, as well as in industry and The Law Society.

·         Data Protection: Advice on protecting personal data in online services: learning from the mistakes of others.

·         Encryption to Protect Data: Information Commissioner’s guidance.          

Firms would also be well advised to check out the government backed Cyber Essentials scheme, designed to guide businesses in protecting themselves against cyber threat and providing free-to-download documents that can use as guidance to implement essential security controls

Fourth, firms shouldn’t forget the human factor; the tightest, most encrypted IT routines will not help you if your cyber-criminal is actually a staff member who hasn’t been vetted properly in the recruitment process, and is now supplementing their salary by the sale of confidential data on the black market."

So if your firm has so far only half-heartedly taken on board that cyber threats are real, make it a New Year’s Resolution to dig into these resources and put some proper protections in place.

Thanks for the wake-up call Tim!    

***

Encouraging news to start the year with, that the British Government is finally going to do something about the parallel Sharia court system that undermines British women's rights to justice. Thanks to The Times' The Brief  for bringing the story to me. The Government is taking action at last because it is concerned that Sharia courts in the UK are effectively creating a parallel system of (in)justice, with women discriminated against in particular. Undercover TV documentaries have shown that some women seeking divorce from violent husbands through the Sharia courts are unaware of their legal rights to leave the marriage. They are sometimes even pressurised to attend reconciliation sessions with their violent husbands present, despite injunctions from British courts in place to protect them from violence.

Congratulations to all the investigative journalists and campaigners who worked hard to raise this issue. The Inquiry will be set up in the next weeks and months.

Elf The Musical

Looking forward to seeing Elf the Musical this Friday. The 2003 Jon Favreau film Elf is a family favourite in our house. We keep the DVD in our Christmas decorations box in the loft, and each year it comes out when we put up the Christmas tree and it gets multiple viewings over every festive season.  So imagine our excitement that there's now a stage musical!

If you haven't seen the film, do catch it this Christmas. It's one of the very best Christmas flicks of all time, regularly topping the Christmas charts. A beautifully heart-warming tale of an innocent in New York City, but not schmalzy. And it's one of those films that still looks perfect and fresh even after 50 viewings. We know this!

If you have seen it before, enjoy it again: "Call me elf one more time!"

Merry Christmas everyone!  Enjoy the festivities!

Jonathan Ames

When The Times announced that Jonathan Ames would be editing its new daily news shout "for all that's legal", alongside Frances Gibb, I knew The Brief was going to be a success. I can't think of anyone with a better blend of establishment (Sorry J, I know you'd prefer me not to say this, but it's true!) and maverick credentials. Jonathan has been a legal hack for almost as long as I can remember.  He was long time editor of The Law Society's Gazette; he has edited more than one overseas/international legal magazine, including a stint based in Dubai; he has been contributing to  The Times Law section on a Thursday for years; and he is equally famous for his recent role at the highly irrelevant Legal Cheek and his iconoclastic tweeting under the pseudonym @judgejohnhack. I knew his handling of The Brief, launched this September, would be informative, insightful and entertaining in equal measure. And in the two months since its first despatch, the evidence backs me up.

 "The Brief  is modelled on The Times' Red Box for political coverage which has been phenomenally successful," says Jonathan. "The powers-that-be wanted to replicate this success with the papers' legal readership."  The Brief delivers "the most important and influential news in the legal industry" to subscribers' inboxes by 8:15am Monday to Friday. So far in terms of topics, Jonathan has covered the need for more specialist judges in the new financial court; Supreme Court judges' pleas for better gender diversity in senior judicial ranks; the accepted culture amongst the Bar of making sexist jokes in court; Big Four accountants competing on law firms' patch, edging in to Top 50 Law Firm league tables; the legal profession's criticism of the UK's refugee policy; and confirmation from Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister Michael Gove that the (ceremonial) tights are his own!


I'm a particular fan of their daily Opinion column. It's one of the things that makes certain I open my Brief email before the working day kicks off. It's not like any other legal Opinion column I can think of.  It has so much more bite.  "We have very strict rules for the opinion column on The Brief", Jonathan tells me.  "We're very very particular about who we commission to express an opinion.  We only want true thought leaders of the profession, whether their authority comes from a particular role or job title", [so far Jonathan has interviewed shadow Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice Lord Falconer; Supreme Court President, Lord Neuberger; and Lord Chancellor and Justice Minister Michael Gove] "or they are influential for some other reason" [for example the inimitable Ronnie Fox].  "And more importantly, they need to be prepared to come right off the fence.  Both Frances and I feel strongly about this.  There are plenty of other opinion slots elsewhere in the legal media for people who want to give a "balanced, measured view", exploring all the different sides of a legal issue.  We want opinion with a bit of passion behind it, people who really want to make a point.  It makes for much more interesting reading."


Well I can attest that Jonathan is as good as his word on this: whenever I pitch an Opinion idea for The Brief, he'll always test me with "Are they  prepared to come right out and say what a disaster/travesty/injustice it is....?"


No wonder we all make time to read The Brief each morning.  Wouldn't feel right to start the working day without it!


If you have not yet had time to get round to subscribing to The Brief, you can sign up here. 
***

What on earth was Millionairess Kate Winslet thinking, stepping in to the Equal Pay debate and suggesting it's "vulgar" to discuss money, particularly salaries, in public?  Has she really lost touch with the fact that most women's working lives are rather different from hers, and that they live in a world where fair pay actually matters?   When you're discussing differences of a few million pounds in your earning compared to your male counterparts, perhaps the issue does feel more embarrassing than pressing.  But for the vast majority of working women, inequality has a rather more earthly consequence.   

Ms Winslet's comments came in the week this November that women stop earning until 2016, if you compare their salaries to men's.  

Now what I want to know is whether this androgynous photo shoot (see pic) for the current issue of L'Uomo Vogue is supposed to make up for her feminist faux pas.  What lesson are we supposed to take from this?  Are some [extremely wealthy] women better seen and not heard [on the subject of equal pay]?  I don't think so.  Far better that women in the public eye, who enjoy their role model celebrity status, think before they speak.  And talk sense.  Please Kate....

***

Did you catch the fabulous story of the judge who quoted Taylor Swift lyrics in a judgment dismissing a plagiarism case against the songstress? US District Judge Gail Standish wrote "At present, the Court is not saying [opponent] Braham will never, ever, ever get his case back in court.....But, for now, we have got problems and the Court is not sure Braham can solve them.  As currently drafted, the Complaint has a blank space—one that requires Braham to do more than write his name. And, upon consideration of the Court's explanation . . .Braham may discover that mere pleading Band-Aids will not fix the bullet holes in his case. At least for the moment, Defendants have shaken off this lawsuit.”

A bottle of wine for the first person who can name all the Taylor Swift songs referenced.  Answers in the comment section of this blog please.

We have our own creatives amongst the judiciary on this side of the pond of course.  Who remembers (who could forget!) Mr Justice Peter Smith's inspired judgment in the failed plagiarism case against Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown?  He inserted a code within the judgment, Dan Tench of Olswang was the first to spot it and crack it, and the story went viral all around the world in hours.

I've always said there's never a dull moment in law!

David Ramsden

BBC Children in Need CEO David Ramsden is hoping you are all going to dress up as your favourite childhood hero for his 2015 campaign later this month. The big BBC Children in Need Appeal show is airing on BBC1 on Friday the 13^th of November. But the charity is accepting donations now.

The 2015 campaign theme was unveiled last month, with huge celebrity support: Tess Daley, Fearne Cotton, Nick Grimshaw, Sir Terry Wogan, Dermot O’Leary, Sophie Ellis-Bextor all donned fancy dress depicting their childhood heroes: Tess Daley chose Olivia Newton John; Fearne Cotton chose Blondie frontwoman Debbie Harry; Dermot O’Leary chose Arctic explorer andadventurer Sir Ernest Shackleton. You get the picture.

David tells me: "BBC Children in Need’s vision is that every child in the UK has a safe, happy and secure childhood and the chance to reach their potential, So we thought that portraying childhood heroes was a good way of underlining ideals and dreams that should be a big part of a normal growing up."

Children in Need supports some 2,500 projects around the UK that help young people facing a range of disadvantages such as poverty and deprivation; disability; or who have been victims of abuse or neglect.

I first met David at 11 Downing Street. That sounded so good, I’ll say that again: I first met David at 11 Downing Street celebrating an important anniversary of some mutual friends at Changing Faces, the charity that aims to change individuals’ experience of, and public attitude to, facial disfigurement. Changing Faces is one of the many charities that BBC Children in Need supports.

“Whatever you do", David says, "whether it’s a day spent dressed as your childhood hero, a bake sale at work or a ramble with your friends, it will help BBC Children in Need give children and young people in the UK the childhood they deserve.”

After our conversation, I start thinking in contrast about that troublesome theme Red Nose Day picked earlier this year: Make your Face Funny For Money. I’ll leave you to join the dots back to my interest in Changing Faces's work, to guess why I thought this campaign so ill-judged. All I'll say is how much more I appreciate the positivity and creativity of the Children In Need campaign in comparison.  Can I encourage all of us to take part in the fun on 13^th November?

Who would you select as your childhood hero?  You can join in the Twitter chat here. 

 ***

There were no fireworks at Kysen this week, as we had to say goodbye to Honey

After almost nine years of dedicated, loyal service, Honey had not only became a central figure in the Kysen team, but part of the Kysen brand itself! And being the person she's sat next to for almost a decade, I can't actually imagine what life at work is going to feel like without her. I just know I'm going to miss her.

This week we welcomed Kysen newcomer Nicole Bailey, who steps in to Honey's old role and whom we're all enjoying getting to know.  She's made an excellent start. 

So business-wise I know this transition is going to be perfectly smooth. But personally... well that's another matter. In this sense, as a co-worker, supporter and friend, Honey can never be replaced.

Bonne chance Honey!  Come back to visit us!

 ***

We chose a Bond outing for our Kysen bonding session and farewell party for Honey. Almost enough to cheer us up.  Those of you who know me well will be well aware I am a film fanatic and Bond enthusiast.  And I always love to see what Bond on the silver screen reflects back to us about our society, as plot lines and themes in this franchise are always  a good measure of the Zeitgeist. Just consider that in Spectre the main story revolved around Big Data; that this was the first in the franchise to cast a beautiful 50-year-old Bond "girl" (let's hear it for Monica Belluci); and that there was a clear anti-violence thread to the plot line too, and you'll see what I mean.  And if gender equality and political correctness mean the title sequence now has to show as much of Daniel Craig's naked flesh as that of his female colleagues, well we'll just have to put up with that.

Ed Lewis

(Re)insurance specialist Ed Lewis is guiding us all through cyberspace. This forward-thinking lawyer in the EC3 team at Weightmans is working hard to raise awareness, particularly in the insurance industry, of how seismic the change is that the internet age is bringing, both in terms of how we do business and the legal issues and risks that surround it. Cars increasingly resemble digital devices (before you even mention driverless ones). Services businesses store pretty much their entire intellectual capital in cyber space these days. "The business world has silently slipped into cyber space over the last decade with most people still not really understanding the legal and risk consequences that arise from this" Ed says.

"In essence it's quite simple" he tells me. "It's about all the old familiar risks, just manifesting in new ways. The mistake is often made that "cyber risk" exists in a separate space from other insurable risks. But it is pervasive. The "cyber" revolution impacts every aspect of our business and personal lives."

I heard recently from a group of scientists and legal/ethics academics at John Flood's recent You, Robot! event at the University of Westminster (billed as an exploration of what it means to regulate artificial intelligence) that apparently we have become a different species since the internet revolution. (It must be true. A scientist told me.) That's how radical all this change is and how deep it goes.

I press Ed to tell me more about the implications for businesses and those that insure them, but he's keeping his powder dry. He is conducting a survey with Insurance Day just now, exploring the (re)insurance industry's comprehension of, and comfort around, Cyber Risk and results are due soon. He promises to tell me more as soon as the results are public. I'll hold him to it, don't you worry... and report back to all of you soon. 

A great initiative, Ed. Truly market leading.
***

A threat to national security will always diminish public concern for individual human rights. Should we really worry whether our authorities are squeaky clean in their detainment and interrogation of suspected terrorists? Surely different rules apply? And it's pointless, isn't it, to pussyfoot around the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, when we all know a short sharp interrogation with a bit of physical threat behind it can unearth vital information foiling terrorist plots and saving thousands of lives. Right? Thankfully Freedom From Torture is there to remind us that if we let individual human rights roll back at times like these, innocent people will suffer because brutal regimes know they can get away with it.

The charity took the occasion of their 30th anniversary to promote a campaign to stop "the backsliding of anti-torture legislation", pointing out the human rights abuses perpetrated by governments in the midst of the current refugee crisis as a classic example of how ordinary people suffer as a result. See their website for more information.

If this is a subject close to your heart you'll appreciate this magazine supplement produced by Amnesty, detailing the numerous different and complex aspects of the refugee crisis.
***

Cheering news this week that for 2016 the infamous Pirelli calendar will profile women of influence... and over more than just male pulse rates. And the women are all fully clothed too! 

This is revolution not evolution: even just last year, the photocall for this "artwork" famous for objectifying the female form was dominated by models scantily-clad... in latex! 

For 2016 the photographer is Annie Liebovitz and she has chosen to create a classic set of portraits... of women she believes have achieved something special. Serena Williams, Yoko Ono, Patti Smith all feature. A sign of changing times? I hope so.

Appropriate news in a week that Suffragette was chosen as the movie to open BFI's London Film Festival. Starring Carey Mulligan, Anne-Marie Duff, and Helena Bonham Carter with a cameo from Meryl Streep (as Emmeline Pankhurst)... who all joined me on the red carpet at the premier in Leicester Square. (Honest! Well, I was on the red carpet at the same time as them at least!) Just thought I'd mention that.