# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Thirty-seven years ago this month, a British lorry driver, Peter Sutcliffe, was arrested for a series of attacks on women in the north of England known as the Yorkshire Ripper murders. He was convicted of killing 13 women and attacking seven others, but there have since been calls to investigate him for further crimes.

Could he be linked to two unsolved killings in Sweden?
FIND OUT MORE

Image subject to copyright

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The serial killer and two unsolved murders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Thirty-seven years ago this month, a British lorry driver, Peter Sutcliffe, was arrested for a series of attacks on women in the north of England known as the Yorkshire Ripper murders. He was convicted of killing 13 women and attacking seven others, but there have since been calls to investigate him for further crimes.

# data[].attributes.body
The serial killer and two unsolved murders

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A woman seeking what is believed to be the UK's first private rape prosecution says she hopes to lead the way for others "let down" by the courts.

Emily Hunt from London, claims she was drugged and raped in 2015.

Police investigated, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) felt there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a case.

Ms Hunt has hired a barrister who believes there is grounds for a criminal prosecution.

'Filmed her naked'

Ms Hunt - who has waived her right to anonymity - told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme on the day of the alleged rape she woke up "completely naked" at 22:00 in a hotel room next to a man she had "never seen".

Her last memory of that day was between 16:00 and 17:00, she said, when she had been having a meal with her father.

When she "finally came to", she added, she had a "light-bulb moment" that she had been drugged.

"I'd never felt like that before. I'd lost five hours of my life and wound up somewhere where I didn't know how I got there."

She said she hid in the bathroom and phoned a friend, who rang the police.

With no memory of the encounter Ms Hunt was not aware they had had sex until police informed her they had found used condoms in the hotel room.

The man told police they had had sex but insisted it was consensual.

Ms Hunt - who has waived her right to anonymity - believes it was rape as she would not have been in a state to consent.

Police told her the man had also "filmed her naked and unconscious on the bed" and carried out a sex act over her body.

Toxicology report 'flawed'

The police referred her case to the CPS, who upon reviewing CCTV footage and toxicology tests decided there was not enough evidence to proceed.

CCTV footage of Ms Hunt and the man showed them kissing and holding hands as they walked to the hotel after leaving a bar.

Toxicology tests, taken almost nine hours after her last memory, showed Ms Hunt was at least two times over the drink drive limit, but came back negative for any signs of the date rape drug GHB.

Ms Hunt believes the toxicology report was "flawed", and that CCTV footage - which she said showed her unable to stand without support - demonstrated how she could not have been in a position to give consent.

'Thorough investigation'

She estimated the cost of a potential private rape prosecution to be £50,000 - a sum she is hoping to crowdfund.

"It is an amazing thing that we as individuals can bring a criminal charge in a case where the system has let us down, that can result in a rapist going to jail," she said.

The Metropolitan Police said it "carried out a thorough investigation following [Ms Hunt's] allegations" and "will always provide support to anyone who reports a serious sexual offence".

Ms Hunt's complaints over its investigation "was independently reviewed by the IPCC and not upheld", it continued.

The CPS said "having looked carefully at all the available evidence, a specialist prosecutor decided there was insufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction in this case".

A further review - conducted at the request of Ms Hunt - "upheld the original decision", it added.
Watch the Victoria Derbyshire programme on weekdays between 09:00 and 11:00 on BBC Two and the BBC News Channel.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A woman seeking what is believed to be the UK's first private rape prosecution says she hopes to lead the way for others "let down" by the courts. Emily Hunt from London, claims she was drugged and raped in 2015. Police investigated, but the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) felt there was insufficient evidence to proceed with a case.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Judicial System of England and Wales 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Judicial System of England and Wales 

# data[].attributes.headline
Noel Conway: Terminally ill man loses right-to-die case

# data[].attributes.subject
Noel Conway: Terminally ill man loses right-to-die case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A terminally-ill man has lost his High Court challenge against the law on assisted dying.

Noel Conway, who is 67 and has motor neurone disease, wanted a doctor to be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose when his health deteriorates further.

Currently any doctor who helps him to die would face up to 14 years in prison.

His lawyers had argued he faced a stark choice, which was unfair and the law needed to change.

They said he could either bring about his own death while still physically able to do so, or await death with no control over how and when it comes.

He had previously said he wanted to say goodbye to loved ones "at the right time, not to be in a zombie-like condition suffering both physically and psychologically".

Parliamentary debate

It is not the first time the law has been challenged.

A case brought by Tony Nicklinson - who was paralysed after a stroke - was dismissed in 2014 by the Supreme Court, which stated it was important that Parliament debated the issues before any decision was made by the courts.

In 2015 MPs rejected proposals to allow assisted dying in England and Wales, in their first vote on the issue in almost 20 years.

Supporters of the current legislation say it exists to protect the weak and vulnerable from being exploited or coerced.

Mr Conway's case is different from Mr Nicklinson's in that he has a terminal illness and his legal team set out strict criteria and clear potential safeguards to protect vulnerable people from any abuse of the system.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Terminally ill man loses right-to-die case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A terminally-ill man has lost his High Court challenge against the law on assisted dying. Noel Conway, who is 67 and has motor neurone disease, wanted a doctor to be allowed to prescribe a lethal dose when his health deteriorates further. Currently any doctor who helps him to die would face up to 14 years in prison.

# data[].attributes.body
02.10.17

# data[].attributes.headline
Court ruling not needed to withdraw care, judge says

# data[].attributes.subject
Court ruling not needed to withdraw care, judge says

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Legal permission will no longer be required to end care for patients in a permanent vegetative state, a judge has ruled.

Until now, even if medics and relatives agree to withdraw nutrition from a patient, a judge must also consent.

But a landmark decision by Mr Justice Jackson means those cases will no longer have to come to court.

The official solicitor, appointed by the state to act for such patients, is likely to appeal against the ruling.

Doctors are able to withdraw treatment from a patient - if relatives consent - under various circumstances without needing court approval, for example, when a "do not resuscitate" order is made.

However, removing sustenance from an individual in a vegetative or minimally conscious state has been treated differently.

For nearly 25 years, these decisions have been referred to the Court of Protection, even where doctors and families agree.

That followed the House of Lords ruling on Tony Bland, who was left severely brain damaged after the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 and died nearly four years later.

Wednesday's ruling removes this exception and paves the way for a change in the way such cases are handled by hospitals.

'No awareness'

Mr Justice Jackson made his ruling in a case concerning a 50-year-old woman who suffered from a degenerative illness for 14 years.

The patient, known in court as M, had Huntingdon's disease and was bed-ridden in hospital and fed by a tube.

She had shown no sign of awareness for 18 months, the court heard.

Mr Justice Jackson agreed with her family and doctors that withdrawing nutrition from her would be in her best interests.

The tube was removed and she died in August.

Mr Justice Jackson said in his view the case should not have come to court.

"The decision about what was in M's best interests is one that could lawfully have been taken by her treating doctors, having fully consulted her family and having acted in accordance with the MCA (Mental Capacity Act) and with recognised medical standards," the judgement said.

The judgement added: "However, every case is intensely fact-specific, and those considering withdrawal of CANH (clinically assisted nutrition and hydration) should not hesitate to approach the Court of Protection in any case in which it seems to them to be right to do so."

Mr Justice Jackson said that even in M's case - when family and doctors agreed - legal costs reached £30,000.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the campaign group Compassion in Dying, said the ruling was "a helpful step towards a clearer, more person-centred view of end-of-life care".

"When all parties - family, the hospital and treating doctors - are agreed on what someone would have wanted for their care, it seems absurd to require a costly court process to confirm this."

Research by the BBC established last year that there were more than 100 patients in England and Wales in permanent vegetative or minimally conscious states.

One patient had been in this condition for more than 20 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Legal permission will no longer be required to end care for patients in a permanent vegetative state, a judge has ruled. Until now, even if medics and relatives agree to withdraw nutrition from a patient, a judge must also consent. But a landmark decision by Mr Justice Jackson means those cases will no longer have to come to court.

# data[].attributes.body
Snail in the ginger beer

# data[].attributes.body
Is the civil court fit for purpose?

# data[].attributes.headline
Ian Paterson: Victims of disgraced surgeon get £37m

# data[].attributes.subject
Ian Paterson: Victims of disgraced surgeon get £37m

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
About 750 victims of rogue breast surgeon Ian Paterson are to be paid compensation from a new £37m fund.

Private healthcare firm Spire has agreed to pay £27.2m, with £10m coming from Paterson's insurers and the Heart of England NHS Trust.

Paterson was found guilty of 17 counts of wounding with intent in April after a trial at Nottingham Crown Court.

In August, he had his 15-year jail term increased to 20 years after the Appeal Court ruled his term was too lenient.

The payments concern patients treated at private Spire Healthcare hospitals in the West Midlands, who Paterson worked for when he carried out hundreds of botched operations.

The fund is intended to halt legal proceedings by patients against the group and account for any new claims.
Surgeon 'psychopathic like Shipman' Surgeon 'played God' with women's bodies 'He took a pound of flesh for money'
Heart of England NHS Trust was part of the civil action because patients said it failed to notify Spire of Paterson's dangerous methods discovered while working for Solihull Hospital.

The NHS has already paid out £9.49m in damages, as well as £8.31m costs, to hundreds of others treated by Paterson, 59, from Altrincham, Greater Manchester.

Analysis by Phil Mackie, BBC 5 live

Ian Paterson's victims fall broadly into two camps. Those who underwent unnecessary surgery, and those who did need operations but were left prone to cancer returning because of the untried technique he used.

The criminal trial dealt with cases from the first group - nine women and a man who were either subjected to intrusive surgery or had their breasts removed despite there being no evidence that there was anything wrong them.

The civil case which was settled today involved the many others whose cases did not come to court, as well as those who were treated using something called a cleavage-sparing operation in which tumours were removed but potentially cancerous tissue was left behind.

The technique was something that was only ever performed by Paterson and never properly tested.

The surgeon's trial heard he wildly exaggerated his patients' cancer symptoms, leading them to have several needless operations which left them scarred for life physically and emotionally.

Fellow medics at Solihull Hospital first raised concerns about his conduct in 2002 when it emerged Paterson, who grew up in County Down, Northern Ireland, was carrying out unregulated 'cleavage-sparing' mastectomies on cancer patients, which left them at higher risk of the disease returning.

Despite three reports into his actions, he carried on working until 2011 when he was suspended by the trust.

Hundreds of Paterson's private patients were due to take their case for compensation to the High Court in October.

In its statement, Spire said the agreement was conditional on all parties agreeing, and the court approving, the terms of a formal court order.

It said the order would also "provide for a portion of the fund to be set aside to provide compensation for any former patient of Mr Paterson who has not yet brought a legitimate claim against Spire Healthcare and the other defendants, but does so prior to 30 October 2018."

Simon Gordon, interim chief executive at Spire, said: "Earlier this year a criminal court decided that Ian Paterson must bear responsibility for his actions, finding him guilty of assaulting a number of his patients.

"He behaved with clear criminal intent and abused the trust of those who looked to him for his care and relied upon his expertise."

Mr Gordon added: "However, whilst nothing diminishes Mr Paterson's responsibility for his actions, these events took place in our hospitals, and this should not have happened.

"We accept that better clinical governance in the private hospitals where Mr Paterson practised, as well as in his NHS trust, might have led to action being taken sooner, and it is right that we have made a material contribution to the settlement announced today.

"We have apologised unreservedly to Mr Paterson's patients for their suffering and distress and we would like to repeat that apology."

Emma Doughty, a specialist medical negligence lawyer from Slater and Gordon, which represents more than 100 of Paterson's victims, said no financial settlement would heal the physical and mental scars inflicted on their clients but added they were relieved to have won their battle for justice.

Lawyers Irwin Mitchell, which represents 30 patients, echoed the sentiment but said questions still remain about the redress that private healthcare patients have if they are the victims of negligent treatment.

It also said the sum set aside by Spire is likely to be less than the patients will need.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
About 750 victims of rogue breast surgeon Ian Paterson are to be paid compensation from a new £37m fund. Private healthcare firm Spire has agreed to pay £27.2m, with £10m coming from Paterson's insurers and the Heart of England NHS Trust.

# data[].attributes.headline
'Legal high' review after laughing gas cases collapse

# data[].attributes.subject
'Legal high' review after laughing gas cases collapse

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Home Office says it will continue to prosecute those who sell nitrous oxide, despite the collapse of the first contested cases under new laws.

The Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing two cases after a judge and the government's own expert witness said "laughing gas" was exempt.

This now raises questions as to whether the new law will need to be amended.

The Psychoactive Substances Act was introduced last year to deal with the problem of new manufactured drugs.

Nitrous oxide, also known as laughing gas, is taken by hundreds of thousands of people every year as a recreational drug. But the gas is also used by doctors for its pain-relieving properties.

In a statement the Home Office said: "Nitrous oxide is covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act and is illegal to supply for its psychoactive effect.

"However, the Act provides an exemption for medical products. Whether a substance is covered by this exemption is ultimately one for a court to determine based on the circumstances of each individual case".

A subsection of the Psychoactive Substances Act exempts medical products defined as "restoring, correcting or modifying a physiological function by exerting a pharmacological, immunological or metabolic action".

Music festival suppliers

A man was tried at Southwark Crown Court on Wednesday for intending to supply nitrous oxide at a music festival in Derbyshire.

But prosecuting barrister Adrian Fleming told the court that the Crown's own expert witness, Professor Philip Cowen, "is expressing the firm view that nitrous oxide, as the legislation is currently worded, is an exempt substance".

Meanwhile a judge at Taunton Crown Court, where two people were on trial for intending to supply nitrous oxide at Glastonbury Festival, came to the same conclusion.

In that second case, Judge Paul Garlick said "nitrous oxide is plainly capable of coming within the definition of an exempted substance... and in my view, on this evidence, it plainly is an exempted substance", according to Metro.co.uk.

Laughing gas: the risks

Laughing gas, or nitrous oxide, is used most commonly to provide pain relief during dentistry and childbirth.

Short-term exposure produces feeling of elation, but can also affect mental performance, dexterity and cause general disorientation and dizziness.

There is also a risk of oxygen starvation if the gas is consumed in an enclosed space, or from a plastic bag, which can lead to unconsciousness or death.

Long-term exposure can lead to Vitamin B12 depletion, which is linked to extreme tiredness, personality changes and concentration problems, and ultimately to severe nerve damage.

The two court cases have prompted a full review of the legislation by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Psychoactive Substances Act was designed to deal with a wave of new manufactured drugs, often called legal highs, by banning any substance which "by stimulating or depressing the person's central nervous system... affects the person's mental functioning or emotional state".

The law specifically exempts alcohol, tobacco or nicotine-based products, caffeine, food and drink and medicinal products as defined in the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.

It is that last exemption that led the case to collapse.

The drug charity, Release, has described the law as "fundamentally flawed".

Its executive director, Niamh Eastwood, said: "The CPS must urgently drop all prosecutions under the Psychoactive Substances Act and review cases where defendants have previously pleaded guilty."

Mr Fleming told Southwark Crown Court that "Professor Cowen has expressed the clear view that nitrous oxide falls within the definition because of its analgesic effects".

"That may not have been the intention of those who framed the act, but the subsection clearly covers nitrous oxide."

The judge, David Tomlinson, instructed the jury to find the defendant - who cannot be named for legal reasons - not guilty.

Stressing that the hearing was not a "test case" and offered no precedent, Judge Tomlinson said the not guilty verdict could mean that either there was "a very lucky defendant or a number of other defendants will have their convictions quashed".

It is understood about 50 people have pleaded guilty to supplying nitrous oxide under the legislation, but this is the first time a defendant has contested the charge. Some lawyers are suggesting other substances may also be affected by the case.

Mr Fleming said the CPS had told him the situation demanded "a full review of the legislation and that will be carried out".

Embarrassment

Home Office crime survey figures published last month suggest 840,000 people in England and Wales used nitrous oxide in 2016-17. The silver canisters are a common sight at music festivals.

The gas was not considered harmful enough to be designated a controlled substance under existing drugs laws. In the last 10 years there have been 19 deaths associated with nitrous oxide, although a number of those are understood to have been suicides.

The collapse of two cases against people accused of intending to supply nitrous oxide is an embarrassment for the government, which had hailed the act as the answer to dealing with legal highs.

But during its passage through Parliament, ministers were warned that the law may be unworkable.

Drug experts say the big test of the legislation is whether lawyers can prove that a substance is "psychoactive".

Scientific tests

The Home Office is pinning its hopes on a new scientific experiment conducted in a test tube. The technique is designed to demonstrate whether a product binds to a particular receptor in the human body, affecting mental functioning or emotional state.

But ministers have been warned that such laboratory tests cannot prove that a substance affects the brain in a way that makes it psychoactive under the act.

Some experts believe the only sure way to demonstrate a substance is psychoactive is to scan the brain of a human as they take it, which is an impractical approach.

A similar problem blunted legal-high legislation in the Republic of Ireland.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
'Legal high' review after laughing gas cases collapse - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Home Office says it will continue to prosecute those who sell nitrous oxide, despite the collapse of the first contested cases under new laws. The Crown Prosecution Service is reviewing two cases after a judge and the government's own expert witness said "laughing gas" was exempt.

# data[].attributes.headline
Husband says ‘reckless’ cyclists must learn from wife’s death

# data[].attributes.subject
Husband says ‘reckless’ cyclists must learn from wife’s death

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The husband of a woman who was knocked down and killed by a cyclist has urged "reckless" riders to learn from his wife's death.

Kim Briggs, 44, was hit while crossing the road in east London last year.

Matthew Briggs has criticised the "fetishism" of cyclists riding fixed gear bikes with no front brake and is calling for a change in the law.

It comes a day after Charlie Alliston, 20, was found guilty of causing bodily harm by "wanton or furious driving".

Alliston, who was cleared of manslaughter, was riding a fixed gear bike with no front brakes when he hit the mum-of-two.

She suffered "catastrophic" head injuries and died a week later in hospital.

Mr Briggs told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was campaigning for a change in the law because "sometimes in life you have to step up and do the right thing".

He called for cycling to be incorporated into the Road Traffic Act with the creation of new offences, such as causing death by dangerous cycling, death by careless cycling and causing serious injury.

Mr Briggs described his wife as the "most wonderful woman, the most fun loving woman".

He said he was launching a campaign for a change in the law to honour his wife, and to "try and stop another family having to go through what we have had to go through".

"I've lived in London for 28 years. I cycle in London, this is not a witch-hunt against cyclists."

"This is dealing with a specific issue of reckless cyclists and also those people who choose to ride fixed wheel bikes without the front brake."

Mr Briggs said riding fixed gear bikes with no front brakes was a fashion statement bordering on fetishism.

To those who rode bikes without a front brake, he said: "I would just urge them to read my story. To understand what happened to my wife, mother of two, the most wonderful woman, the most fun loving woman who went out to work and didn't come back.

"Why would you take that risk with somebody else's life? And even at the most selfish why would you endanger yourself?"

Asked on BBC Radio 5 live how his children were coping with the loss of their mother, Mr Briggs said: "My children are amazing. My children are the reason I get up every single morning. They are resilient, they are funny, they are full of life.

"They are an absolutely credit to their mother who brought them up with joy, with laughter, with compassion and I'll do the same. They are the reason I'm doing this. I just love them from the bottom of my heart."

What is wanton and furious driving?

Alliston was charged with an admittedly archaic offence - but it is the closest to dangerous driving a cyclist can be charged with.

Unlike a dangerous cycling charge, causing GBH by wanton and furious driving takes into account injury.

It may sound slightly eccentric, but perhaps it is down to its wording which was coined in 1861.

Introduced under the Offences Against the Person Act, the charge was created to deter people from driving horse carriages recklessly.

It is now used when it is not possible to prosecute under the Road Traffic Act 1988 - ie, when the vehicle in the crime was not mechanically propelled - and in cases of serious injury or death caused by a cyclist's actions.

It carries a maximum penalty of two years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

Previous successful prosecutions under the offence include those against cyclists Darryl Gittoes and Darren Hall, who both knocked down pedestrians who later died.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Husband says 'reckless' cyclists must learn from wife's death - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The husband of a woman who was knocked down and killed by a cyclist has urged "reckless" riders to learn from his wife's death. Kim Briggs, 44, was hit while crossing the road in east London last year.

# data[].attributes.headline
Birmingham gangs banned from city in landmark ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Birmingham gangs banned from city in landmark ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Two rival criminal groups have been hit with what police describe as the largest ever gang injunction.

Eighteen men, aged between 19 and 29 and some in prison, are banned from parts of Birmingham and must register phones and vehicles with police.

The two-year orders aim to disrupt gang-related violence between the Burger Bar Boys and Johnson Crew.

West Midlands Police said it was "a landmark ruling".

The orders follow a spate of firearms offences in the city in 2015 and 2016, but the gangs have struck fear across parts of Birmingham for many years.

They gained notoriety in 2003 when their violent feud claimed the lives of two girls - Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis - outside a late-night new year party in the city. Four men were later jailed for life for their murders.

The gangs have also been behind countless drive-by shootings, drug dealing, intimidation, robberies and kidnappings.

Letisha's mother Marcia, an anti-gun campaigner, welcomed the injunctions.

"I see gangs as vermin in Birmingham and any means to help it stop spreading to vulnerable, naive and innocent young people is a positive way forward in our war on violent crime," she said.

"As I have said time and time again, violent crime has no winners. It just causes heartache, pain and has a life-changing impact on innocent victims and the perpetrators' families."

After more recent incidents of gun crime in the city, West Midlands Police and the council sought to secure the injunctions in a civil case heard at Birmingham Crown Court earlier this year.

The force secured interim injunctions in 2016 and said at the time it did not want to identify anyone until they were permanent. The BBC revealed their names after obtaining the county court documents.

More than 80 people from the Home Office and police gave evidence between February and June ahead of the orders being granted in July, which the force has revealed for the first time now.

Two have already been issued, three men are being sought by police and three properties were visited by officers on Wednesday.

The men are forbidden from associating with each other and entering the city centre, Handsworth, Newtown, Winson Green and Lozells.

In a copy of an injunction seen by the BBC, gang members are also banned from appearing in music videos that include material linked to the Burger Bar Boys and Johnson Crew. One such music video was shown during the court proceedings.

Ten other men will receive the orders in jail where restrictions will be imposed on certain visitors to limit any gang associations, police said.

Among those to be given the injunctions in prison are two men believed to have been the "armed response" faction of the Burger Bar Boys.

Reial Phillips, 21, from Winson Green was jailed for 27 years last year after seven people were injured in a series of shootings during a feud with members of the Johnson Crew.

His co-defendant 23-year-old Ashai Gray, from Walsall, was jailed for nine years after admitting conspiracy to supply cocaine and heroin.

Police said their actions "brought fear" to people in the West Midlands.

Gang injunctions came into force in England and Wales in 2011. Home Office figures show that between January 2011 and January 2014, 88 had been put in place.

The first one issued in the West Midlands was in 2012.

'Cosmetic gesture'

But solicitor Errol Robinson, who represented two of the four men jailed for the new year murders, criticised the move.

"They don't change behaviour or address underlying issues," he said.

"Injunctions become a bit of a trophy and encourage rebellion. Gang members like to show that they're not listening to orders so will breach orders.

"It's a cheap way of trying to solve crime but there is no evidence to suggest that they work.

"They're just a cosmetic gesture to show people that something is being done about gangs - but actually the results are minimum to none."

From former gang members the BBC has spoken to, there is little support for the mechanism, BBC Midlands Correspondent Sima Kotecha said.

She said a number of gang members had said that if a person is banned from going to a certain part of a city, they will just go somewhere else and find others who have the same goal of causing violence and disruption.

Birmingham has seen another spike in gun and knife crime in 2017, with nine fatal stabbings this year. None of the men named in the injunctions are involved, police said.

Det Sgt Ian Comfort said: "This is relatively new legislation and we believe that securing final full injunctions on such a large number of gang members is a UK first.

"The injunctions are applied for in the civil court in addition to sentences handed out by the criminal court for offences. They are an additional measure to help control the offenders and keep the community safe."

Supt Mat Shaer, neighbourhood policing superintendent for Birmingham, said the injunctions were "not sought lightly" and the police, council and other groups had already made "exhaustive efforts with these men" and their families to try and steer them away gang culture.

Analysis: BBC Special Correspondent Peter Wilson

Organised gangs in Birmingham have been a part of the city's life since the 1870s. Some have been mythologised on TV such as the Peaky Blinders.

But today's gangs linked to guns and drugs are far from glamorous and bring terror and misery to many people's lives.

The names Burger Bar Boys and Johnson Crew sprang on to the crime scene in the late 1990s.

Chaotic and quick to wreak violence, the gangs' most shocking crime came at a new year's party in 2003, when two innocent teenage girls, Letisha Shakespeare and Charlene Ellis, died in a spray of machine-gun fire in a drive-by shooting as members of the Burger Bar Boys attempted to kill a Johnson Crew man standing outside.

That shocking display of gang callousness led to a concerted effort by government, police and the city council, and 10 years later it led some to believe that the gangs had been defeated as gun crime fell dramatically.

But in the last 18 months, a new generation of would-be gang members have arisen and shootings have begun to surge upwards.

Even in the last few weeks, the police have been shot at as they carried out an anti-gun operation in the Ladywood area of the city.
The men made subject to the injunctions

Naasir Francis, 19, from Nechells

Baboucar Huma, 19, from Handsworth

Akeen Ivy-Foster, 20, from Springhill

Ravelle Hutchinson, 20, from Winson Green

Rayani Sutherland, 21, from Aston

Omarni Bernard-Sewell, 21, from Selly Oak

Lawrence Morgan, 21, from Nechells

Jerome Jones, 21, from Erdington

Jerome Christie, 21, from Nechells

Reial Phillips, 21, from Winson Green

Ushane Jeffers, 23, from Newtown

Kayne Robinson, 23, from Springhill

Ashai Grey, 23, from Walsall

Jacob Brown, 24, from Handsworth

Cash Wallace, 24, from Winson Green

Ishmail Lee, 29, from Wolverhampton

Isaac Duffus, 28, from Erdington

Tesfa Bernard-Wheeler, 21, from Hockley

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Birmingham gangs banned from city in landmark ruling - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two rival criminal groups have been hit with what police describe as the largest ever gang injunction. Eighteen men, aged between 19 and 29 and some in prison, are banned from parts of Birmingham and must register phones and vehicles with police. The two-year orders aim to disrupt gang-related violence between the Burger Bar Boys and Johnson Crew.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brexit: UK must keep 'half an eye' on European Court of Justice rulings

# data[].attributes.subject
Brexit: UK must keep 'half an eye' on European Court of Justice rulings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theresa May has insisted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK will come to an end with Brexit.

As the government published new details of its position, the PM said the UK would "take back control of our laws".

But critics say it will be impossible to avoid European judges having a role in enforcing new agreements drawn up with the EU.

Ministers say the two sides will keep "half an eye" on each other's rulings.

The ECJ is in charge of ensuring member states abide by EU law.

Its rulings are binding on all member states, and it also settles disputes between countries and EU institutions.

In its new policy paper, the government:

Does not rule out ECJ keeping its jurisdiction during the Brexit transition period that is planned after March 2019

Promises to work with the EU on the "arrangements for judicial supervision" during this period

Makes clear that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit will only be subject to British law - a sticking point in the negotiations with the EU

Says giving the ECJ authority over UK-EU disputes would be unprecedented and not "fair and neutral"

The promise to end "direct jurisdiction" in recent policy papers - a phrase not used by Mrs May - has raised questions about what "indirect" jurisdiction the EU court could be left with.

In the latest publication, about how to enforce disputes after Brexit, the government has outlined several models used by other countries that it says show there is no need for the ECJ to be the final arbiter.

But some of these involve the ECJ having an influence on the outcome of disputes, for example by interpreting EU law in a way that binds a disputes panel, or for its past rulings to be taken into account.

Analysis

By BBC Legal Correspondent Clive Coleman

Today's paper does not pin the government's colours to any particular mast.

It throws out a number of possible models for how a trade agreement with the EU would work in terms of resolving disputes.

All of the models make it clear that the ECJ will no longer have sole jurisdiction over disputes.

The key question is how much influence the ECJ would retain under a bilateral agreement with the UK.

The EU will not sign up to an agreement which allows to UK to depart from EU law to the UK's advantage and the EU's disadvantage on things like state aid to companies, or emissions standards.

It will want a level playing field in trade and that will mean a lot of EU law as part of the agreement.

The reality is that the more closely the Brexit trade agreement replicates EU law, the greater the influence of the ECJ will be.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the government was "clearly backtracking on its earlier red lines and saying there has to be some form of dispute resolution through some form of judicial process".

He added: "We have said that all along."

Asked if Labour would vote against the government's key piece of Brexit legislation, the repeal bill, when MPs returned from their summer break, Mr Corbyn said: "We will make that decision just before the vote."

The pro-EU Open Britain campaign group said the government's policy paper was a "climbdown camouflaged in jingoistic rhetoric".

The group called it "frustratingly vague", adding that in almost every example it provides, the ECJ would have "substantial direct or indirect power over the proposed new relationship between Britain and the EU".

The government said it was not committing to following any of the arrangements set out, ruling out an "off the shelf" model.

And sources played down the significance of the word "direct", saying it meant ECJ rulings would no longer automatically apply to the UK and that the court would no longer be able to strike down domestic UK laws.

Asked about her government's position, Mrs May said: "What we will be able to do is to make our own laws - Parliament will make our laws - it is British judges that will interpret those laws, and it will be the British Supreme Court that will be the ultimate arbiter of those laws."

Earlier Justice Minister Dominic Raab said there would be "divergence" between UK and EU case law after Brexit, adding: "It is precisely because there will be that divergence as we take back control that it makes sense for the UK to keep half an eye on the case law of the EU, and for the EU to keep half an eye on the case law of the UK."

In response, Guy Verhofstadt, the European Parliament's lead negotiator, tweeted that the ECJ had to "keep both eyes open" to protect citizens' rights.

The ECJ's remit extends into many of the areas where the UK is hoping to draw up new arrangements with the EU, including trade and citizens' rights.

Mr Raab said "some form of arbitration" would be needed, but that this would not be akin to a European court.

Arbitration is where disputes are settled by a neutral third party. The UK and the EU could each appoint arbitrators and agree on a third, Mr Raab suggested.

European Court of Justice

Decides whether the institutions of the EU are acting legally, and settles disputes between them

Ensures that the member states of the EU are complying with their legal obligations as set out in the EU treaties; and allows member states to challenge EU legislation

Interprets EU law at the request of national courts

The SNP said the government had accepted the UK must continue to take account of judgements from the ECJ so it now needed to "ditch their previous so-called red lines to ensure a deal can be found".

SNP External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop said the best option for Scotland and the rest of the UK was to stay in the EU single market.

Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable said Mrs May's "red lines are becoming more blurred by the day", saying the ECJ had "served Britain's interests well" and should not be "trashed".

The European Commission, which is leading the negotiations for the EU, did not comment in response to the government's publication.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: Theresa May says UK leaving EU court's jurisdiction - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Theresa May has insisted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK will come to an end with Brexit. As the government published new details of its position, the PM said the UK would "take back control of our laws".

# data[].attributes.headline
Brexit: UK seeks 'close co-operation' on legal disputes deal

# data[].attributes.subject
Brexit: UK seeks 'close co-operation' on legal disputes deal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK is to call for "close co-operation" with the EU to resolve cross-border legal disputes after Brexit.

An agreement will be needed on how divorces, commercial disputes and consumer claims that span multiple countries are handled.

Currently EU regulations specify how the appropriate court is chosen.

Lawyers have warned that clarity will be needed once the UK has left the organisation in March 2019.

In the latest in a series of papers setting out its Brexit negotiating plans, the government will say disputes need to be resolved "in a clear and sensible way", saying it is determined to agree new arrangements.

This will be crucial for both UK and EU citizens and businesses that buy and sell across borders, it says.

The "future partnership paper on civil judicial cooperation" follows publications on the customs union, the Irish border and the trading of goods after Brexit.

Papers 'a smokescreen'

A paper on the key issue of the role of the European Court of Justice is expected on Wednesday.

The publications are part of the UK government's attempts to persuade the EU to move the Brexit talks on to the next phase, which will include trade negotiations.

Brussels says this cannot happen until sufficient progress has been made on citizens' rights, the UK's "divorce bill" and the Northern Ireland border.

Labour accused the government of publishing "bland, non-committal papers as a smokescreen to mask their failure to make any meaningful progress" on the initial negotiations.

The EU has already published its own position paper on judicial co-operation.

Tuesday's paper from the UK side will promise to "build on the existing foundation of co-operation and respect for the rule of law" with the EU.

Legal centre 'threat'

It will propose a replacement for the UK's membership of the EU's judicial co-operation system, which sets out how cross-border disputes are handled.

The system decides which country's legal system takes the lead, and means member states respect each other's judgements.

Lawyers and MPs have warned that the UK's status as a "global legal centre" for commercial contracts could come under threat from rival countries unless clear arrangements are put in place for after Brexit.

Pro-EU campaign group Open Britain said the government had made an "appalling error" by ruling out a role for the European Court of Justice in regulating disputes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: UK seeks 'close co-operation' on legal disputes deal - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK is to call for "close co-operation" with the EU to resolve cross-border legal disputes after Brexit. An agreement will be needed on how divorces, commercial disputes and consumer claims that span multiple countries are handled. Currently EU regulations specify how the appropriate court is chosen.

# data[].attributes.headline
Woman's Hour looks at the increase of upskirt photography without consent

# data[].attributes.subject
Woman's Hour looks at the increase of upskirt photography without consent

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman's Hour looks at the increase of upskirt photography without consent - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A discussion of upskirt photography with campaigner Gina Martin and Clare McGlynn, Professor of Law at Durham University.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Devil is in the Detail: Parliament and Delegated Legislation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Types of delegated legislation - Statutory Instruments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
http://www.thelawbank.co.uk - The third of a series of short videos looking at delegated legislation. This one looks at Statutory Instruments and explain when and why they are used.

# data[].attributes.body
Is it good?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Dangers of Delegated Legislation PA Article

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Parliament Explained Debates in Parliament

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A council leader has defended plans to ban swearing in his town after free speech advocates said the £100 fines levied as punishment would breach people's human rights.

Rochdale borough council in Greater Manchester wants to introduce a public spaces protection order, which could lead to anyone caught "using foul and abusive language'" being warned, moved on or given an on-the-spot fine.

Begging, "loitering", antisocial parking, playing loud music, loudly revving car engines, street drinking, unauthorised charity collections and skateboarding could also be banned under the move, while under-18s could be barred from the town centre between 11pm and 6am.

Laraten Caten, the legal officer for Liberty, told the Manchester Evening News that the plans would be difficult to enforce and could criminalise vulnerable people: "These proposals would unjustifiably curb the rights and freedoms of Rochdale residents.

"The swearing ban is so vaguely defined, it would prove impossible for anyone to know whether they were breaking the law or not, while a blanket ban on begging will criminalise some of the most vulnerable people in the town."

Richard Farnell, the leader of Rochdale borough council, retorted: "With all the horrific human rights abuses happening around the world right now, I would have thought Liberty had bigger things to worry about. We are clamping down on a small minority of antisocial ne'er-do-wells who drunkenly shout and swear and harangue shoppers in our town centre.

"I make no apologies for trying to make Rochdale a more welcoming place for people to enjoy and this is supported by the overwhelming majority of local residents. The council is spending £250m transforming Rochdale town centre and we are not going to let a small number of drunken and abusive idiots spoil it for everyone else.

"Offensive and abusive behaviour is already an offence, but police resources are stretched in dealing with this low-level crime. We are working in partnership with them to use our powers to deal with this more effectively."

The plans, presented to Rochdale council cabinet on Monday, acknowledge that the council "must have regard to articles 10 and 11 of the European convention on human rights, which provide for the right for lawful freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, ensuring that the making of a public spaces protection order is not used to stop reasonable activities where no antisocial behaviour is being committed".

The swearing ban was largely well-received in Rochdale. Gillian Duffy, who was famously described as "that bigoted woman" by Gordon Brown during the 2010 election, said she thought it was a good idea. "Do I think there are foul-mouthed people in Rochdale? Among certain sections of Rochdale, yes," she said.

"It is more common now. No one seems to bat an eyelid but I don't like it. I never swear and I never heard my late husband swear once in all the time we were married."

Duffy is still cross that Brown thought she had sworn at him when she asked him about eastern European immigrants in Rochdale, insisting she had asked the then prime minister: "Where are they flocking from?" rather than "Where are they fucking from?"

Duffy, 72, said she had once challenged a swearing schoolgirl on a bus going through the Falinge estate in Rochdale. "She was swearing her head off and there was this old lady - this was a while ago, I'm an old lady myself now - shaking her head and saying, 'Oh dear, oh dear'. I said to this girl: 'Shut your filthy mouth.' It shocked her," she said.

Simon Danczuk, MP for Rochdale, said: "There are a number of wrong 'uns in Rochdale who hang around the town centre getting drunk and using foul language. People have had enough of them and the council are right to sort them out."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Flocking hell: council plans to ban swearing in Rochdale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A council leader has defended plans to ban swearing in his town after free speech advocates said the £100 fines levied as punishment would breach people's human rights. Rochdale borough council in Greater Manchester wants to introduce a public spaces protection order, which could lead to anyone caught "using foul and abusive language'" being warned, moved on or given an on-the-spot fine.

# data[].attributes.body
How do I do it?

# data[].attributes.body
Detention

# data[].attributes.body
Charge

# data[].attributes.body
Arrest

# data[].attributes.body
Stop and Search

# data[].attributes.headline
UK data protection laws to be overhauled

# data[].attributes.subject
UK data protection laws to be overhauled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Britons could obtain more control over what happens to personal information under proposals outlined by the government.

Citizens will be able to ask for personal data, or information posted when they were children, to be deleted.

The proposals are part of an overhaul of UK data protection laws drafted under Digital Minister, Matt Hancock.

Firms that flout the law will face bigger fines, levied by the UK's data protection watchdog.

The bill will transfer the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) into UK law.

Heavy fine

"The new Data Protection Bill will give us one of the most robust, yet dynamic, set of data laws in the world," said Mr Hancock in a statement.

"It will give people more control over their data, require more consent for its use, and prepare Britain for Brexit," he added.

Proposals included in the bill will:

make it simpler for people to withdraw consent for their personal data to be used

let people ask for data to be deleted

require firms to obtain "explicit" consent when they process sensitive personal data

expand personal data to include IP addresses, DNA and small text files known as cookies

let people get hold of the information organisations hold on them much more freely

make re-identifying people from anonymised or pseudonymised data a criminal offence

This places a strong burden on firms to protect data and allows for significant fines if they fail to protect information or suffer a breach.

What can I ask to be removed?

If you worry about embarrassing social media posts lingering online for years, you will soon have the right to ask for them to be removed.

And should you wish for any firm that holds your personal data - from your name to your DNA - you will be able to ask them to delete it.

There are, however, arguments that those holding the data can put forward to refuse such requests, such as freedom of expression and matters that are of scientific or historical importance.

Many of these measures are already part of the EU's forthcoming GDPR, but they are also being woven into the government's bill.

All of this goes beyond the "right to be forgotten" rules that already apply to search engines - those affect what can be listed in search results - but the GDPR and associated legislation impact data held by a wide range of companies.
Have you ever tried to get personal data removed from the web? Share your experiences at haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk or message us on WhatsApp at 07525900971.
In the UK firms that suffer a serious data breach could be fined up to £17m or 4% of global turnover.

The current maximum fine firms can suffer for breaking data protection laws is £500,000.

The UK's Information Commissioner will have its powers strengthened and extended to help it police the new regime.

Elizabeth Denham, the information commissioner, said: "We are pleased the government recognises the importance of data protection, its central role in increasing trust and confidence in the digital economy and the benefits the enhanced protections will bring to the public."

But small companies were largely in the dark about what the proposed law would mean for them, warned Mike Cherry, national chairman at the Federation of Small Businesses.

"They simply aren't aware of what they will need to do, which creates a real risk of companies inadvertently facing fines," he said.

And as for members of the public, many find it "almost impossible" to understand the complex ways in which firms handle their data, according to computer security researcher Steven Murdoch at University College London.

He argued that privacy groups should be able to make independent data protection complaints on behalf of consumers.

"Currently, the UK's proposal does not take up this option available under EU law," he told the BBC.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UK data protection laws to be overhauled

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Britons could obtain more control over what happens to personal information under proposals outlined by the government. Citizens will be able to ask for personal data, or information posted when they were children, to be deleted. The proposals are part of an overhaul of UK data protection laws drafted under Digital Minister, Matt Hancock.

# data[].attributes.headline
Child sex doll an obscene item, judge rules

# data[].attributes.subject
Child sex doll an obscene item, judge rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A judge has ruled that a child sex doll imported by a former primary school governor is an obscene item.

Lawyers for David Turner had argued the doll was not covered by a law banning the importation of obscene items.

But a judge dismissed that, saying "any right-thinking person" would find the doll obscene.

Turner, 72, of Ramsgate, Kent, had already admitted possessing more than 34,000 indecent images of children. He will be sentenced in September.

Other men have been convicted for importing child sex dolls, but this was the first case where the question of whether a doll is indecent or obscene had been tested by the courts.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) said it was "the first ruling of its kind".

Under the 1979 Customs and Excise Management Act it is against the law to import obscene or indecent items.

NCA officers arrested Turner - an ex-church warden - in November last year after Border Force officers intercepted a 3ft doll that he was attempting to import from China.

He claimed that it was intended to be a "companion" for him and his wife.

Investigators said Turner already had two other child dolls at his home, one of which they claimed he had "sex" with.

The charge was brought over a 3ft 10in sex doll already in his possession, which he bought clothes for.

'Unusual offence'

In an earlier hearing, Turner also admitted possessing more than 34,000 indecent images of children, aged from three to 16, contained on 17 pen drives. Of the images, 138 were of the most serious kind, Category A.

When interviewed, he also admitted "secretly" taking photographs of girls aged six to 11 in public places.

Judge Simon James said the importation of a child sex doll was an "unusual offence" and that it "adds a degree of complexity" to the sentencing.

Turner was freed on bail and will be sentenced on 8 September. The maximum sentence is seven years.

The 'new phenomenon' of child sex dolls
By Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent
More than 100 child sex dolls have been seized in the UK as part of a special operation set up by the National Crime Agency (NCA) and Border Force.

Investigators believe the dolls, which are made to be as life-like as possible, are being imported by people who have a "sexual interest" in children.

Advertised as "adult dolls" on sites including EBay and Amazon, they are manufactured in the Far East and sent to Britain via courier, fast parcel and other delivery services.

Hazel Stewart, operations manager for the NCA, said when people have been questioned by police about the dolls some have claimed they were bought for a "joke", others say they for "companionship".

"If it was a Marks and Spencer mannequin I wouldn't be stood here," she said.

Read more from Danny Shaw.

Call for action

Hazel Stewart, from the National Crime Agency, said: "We know [child sex doll] purchases can indicate other offences against children, as was the case against Turner who had a sickening stash of abuse images.

"Importers of such obscene items should expect to have law enforcement closing in on them."

Jon Brown, head of development for the NSPCC, welcomed the ruling, but wants more to be done to tackle the issue of child sex dolls.

"The NSPCC is calling on government to take action to criminalise the manufacturing, distribution and possession of these grotesque dolls, in the same way it does indecent images of children," he said.

The NSPCC has previously called for sites selling the dolls to take them down, telling BBC Radio 5 live that it could lead into "contact offending" and "normalises" it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Child sex doll an obscene item, judge rules - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A judge has ruled that a child sex doll imported by a former primary school governor is an obscene item. Lawyers for David Turner had argued the doll was not covered by a law banning the importation of obscene items. But a judge dismissed that, saying "any right-thinking person" would find the doll obscene.

# data[].attributes.headline
Baroness Hale appointed as UK's first female top judge

# data[].attributes.subject
Baroness Hale appointed as UK's first female top judge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Baroness Hale is to become the first female president of the UK's Supreme Court, Downing Street has said.

The 72-year-old will succeed Lord Neuberger, who is retiring in September, having been his deputy since 2013.

Lady Hale, who will be sworn in on 2 October, said: "It is a great honour and a challenge."

Lord Neuberger said her appointment was "a fitting pinnacle to a truly ground-breaking career".
Baroness Hale: The legal trailblazer
Born in Richmond in North Yorkshire, Lady Hale's other career highlights include becoming the UK's first woman Law Lord in 2004, and then the first woman Justice of the Supreme Court in 2009.

She has previously criticised the judicial appointments system for selecting from a pool of predominantly white men from similar economic and academic backgrounds.

High-profile cases

During her time as deputy president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale has ruled on many high-profile cases, including the government's Brexit appeal and the appeal from the parents of the sick baby Charlie Gard.

She was recently on the panel of justices who ruled in favour of a gay man who won a landmark ruling to give his husband the same pension rights as a wife would receive.

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal for civil cases in the UK, and criminal cases from England, Northern Ireland and Wales, which means it considers cases where an order has already been made in a lower court and is being challenged.

A family law expert, Lady Hale said: "I look forward to building upon (Lord Neuberger's) pioneering achievements, including developing closer links with each part of the United Kingdom, for example by sitting outside London, and improving the ways in which we communicate our work to the public.

"Recent high-profile cases mean that more people than ever before have heard of the Supreme Court, and we hope that this will help to create a broader understanding of how the judiciary serves society."

'Encouragement to all'

The Bar Council said the appointment will "serve as encouragement to all" for greater diversity in law.

Andrew Langdon QC, chairman of the Bar, described Lady Hale as "most distinguished" and said she "has long been at the forefront in the task of arguing for a properly diverse judiciary".

Lady Hale will be officially sworn in as president in October, along with three new justices, including a second female judge, Lady Justice Black.

"While I of course look forward to working alongside all my colleagues, it is a particular pleasure for me to be taking up the post at the same time as we welcome only the second ever woman to sit on the UK's top appeal court," Lady Hale added.

Who is the first lady of the law?

Baroness Hale of Richmond began her career teaching law at the University of Manchester, becoming Professor of Law in 1986.

In 1984, she became the first woman to be appointed to the Law Commission - the statutory body which promotes the reform of the law.

She spent 10 years redefining the face of family law, and was instrumental in legislation such as the Children Act of 1989.

She was the founding editor of the Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, and authored a pioneering case book on the family, law and society.

Lady Hale was made QC in 1989, and a High Court judge in 1994. She went on to become the UK's first woman Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in January 2004, and then the first woman Justice of the Supreme Court in 2009 - and the first family lawyer to fill the post.

She once said: "I have had such an unusual career, my colleagues don't compare themselves to me in the way that they otherwise might."

Sam Smethers, chief executive of the Fawcett Society, which campaigns for equality, said she was delighted by the appointment.

She added: "Not only because she is a woman but because her judgements often reflect a true understanding of women's lives and the violence and discrimination they experience.

"But I'll look forward to the day when we will no longer be commenting on women firsts at all."

Adam Wagner, a barrister specialising in public law and human rights, tweeted of the news: "Let's forget the gender thing for a sec: Brenda Hale is a great judge. She writes clearly, is principled, is respected by other judges."

He added: "Hale came from a different background to most other judges. She wasn't a barrister - [she] was an academic. This is a good thing.

"Hale is passionate about rights issues - she has given important judgements on mental disabilities, rights of children, women's rights."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Baroness Hale appointed as UK's first female top judge - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Baroness Hale is to become the first female president of the UK's Supreme Court, Downing Street has said. The 72-year-old will succeed Lord Neuberger, who is retiring in September, having been his deputy since 2013. Lady Hale, who will be sworn in on 2 October, said: "It is a great honour and a challenge."

# data[].attributes.headline
Acid attack punishments assessed in government review

# data[].attributes.subject
Acid attack punishments assessed in government review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
People who carry out acid attacks in England and Wales could face longer jail terms as part of a "wide-ranging" review, following a rise in incidents.

Perpetrators can already face a life sentence, but Home Secretary Amber Rudd told the Sunday Times she wanted them to "feel the full force of the law".

"Life sentences must not be reserved for acid attack survivors," she said.

There are calls to tighten laws for the sale and possession of acid after five attacks in a night in London.

According to the Home Office, carrying out an attack with a corrosive substance can already result in a prison sentence of up to life, depending on the nature of the charges.

Being found in possession of acid, with intent to carry out an attack, can mean a sentence of up to four years.

Announcing the plans, Ms Rudd said: "Acid attacks are horrific crimes which have a devastating effect on victims, both physically and emotionally."

She said it was "vital that we do everything to prevent these sickening attacks".

"The law in this area is already strong, with acid attackers facing up to a life sentence in certain cases. But we can and will improve our response."

And she said she would ensure everyone working within the criminal justice system has the power to "punish severely" acid attackers.

Attacks doubled

Politicians and acid attack survivors have called for tougher sentences on perpetrators, and MPs are also due to debate the issue in the Commons on Monday.

The review will look at existing laws, the response of police, sentencing, how people access harmful products and the support offered to acid attack victims.

Assaults involving corrosive substances have more than doubled in England since 2012 to 504 in 2016-17, according to a Freedom of Information request to police forces by the BBC.

Separately, the National Police Chiefs' Council (NPCC) said more than 400 acid or corrosive substance attacks were carried out in England and Wales in the six months to April 2017.

Where the age of the offender was known, one in five was younger than 18.

A 16-year-old boy has been charged in connection with the attacks in London on Thursday.

What will the review look at?

Whether judges have sufficient sentencing powers to deal with acid attack perpetrators

New guidance for police officers on preventing attacks, searching potential perpetrators and helping victims at the scene

The Poisons Act 1972 will be assessed for whether it should cover more acids and harmful substances

Crown Prosecution Service guidance to prosecutors - and how they class acid and corrosive substances as "dangerous weapons" - will be reviewed

Retailers to agree measures to restrict sales of acids and other corrosive substances

New research to understand the motivations for carrying out acid attacks

Ensuring victim impact statements are completed in every case by the police

Confirming appropriate support is provided to victims - including the initial medical response, giving evidence in court and long-term recovery

Monday's Commons debate will be led by Labour MP Stephen Timms, who is calling for carrying acid to be made a crime - similar to carrying a knife.

Under the current law, if police stop someone carrying acid they have to prove intent to cause harm.

Acid attack survivor Katie Piper has said victims face a "life sentence" and also called on tougher sentencing to act as a deterrent.

In a letter published in the Scars, Burns & Healing medical journal on Thursday, she said: "I will continue to need operations and therapy for life. For acid attack survivors, the aftermath is a life sentence."

Ms Piper's attacker was given a life sentence, with a minimum of six years, while the man who organised the attack was also imprisoned for life, to serve a minimum of 16 years.

Another measure in the government's plan includes ensuring that police record victim impact statements so courts are made aware of the "full impact" of the attack.

Sarah Newton, minister for crime, safeguarding and vulnerability, told BBC 5live this was not a "new crime", but "has been escalating in London".

"Unfortunately, these substances are used in so-called honour-based violence, in domestic violence, and by gangs in retribution.

"It's not a clear picture, so we need to get more intelligence, more data together."

She had admitted that tighter regulations would be difficult to enforce because "these chemicals are under everyone's kitchen sinks".

Assistant Chief Constable Rachel Kearton, the NPCC's lead for corrosive attacks, also said it was "virtually impossible" to ban the sale of all corrosive substances.

Bleach, ammonia and acid were the most commonly used substances, according to the NPCC.

She said: "We are working closely with the Home Office and retailers to determine how we can keep these products from people who intend to cause harm.

"Police have dealt with a number of high-profile cases in recent months and we continue to collect data from police forces across England and Wales to understand the scale and extent of these attacks and develop our ability to support and protect victims."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Acid attack punishments assessed in government review - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
People who carry out acid attacks in England and Wales could face longer jail terms as part of a "wide-ranging" review, following a rise in incidents. Perpetrators can already face a life sentence, but Home Secretary Amber Rudd told the Sunday Times she wanted them to "feel the full force of the law".

# data[].attributes.headline
Sentencing appeal rules to cover more terror offences

# data[].attributes.subject
Sentencing appeal rules to cover more terror offences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The public will be able to challenge a wider range of sentences given for terror offences under new plans.

Currently, people in England and Wales can challenge punishments given for the most serious terror offences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

But under the changes - which come into effect on 8 August - sentences for 19 other crimes will be open to challenge.

Calls for the extension came after hate preacher Anjem Choudary was sentenced to five-and-a-half years in prison.

His crime - inviting support for so-called Islamic State - was not previously covered by the scheme.

What is the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme?

The ULS scheme allows anyone to appeal against Crown Court sentences if they think are too light

Crimes covered include murder, rape, robbery, and serious drug crimes

The concept was introduced by the 1988 Criminal Justice Act

The attorney general's office can refer cases to the Court of Appeal, where they are reviewed

In 2015, 136 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal, which led to an increasing of sentences for 102 offenders

New crimes that can be reviewed under the ULS scheme include supporting proscribed organisations, encouraging terrorism, sharing terrorist propaganda, or not disclosing information about a terrorist attack.

The new scheme will not be applied retrospectively.

The Ministry of Justice said only a small portion of the 80,000 Crown Court cases heard each year were reviewed.

Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC said: "The ULS scheme allows victims of crime, their families and the public to request a sentence review if they feel it's too low.

"Widening the scheme to include terrorism offences will allow us to challenge more sentences and is a welcome first step to extending it even further."

Justice minister Dominic Raab said the legislation was "making sure those who radicalise young people, and those who wilfully and culpably turn a blind eye to terrorist activity feel the full force of the law".

The ULS scheme was recently used to increase the prison sentence for a man who killed his ex-girlfriend in a "violent and protracted way" from eight years to 12-and-a-half years.

Rhys Hobbs, 46, of Tonna in Neath, killed Andrea Lewis, 51, in her home in Fairyland Road, on 30 January 2016. She was found with 43 injuries including to her skull and torso.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sentencing appeal rules to cover more terror offences - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The public will be able to challenge a wider range of sentences given for terror offences under new plans. Currently, people in England and Wales can challenge punishments given for the most serious terror offences under the Unduly Lenient Sentence scheme.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The plight of Charlie Gard attracted worldwide attention as a result of the legal fight that pitched his desperate parents against the medical profession. But at the heart of it all is an 11-month-old baby who has spent his entire young life in a hospital bed. This is how his story unfolded.

Who is Charlie Gard?

Charlie was born on 4 August 2016 with an exceptionally rare genetic condition called encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS).

Although he appeared perfectly healthy when he was born, his health soon began to deteriorate.

Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) said the moment Charlie was diagnosed, his prognosis was bleak.

Charlie now has severe brain damage and cannot open his eyes or move his arms or legs. His condition also means he is unable to breathe unaided, which is why he needs to be on a ventilator.

His heart, liver and kidneys are also affected, and his doctors say it is not clear if he feels pain.

Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from Bedfont in west London, wanted Charlie to have an experimental treatment called nucleoside bypass therapy (NBT).

The treatment is not invasive and can be added to food.

No animal or human with Charlie's condition (RRM2B deficiency) has been treated with NBT, but the treatment has been previously offered to patients with a similar genetic disorder, TK2 deficiency.

But TK2 affects just the muscles, whereas Charlie's condition also affects other organs and his brain.

GOSH did apply for ethical permission to attempt nucleoside therapy on Charlie.

However, by the time that decision was made Charlie's condition had greatly worsened and the view was his brain damage was too severe and irreversible for the treatment to help.

After contacting other experts in the condition from medical centres across the world, doctors came to the conclusion that Charlie's life support should be switched off and he should be allowed to die with dignity.

What happened in the courts?

Charlie's parents disagreed with the hospital and did not want his life support to be withdrawn, so doctors applied to the High Court for judges to decide Charlie's future.

In April, the High Court agreed with the GOSH doctors.

Charlie's parents then appealed against the decision, but courts ruled the original decision should stand and it would be in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity.

The Supreme Court and the European Court both came to the same conclusion.

Although Charlie's parents had seemingly exhausted all legal avenues, two prominent figures ensured Charlie's case became world news: Donald Trump and the Pope.

A statement released from the Vatican said the Pope "expresses his closeness to his [Charlie's] parents".

"For them he prays, hoping that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end is not ignored," it said.

The US president then offered his support, tweeting: "If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so."

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.
- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2017

After his tweet, the US doctor offering the therapy, Professor Michio Hirano from Columbia University Medical Center, was contacted by the president's team to see if there was anything more that could be done.

On 6 July, the professor co-signed a letter with other medical experts which suggested unpublished data showed therapy could improve the 11-month-old's brain condition.

They claimed that "ideally" the treatment would first be tested on mice but said that, in Charlie's case, there was no time for such a trial.

Under the initial High Court ruling, Charlie was not allowed to be transferred anywhere to be treated so it asked the court to examine the new evidence.

Charlie's plight has proved to be very divisive.

Some people felt Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity, while others have disagreed with the doctors, arguing Charlie's parents should be allowed to decide where he is treated.

Charlie's parents said they did not condone the abuse and had also faced "nasty and hurtful remarks".

The scan had shown there was no muscle at all in parts of his body.

After hearing this, Charlie's parents decided to abandon the legal proceedings and ruled out taking him to the US.

They believe he could have lived a normal life if he had been given treatment earlier, but said they now wanted to treasure the short time they had left with him.

GOSH said the professor had not taken the opportunity to see Charlie until last week, despite being offered the chance to do so by the hospital in January.

Even though the professor gave written evidence at all of the court cases, the hospital said it only emerged last week that he had not read the judge's ruling following the first High Court hearing in April.

The hospital added it was concerned to hear the professor state in the witness box at the High Court hearing on 13 July that he had a financial interest in some of the treatment he proposed prescribing for Charlie.

Professor Hirano said in a statement on 25 July he had "relinquished" that financial interest.

What happens to Charlie now?

Charlie's life support will be withdrawn at a hospice but lawyers acting for Charlie's parents were in dispute with doctors over the detail of care plans.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates had applied to the High Court to keep Charlie alive for "a week or so" - longer than originally planned.

But a judge ruled that Charlie would be moved to a hospice to spend his final few hours before the ventilator that keeps him alive is switched off.

Timeline of Charlie's case

3 March 2017: Mr Justice Francis starts to analyse the case at a hearing in the family division of the High Court in London

11 April: He says doctors can stop providing life-support treatment

3 May: Charlie's parents ask Court of Appeal judges to consider the case

23 May: Three Court of Appeal judges analyse the case

25 May: The Court of Appeal judges dismiss the couple's appeal

8 June: Charlie's parents lose their fight in the Supreme Court

20 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights start to analyse the case, after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions

27 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights refuse to intervene

3 July: The Pope and US President Donald Trump offer to intervene

4 July: The Vatican's children's hospital in Rome, offers to take in Charlie

7 July: Great Ormond Street Hospital applies for a fresh hearing at the High Court

10 July: Charlie's parents return to the High Court and ask Mr Justice Francis to carry out a fresh analysis of the case. Mr Justice Francis says he will consider any new evidence.

17 July - Dr Michio Hirano, the US neurologist, travels to London to examine Charlie

21 July - Lawyer representing Great Ormond Street says Charlie's new scan makes for "sad reading"

22 July - Great Ormond Street says doctors and nurses have been subjected to abuse and received threatening messages

24 July - Charlie's parents say they will end their legal fight for his treatment and let him die

27 July - A judge rules that Charlie will be moved to a hospice to spend his final hours before the ventilator that keeps him alive is switched off.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charlie Gard: The story of his parents' legal fight

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The plight of Charlie Gard attracted worldwide attention as a result of the legal fight that pitched his desperate parents against the medical profession. But at the heart of it all is an 11-month-old baby who has spent his entire young life in a hospital bed. This is how his story unfolded.

# data[].attributes.headline
Brexit: Repeal Bill to be published by the government

# data[].attributes.subject
Brexit: Repeal Bill to be published by the government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Scottish and Welsh governments have threatened to block the key Brexit bill which will convert all existing EU laws into UK law.

The repeal bill, published earlier, is also facing opposition from Labour and other parties in the Commons.

Ministers are "optimistic" about getting it through and have promised an "ongoing intense dialogue" with the devolved administrations.

No 10 said it had to be passed or "there will be no laws" after Brexit.

Brexit Secretary David Davis called it "one of the most significant pieces of legislation that has ever passed through Parliament".

He rejected claims ministers were giving themselves "sweeping powers" to make changes to laws as they are repatriated.

It will be up to MPs if they want a say on the "technical changes" ministers plan to make to legislation, he told the BBC.

Labour says it will not support the bill in its current form and is demanding concessions in six areas, including the incorporation of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights into British law.

The party wants guarantees workers' rights will be protected and also want curbs on the power of government ministers to alter legislation without full parliamentary scrutiny.

Leader Jeremy Corbyn, who was in Brussels earlier for a meeting with the EU's chief negotiator Michel Barnier, said: "Far too much of it seems to be a process where the government... will be able to bypass Parliament.

"We will make sure there is full parliamentary scrutiny. We have a Parliament where the government doesn't have a majority, we have a country which voted in two ways on Leave or Remain.

"The majority voted to leave and we respect that, but they didn't vote to lose jobs and they didn't vote to have Parliament ridden roughshod over."

The repeal bill

Formally known as the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the draft legislation is a key plank of the government's Brexit strategy

The first line of the bill says the European Communities Act 1972, which took Britain into the EU, will be "repealed on exit day"

This will end the supremacy of EU law and stop the flow of new regulations from Brussels

But all existing laws derived from the EU will continue to be in force - they can be changed or scrapped by further legislation

The bill does not detail policies line-by-line but transfers all regulations into domestic law

It gives the UK two years after Brexit to correct any "deficiencies" arising from the transfer

The Conservatives are relying on Democratic Unionist Party support to win key votes after losing their Commons majority in the general election, but could face a revolt from Remain supporting backbenchers.

BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg said there could be "parliamentary guerrilla warfare" on the bill, as opposition parties and "Remainer Tories" try to "put their version of Brexit, not Theresa May's, on to the statute book".

The repeal bill is not expected to be debated by MPs until the Autumn, but will need to have been passed by the time the UK leaves the EU - which is due to happen in March 2019.

But the Scottish and Welsh governments have to give "legislative consent" to the bill before it can become law - something they have said they are not willing to do.

In a joint statement, first ministers Nicola Sturgeon and Carwyn Jones, who also met Mr Barnier, described the bill as a "naked power-grab" by Westminster that undermined the principles of devolution.

They say the bill returns powers from Brussels solely to the UK government and Parliament and "imposes new restrictions" on the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.

Ministers at Holyrood will not be able to amend EU rules in devolved areas such as agriculture and fisheries after Brexit until the UK Parliament and Scottish government have reached an agreement on them.

UK Scottish Secretary David Mundell claimed the repeal bill would result in a powers "bonanza" for Holyrood - a comment described as "ludicrous" by the SNP.

Theresa May's official spokeswoman said the repeal bill was a "hugely important piece of legislation" because "we need to have a functioning statute book on the day we leave the EU".

The spokesman said First Secretary of State Damian Green had contacted the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the government was confident of gaining their consent.

Asked if there was a contingency plan if he didn't win their backing, the prime minister's official spokesman said "not that I'm aware of".

Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, whose party is seeking to join forces with Labour and Tory rebels, said he was "putting the government on warning", promising a tougher test than than it faced when passing legislation authorising the UK's departure from the EU.

"If you found the Article 50 Bill difficult, you should be under no illusion, this will be hell," he said.

Steve Baker, a minister in the Department for Exiting the European Union, said the government was "ready" for a fight over the bill but would also to "listen to Parliament".

Speaking to BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg, Mr Davies predicted the bill "may get amendments here and there", saying he was open to suggestions from other parties for things that should be included.

"If we've missed something and got something wrong, then we'll debate that in the House of Commons," he said.

"That's how this works."

Mr Davis also insisted contingency plans were being made in case the UK and the EU cannot agree a Brexit deal.

"We are planning for all options," he said.

"The ideal outcome... right through to it not working at all and not getting a negotiated outcome at all."

Asked why Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson had said the government had "no plan" for such a scenario, he said: "That's possibly because it's my responsibility to plan for it."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Brexit: The UK's key repeal bill facing challenges - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Scottish and Welsh governments have threatened to block the key Brexit bill which will convert all existing EU laws into UK law. The repeal bill, published earlier, is also facing opposition from Labour and other parties in the Commons. Ministers are "optimistic" about getting it through and have promised an "ongoing intense dialogue" with the devolved administrations.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gay man wins Supreme Court case on equal pension rights

# data[].attributes.subject
Gay man wins Supreme Court case on equal pension rights

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A gay man has won a landmark ruling which will give his husband the same pension rights as a wife would receive.

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that if John Walker, 66, dies, his husband is entitled to a spouse's pension, provided they remain married.

The ex-chemical company worker said it would "drag" the government "into the 21st Century", while human rights group Liberty said "thousands" could benefit.

A government spokesman said it would review the implications of the ruling.

BBC legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said the decision will have "a dramatic effect on the entitlement of thousands of civil partners and spouses in same sex marriages".

They will now enjoy the same pension rights and entitlements as those in a heterosexual marriage, our correspondent added.

'Absurd injustice'

The ruling means Mr Walker's husband - who is in his 50s - would be entitled to a spousal pension of about £45,000 a year in the event of his death, rather than around £1,000 a year.

Mr Walker, a former Cavalry officer, said it was "to our government's great shame that it has taken so many years, huge amounts of taxpayers' money and the UK's highest court to drag them into the 21st Century".

He added: "Finally this absurd injustice has been consigned to the history books and my husband and I can now get on with enjoying the rest of our lives together."

What is the case about?

Mr Walker worked for chemicals group Innospec from 1980 to 2003

He made the same contributions to the pension scheme as heterosexual colleagues

He entered a civil partnership with his now-husband in January 2006, which was later converted into a marriage

However, Innospec refused to pay a full spousal pension, because Mr Walker's service began before 5 December 2005 - the date civil partnerships became legal in the UK

Mr Walker won an employment tribunal in 2012 to secure his pension rights, but it was overturned on appeal by Innospec two years later

That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2015

Mr Walker took legal action as he wanted to ensure that, should he die first, his husband would receive an adequate pension.

The majority of occupational pension schemes give 50% of the value of a pension to a spouse for the rest of their lives after their husband or wife dies - without taking the marriage date into account.

However, the Equality Act 2010 has an exemption for employers, allowing them to exclude civil partners from spousal benefits paid in before December 2005.

The Supreme Court has now ruled the exemption under the 2010 act is "incompatible with EU law and must be disapplied".

'Discrimination'

Emma Norton, a lawyer from Liberty, which represented Mr Walker, called on the government to promise Brexit would not threaten the ruling.

"This ruling was made under EU law and is a direct consequence of the rights protection the EU gives us," she said.

"We now risk losing that protection. The government must promise that there will be no rollback on LGBT rights after Brexit."

A government spokesperson said the rights of same sex couples had been "transformed for the better since 2010".

During the hearing, it said the cost of applying the ruling retrospectively would be £100m for private sector schemes and a further £20m for the public sector.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gay man wins Supreme Court case on equal pension rights - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A gay man has won a landmark ruling which will give his husband the same pension rights as a wife would receive. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that if John Walker, 66, dies, his husband is entitled to a spouse's pension, provided they remain married.

# data[].attributes.headline
Contaminated blood scandal inquiry announced

# data[].attributes.subject
Contaminated blood scandal inquiry announced

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A UK-wide inquiry will be held into the contaminated blood scandal that left at least 2,400 people dead, the prime minister has confirmed.

A spokesman for Theresa May said it would establish the causes of the "appalling injustice" that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.

Thousands of NHS patients were given blood products from abroad that were infected with hepatitis C and HIV.

It's been called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS.

Many of those affected and their families believe they were not told of the risks involved and there was a cover-up.

Speaking to the BBC, Mrs May said: "They deserve answers, and the inquiry that I have announced today will give them those answers, so they will know why this happened, how it happened.

"This was an appalling tragedy and it should never have happened."

What is the contaminated blood scandal?

A recent parliamentary report found around 7,500 patients were infected by imported blood products.

Many were patients with an inherited bleeding disorder called haemophilia.

They needed regular treatment with a clotting agent Factor VIII, which is made from donated blood.

The UK imported supplies and some turned out to be infected. Much of the plasma used to make Factor VIII came from donors like prison inmates in the US, who sold their blood.

Jason Evans was just four years old when his father Jonathan, a haemophiliac, died after being infected with HIV through contaminated Factor VIII treatment.

Jason recently discovered that in late 1984 his father had raised concerns with his doctors about Factor VIII but he says he was told "there was nothing to worry about, this is sensationalism and not to pay attention to it. And he trusted his doctor".
BBC Panorama - Contaminated Blood: The Search for the Truth
What will the inquiry do?

Families of those who died will be consulted about what form the inquiry should take.

It could be a public Hillsborough-style inquiry or a judge-led statutory inquiry, the prime minister confirmed.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the inquiry should have the potential to trigger prosecutions.

A Scottish government spokesperson said: "We were very surprised that as the new inquiry is expected to extend to Scotland, the UK government did not seek to discuss this with us in advance of their announcement. We will be seeking clarity as a matter of some urgency.

"People in England and Wales should get the same opportunity to get answers as we have already given through the Penrose Inquiry in Scotland."

Sir Peter Bottomley, co-chairman of the cross-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, said the success of the inquiry would depend on it being able to get hold of sensitive information.

"It must have powers to get documents from pharmaceutical companies and government," he said.

Why has it taken so long?

The government has been strongly criticised for dragging its heels.

Greater Manchester mayor and former health secretary Andy Burnham has repeatedly called for a Hillsborough-style probe into what happened.

Mr Burnham claimed in the Commons that a "criminal cover-up on an industrial scale" had taken place.

The Downing Street announcement came hours before the government faced possible defeat in a vote on an emergency motion about the need for an inquiry.

Will victims be financially compensated?

Payments have been made to some of the people who were infected. A fund was established to help support survivors.

If the new inquiry finds culpability it opens the door to victims seeking large compensation payouts through the courts.

Liz Carroll, chief executive of the Haemophilia Society, said: "The government has for decades denied negligence and refused to provide compensation to those affected, this inquiry will finally be able to properly consider evidence of wrongdoing."

Are blood products safe now?

Improvements in donor vetting meant that by 1986 UK patients were receiving safer treatments.

By the late 1990s, synthetic treatments for haemophilia became available, removing the infection risk.

Anyone who received a blood transfusion before 1991 is potentially at risk of Hepatitis C infection since blood donations were not screened before this date.

Blood donations are now routinely tested for infections, including hepatitis and HIV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Contaminated blood scandal inquiry announced - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A UK-wide inquiry will be held into the contaminated blood scandal that left at least 2,400 people dead, the prime minister has confirmed. A spokesman for Theresa May said it would establish the causes of the "appalling injustice" that took place in the 1970s and 1980s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's 50 years since a law that decriminalised homosexual acts in England and Wales.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ex-Ch Supt David Duckenfield faces Hillsborough manslaughter charge

# data[].attributes.subject
Ex-Ch Supt David Duckenfield faces Hillsborough manslaughter charge

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Former Ch Supt David Duckenfield faces 95 charges of manslaughter and five other senior figures will be prosecuted over the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.

Mr Duckenfield was match commander at the FA Cup semi-final when 96 Liverpool fans were fatally injured in a crush.

Ex-South Yorkshire Police (SYP) Ch Insp Sir Norman Bettison, two officers, a solicitor and a Sheffield Wednesday club secretary also face charges.

Campaigners said the charges "send a message about accountability".

Last year, new inquests into the disaster at the Liverpool v Nottingham Forest match, held at Sheffield Wednesday's ground, concluded the fans had been unlawfully killed.

The inquests found that Liverpool supporters were not responsible for the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles.

For legal reasons, Mr Duckenfield cannot be charged over the death of the 96th victim, Tony Bland, as he died four years after the disaster, prosecutors said.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) must apply to the High Court to lift an order imposed after he was prosecuted privately in 1999, which must be removed before he can be charged.

An application will be made to the High Court in a matter of weeks and a senior judge will make a ruling in due course.

The full list of individuals and charges are:

Mr Duckenfield, 72, faces manslaughter by gross negligence of 95 men, women and children

Sir Norman, 61, faces four charges of misconduct in a public office relating to alleged lies he told in the aftermath about the culpability of fans

Graham Mackrell, former Sheffield Wednesday club secretary, will be accused of breaching Health and Safety and Safety at Sports Ground legislation

Peter Metcalf, who was a solicitor acting for SYP, is charged with perverting the course of Justice, relating to changes to witness statements

Former Ch Supt Donald Denton and former Det Ch Insp Alan Foster are accused of perverting the course of justice

The six men charged over Hillsborough Hillsborough: Criminal charges explained
The defendants, other than Mr Duckenfield, will appear at Warrington Magistrates' Court on 9 August.

No organisation will face corporate charges and no-one from the ambulance service will be charged, said Sue Hemming, head of special crime and counter-terrorism at the CPS.

She explained that Sheffield Wednesday is now a "different company" and, as it is not a successor organisation, is not criminally liable for any offences that might have been committed in 1989.

The CPS brought charges following referrals from the Operation Resolve investigation into the causes of the disaster and the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) probe.

Assistant Commissioner Rob Beckley, from Operation Resolve, said: "Our inquiry looked at all aspects of the event, including the planning and the preparation for the game, the safety of the stadium and the response by the emergency services."

Twelve individuals and three organisations were referred to the CPS by the Resolve team.

The IPCC investigated the conduct of both SYP and West Midlands Police (WMP) in the days and weeks afterwards.

Any decision regarding WMP, which was brought in to carry out the original investigation into the conduct of SYP officers, will be made at a later date.

Ms Hemming made the announcement of the intended prosecutions to victims' families at a private meeting in Warrington earlier.

She said: "Following our careful review of the evidence, in accordance with the code for Crown prosecutors, I have decided that there is sufficient evidence to charge six individuals with criminal offences.

"Criminal proceedings have now commenced and the defendants have a right to a fair trial."

'We need peace'

Campaigner Trevor Hicks, whose daughters Victoria, 15, and Sarah, 19, died in the disaster, said: "There will be six people facing criminal charges who might not have done if we hadn't been resilient and all stuck together and fought this long fight.

"There are no winners in this, it doesn't bring anybody back.

"What it does do is send a message about accountability, as we keep saying, that nobody but nobody is above the law; be it the police or anybody else."

Chairwoman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, Margaret Aspinall, whose son James, 18, was killed, said: "This is definitely the start of the end.

"I think everybody needs that, I think we all need peace from Hillsborough but we can never have peace until we've got truth, justice, accountability.

"I think that's the time we'll all have peace."

Barry Devonside, whose son Christopher, 18, was killed in the disaster, said: "Everybody applauded when it was announced that the most senior police officer on that particular day will have charges presented to him."

Evelyn McDonnell Mills, whose brother Peter McDonnell, 21, died, said she was "really happy", but sad that her brother who campaigned for years and died during the new inquests never got to see their conclusion.

Pete Weatherby QC, who represents 22 of the victims' families, said they had "always known that accountability is the most difficult objective".

"They remain keen to see the criminal process properly pursued for those who have been charged... [and] hope that the memories of their loved ones and the integrity of the fans who attended Hillsborough will be respected during the process."

Lawyer Marcia Willis-Stewart, speaking on behalf other families, said: "The families are sensitive to the issues of fairness and due process and no-one wishes to prejudice or to jeopardise it.

"There are of course various legal options open to the families where decisions have been made not to prosecute, in the form of the victim and judicial review process."

Who were the 96 victims?
BBC News profiles of all those who died
At Prime Minister's Questions, Theresa May said: "I know from working closely with the families when I was home secretary that this will be a day of mixed emotions for them."

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn offered a "tribute to all of those that spent a great deal of time trying to ensure there was justice for those that died at Hillsborough".

Sir Norman has said he is "disappointed to be charged" and will "vigorously defend" his innocence.

Mr Duckenfield and Mr Denton's legal representative Ian Lewis, from JMW Solicitors said "it would be inappropriate for me as their solicitor, or for my clients themselves, to make any comment".

Mr Metcalf declined to comment.

Dr Alan Billings, the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner, said he hoped the start of criminal proceedings would "lead to a measure of closure for the family members who have experienced a long and traumatic process".

Sheffield Wednesday said the club had no comment to make.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
David Duckenfield faces Hillsborough charges with five others - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Former Ch Supt David Duckenfield faces 95 charges of manslaughter and five other senior figures will be prosecuted over the 1989 Hillsborough disaster. Mr Duckenfield was match commander at the FA Cup semi-final when 96 Liverpool fans were fatally injured in a crush.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's crunch time for the government's EU Withdrawal Bill - the bill which aims to ensure European law will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit.

This key plank of legislation, once known as the Great Repeal Bill, has reached committee stage in the House of Commons, which is the bit where there will be hundreds of attempts by MPs to change its wording.

What it's all about

As its informal name suggests, the repeal bill will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which took Britain into the EU and meant that European law took precedence over laws passed in the UK Parliament. It will also end the power of the European Court of Justice in the UK.

All existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit.

The government says it wants to avoid a "black hole in our statute book" and avoid disruption to businesses and individual citizens as the UK leaves the EU.

The UK Parliament can then "amend, repeal and improve" individual laws as necessary.

Ensuring the continuity of EU rules and regulations is also meant to aid trade negotiations with the EU because the UK will already meet all of its product stands.

Sounds complicated...

The bill is likely to be "one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK", a report by the House of Commons library predicts, with "major swathes of the statute book" needing to be examined to see how they will work after Brexit.

This is because working out which bits of UK law came from the EU is not as simple as it may sound.

In fact, it presents a "unique challenge", a House of Lords committee warned, because "the body of EU law is found in a number of different places, and in a number of different forms".

Simply transposing all EU law into UK legislation will not be enough, the government's White Paper on the bill says.

Swathes of UK law "will no longer work" on exit, for example because they refer to EU institutions.

Not all of this can be done through the repeal bill, so the government plans to create powers to "correct the statute book where necessary" - without full Parliamentary scrutiny.

This power - known as Henry VIII power - is the one of the most controversial features of the bill (see below).

More complications are presented by the government's negotiations with the EU, which will be taking place while the bill is passing through Parliament.

Those talks could shape what the UK's post-Brexit laws look like - but the repeal bill will need to be done and dusted by the day the UK leaves.

What's Henry VIII got to do with it?

The government plans to enact its "corrections" to the statute book using what are known as Henry VIII powers, after the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation.

Given that this will not involve the usual Parliamentary scrutiny process, opposition parties have protested, with Labour claiming ministers were being handed "sweeping powers" to make hasty, ill thought-out legislation.

Ministers have attempted to reassure critics by saying such measures will be time-limited and not used to make policy changes.

In total, the government estimates that 800 to 1,000 measures called statutory instruments will be required to make sure the bill functions properly.

How much EU law is there?

A lot.

The government's White Paper says there is "no single figure" for this, but that there are believed to be 12,000 EU regulations (one type of EU law) in force, while Parliament has passed 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation and 186 acts which incorporate a degree of EU influence.

The total body of European law, dating back to 1958, is known as the Acquis Communautaire.

It binds all member states and in 2010 was estimated to consist of about 80,000 items, covering everything from workers' rights to environment and trade.

As well as regulations, this includes EU treaties, directions and European Court of Justice rulings.

New EU legislation is being created all the time and will continue to apply to the UK until it leaves.

Different types of EU legislation work in different ways, and will be treated differently by the bill. So regulations, which apply automatically in the UK, will be converted into UK law.

But directives require a new UK law to come into force - this legislation will be preserved by the bill.
Reality check: How much UK law comes from the EU?
What's happening when?

MPs have already voted to approve the second reading of the bill, by 326 votes to 290. But there are many hurdles ahead and on Tuesday the line-by-line scrutiny of how it will operate begins.

As tends to happen with legislation deemed to be of constitutional importance, this 'committee stage' is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, so all MPs can take part.

Eight days have been allocated for this process, which will be followed by more stages including the bill's passage through the House of Lords.

The plan is for it to be passed ahead of the UK's exit from the EU but to become law only when it actually leaves, in March 2019.
Read more: A guide to the EU bill's journey through Parliament
What do other parties say?

Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems all opposed the bill at second reading, and MPs from all parties - with the exception of the DUP - are now trying to amend it at committee stage.

Labour's suggested changes include trying to maintain a role for the European Court of Justice during the transition phase planned after March 2019.

There is also a cross-party attempt to prevent the UK from leaving the EU without a deal in place.

After Brexit

Until the UK actually leaves, EU law will continue to apply. But after leaving, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (as it will be by then) comes into force.

The government says having the legislation in place will ensure a "calm and orderly exit". Then begins the long-term process of the government, and Parliament, choosing what it wants to do with the laws it has incorporated from the EU.

With so many pieces of legislation to be considered, this could turn out to be a "major drain on resources" and should not "crowd out" other government policies, the Institute for Government think tank has warned.

How about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Some of the EU laws are in areas that are controlled by the devolved administrations - so do they now become part of Westminster law, or will they be added to the statute book in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

It is not entirely clear how this will work, although the government says it will work closely with the devolved administrations.

It also predicts the repeal process will result in a "a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration", as powers in devolved areas are repatriated from Brussels.

But the bill has been described by the Scottish government as an "executive power grab".

Ministers have confirmed the devolved administrations will be asked to consent to the bill - but this does not amount to a veto.

The UK government has warned that blocking the bill could have "very significant consequences", leaving "a hole in our law".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's crunch time for the government's EU Withdrawal Bill - the bill which aims to ensure European law will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit. This key plank of legislation, once known as the Great Repeal Bill, has reached committee stage in the House of Commons, which is the bit where there will be hundreds of attempts by MPs to change its wording.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights have rejected a plea from the parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard to intervene in his case.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates lost their final legal bid to take their son to the US for treatment.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital believe Charlie has no chance of survival.

The court agreed, concluding that further treatment would "continue to cause Charlie significant harm".

Charlie is thought to be one of 16 children in the world to have mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a condition which causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

His parents had previously seen a Supreme Court challenge to continue Charlie's life support fail.

European Court judges have now concluded it was most likely Charlie was "being exposed to continued pain, suffering and distress" and undergoing experimental treatment with "no prospects of success... would offer no benefit".

They said the application presented by the parents was "inadmissible" and said the court's decision was "final".

The court "also considered that it was appropriate to lift the interim measure" which had required doctors to continue providing life support treatment to Charlie.

BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh said it is likely Charlie's life support machine will be turned off within a few days following discussions between the hospital and his family.

Charlie Gard: Timeline of parent's legal battle:

3 March 2017: Mr Justice Francis starts to analyse the case at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London

11 April: Mr Justice Francis says doctors can stop providing life-support treatment

3 May: Charlie's parents ask Court of Appeal judges to consider the case

23 May: Three Court of Appeal judges analyse the case

25 May: Court of Appeal judges dismiss the couple's appeal

8 June: Charlie's parents lose fight in the Supreme Court

20 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights start to analyse the case after lawyers representing Charlie's parents make written submissions

27 June: Judges in the European Court of Human Rights refuse to intervene

Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, raised £1.3m on a crowdfunding site to pay for the experimental treatment in the US.

Ms Yates had already indicated the money would go towards a charity for mitochondrial depletion syndromes if Charlie did "not get his chance".

"We'd like to save other babies and children because these medications have been proven to work and we honestly have so much belief in them.

"If Charlie doesn't get this chance, we will make sure that other innocent babies and children will be saved", she said.

Great Ormond Street Hospital said the decision marked "the end of what has been a very difficult process" and its priority was to "provide every possible support to Charlie's parents as we prepare for the next steps".

"There will be no rush to change Charlie's care and any future treatment plans will involve careful planning and discussion," a hospital spokesman said.

In April a High Court judge ruled against the trip to America and said Charlie should be allowed to die with dignity.

Three Court of Appeal judges upheld the ruling in May and three Supreme Court justices dismissed a further challenge by the parents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charlie Gard parents lose European court appeal - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Judges at the European Court of Human Rights have rejected a plea from the parents of terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard to intervene in his case. Chris Gard and Connie Yates lost their final legal bid to take their son to the US for treatment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Making a Murderer: Brendan Dassey decision upheld by court

# data[].attributes.subject
Making a Murderer: Brendan Dassey decision upheld by court

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An US appeals court has upheld a decision to overturn the conviction of Brendan Dassey, whose case was the focus of documentary Making a Murderer.

Dassey and his uncle Steven Avery were convicted of murdering a young woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005.

His conviction was overturned in 2016 on the basis his confession, made as a 16-year-old, was coerced.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Chicago, backed the ruling on Thursday.

But the 27-year-old remains in jail, facing the possibility of a retrial.

Lawyers have vowed to fight to free Dassey, whose case garnered international attention after featuring in the popular Netflix series.

Confession 'by a thousand cuts'

In a joint statement, lawyers said they were "overjoyed", adding: "We look forward to working to secure his release from prison as soon as possible. As of today's date, Brendan Dassey has lost 4,132 days of his life to prison."

Making a Murderer investigated the killing of Ms Halbach, whose charred remains were found at Avery's car salvage yard a week after she went there to photograph a minivan for sale, and the subsequent court cases.

Dassey, then just 16 years old, confessed to helping his uncle Avery - who had already served 18 years for a crime he did not commit - rape, kill and mutilate Ms Halbach.

He was sentenced to life in prison.

But the documentary filmmakers cast doubt on the legal process used to convict Dassey and Avery.

In 2016, Judge William Duffin ordered he be free immediately after finding investigators in the 2007 trial made "repeated false promises" false promises to Dassey by assuring him "he had nothing to worry about".

When considered with "Dassey's age, intellectual deficits, and the absence of a supportive adult", he considered the confession coerced.

But Dassey remained in jail while prosecutors appealed the decision.

In Chicago on Thursday, they lost that appeal.

The court described the method used to get Dassey to confess as "death by a thousand cuts", with judge David Hamilton saying the decision "breaks new ground and poses troubling questions for police and prosecutors".

The ruling means Dassey could be released in the next 90 days.

However, Johnny Koremenos, a spokesman for Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel, said it seemed likely they would appeal it once more.

"We anticipate seeking review by the entire Seventh Circuit or the United States Supreme Court and hope that today's erroneous decision will be reversed," he told new agency Reuters in an email.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Making a Murderer: Brendan Dassey decision upheld by court - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An US appeals court has upheld a decision to overturn the conviction of Brendan Dassey, whose case was the focus of documentary Making a Murderer. Dassey and his uncle Steven Avery were convicted of murdering a young woman, Teresa Halbach, in 2005.

# data[].attributes.headline
UAE princesses guilty of servant abuse in Belgium

# data[].attributes.subject
UAE princesses guilty of servant abuse in Belgium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Eight princesses from the UAE have been convicted of human trafficking and degrading treatment of their servants by a Brussels court.

They were given 15-month suspended jail terms and ordered to pay €165,000 (£145,000; $185,000) each, with half the sum suspended.

They were accused of holding more than 20 servants they brought with them on a 2008 visit in near slavery.

But they were acquitted of the more serious charge of inhumane treatment.

The princesses had denied all the charges.

Their lawyer, Stephen Monod, said he was "satisfied to note that the Belgian justice has appropriately assessed this case which has generated many misconceptions for nearly 10 years".
Raped, pregnant and afraid of being jailed Kuwait's abused domestic workers have 'nowhere to turn'
He was unable to confirm that his clients would pay their fines, saying they had not yet decided whether to appeal.

'No days off'

Sheikha Hamda al-Nahyan and her seven daughters did not attend the trial and rights activists said it was highly unlikely that the UAE would extradite them had they been jailed.

The case came to light when one of the servants escaped from the hotel where the princesses had hired a floor of luxury suites.

They said they were forced to be available 24 hours a day, had to sleep on the floor, were never given a day off, were prevented from leaving the hotel and were forced to eat the princesses' leftovers.

But the case took nine years to get under way, partly due to legal challenges to proceedings by the defence.

Myria, a Belgian rights group which helped bring the case to court, said the importance of Friday's judgement "can hardly be overstated".

"Not because it is the end stage of a procedure that has been epic in length and complexity, nor because the location of the transgression was a prestigious hotel and the main perpetrators princesses.

"Domestic personnel hailing from all over the world, employed in an administrative and social limbo, in a secluded area presumed beyond the reach of the rule of law, were heard in a court of law and recognised as victims of human trafficking."

At the time of the trial, Nicholas McGeehan, an expert on migrant workers in the Gulf for Human Rights Watch, told the BBC that it would be "hugely significant" if one of the wealthiest families in the world was publicly linked with trafficking and slavery.

He argued that despite being abolished in law, domestic slavery continues in Gulf states - "perpetuated by ruling elites for whom it serves an important societal purpose in conferring status".

He added: "It's top-down and tolerated."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
UAE princesses guilty of servant abuse in Belgium - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Eight princesses from the UAE have been convicted of human trafficking and degrading treatment of their servants by a Brussels court. They were given 15-month suspended jail terms and ordered to pay €165,000 (£145,000; $185,000) each, with half the sum suspended.

# data[].attributes.headline
Queen's Speech summary: Bill-by-bill at a glance

# data[].attributes.subject
Queen's Speech summary: Bill-by-bill at a glance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This year's Queen's Speech comes in the wake of a general election that left the Conservatives without a majority. Legislation to deliver Brexit dominated the government's plans. Here is a bill-by-bill guide to what is in the 2017 Queen's Speech - and what was left out.

Brexit
Repeal Bill

This measure will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and convert EU law into UK law

The UK Parliament (and where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be free to make any future changes to its laws

Customs Bill
The bill will ensure:

the UK has a standalone UK customs regime on exit

flexibility to accommodate future trade agreements with the EU and others

changes can be made to the UK's VAT and excise regimes on exit from the EU, whatever the outcome of negotiations

the government can collect payments of customs duties, administer the customs regime and tackle duty evasion

control over the import and export of goods

Trade Bill
puts in place a legal framework to allow Britain to strike free trade deals with countries around the world while ensuring domestic businesses are protected from unfair trading practices
Immigration Bill

enables the government to end the free movement of EU nationals into the UK, but still allows the country to attract "the brightest and the best".

EU nationals and their families will be "subject to relevant UK law"

Fisheries Bill
enables the UK to control access to its waters and set UK fishing quotas once it has left the EU
Agriculture Bill
This measure will ensure an effective system is in place to support UK farmers and protect the natural environment after the UK leaves the EU and therefore the Common Agricultural Policy
Nuclear Safeguards Bill

establishes a UK nuclear safeguards regime as the UK leaves the EU and Euratom

ensures the UK continues to meet its international obligations for nuclear safeguards, as applies to civil nuclear material through the International Atomic Energy Agency

to support international nuclear non-proliferation and protect UK electricity supplied by nuclear power

International Sanctions Bill

ensures that as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the UK continues to play a central role in negotiating global sanctions to counter threats of terrorism, conflict and the proliferation of nuclear weapons, as well as bringing about changes in behaviour

returns decision-making powers on non-UN sanctions to the UK

enables the UK's continued compliance with international law after the UK's exit from the EU

allows the UK to impose sanctions to ensure compliance with obligations under international law, including asset freezes, travel bans and trade and market restrictions

ensures individuals and organisations can challenge or request a review of sanctions imposed on them

exempts or licenses certain types of activity, such as payments for food and medicine that would otherwise be restricted by sanctions

amends regulations for anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing and to pass new ones

Economy
Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

extends compulsory motor vehicle insurance to cover the use of automated vehicles, to ensure compensation claims continue to be paid quickly, fairly and easily, in line with longstanding insurance practice

allows the government to require the installation of charge points for electric vehicles at motorway service areas and large fuel retailers, and to require a set of common technical and operational standards. This will ensure charge points are convenient to access and work seamlessly right across the UK

These provisions would apply to England, Wales and Scotland

Space Industry Bill

new powers to license a wide range of new commercial spaceflights, including vertically launched rockets, space planes, satellite operation, spaceports and other technologies

a comprehensive and proportionate regulatory framework to manage risk, ensuring commercial spaceflight in the UK remains safe

measures to regulate unauthorised access and interference with spacecraft, spaceports and associated infrastructure, particularly in aviation security

promote public safety by providing a regulatory framework to cover operational insurance, indemnity and liability

High Speed 2 Phase 2A Bill

allows cities in the north of England and Scotland to enjoy increased capacity, improved connections, economic benefits and reduced journey times of HS2 sooner by accelerating the building of a connection to Crewe

powers to compulsorily acquire the land needed for the railway, construct the railway and operate it

deemed planning permission to deliver the scheme. Details of planning will be developed on a site-by-site basis in coordination with the local planning authority

set out the way railway regulation will apply to the railway

Goods Mortgages Bill

repeals the Victorian-era Bills of Sale Acts and replaces them with a Goods Mortgages Act that enables individuals to use their existing goods (such as a vehicle) as security for a loan, while retaining possession of the goods

increases protection for borrowers who get into financial difficulties, by introducing a new requirement for a lender to obtain a court order before seizing goods where a borrower has made significant repayments

helps borrowers in financial difficulties by giving borrowers the right to voluntary termination by handing over their vehicle or other goods to the lender

provides protection for innocent third parties who buy a vehicle subject to a logbook loan that may be at risk of repossession, and makes clearer that borrowers who knowingly sell goods with a logbook loan attached could be committing fraud

Smart Meter Bill

puts consumers in control of their energy use, helping them understand their energy and bills, bringing an end to estimated billing and transforming the experience of pre-paying customers

protects the operation of the national data and communication service to safeguard smart services at all times

ensures smart meters will be offered to every household and business by the end of 2020

introduces a Special Administrative Regime, which will provide insurance for the national smart meter infrastructure in the unlikely event that the company responsible for it becomes insolvent

National Insurance Contributions Bill

legislates for the National Insurance contribution (NICs) changes announced in the 2016 Budget and 2016 Autumn Statement

makes the NICs system fairer and simpler

does not relate to the discussion of Class 4 contributions at the time of the Spring Budget 2017

Travel Protection Bill

improves protection for holidaymakers by updating the UK's financial protection scheme for holidays

ensures the Air Travel Organisers' Licence (Atol) travel protection scheme for holidaymakers keeps pace with innovation in the online travel market, and appropriate protection is in place regardless of whether consumers book online or the High Street

updates the Atol scheme and aligns it with enhancements to the EU and the UK package travel regulations that predate people booking holidays on the internet

Draft Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill

protects victims of domestic violence and abuse

establishes a domestic violence and abuse commissioner, to stand up for victims and survivors, raise public awareness, monitor the response of statutory agencies and local authorities and hold the justice system to account in tackling domestic abuse

defines domestic abuse in law to underpin all other measures in the bill

creates a consolidated new domestic abuse civil prevention and protection order regime

ensures if abusive behaviour involves a child, the court can hand down a sentence that reflects the devastating life-long impact that abuse can have on the child

applies to England and Wales only

Civil Liability Bill

cracks down on fraudulent whiplash claims and is expected to reduce motor insurance premiums by about £35 per year

ensures a fair, transparent and proportionate system of compensation is in place for damages paid to genuinely injured personal injury claimants

ensures full and fair compensation is paid to genuinely injured claimants

applies to England and Wales

Courts Bill

ends direct cross-examination of domestic violence victims by their alleged perpetrators in the family courts and allows more victims to participate in trials without having to meet their alleged assailant face to face

enables those charged with some less serious criminal offences to opt to plead guilty, accept a conviction and pay a statutory fixed penalty online, to free up court time for more serious cases. An example would be a first offender who admits travelling on a train without purchasing a ticket

introduces digital services that will allow businesses to pursue their cases quickly, enabling them to recover debts more easily

provides better working environment for judges, allowing more leadership positions in the judiciary to be offered on a fixed term, enabling judges to be deployed more flexibly to improve opportunities for career progression

applies to England and Wales and in part to Northern Ireland and Scotland

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill

establishes a new statutory body, accountable to Parliament, with responsibility for coordinating the provision of debt advice, money guidance and pension guidance

enables the body's activities to be funded through existing levies on pension schemes and the financial services industry

transfers the regulation of claims management services to the Financial Conduct Authority, and transfers complaints-handling responsibility to the Financial Ombudsman Service

ensures the Financial Conduct Authority has the necessary powers to implement a claims management regulatory regime. This will include a new power that will allow the Financial Conduct Authority to cap the fees that claims management companies charge consumers, as well as ensuring a more robust authorisation process for new companies who wish to enter the market

Data Protection Bill

gives people new rights to "require major social media platforms to delete information held about them at the age of 18"

allows police and judicial authorities to continue to exchange information quickly and easily with the UK's international partners in the fight against terrorism and other serious crimes

modernises and updates the regime for data processing by law enforcement agencies. The regime will cover both domestic processing and cross-border transfers of personal data

updates the powers and sanctions available to the information commissioner

Draft Patient Protection Bill

improves how the NHS investigates and learns from mistakes by establishing an independent Health Service Safety Investigation Body

ensures serious incidents can be investigated without the need for expensive, lawyer-led inquiries

applies to England and Wales

Defence
Armed Forces Bill
provides service personnel with "modern, flexible" opportunities to serve their country in a way that allows them to balance their family responsibilities and that better suits their lifestyle aspirations and circumstances, including forms of part-time service

Housing
Draft Tenants' Fees Bill

bans landlords and agents charging letting fees as a condition of their tenancy

enforces the ban with provision for tenants to be able to recover unlawfully charged fees

applies to England only - some minor amendments to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 may apply to England and Wales

Other measures

The legislative programme will also include three finance bills to implement Budget decisions, a technical bill to ratify several "minor EU agreements" and further bills to affect the UK's exit from the bloc.

What was not in the Queen's Speech?
Flagship Conservative manifesto policies that found no place in the government agenda include:

Social care funding, which opponents branded a "dementia tax" - a fresh consultation on the subject is instead promised

Means-testing of the winter fuel payment

Anything on pensioners or pensions

Grammar school plans are reined in, with a promise only to work with Parliament to bring forward proposals for school improvement "that can command a majority"

Free vote on fox hunting

Fixed-term parliaments

Free school lunches

Energy price cap - the speech states ministers are "considering the best way" to protect those on the poorest-value tariffs and suggests this could be done by regulators rather than legislative action

This report was first published on 21 June 2017.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This year's Queen's Speech comes in the wake of a general election that left the Conservatives without a majority. Legislation to deliver Brexit dominated the government's plans. Here is a bill-by-bill guide to what is in the 2017 Queen's Speech - and what was left out.

# data[].attributes.headline
Paul O'Neill jailed after directing child abuse in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.subject
Paul O'Neill jailed after directing child abuse in the Philippines

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A former teacher who paid men to abuse children as young as four in the Philippines while he watched online has been jailed for life.

Paul O'Neill, 57, from Nottinghamshire, ordered the abuse in advance, giving specific instructions on what he wanted to see, Nottingham Crown Court heard.

He admitted three counts of rape and a further 27 sexual offences. He was told he would serve a minimum of 12 years.

The CPS said the virtual rape case was thought to be the first of its kind.
Updates on this story and more from the East Midlands
The court heard O'Neill, who retired from teaching in August, used chat logs to instruct adult abusers in the Philippines.

The married father paid thousands of pounds over several years to arrange abuse to satisfy his "fetishes" with child abuse, virginity and incest.

'Vile abuse'

Sentencing O'Neill, Judge Gregory Dickinson said: "You demanded that these children should suffer pain and degradation. You derived pleasure and satisfaction from seeing little girls being deflowered.

"Some of these ghastly events you recorded, for repeat reviewing. You are a danger to children. Given the chance, you will offend again.

"You are obsessed with, and addicted to, this most vile and horrific abuse. This is a case without parallel on the experience of all of us involved: police, counsel and judge.

"This is even worse than a rape campaign."

O'Neill, of Wroxham Drive, Wollaton Vale, enjoyed the financial imbalance between him and his victims, who were girls aged between four and 15. Some were from families desperate for cash for medicine and hospital bills, the court heard.

On one occasion, he offered to double his payment if the victim was aged just five.

Prosecutor James Varley told the court: "Mr O'Neill, a retired teacher, a bastion of the local church community and a Sunday school teacher, appeared to be a wholesome married father of two.

"In fact, he had a dark side to him which he kept concealed - he was obsessed with the sexual exploitation of pre-pubescent girls... and enjoyed the sexual abuse and degradation of young girls."

'World of depravity'

Shaun Smith QC, defending, said O'Neill had become addicted to commissioning the abuse, and "de-sensitised" to the damage he was causing.

He said: "What started out as looking at matters which he had obviously Googled quickly escalated into the offending, and sadly - as is all too common on the internet - it developed with speed and seriousness.

"From the privacy and safety of his own home it was all too easy for him to be sunk into this world of depravity."

Offences admitted by O'Neill included child rape, conspiracy to rape, arranging the commission of child abuse and child prostitution.

He also pleaded guilty to making 3,416 indecent images of children between 2008 and 2016, and possessing a further 2,832 prohibited images when he was arrested in November last year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Paul O'Neill jailed after directing child abuse in the Philippines - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A former teacher who paid men to abuse children as young as four in the Philippines while he watched online has been jailed for life. Paul O'Neill, 57, from Nottinghamshire, ordered the abuse in advance, giving specific instructions on what he wanted to see, Nottingham Crown Court heard.

# data[].attributes.body
Far reaching ramifications...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pete Weatherby QC is one of Britain's top lawyers. He represented 22 families in the Hillsborough inquests. On the morning of 16 June, BBC Radio Wales interviewed him about the Grenfell Tower fire. He said:

I think this is a key feature that may have been missed... There'd been swinging legal aid cuts.

Lives might have been saved

Weatherby continued:

We wonder at this point whether in fact those cuts prevented those residents taking proper advice, and whether if they'd taken proper advice they may have been able to challenge the fire safety problems at an earlier stage and there would have then followed proper meaningful remedial work - not just cladding to make the building look better, but actually safety provision to save lives.

Residents of Grenfell Tower have been warning about fire risks for years, only for their concerns to fall on deaf ears. In November 2016, a member of the Grenfell Action Group eventually wrote:

It is a truly terrifying thought but the Grenfell Action Group firmly believe that only a catastrophic event will expose the ineptitude and incompetence of our landlord, the KCTMO [The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation], and bring an end to the dangerous living conditions and neglect of health and safety legislation that they inflict upon their tenants and leaseholders.

Had residents had access to legal aid, Weatherby suggests, their concerns may well have been acted on, and lives might have been saved.

"They couldn't get lawyers"

Weatherby is right. Grenfell residents did try to get lawyers. But they couldn't, thanks to legal aid cuts, according to campaigner Pilgrim Tucker, who worked with them for several months. Speaking to BBC Newsnight on 14 June, Tucker said:

These are poor residents - or they're ordinary residents. They're not the wealthy. They're not the Camerons. They can't afford private schools, they can't afford lawyers. They tried to get lawyers but, because of the legal aid cuts, they couldn't get lawyers.

Other lawyers have also pointed out the role of legal aid cuts in the tragedy:

People in #GrenfellTower wanted to take on the landlords re fears about fire but they couldn;t afford it and there's no legal aid #newsnight

- Daphne Romney QC (@DaphneRomneyQC) June 14, 2017

But beyond the BBC, there has been barely a mention of the impact of legal aid cuts on Grenfell's residents in the media. In fact, swathes of our press have instead chosen to blame individual residents, residents as a whole or the EU.

The scandal

The latest spate of legal aid cuts began under New Labour. Pursuing a vision of "a market-driven economy in legal aid", the New Labour government introduced rounds of cuts in 2004, 2007 and 2010.

Then, the Conservative-led Coalition government introduced legal aid cuts on steroids. In 2012, it obliterated civil legal aid for social welfare cases, including housing (except in limited circumstances). That left "thousands of the most vulnerable without essential legal advice and support", according to Amnesty International. The aim? To save £350m per year. The result? People like the Grenfell residents could no longer get legal help.

Those cuts came into effect on 1 April 2013. Just weeks later, Kensington and Chelsea Council allegedly used lawyers to try to silence Grenfell residents:

council threating blogger who highlighted the danger in #GrenfellTower pic.twitter.com/kzUkCbuWSx

- LIAM BYRNE (@byrneliam854) June 14, 2017

Help at last

The Grenfell residents finally look set to get some legal help, as lawyers rush to offer assistance:

If residents of Grenfell Tower want legal help with compensation and responsibility many lawyers will be happy to help. For free. I will.

- Jo Maugham QC (@JolyonMaugham) June 15, 2017

But that is not enough.

It is down to government - both national and local - to take responsibility for the devastating facts: Grenfell's residents raised concerns over a period of years. The council allegedly employed lawyers to try to silence them, presumably using taxpayers' money. Thanks to legal aid cuts, Grenfell's residents could not escalate their safety concerns. Now, we have seen loss of life on a devastating scale.

The Canary contacted both KCTMO and Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council for comment. KCTMO had not responded at the time of publication. A council spokesperson said:

We have heard a number of theories about the cause of the fire at Grenfell Tower. All of these will be thoroughly investigated as part of the formal investigation which has already begun.

You can listen to the BBC Radio Wales interview with Weatherby here:

https://www.thecanary.co/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/weatherby-qc-trimmed.m4a
Get Involved
- If you're a lawyer and you're willing to help, contact the North Kensington Law Centre on 020 8969 7473.

- Donate to the Grenfell Tower Appeal.

- Join Justice for Grenfell outside the Department for Communities and Local Government at 6pm on 16 June.
Featured image via screengrab

Bex Sumner
Bex, the UK Editor of The Canary, wrote for a number of campaigning organisations in the not-for-profit sector before joining The Canary. She believes that a functioning democracy requires informed consent, and is delighted to be part of a team of journalists whose loyalty is to citizens, not to corporations. She lives in South West Wales with her partner and son.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
One of Britain's top lawyers finally mentions the Grenfell scandal the media won't talk about, live on the BBC [AUDIO] | The Canary

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pete Weatherby QC is one of Britain's top lawyers. He represented 22 families in the Hillsborough inquests. On the morning of 16 June, BBC Radio Wales interviewed him about the Grenfell Tower fire. He said: I think this is a key feature that may have been missed... There'd been swinging legal aid cuts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Michelle Carter guilty of texts urging boyfriend's suicide

# data[].attributes.subject
Michelle Carter guilty of texts urging boyfriend's suicide

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A Massachusetts judge has ruled that a woman whose texts encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide is guilty of his death.

Michelle Carter, now 20, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for her messages to 18-year-old Conrad Roy urging him to kill himself.

He took his own life on 13 July 2014 by running a generator in his vehicle in a car park in Fairhaven, Massachusetts.

Ms Carter, who could face up to 20 years in prison, wept in court.

Judge Lawrence Moniz said Ms Carter was guilty of "wanton and reckless conduct" by sending Mr Roy a message instructing him to get back in the truck, which he had exited as it filled with fumes.

The judge also found that Mr Roy's death was consistent with his earlier suicide attempts.

The accused broke down in tears as the judge delivered his verdict.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michelle Carter guilty of texts urging boyfriend's suicide - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A Massachusetts judge has ruled that a woman whose texts encouraged her boyfriend to commit suicide is guilty of his death. Michelle Carter, now 20, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for her messages to 18-year-old Conrad Roy urging him to kill himself.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK's highest court has rejected an appeal by a mother and daughter in their legal battle for women from Northern Ireland to receive free abortions on the NHS in England.

The Supreme Court challenge centred on the case of a Northern Ireland woman who became pregnant when she was 15.

She went to England with her mother for an abortion in a private clinic in 2012, at a cost of about £900.

Northern Ireland's abortion law is much stricter than the rest of the UK.

Terminations are only permitted if a woman's life is at risk, or there is a permanent or serious risk to her mental or physical health.

Rape, incest and fatal foetal abnormalities are not circumstances in which abortions can be performed legally in Northern Ireland.

Judges 'sharply divided'

The mother and daughter took the case against UK Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who conceded that he had the power to make provisions for Northern Ireland residents to access free NHS abortions in England.

They claimed that it was "unlawful" that he had not done so.

However, Supreme Court judges dismissed the mother and daughter's appeal by a narrow majority of three to two.

Delivering the ruling, Lord Wilson said it was not for the court to "address the ethical considerations which underlie the difference" in the law regarding abortion in Northern Ireland and England.

However, he said the five judges had been "sharply divided" on the case.

He expressed sympathy for women facing unwanted pregnancies in Northern Ireland and said the law put many of them in a "deeply unenviable position".

He said they faced "embarrassment, difficulty, and uncertainty" in their "urgent need to raise the necessary funds" to travel to Great Britain for private abortions.

Lord Wilson conceded that the financial burden had added to their "emotional strain".

But he did not rule in favour of the women's case, and dismissed their appeal, a decision with which his fellow judges Lord Reed and Lord Hughes agreed.

Their judgement acknowledged that under devolution, separate authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are responsible for providing free health services to those usually resident there.

'Democratic decision'

It stated that the health secretary was entitled to restrict access to NHS abortions "in line with this scheme for local decision-making".

The judgement added that Mr Hunt was "entitled to afford respect to the democratic decision of the people of Northern Ireland not to fund abortion services".

Lord Wilson added that Lady Hale and Lord Kerr gave dissenting judgments and would have allowed the appeal.

The mother and daughter, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said they will now take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.

In a joint statement, they said they were "really encouraged that two of the judges found in our favour" and that all of the judges had been "sympathetic" to their situation.

"We have come this far and fought hard because the issues are so important for women in Northern Ireland. For this reason, we will do all that we can to take the fight further.

"We have instructed our legal team to file an application with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, to protect the human rights of the many other women who make the lonely journey to England every week because they are denied access to basic healthcare services in their own country."

Devolutionary powers

Last year, more than 700 women from Northern Ireland travelled to England for an abortion last year, according to UK Department of Health figures.

The number was 100 fewer than the year before.

The mother and daughter initially took their case to the High Court in London in 2014, when the court heard they had struggled to part-raise the funds for a private abortion in England.

High Court judge, Mr Justice King, ruled at the time that the health secretary duty's to promote a comprehensive health service in England "is a duty in relation to the physical and mental health of the people of England".

He said that duty did not extend "to persons who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland".

His 2014 ruling also said that devolutionary powers had to be taken into consideration.

The following year, the women took their case to the Court of Appeal but again, they lost the argument.

'Significant strides'

The Supreme Court is the final court of appeal in the UK for civil cases.

However, the mother and daughter's lawyer, Angela Jackman, said on Wednesday her clients had made "significant strides" since the original High Court ruling.

She added that the split decision of the Supreme Court judges provided them with a "firm basis" for taking their case forward to the European Court of Human Rights.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which was among organisations that participated in the legal challenge, said it was disappointed with the overall verdict of the Supreme Court.

BPAS's chief executive Ann Furedi said: "NHS-funded abortion care may not have been declared a legal right for Northern Irish women today, but it is morally right to provide it."

She added: "They deserve the same care and compassion as all other UK citizens."

However, the Iona Institute, which is anti-abortion, said Northern Ireland "should be proud of its life-saving abortion law".

The Christian organisation added: "At a time when scientific advances have given us an amazing 'window' into babies in the womb we are right to continue to reject the permissive British abortion model."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK's highest court has rejected an appeal by a mother and daughter in their legal battle for women from Northern Ireland to receive free abortions on the NHS in England. The Supreme Court challenge centred on the case of a Northern Ireland woman who became pregnant when she was 15.

# data[].attributes.body
Take a look at the mitigation, what do you think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning the two girls would be murderers, having taken their time to batter a vulnerable woman to death with a variety of weapons. The attack lasted for seven hours.

Then aged 13 and 14, the pair spent the early evening roaming the streets of Hartlepool drinking strong cider, smoking pilfered cigarettes, and taking selfies. Despite the drinking and drug-taking - the older girl had also taken illicit prescription medicine - they were not atypical teenagers.

They frequently posted on Facebook, declaring love and eternal friendship to a multitude of friends. They liked clothes, makeup, and styling their hair.

In court, much was made of a message sent about five weeks before the murder, where the younger girl referred to the older as her "partner in crime" and proclaimed: "We will be with each other through thick and thin."

Was it a harbinger of what was to happen? Or phrases people - especially excitable teenagers - use?
Failures revealed over Angela Wrightson murder Can children be natural born killers? Teenage girls sentenced for torture killing The chaotic life and brutal death of Angela Wrightson
There was no indication the two of them would launch such a brutal attack. The judge, Lord Justice Globe, warned the jury to bear in mind the younger girl had no history of violence. While the older girl had lashed out at staff at a care home, she also had no history of causing or attempting to cause serious harm.

The pair were not off the radar, hidden away in an abusive family home. They were both in the care of the local authority. Children's Services knew about them. They had support workers, foster carers, and were catered for at special educational centres. The older girl had a mental health team and had received therapy and suggestions on how to manage her anger.

There have been reports in the media that the girls frequently "escaped" from their care homes. But there was no question of "escape". They weren't locked up, they'd done nothing to suggest they should be.

Both were allowed to visit friends in the evening, and foster parents and support workers would drive them into town and collect them afterwards.

They had known each other since early childhood but weren't especially close until a few months before the murder. They enjoyed hanging around with each other - the younger girl said the older was "fun" and "not boring" and they met up "every other day".

The younger girl was interested in a couple of boys and would "inbox" them, as she called it. The older enjoyed rap music but also liked One Direction. They were both fans of Cheryl Fernandez-Versini and their favourite song was I Don't Care.

The friendship was not encouraged by either girls' carers. Each family thought the other girl encouraged theirs to go missing. But they were from the same part of Hartlepool and naturally gravitated towards each other, and to the Stephen Street area, where both had family.

It was not a particularly intense relationship. Both named a handful of other girls as their closest friends. Both would go missing, get drunk, smoke and stay out late - with or without each other.

Angela Wrightson was a vulnerable alcoholic who lived in Stephen Street. Her house was known locally as a place where underage drinkers could hang out. Both girls had been there before and Ms Wrightson would buy the alcohol for them.

However, that night, some terrible alchemy led to a brutal, bloody and sustained attack, culminating in murder.

Ms Wrightson was left dead - having been tortured with a variety of weapons over a prolonged period.

How had this happened? Other cases of children who have killed in pairs shed little light on this case. The most notorious, the Bulger killers Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had set out to abduct and murder a child.

It was accepted by all parties in court that Ms Wrightson's murderers did not set out that evening to harm anyone, let alone kill them.

No-one really knows what happened inside 14 Stephen Street that night. The older girl, drunk and high on prescription drugs, said she had passed out several times, or had fallen asleep. The younger claimed not to remember.

Although not pre-meditated, the murder wasn't a one-off explosion of rage. The length of time the girls spent battering Ms Wrightson, the fact they had several breaks to sit around and drink and smoke, the way they chose weapons from around the house - and perhaps most damningly, the fact they had a two-hour break when they visited a friend before returning to 14 Stephen Street to carry on with their attack - scuppered any defence based on a lack of control.

The girls left 39-year-old Ms Wrightson surrounded by broken furniture and blood-stained implements, and covered in shards of broken glass. She had hundreds of injuries, was naked from the waist down, and had bled out over the sofa on which she had been placed. Some of the crime scene photographs were deemed by the judge in the murder trial as too distressing for the jury to see.

Bloodied handprints were smeared on the walls, and blood was also found on the ceiling.

Throughout the evening the girls posed for selfies, which were Snapchatted to friends. Some pictures showed Ms Wrightson looking distressed in the background. Others didn't show Ms Wrightson, although she was there. It's likely she was already seriously injured, bleeding on the floor, while the teenagers drank, smoked and danced around to music.

Dr Elizabeth Yardley, associate professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, says the girls' use of social media suggested they did not care about the consequences.

"For many young people, social media is a 'performance of self'," she says. "They use it to tell stories about their lives in real time. Young people are generally quite savvy when it comes to what is and isn't appropriate to post on social media - they know that pictures of illegal activity will have consequences.

"The actions of these girls suggests that they did not care about the consequences, or were simply not thinking about them, as their values about what is right and wrong are significantly off kilter," Dr Yardley adds.

The younger girl repeatedly told the jury "she didn't remember" what had happened the night Ms Wrightson was murdered. She told the police "she hadn't known what was going on," claiming she was on Facebook on her phone while the other girl smashed up the living room and hurled tables, a television and a printer at Ms Wrightson.

She said she hadn't noticed when Ms Wrightson was beaten with a stick studded with screws, or slashed across the head with broken glass, or had a mirror slammed over her face. Despite her claimed amnesia, it was pointed out in court, she had remarkable recall for remembering her co-accused was to blame.

If one of the pair was the more dominant, it was the younger girl.

Repeatedly telling the older girl to "kick her head in" and complaining "why isn't [Ms Wrightson] knocked out yet?" the younger girl sat and smoked and even spoke to a friend on the phone while orchestrating the attack.

Her friend heard her say: "Go on... kill her. Bray her."

The younger girl had been bored that night and had left another friend's house because they'd started bickering. She'd tried to arrange to meet up with a number of people, tried to organise a "session" or party.

After their arrest and throughout the trial, the younger girl tried to push the blame on to the older one.

Despite being the younger of the two, she is much bigger than her friend, tall and heavily built. She had a relatively stable home life. An only child, her parents are married and her father works as a delivery driver.

When she was about 12 she began having serious arguments with her mother and started to go missing. On several occasions public appeals were put out by police.

A respite arrangement was worked out, where she would stay with a foster carer for a few nights a week. This became full-time, but she was always in touch with her family. Her mother in particular would emphasise the importance of making sure she went back to the foster home on time, and behaved herself.

Like the older girl, she was not at mainstream school, but was at an off-site educational centre. One of her support workers described her as "a bright girl".

Both of her parents were at the court; her mother turned up every day for the seven-week trial, her father most days. They left the room - her mother in tears - when the girls were found guilty of murder.

The older girl is slight, pretty, and looks younger than her age. In many ways she is is childlike. She has a very low IQ of between 60 and 70, and believed a person could not die from anything other than "being stabbed in the heart, shot in the head, or cancer".

When asked in court for her date of birth, she didn't know what the phrase meant. When it was altered to "when is your birthday?" she had no idea.

When she was arrested for murder she didn't understand why - just as she didn't understand why staff at a children's home told her off for lighting cigarettes from an electric toaster.

She looked up to her accomplice, saying the younger girl "acted older than her". In many ways the older girl was at the younger's beck and call - it was she who would demand they go out at night, would demand her Facebook password, would tell her to hold her coat for her.

The older girl had a troubled and disorganised upbringing, living in turn with her mother, father, and at a number of foster homes. She was too unsettled to cope in mainstream school and was sent to a pupil referral unit.

At the trial, one of her support workers told the court the older girl "was the most volatile person" she had ever worked with.

The court heard she had a history of self-harming, using anything with a sharp edge to slash not just her arms and legs but even her face. She was also known to have smashed her own head into walls.

The day she murdered Ms Wrightson, she visited her mother who told her to kill herself.

During the trial she tried to kill herself a number of times - including one attempt in the court's toilets between sessions of giving evidence.

When answering questions posed by the barristers at the trial, she was matter-of-fact - the tone of her voice similar to someone reading aloud a shopping list.

"I kicked Angie in the head and face. About seven times, I think. Then [the younger girl] told me to kick her again, so I kicked her some more in the belly and head and face".

She has five sisters with different fathers. Three of them are in jail - one for stabbing her mother and rupturing her spleen with a golf club.

The fact violence was an everyday occurrence in her life "trivialised" it, psychiatrists agree. She saw people attacked - but they didn't die, which may have fed into her notion that beatings don't kill.

She both witnessed and experienced domestic violence, being taken to A&E 24 times for different injuries. She had her fingers broken by her mother, who suffered from severe psychiatric illness and had been sectioned under the Mental Health Act.

The sisters were taught from a young age there was a ghost in the family home. The girl told the court her mother started giving her illicit prescription drugs - such as amphetamines, Tramadol and codeine - when she was about 11, and bought her strong cider at the same age.

Since the night of the murder the girl has hallucinated, waking up sweating and screaming, seeing blood on the walls. She hears the phantom laughter of young girls and thinks men are shouting at her through air vents in the ceiling, and through the shower head.

Dr Yardley points out: "Most of us gain an understanding of mainstream norms and values from our parents and families - we learn what is right and wrong and how to behave in particular circumstances in a socially appropriate and law abiding way.

"Children in care tend to come from backgrounds that prominently feature instability, abuse, violence and neglect. Having experienced a lack of control during their early childhoods, they will have an intense need to wrestle some control back later in their lives.

"In some cases, they will be drawing upon what they have learned from their home environments. They may see mum being hit by dad, mum drinking herself into oblivion - and see this as normal.

"Therefore they have a script or a framework, in which they learn how to react to particular events through observing what goes on around them.

"So for some children, they will learn that when they don't get what they want, they should react by physically attacking someone".

Neither of the older girl's parents attended her trial.

It seems that she maintained her loyalty to the younger girl, who was quick to jettison the friendship.

A letter written by the older girl to the younger was intercepted by staff at one of the secure units where the girls were held.

The paper, covered with a childish scrawl and littered with drawings of hearts exhorted her friend to "keep your chin up".

"Have missed you so much you know. I can't believe this has happened. I'm proper trashed.

"Whatever happens and however long we get, just keep your chin up bonny lass. I'm thinking of you every step of the way. Do our time, get out and start a new life.

"Wait until we get out, me and you on the sesh again but this time it will be bigger and better, I'm telling you."

However, following the brutal murder they committed, it's unlikely the girls will ever be allowed to see each other again.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angela Wrightson killers: A friendship that ended in murder - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For two young teenagers the night of 8 December 2014 began like many others. But by the next morning the two girls would be murderers, having taken their time to batter a vulnerable woman to death with a variety of weapons. The attack lasted for seven hours.

# data[].attributes.headline
What are UK's options over human rights laws?

# data[].attributes.subject
What are UK's options over human rights laws?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Prime Minister Theresa May has said that the UK could opt out of some human rights laws in order to fight terrorism. How would that work?

As a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UK is permitted under Article 15 to "derogate" or depart from parts of the convention in limited circumstances.

Strict limits

Derogation can happen only in "time of emergency", ie there must be a war or other public emergency "threatening the life of the nation".

If that is the case, the UK can take measures derogating from its obligations, but only to the extent strictly required by the situation.

In other words, the measures taken must be strictly limited to deal with the immediate threat and the government has to demonstrate the urgent need to suspend the UK's human rights obligations in order to protect the nation's security.

The government would need to make an assessment as to whether there was a "threat to the life of the nation" based on the recent terrorist attacks and intelligence on the level and likelihood of future attacks.

Any measures brought in must not breach the UK's other obligations under international law.

Although nothing along these lines is being considered, it is worth noting that the US's unreviewable and limitless detention of enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay was found to be a breach of international humanitarian law by the US Supreme Court.

The government must also keep the secretary general of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures and its reasons for imposing them.

Derogation can and has previously been challenged in our domestic courts and at the European Court of Human Rights.

It also requires some formal and public act, such as a declaration of martial law or state of emergency.

If that is not done, the derogation would not be lawful even though the UK might have been entitled to derogate.

Under Article 15, the judiciary and Parliament must exercise effective scrutiny over any derogation and ensure essential guarantees against the possibility of an arbitrary assessment by the government and the subsequent implementation of disproportionate measures.

What rights would the UK seek to derogate from?

Derogations are permitted in respect of Article 5, the right to liberty and security, which protects individuals against arbitrary detention by the state.

This is sometimes called internment, if it amounts to indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial.

It is not possible to derogate from Article 2, the right to life (save in respect of lawful acts of war), or Article 3, the right that protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment.

The UK and derogation

The UK derogated from Article 5 of the ECHR, the right to liberty and security, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

In 1979, the European Court of Human Rights found the circumstances of Northern Ireland, and the use of preventative detention of terrorist suspects without trial, met the criteria for derogation.

However, on another occasion the government attempted to detain terrorist suspects without charge for seven days without seeking a formal derogation of Article 5, and was found to have breached that article.

It then sought a further notice of derogation, and in 1993 survived a legal challenge at the ECHR, which found the terror threat in Northern Ireland justified the UK's measures.

States signed up to the convention are given a "margin of appreciation" to depart from Article 5 in the face of threats to the life of the nation.

In this case, the UK acted within that margin.

A derogation was sought after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 in order to indefinitely detain terror suspects at Belmarsh prison.

The Law Lords (the predecessors of the Supreme Court) declared these measures disproportionate and unlawfully discriminatory because they targeted only non-UK citizens.

Lord Hoffman ruled: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What are UK's options over human rights laws? - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Prime Minister Theresa May has said that the UK could opt out of some human rights laws in order to fight terrorism. How would that work? As a party to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UK is permitted under Article 15 to "derogate" or depart from parts of the convention in limited circumstances.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charlie Gard treatment must continue until next week, court rules

# data[].attributes.subject
Charlie Gard treatment must continue until next week, court rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard must continue to receive life-support treatment until Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights has said.

His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have launched a final legal challenge at the European court after their Supreme Court challenge failed.

They want the 10-month old to undergo a trial in the US, but London specialists believe he has no chance of survival.

The European court wants until Tuesday to consider the case.

Judges in Strasbourg, France, ruled that Charlie should receive treatment while they look at paperwork in the case.

The court said this type of interim measure was exceptional, when the applicants would face a "real risk of irreversible harm".

A spokeswoman said Charlie's parents wanted a panel of seven judges to look at the case in detail. No decisions about whether or not the case would be analysed at a hearing had yet been made, she said.

Charlie has been in intensive care at Great Ormond Street Hospital since October last year.

He has mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare disorder that affects the genetic building blocks that give energy to cells.

Doctors say he cannot hear, move, cry or swallow and that his lungs only go up and down because he is on a machine that does it for him.

Specialists believe the US trial is experimental and will not improve his quality of life, and therefore he should be allowed to die with dignity.

Charlie's parents have exhausted all legal options in the UK.

'Not a cure'

On Tuesday, the High Court ruled that life-sustaining treatment could be withdrawn, and on Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected the parents' appeal against that decision.

The Supreme Court said parents were not entitled to insist on treatment which was not in their child's best interests.

Charlie is thought to be just one of 16 children in the world to suffer from mitochondrial depletion syndrome.

His parents have managed to raise £1.3m on a crowdfunding site to pay for the US treatment and to get him to the country safely, as a specialist plane and nurses are needed.

The American doctor who has agreed to treat Charlie has previously told the High Court the six-month therapy would be "treatment but not a cure".

The neurologist who would oversee the treatment told the court that while Charlie was in the "terminal stage" of his illness, treating him would be compassionate.

He added that there could be a meaningful improvement to his brain function meaning that he might be able to interact and smile.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charlie Gard treatment must continue until next week, court rules - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Terminally-ill baby Charlie Gard must continue to receive life-support treatment until Tuesday, the European Court of Human Rights has said. His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, have launched a final legal challenge at the European court after their Supreme Court challenge failed.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hung Parliament: Q&A guide to what happens when no-one wins the election

# data[].attributes.subject
Hung Parliament: Q&A guide to what happens when no-one wins the election

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The general election has ended in a hung Parliament, where no party has the 326 seats needed to get an overall majority in the House of Commons.

So what happens now?

Who is the prime minister?

Theresa May remains prime minister. She plans to form a minority government, relying on the Democratic Unionist Party for support.

Does this mean there will definitely be a Conservative government?

If the DUP supports the Conservatives, then yes, they would together have more than the 326 seats required for a majority to pass a legislative programme.

The two parties are currently in discussion, DUP leader Arlene Foster said. And the Conservatives, as the government in power before the general election, get the first attempt at forming an administration.

In theory, if they fail to secure DUP backing, Labour could attempt to form its own minority government. But this is unlikely.

How do the numbers stack up?

The Conservatives and the DUP: 328

Labour, SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru and Green: 314

A reminder: The magic number required for a Commons majority is 326.

How does a minority government actually work?

If the Conservatives go forward as a minority administration, they will fill all the ministerial positions themselves.

But they will rely on the support of the DUP to help them pass legislation.

Key to this is an arrangement called "confidence and supply" whereby the DUP would support the Tories if a vote of no confidence was called and help them to pass their Budget.

Negotiations would still be needed to prevent ordinary day-to-day government business from being defeated.

How long will it last?

Theresa May has said her government will provide "stability" going into Brexit negotiations. And the next general election isn't due until 2022.

But maintaining party unity and passing the government's bills will be a tricky task with so little room for rebellion - and the DUP are sure to make their own demands in return for propping up Mrs May's government.

The BBC's Mark D'Arcy predicts a Conservative/DUP alliance faces a "long, precarious high-wire act", which will be "beset by troubles and entanglements at every turn".

If the government grinds to a halt as a result, another general election could become unavoidable.

This can only happen if:

Two-thirds of MPs vote for it. In practice, it would need to be supported by both Labour and the Conservatives. Or:

MPs pass a motion of no confidence in the government AND an existing or new government cannot win a confidence vote in the Commons within 14 days of the no-confidence vote

Has minority government happened before?

Several elections resulted in minority government in the early part of the 20th century.

Governments have also started out with majorities which were then lost due to by-elections and defections.

Labour had a majority of three after the 1974 general election - but this had vanished by 1977, and it stayed in power thanks to a "pact" with the Liberal Party.

And John Major's Conservative government started out with a majority of 21 in 1992 but was a minority government by the 1997 general election.

When will things be finalised?

The first deadline is Tuesday 13 June, when the new Parliament meets for the first time.

Mrs May has until this date to put together a deal to keep herself in power or resign, according to official guidance issued by the Cabinet Office.

She is entitled to wait until the new Parliament to see if she has the confidence of the House of Commons.

The government then needs to see if it can assemble the votes it needs to get its programme of proposed new laws passed in the Queen's Speech, which is scheduled for Monday 19 June.

This is when it will be relying on the DUP's support.

What about a coalition?

A coalition is when two or more parties join forces to govern as a single unit.

The junior partners are given ministerial jobs and a joint programme for government is set out.

This is what happened in 2010, when the Conservatives and Lib Dems teamed up, but it is unlikely this time given the numbers involved and the parties' statements.

Labour has ruled one out - and in any case an alliance with the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid Cymru and Greens would still leave it short of a majority.

What will happen to the Brexit talks?

The talks are currently due to begin on 19 June but if it takes a while to form a government it could ask the EU for a delay.

The EU Parliament's chief negotiator said the outcome "will make already complex negotiations even more complicated".
What would you like to know about hung parliaments and what happens next? Let us know and the BBC will answer a selection.
Use this form to ask your question:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hung Parliament: Q&A guide to what happens when no-one wins the election - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The general election has ended in a hung Parliament, where no party has the 326 seats needed to get an overall majority in the House of Commons. So what happens now? Theresa May remains prime minister. She plans to form a minority government, relying on the Democratic Unionist Party for support.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charlie Gard: Parents' appeal for US treatment bid fails

# data[].attributes.subject
Charlie Gard: Parents' appeal for US treatment bid fails

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charlie Gard parents' appeal bid fails - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Supreme Court rejects final appeal by parents of sick baby Charlie Gard, over plan to take him to US for treatment

# data[].attributes.headline
Woman on trial for texts 'driving boyfriend to suicide'

# data[].attributes.subject
Woman on trial for texts 'driving boyfriend to suicide'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 20-year-old US woman whose boyfriend took his own life nearly three years ago after she repeatedly urged him to suicide has gone on trial.

Michelle Carter is charged with involuntary manslaughter for her role in the suicide of Conrad Roy III.

Prosecutors allege Carter drove the Massachusetts 18-year-old to his death to attract sympathy.

She has asked a judge to rule on the case, rather than a jury of her peers.

"You need to do it, Conrad," Ms Carter texted him on the morning of 12 July, according to records presented by the Bristol County District Attorney's Office.

"You're ready and prepared. All you have to do is turn the generator on and you will be free and happy," she wrote.

She told him in another message: "You're finally going to be happy in heaven. No more pain. It's okay to be scared and it's normal. I mean, you're about to die."

As he expressed doubts, she kept pushing.

"I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you're ready ... just do it babe," she said.

"No more pushing it off. No more waiting," she went on.

Mr Roy was found dead from carbon monoxide poisoning in his vehicle at a Kmart car park in Fairhavens, Massachusetts, on 13 July 2014.

Texts show he wavered in his plan to follow through with the suicide as he sat in the pick-up truck.

Ms Carter replied in a message: "Get back in."

After his death, she fundraised for mental health awareness and led a charity softball event in his honour.

Mr Roy's mother, Lynn Roy, told the court on Tuesday she had no warning of her son's suicide.

She added: "I thought he was a little depressed. I thought he was doing great."

On the day of his death, Mr Roy went to the seaside in Westport, Massachusetts, with his mother and sisters, according to prosecutors.

He bought his sisters ice cream, joked about bathing suits and spoke of a scholarship he had just won, while making other plans for the future.

As arguments began on Tuesday, images of his text exchanges with Ms Carter were broadcast on the courtroom wall.

"She used Conrad as a pawn," said Assistant District Attorney Maryclare Flynn, adding that the accused had wanted to gain attention as the "grieving girlfriend".

"She talked him out of his doubts point-by-point, assured him that his family would understand why he did it, researched logistics and reassured him that he was likely to succeed, and pushed him to stop procrastinating and get on with it, mocking his hesitation," said the prosecutor.

Lawyers had requested the case be dismissed on the grounds of right to free speech.

But a juvenile court judge ruled that encouraging suicide was not protected under the US constitution.

Defence lawyer Joseph Cataldo argued that Mr Roy had been motivated to kill himself for some time, and that his depression was spurred by family troubles.

He told the court that Ms Carter had previously talked her boyfriend out of suicide attempts.

Recently unsealed documents show Mr Roy attempted to take his own life several times before, and had spent time researching methods online.

Defence lawyer Mr Cataldo said in court: "My heart goes out to the family, but this was a young man who planned this for months and months".

Where to get help

If you are depressed and need to ask for help, there's advice on who to contact at BBC Advice.

From Canada or US: If you're in an emergency, please call 911. If you or someone you know is suffering with mental-health issues, call Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868. If you're in the US, you can text HOME to 741741

From UK: Call Samaritans on 116123 or Childline on 0800 1111

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman on trial for texts 'driving boyfriend to suicide' - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 20-year-old US woman whose boyfriend took his own life nearly three years ago after she repeatedly urged him to suicide has gone on trial. Michelle Carter is charged with involuntary manslaughter for her role in the suicide of Conrad Roy III. Prosecutors allege Carter drove the Massachusetts 18-year-old to his death to attract sympathy.

# data[].attributes.headline
Harvard bars students for posting 'obscene memes'

# data[].attributes.subject
Harvard bars students for posting 'obscene memes'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Obscene" memes posted on a private Facebook page have cost 10 students their place at Harvard, reports the college's newspaper.

The students posted messages joking about child abuse, sexual assault, paedophilia and the Holocaust.

Members of the group also directed several racial slurs at minorities, said the report.

Free speech advocates criticised Harvard's actions saying the punishment was "draconian".

Free speech

Information about Harvard's actions was reported by the Crimson - the main student newspaper at the prestigious college.

The obscene material was posted to a chat forum on Facebook that grew out of a messaging group set up by students due to start studying at Harvard this year.

The offshoot group was formed by prospective students who were interested in memes and who wanted to share more "adult" material than was seen in the main chat room. Anyone wanting to join the sub-group had to apply by creating and posting a "provocative" meme.

Soon after the group was formed, Harvard administrators found out about it and launched an investigation asking students to explain their contributions to the chat group.

A week later, said the report, "at least 10" members of the group were told that their admission offers to Harvard had been withdrawn.

In a statement to the Crimson, a spokeswoman for Harvard said it did "not comment publicly on the admissions status of individual applicants".

Prof Alan Dershowitz, who lectures at the Harvard Law School, said the college had gone too far in withdrawing the offer of admission. He told the Guardian that the institution had been "intruding too deeply" into the private lives of students by censoring communications protected by free speech laws.

The decision could have long-term consequences for the students involved, he warned.

"It may affect them for life," he said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Harvard bars students for posting 'obscene memes' - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Obscene" memes posted on a private Facebook page have cost 10 students their place at Harvard, reports the college's newspaper. The students posted messages joking about child abuse, sexual assault, paedophilia and the Holocaust. Members of the group also directed several racial slurs at minorities, said the report.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charlie Gard's parents lose life support court appeal

# data[].attributes.subject
Charlie Gard's parents lose life support court appeal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Doctors can stop providing life-support treatment to ill baby Charlie Gard, Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

Charlie's parents appealed against a ruling made last month that would allow specialists to move their eight-month-old son to palliative care.

Chris Gard and Connie Yates had raised £1.3m to send him to the US for a trial treatment.

Doctors argued continuing life-support treatment would not benefit Charlie but "prolong the process of dying".

Charlie has a disorder called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, which affects the genetic building blocks that give energy to cells.

Great Ormond Street Hospital said the baby was unable to see, hear, make a noise or move.

Last month, High Court judge Mr Justice Francis concluded that life-support treatment should end and said Charlie should be allowed die with dignity.

He said he had made the decision with the "heaviest of hearts" but with "complete conviction" for Charlie's best interests.

Charlie's parents, from Bedfont, west London, had asked three Court of Appeal judges to overturn Mr Justice Francis's decision.

But Lord Justice McFarlane, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Sales, who analysed evidence at a hearing in London on Tuesday, have upheld the ruling.

BBC News correspondent Helena Lee, at the Court of Appeal

Charlie's parents, Connie Yates and Chris Gard, sat at the front of the court to hear the judgement.

Both waited quietly and patiently.

There was an unexpected hour's delay to proceedings.

Lord Justice McFarlane told the court he would first tell them his and the other two judges decision and then give their reasons.

Their appeal he said was to be dismissed.

Chris Gard looked down and shook his head.

At the back of the court family members broke down.

It looks like Charlie's parents may now take their case to the Supreme Court, or at least that's their wish.

But time is of essence.

Charlie remains in intensive care in hospital where he's spent much of his young life.

The barrister for Great Ormond Street confirmed treatment wouldn't be withdrawn over the Bank Holiday weekend.

This has been a court case where there are no winners.

Richard Gordon QC, who led Charlie's parents' legal team, told appeal judges that they "wish to exhaust all possible options".

"This court should not stand in the way of their only remaining hope."

He said judges should not interfere with parents' exercise of parental rights and added: "What is really at stake in this case is the State, on a massive scale, intruding in your right to private and family life."

The hospital said Charlie was "a terminally-ill child" whose health was "deteriorating day by day".

A spokesman said: "We explored the request to use a therapy that had not been used before and sought independent, international medical opinions on what would represent the best possible treatment for Charlie.

"The medical and legal consensus, confirmed by today's ruling, is that it is in Charlie's best interests to be allowed to die with dignity."

Lord Justice McFarlane praised Charlie's parents' composure and dignity throughout the case and said: "My heart goes out to them."

But he suggested that the couple's criticisms of Mr Justice Francis's ruling were ill-founded.

He said Mr Justice Francis had based decisions on "the core evidence".

Lord Justice McFarlane added that a trip to America for a therapy trial "would expose Charlie to harm" and said there had been a "100% child focused" investigation.

But lawyers representing the couple told the judges that they would like the Supreme Court to consider the case.

The barrister for Great Ormond Street said hospital clinicians felt they were "at the borders of what is ethical" but confirmed treatment would not be withdrawn over the Bank Holiday weekend.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Charlie Gard's parents lose life support court appeal - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Doctors can stop providing life-support treatment to ill baby Charlie Gard, Court of Appeal judges have ruled. Charlie's parents appealed against a ruling made last month that would allow specialists to move their eight-month-old son to palliative care. Chris Gard and Connie Yates had raised £1.3m to send him to the US for a trial treatment.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ian Brady: How the Moors Murderer came to symbolise pure evil

# data[].attributes.subject
Ian Brady: How the Moors Murderer came to symbolise pure evil

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Ian Brady's mug shot has become visual shorthand for psychopathic evil. With his accomplice Myra Hindley, he occupies an especially ignominious place in our national folklore.

Margaret Thatcher described their crimes as "the most hideous and evil in modern times". A BBC News article in 2002 suggested the so-called "Moors Murderers" had set "the benchmark by which other acts of evil are measured".

But Brady's notoriety goes beyond the criminal to the political and the cultural.

He became an important figure in 20th Century British history as a focus for debate about crime and punishment, good and evil, and the permissive society.

Brady and Hindley were charged with their crimes 11 days after the Murder (Abolition of the Death Penalty) Act had received royal assent in 1965.

They "cheated the gallows by a year" according to some, and were placed at the heart of a debate over capital punishment that would rumble on for more than a decade.

Moral panic

The horrific detail of their apparently motiveless crimes - the abduction, torture and murder of children and young people and the burying of the bodies on what the tabloids called "fog-shrouded wild moorlands" - was a horror story in the Gothic tradition that provided the perfect test of public opinion on ending the death penalty.

Successive home secretaries sought to reassure the public that, for the most heinous crimes, life imprisonment meant just that.

But Brady was more than just a debating chip in the argument over the hangman.

For many, he became a terrifying symbol of social upheaval.

'Poisonous flower'

His slicked back rocker-style hair and sociopathic stare chimed with the moral panic over youth culture.

Mod and rocker clashes in the mid-60s were described by one newspaper as a symptom of the "disintegration of a nation's character".

Brady and his crimes were held up as the consequences of moral decay.

Writing about the murders, the novelist CP Snow argued that "permissive attitudes" were the "earth out of which the poisonous flower grew".

The novelist Pamela Hansford Johnson - who was married to Snow - made a similar point in her book On Iniquity in 1967.

She suggested that Brady and Hindley's crimes had been an indictment of 1960s Britain.

"A wound in the flesh of our society had cracked open," she wrote. "We looked into it, and we smelled the sepsis."

Brady helped shape the age-old argument that permissiveness leads to violent crime.

Commentators noted how he had been born "out of wedlock" and had begun a life of criminality as a juvenile.

In the mid-60s, crime was rising rapidly and the face of the bastard Ian Brady was the backdrop.

He personified "pure evil" just as his innocent young victims personified "pure good".

For the press and politicians, the Moors Murderers were powerful examples of the clear but simplistic divide between the criminal underclass and the law-abiding majority, at a time when anxiety about law and order was rising.

Brady's fascination with Adolf Hitler and the Nazis confirmed the sense that he was the epitome of social depravity.

From his arrest until the day he died more than 50 years later, his haunting visage - along with that of Myra Hindley - have been routinely deployed as images of the threat.

He is the child snatcher, the bogeyman, the beast. He is the monster.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ian Brady: How the Moors Murderer came to symbolise pure evil - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ian Brady's mug shot has become visual shorthand for psychopathic evil. With his accomplice Myra Hindley, he occupies an especially ignominious place in our national folklore. Margaret Thatcher described their crimes as "the most hideous and evil in modern times".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Moors Murderer Ian Brady, who tortured and killed five children with Myra Hindley in crimes that shocked the nation, has died.

The 79-year-old died at Ashworth Hospital, a secure psychiatric unit in Merseyside where he had been detained since 1985.

Brady, who was jailed in 1966, buried four of his victims in graves on Saddleworth Moor, Greater Manchester.

One victim's brother said Brady's death would not end their "nightmare".

A Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust spokesman said Brady had died at 18:03 BST on Monday.

Brady, who was born in Glasgow but later moved to Manchester, was jailed at Chester Assizes 51 years ago for the murders of John Kilbride, aged 12, Lesley Ann Downey, 10, and Edward Evans, 17.

In 1985 he also admitted to the murders of Pauline Reade, 16, and Keith Bennett, who was 12.

Body never found

The children had been abducted by Brady and his lover Hindley, who died in prison in 2002, between 1963 and 1965.

Brady never revealed where Keith's remains were buried. The boy's mother Winnie Johnson, who died in 2012, had repeatedly pleaded for Brady to do so.

Brady and Hindley were caught when her brother-in-law David Smith, who was a petty criminal, phoned the police after seeing Brady abuse and strangle Edward Evans.

The officers caught Brady and Hindley at home, retrieving Edward's body from the bedroom, along with Brady's library of volumes on perversion and sadism.

'Aware of imminent death'

Martin Bottomley, the head of Greater Manchester Police's cold case unit, said the force would never give up the search for Keith and Brady's death did "not change that".

He said: "Our aim, as it always has been, is to find where Keith is buried and give closure to his surviving family members so they can give Keith the proper burial they so desperately want.

"Whilst we are not actively searching Saddleworth Moor, we will act on credible and actionable information that will help lead us to him."

Brady's lawyer Robin Makin told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he was with his client in hospital less than two hours before his death.

"I got a call that he wanted to see me - he was obviously well aware that his death was imminent," he said.

He described the encounter as "quite a moving sort of situation", where the pair discussed Brady's legal affairs and funeral arrangements.

He said the whereabouts of the remains of Keith Bennett did not come up in conversation.

"I would be very surprised if he really had information that was useful.

"He did go to the Moors a long time ago and I suspect that if there had been information for him that he could have provided, he would have provided it then."

Describing coverage of the search for Keith's body as a "frenzy", he said: "I would very much hope that the remains can be found, but unfortunately I haven't got any information that's going to assist."

Keith's brother Alan runs a website, Searching for Keith, in an ongoing attempt to locate his body.

John Kilbride's brother, Terry, told the Sun newspaper: "It's been years and years of anguish and pain for us and the families of the victims.

"He's dead but we will have to still live with the nightmare that he left behind."

Speaking about the case of victim Lesley Ann Downey, former police officer Norman Brennan told of the "grief and torment" he had seen on the faces of her mother and father.

Police found photographs of the naked 10-year-old, along with tape recordings of her final moments pleading for her life as she was brutally abused.

Mr Brennan told BBC Two's Newsnight: "To know that your daughter was lost, alone and murdered and then actually her death was recorded, the grief can never ever be etched from your mind.

"Those two individuals, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, they didn't just destroy five young children's lives.

"The... false hopes that they gave the families for over 50 years destroyed all of the families as well, even to this day."

Brady had been on successive hunger strikes since 1999, arguing he should be allowed to die, but had been force-fed because he was considered mentally ill.

He campaigned for several years to be moved from Ashworth to a Scottish prison where he would not be force-fed and would be allowed to die if he wished.

The Mersey Care Trust was unable to confirm the cause of Brady's death, but said he had been given oxygen for a while.

Brady was not found dead in his room, its spokesman said, but he was unable to confirm if anyone was with him when he died, adding: "Quite possibly. I don't know."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Moors Murderer Ian Brady dies - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Moors Murderer Ian Brady, who tortured and killed five children with Myra Hindley in crimes that shocked the nation, has died. The 79-year-old died at Ashworth Hospital, a secure psychiatric unit in Merseyside where he had been detained since 1985. Brady, who was jailed in 1966, buried four of his victims in graves on Saddleworth Moor, Greater Manchester.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
MI5 agents and anti-terror police have been given the go-ahead to question teenagers placed under the control of family court judges as a result of radicalisation fears.

Senior officers thought a judge might have to give permission before a child who had been made a "ward of court" could be interviewed.

But the most senior family court judge in England and Wales says investigators do not need to approach a judge before beginning questioning.

Sir James Munby has announced his decision in a ruling after analysing the issue at a hearing in the Family Division of the High Court in London.

A number of teenagers have found themselves at the centre of family court litigation, and been made wards of court, in recent years as a result of police and social services staff raising concerns about them becoming radicalised and travelling to Syria.

Judges can control youngsters' movements and decide whether they should have passports by assuming parental responsibility and making them wards of courts.

Sir James, President of the Family Division of the High Court, has concluded that police and MI5 agents do not need "judicial consent" before interviewing a child who is a ward of court.

He said council social services bosses had asked him to rule on the issue after an MI5 agent approached a teenager in their care who had been made a ward of court.

The judge did not name the council or the teenager in his ruling.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
No 'judicial consent' needed for MI5 to quiz 'ward of court' teens, judge rules

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
MI5 agents and anti-terror police have been given the go-ahead to question teenagers placed under the control of family court judges as a result of radicalisation fears.Senior officers thought a judge might have to give permission before a child who had

# data[].attributes.headline
Husband slept in same room as wife's body for six days

# data[].attributes.subject
Husband slept in same room as wife's body for six days

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A man has revealed how he slept in the same room as his wife's body for six days after she died.

Wendy Davison, 50, died at home in Derby last month after a 10-year battle with cervical cancer.

Russell Davison, who has been left "heartbroken", said he did not want her body to go to a mortuary and he wanted to challenge attitudes towards dying.

It is legal to keep a body at home and Derbyshire Coroner's Court confirmed Mrs Davison's GP reported her death.

Mr Davison said: "Death seems to be such a taboo subject in our society, no-one seems to want to talk about it.

"I did not want her in the mortuary or handed over to a funeral director, I wanted us to take care of her ourselves at our family home, have her in our bedroom so I could sleep in the same room."
Updates on this story and more from the East Midlands.
When Mrs Davison was diagnosed shortly after the couple's joint 40th birthday party in 2006, they decided to take a "natural" approach to her healthcare.

"We were not prepared to hand her life over to doctors. We wanted to do our own research and do the very best job we could to keep Wendy alive," he said.

He believes their approach, which included refusing chemotherapy and radiotherapy, extended Wendy's life "by a very long time".

'Beautiful and comforting'

In 2014, Mrs Davison was given six months to live, so the pair went travelling across Europe, where they had "the absolute time of our lives".

But last September, they were forced to return home when her pain became too bad.

She received hospice care at the Royal Derby Hospital but they were determined she would not die there.

The pair decided she would be cared for at home by family and her body would remain there until her cremation.

She died on 21 April.

"Wendy died very peacefully, fully sedated, in no pain, in mine and Dylan's arms with our ever faithful dog Elvis snuggled up right next to her too," Mr Davison said.

He said it was a "beautiful and comforting experience" to have family and friends over to see her during that time.

The rules about keeping bodies at home

As long as a GP has been informed and the death has been registered within five days, a body can be legally kept at home before a funeral

A funeral director or nurse is required to wash the body

If the body is being kept at home for more than a few days, a funeral director may be required to embalm the body

Source: Cancer Research UK
Contentious trusts and probate lawyer, Jak Ward, from Derby-based Smith Partnership, said it is not an offence to keep a body at home until the funeral as long as a death is reported and registered.

"Historically people would die at home and the body would be kept until the funeral," he said.

A celebration of Mrs Davison's life is being held at Derbyshire County Cricket Club on Sunday.
Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Husband slept in same room as wife's body for six days - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A man has revealed how he slept in the same room as his wife's body for six days after she died. Wendy Davison, 50, died at home in Derby last month after a 10-year battle with cervical cancer.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It may not be a word you've heard before but there's a lot of discussion about it right now on social media.

It's being talked about because of a US report which found cases are on the rise.

Victims' charities say it must be treated as rape - and that it's a hugely under-reported problem.

The study by Alexandra Brodsky in Columbia Journal of Gender and Law says it is a growing issue.

"Interviews with people who have experienced condom removal indicate that non-consensual condom removal is a common practice among young, sexually active people," she explains.

And she says she's been contacted by lots of victims.

https://twitter.com/azbrodsky/status/856548049996435456

We've been speaking to legal experts and people who support victims of rape for a better understanding "stealthing".

What is it?

The report says it's "non-consensual condom removal during sexual intercourse".

Put simply that means taking it off or deliberately damaging it midway through sex without telling the other person.

The study warns it "exposes victims to physical risks of pregnancy and disease" and is "experienced by many as a grave violation of dignity".

Is it rape?

"That person is potentially committing rape," says Sandra Paul.

She's a solicitor who works at Kingsley Napley and specialises in sexual crime.

She adds: "There has to be some agreement that a condom is going to be used or there is going to be withdrawal.

"If that person then doesn't stick to those rules then the law says you don't have consent."

In non-legal language, it means that if you agree to having sex with a condom and remove it, without saying, then you no longer have consent.

Then it is rape.

What impact does this have on victims?

The report author speaks to a range of people who say they've been "stealthed".

One student called Irin tells her: "The harm mostly had to do with trust.

"He saw the risk as zero for himself and took no interest in what it might be for me, and that hurt."

The report said that "apart from the fear of specific bad outcomes like pregnancy and STIs, all of the survivors experienced the condom removal as a disempowering, demeaning violation of a sexual agreement".

Legally, what is rape?

Sandra Paul tells Newsbeat that rape is when "you penetrate another person and the other person doesn't consent".

"Or the person doing the penetration doesn't reasonably believe that they have consent."

Is talking about 'stealthing' a good thing?

Sandra Paul deals with a lot of sexual assault cases and thinks "discussing it is a good thing".

"Starting a conversation has got to be the right thing to do," she explains.

However not everyone is sure that it is a good idea to call it "stealthing".

"I always find it quite surprising when new phrases like this come up for things that are effectively just a form of sexual assault," says Katie Russell from the charity Rape Crisis.

"If someone consents to a specific sexual act with you using contraception, and you change the terms of that agreement mid-act then that's a sexual offence."

"Giving it a term like 'stealthing' sounds relatively trivial," she says.

"It's a very acceptable term for something that's extremely unacceptable and actually an act of sexual violence."

What should you do if it happens to you?

"It can be really helpful to talk to someone in confidence like a trusted friend, or family member, or a specialist confidential independent service like a Rape Crisis centre," Katie Russell says.

"They can just listen to you, support you and help you think through your options and what you might want to do in order to be able to cope with and recover from the traumatic experience."

There is more help here at BBC Advice.
Find us on Instagram at BBCNewsbeat and follow us on Snapchat, search for bbc_newsbeat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It may not be a word you've heard before but there's a lot of discussion about it right now on social media. It's being talked about because of a US report which found cases are on the rise. Victims' charities say it must be treated as rape - and that it's a hugely under-reported problem.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's crunch time for the government's EU Withdrawal Bill - the bill which aims to ensure European law will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit.

This key plank of legislation, once known as the Great Repeal Bill, has reached committee stage in the House of Commons, which is the bit where there will be hundreds of attempts by MPs to change its wording.

What it's all about

As its informal name suggests, the repeal bill will repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which took Britain into the EU and meant that European law took precedence over laws passed in the UK Parliament. It will also end the power of the European Court of Justice in the UK.

All existing EU legislation will be copied across into domestic UK law to ensure a smooth transition on the day after Brexit.

The government says it wants to avoid a "black hole in our statute book" and avoid disruption to businesses and individual citizens as the UK leaves the EU.

The UK Parliament can then "amend, repeal and improve" individual laws as necessary.

Ensuring the continuity of EU rules and regulations is also meant to aid trade negotiations with the EU because the UK will already meet all of its product stands.

Sounds complicated...

The bill is likely to be "one of the largest legislative projects ever undertaken in the UK", a report by the House of Commons library predicts, with "major swathes of the statute book" needing to be examined to see how they will work after Brexit.

This is because working out which bits of UK law came from the EU is not as simple as it may sound.

In fact, it presents a "unique challenge", a House of Lords committee warned, because "the body of EU law is found in a number of different places, and in a number of different forms".

Simply transposing all EU law into UK legislation will not be enough, the government's White Paper on the bill says.

Swathes of UK law "will no longer work" on exit, for example because they refer to EU institutions.

Not all of this can be done through the repeal bill, so the government plans to create powers to "correct the statute book where necessary" - without full Parliamentary scrutiny.

This power - known as Henry VIII power - is the one of the most controversial features of the bill (see below).

More complications are presented by the government's negotiations with the EU, which will be taking place while the bill is passing through Parliament.

Those talks could shape what the UK's post-Brexit laws look like - but the repeal bill will need to be done and dusted by the day the UK leaves.

What's Henry VIII got to do with it?

The government plans to enact its "corrections" to the statute book using what are known as Henry VIII powers, after the Statute of Proclamations 1539 which gave him the power to legislate by proclamation.

Given that this will not involve the usual Parliamentary scrutiny process, opposition parties have protested, with Labour claiming ministers were being handed "sweeping powers" to make hasty, ill thought-out legislation.

Ministers have attempted to reassure critics by saying such measures will be time-limited and not used to make policy changes.

In total, the government estimates that 800 to 1,000 measures called statutory instruments will be required to make sure the bill functions properly.

How much EU law is there?

A lot.

The government's White Paper says there is "no single figure" for this, but that there are believed to be 12,000 EU regulations (one type of EU law) in force, while Parliament has passed 7,900 statutory instruments implementing EU legislation and 186 acts which incorporate a degree of EU influence.

The total body of European law, dating back to 1958, is known as the Acquis Communautaire.

It binds all member states and in 2010 was estimated to consist of about 80,000 items, covering everything from workers' rights to environment and trade.

As well as regulations, this includes EU treaties, directions and European Court of Justice rulings.

New EU legislation is being created all the time and will continue to apply to the UK until it leaves.

Different types of EU legislation work in different ways, and will be treated differently by the bill. So regulations, which apply automatically in the UK, will be converted into UK law.

But directives require a new UK law to come into force - this legislation will be preserved by the bill.
Reality check: How much UK law comes from the EU?
What's happening when?

MPs have already voted to approve the second reading of the bill, by 326 votes to 290. But there are many hurdles ahead and on Tuesday the line-by-line scrutiny of how it will operate begins.

As tends to happen with legislation deemed to be of constitutional importance, this 'committee stage' is taking place on the floor of the House of Commons, so all MPs can take part.

Eight days have been allocated for this process, which will be followed by more stages including the bill's passage through the House of Lords.

The plan is for it to be passed ahead of the UK's exit from the EU but to become law only when it actually leaves, in March 2019.
Read more: A guide to the EU bill's journey through Parliament
What do other parties say?

Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems all opposed the bill at second reading, and MPs from all parties - with the exception of the DUP - are now trying to amend it at committee stage.

Labour's suggested changes include trying to maintain a role for the European Court of Justice during the transition phase planned after March 2019.

There is also a cross-party attempt to prevent the UK from leaving the EU without a deal in place.

After Brexit

Until the UK actually leaves, EU law will continue to apply. But after leaving, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act (as it will be by then) comes into force.

The government says having the legislation in place will ensure a "calm and orderly exit". Then begins the long-term process of the government, and Parliament, choosing what it wants to do with the laws it has incorporated from the EU.

With so many pieces of legislation to be considered, this could turn out to be a "major drain on resources" and should not "crowd out" other government policies, the Institute for Government think tank has warned.

How about Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Some of the EU laws are in areas that are controlled by the devolved administrations - so do they now become part of Westminster law, or will they be added to the statute book in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?

It is not entirely clear how this will work, although the government says it will work closely with the devolved administrations.

It also predicts the repeal process will result in a "a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved administration", as powers in devolved areas are repatriated from Brussels.

But the bill has been described by the Scottish government as an "executive power grab".

Ministers have confirmed the devolved administrations will be asked to consent to the bill - but this does not amount to a veto.

The UK government has warned that blocking the bill could have "very significant consequences", leaving "a hole in our law".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It's crunch time for the government's EU Withdrawal Bill - the bill which aims to ensure European law will no longer apply in the UK after Brexit. This key plank of legislation, once known as the Great Repeal Bill, has reached committee stage in the House of Commons, which is the bit where there will be hundreds of attempts by MPs to change its wording.

# data[].attributes.headline
Finding the plot: England's tombstone tourists

# data[].attributes.subject
Finding the plot: England's tombstone tourists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Visiting a graveyard for enjoyment is not everyone's cup of tea. But tombstone tourists - or "taphophiles" - are increasingly to be found wandering through cemeteries, examining headstones, and generally enjoying the sombre atmosphere. What is the appeal?

Historians, genealogists, grave-rubbers and fans of the macabre all have their reasons for sloping round burial grounds - but there is also a tourist market for those wanting more than a traditional sightseeing trip.

Sheldon Goodman, grave enthusiast and co-founder of the Cemetery Club, takes groups of interested people through various burial grounds in London, including Tower Hamlets Cemetery Park, Brompton Cemetery, and Highgate.

He says one of the reasons the pastime is increasing in popularity is the number of celebrity deaths over the past few years:

"Highgate, the best-known London cemetery, is due to be receiving the remains of George Michael," he says.

"Events like that really increase awareness and the value of what I like to call 'libraries of the dead'."

Although Michael's plot is in a private area of Highgate closed off to tourists, the cemetery contains many famous graves which can be visited - ranging from those of political philosopher Karl Marx to television prankster Jeremy Beadle.

It also contains some of the finest funerary architecture in the country, says the Friends of Highgate Cemetery Trust, which has looked after and maintained the site since 1975.

The Egyptian Avenue, Circle of Lebanon and the Terrace Catacomb, along with more than 70 other monuments, have been listed by English Heritage, while the cemetery itself is categorised as a Grade I-listed park, complete with landscaping and exotic formal planting.

But it's not just the famous cemeteries that capture the imagination of taphophiles.

Nicola Carpenter from Maidenhead has been fascinated by graveyards since she was aged about eight, when she and other local children would play in the village cemetery. She continues to visit cemeteries a couple of times a month and writes a blog called Beneath Thy Feet.

"I can remember back then reading the names on the headstones and wondering who these people were and what sort of lives they had lived," she says.

"I visit graveyards to satisfy my curiosity as to who these people were that came before me and how they lived in and shaped the town I live in now. My local Victorian cemetery is one I visit often and is where I have found some of the most interesting life stories, and some influential and famous people are buried there.

Ms Carpenter says through her wanderings she has "discovered many fascinating stories - of love and friendship, of betrayal and revenge, murder and suicide.

"Some gravestones have telling inscriptions and epitaphs. For example, a gravestone in Bisham, Berkshire reads, 'In Loving Memory of Vivian Charlotte, wife of David Lewis. Born 22 April 1923 and died in her racing car at Brighton Speed Trials 14 September 1963'.

"A gravestone in Bray bears the words:
'Weep not my husband dear I pray, It was Jesus called us both away. With my sweet babe upon my breast
I now enjoy perpetual rest.'"

According to the Design Council, burial grounds in the 19th Century were originally built as public open spaces designed to be attractive places to visit in their own right. It is in these burial grounds we're more likely to see spectacular headstones and memorials.

Before then, especially in big cities, burial sites were crammed in between shops, houses and taverns - wherever there was space. Bodies were tossed amongst other human remains in graves just a few feet deep. They were overcrowded, neglected and smelled awful.

World-famous cemeteries

Père Lachaise in Paris opened on 21 May 1804 and initially was not popular - until the people running the cemetery embarked on a publicity campaign and organized the transfer of the remains of poet and fabulist Jean de La Fontaine and playwright Molière. The fashionable French began to request burial plots and there are now more than a million bodies buried there, and many more in the columbarium which holds the remains of those who have been cremated. Edith Piaf, Jim Morrison and Oscar Wilde are buried there.

Cemitério de São João Batista in Rio de Janeiro is the resting place of many famous Brazilians, including the composer Antônio Carlos Jobim and singer Carmen Miranda. There is also a field of small crosses that makes up the "little angels" graveyard. These are of children aged under seven whose parents had no means of paying for an official burial.

Cementerio de la Recoleta in Buenos Aires contains more than 6,400 statues, sarcophagi, coffins and crypts to commemorate some of Argentina's most celebrated sons and daughters. The tomb of Eva Peron is there, and so the mausoleum of Liliana Crociati, who died on her honeymoon in Austria in the 1970s. Her parents reconstructed her bedroom within her tomb, and at the entrance placed a bronze statue of Liliana in her wedding dress, with her beloved pet dog at her side.

The Zentralfriedhof in Vienna has a dead population almost twice the number of present living residents of the city. To make the cemetery more attractive, famous citizens such as Ludwig van Beethoven and Franz Schubert were exhumed and transferred there. Funerary monuments were built for others, such as Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.

Eventually Victorian concerns about hygiene led to many town and city churchyards being closed and replaced by larger cemeteries - often on urban fringes.

"As well as functioning as burial sites, they were also regarded as places for visiting and promenading of a more dignified and morally uplifting kind. The legislation that provided for new burial grounds seemed to have envisaged that they would in due course become public open spaces," the Design Council says.

Mr Goodman believes society's relationship with cemeteries has "ebbed and flowed".

"To the Victorians they were places where you could see rare and beautiful plants, take a stroll in a quiet space and obviously pay your respects to the departed.

"Then the First World War came, and as a nation we experienced loss to an unprecedented level, and the affection for cemeteries suffered as a result."

In the post-Victorian age, flamboyant funerals fell out of favour and with them, ornate tombs.

Conservation charity Caring for God's Acre says many cemeteries are overgrown and neglected - but because of that, have also become a haven for wildlife.

"Many older churchyards have remained virtually untouched and unchanged for generations, allowing plants to thrive and wildlife to flourish alongside historic monuments and memorials," says the organisation, which is non-religious.

It has set up a project asking volunteers to log the heritage and wildlife of burial grounds across the country.

Some cemeteries with tours

Many cemeteries run guided tours, usually by volunteers, including Brookwood near Woking in Surrey. It was originally accessible by rail from a special station - the London Necropolis railway station - next to Waterloo station in central London. Trains had both passenger carriages reserved for different classes and others for coffins (also for different classes).

The Key Hill and Warstone Lane cemeteries in Birmingham are included in a guided walk around the city's Jewellery Quarter. Key Hill holds the remains of Joseph Chamberlain (father of Neville), while Warstone Lane cemetery has a stone erected to a modern-day druid who died in 1935.

Arnos Vale in Bristol is a 45-acre Victorian garden cemetery inspired by the Père-Lachaise cemetery in Paris. Arnos Vale runs daytime and "after hours" tours.

But for the true taphophile, pleasant though the site might be, it is the tombstones that are the main draw.

Mr Goodman's interest also stemmed from childhood, when he would visit his grandfather's grave.

"I used to get confused as to why we'd only ever go to one grave when it was surrounded by hundreds of what were once other people.

"Who were they? What were their stories? Headstones don't really give a clear indication what that person was like. In most cases, they've never even seen their own headstone for obvious reasons, so I make it my personal mission to bring them back to life for a little bit and uncover their lives."

The Find a Grave website - think Facebook for dead people - has records of 159 million graves, with more being added frequently. It estimates there are about 50,000 searches of its database every day.

Website creator Jim Tipton - who lists his favourite graves as those of Al Capone, Karl Marx, Richard Feynman, Al Jolson and Lucille Ball - set it up because he "could not find an existing site that catered to my hobby of visiting the graves of famous people. Much to my surprise, I found that there were many thousands of folks from around the world that shared my interests."

It's not just famous graves which are on Find a Grave, and seemingly run-of-the-mill graveyards can house interesting stones.

"Some people want to make their own mark - in Richmond Cemetery a former cabbie gives his entire life story on a headstone. East Finchley has a bronze figure reclining on a tomb. Highgate has Patrick Caulfield's 'dead' headstone. They stand out and give you a sense of what that person was actually like," says Mr Goodman.

Sometimes the opposite is true, and humdrum graves are the sites of unlikely pilgrimages.

Led Zeppelin drummer John Bonham is buried in the small village of Rushock in Worcestershire. Drumsticks, cigarette lighters, dice and bottles of spirits have been left on the rock star's otherwise traditional grave.

An 18th Century grave on a crossroads on Dartmoor, Devon, is covered by flowers, small toys and coins. It's believed to be the final resting place of a woman who hanged herself. Because she took her own life she was not allowed to be buried with religious rites.

In the grounds of Malmesbury Abbey in Wiltshire lies the grave of a certain Hannah Twynnoy who in 1703 became the first person in England to be killed by a tiger. She was a 33-year-old barmaid at a local pub, which was playing host to a menagerie. The story goes that Hannah, for some reason, enjoyed taunting the tiger which eventually lost patience and attacked her. Her epitaph reads:
In bloom of Life she's snatchd from hence, She had not room to make defence; For Tyger fierce took Life away. And here she lies in a bed of Clay, Until the Resurrection Day.
In a way, it doesn't really matter about who's buried beneath beneath the stone. Everyone has a story.

Mr Goodman says he approaches all cemeteries "with a genuine curiosity as to what's gone before.

"Songs that were once sung, relationships which once were - from a cultural standpoint, cemeteries are great indexes to lives long gone."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Finding the plot: England's tombstone tourists - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visiting a graveyard for enjoyment is not everyone's cup of tea. But tombstone tourists - or "taphophiles" - are increasingly to be found wandering through cemeteries, examining headstones, and generally enjoying the sombre atmosphere. What is the appeal?

# data[].attributes.headline
Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments

# data[].attributes.subject
Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous.

Officers are understood to be examining whether the comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.

Fry had asked why he should "respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world.... full of injustice".

He later said he was not "offensive towards any particular religion".

According to a report in the Irish Independent newspaper, no publicised cases of blasphemy have been brought before the courts since the law was introduced in 2009 and a source said it was "highly unlikely" that a prosecution against Fry would take place.

25,000 euros fine

Appearing on The Meaning of Life, hosted by Gay Byrne, in February 2015, Fry had been asked what he might say to God at the gates of heaven.

Fry said: "How dare you create a world in which there is such misery? It's not our fault? It's not right. It's utterly, utterly evil. Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid god who creates a world which is so full of injustice and pain?"

He went on to say that Greek gods "didn't present themselves as being all seeing, all wise, all beneficent", adding "the god who created this universe, if it was created by god, is quite clearly a maniac, an utter maniac, totally selfish".

The Irish Independent reported a member of the public made a complaint to police in Ennis in the same month the programme was broadcast. He was recently contacted by a detective to say they were looking into his complaint.

The viewer was not said to be offended himself but believed Fry's comments qualified as blasphemy under the law, which was passed in 2009 and carries a maximum penalty of a fine of 25,000 euros (£22,000).

The law prohibits people from publishing or uttering "matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".

The government said at the time it was needed because the republic's 1937 constitution only gives Christians legal protection of their beliefs.

'Absolutely astonished'

Fry's representatives have been contacted for a comment.

Speaking to the BBC in 2015, Fry said he had been "absolutely astonished" by some of the reaction on social media to what he had said on the show.

He said: "I don't think I mentioned once any particular religion and I certainly didn't intend, and in fact I know I didn't say anything offensive towards any particular religion."

A police spokeswoman told the BBC: "We are not commenting on an ongoing investigation."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stephen Fry faces blasphemy probe after God comments - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police in the Republic of Ireland have launched an investigation after a viewer claimed comments made by Stephen Fry on a TV show were blasphemous. Officers are understood to be examining whether the comedian committed a criminal offence under the Defamation Act when he appeared on RTE in 2015.

# data[].attributes.headline
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $110m in US talc cancer case

# data[].attributes.subject
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $110m in US talc cancer case

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Pharmaceutical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been ordered by a US court to pay more than $110m (£85m) to a woman who says she developed ovarian cancer after using its talcum powder.

Lois Slemp, 62, from Virginia, Missouri said she developed the cancer after four decades of using talc products.

Prosecutors argued the company did not adequately warn about the cancer risks associated with the items.

Experts say links with ovarian cancer are unproven. J&J says it will appeal.

The verdict in a St Louis state court is the largest so far to arise out of about 2,400 lawsuits against J&J over its talc-based products, Reuters news agency reports.

Ms Slemp is currently undergoing chemotherapy after her ovarian cancer initially diagnosed in 2012 returned and spread to her liver.

She said the products she used included J&J's Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder.

"Once again we've shown that these companies ignored the scientific evidence and continue to deny their responsibilities to the women of America," said Ted Meadows, a lawyer for Ms Slemp.

The verdict included $5.4m in compensatory damages and $105m in punitive damages against J&J.

The company said it planned to appeal. "We are preparing for additional trials this year and we continue to defend the safety of Johnson's Baby Powder," it said in a statement.

"We deeply sympathise with the women and families impacted by ovarian cancer."

J&J lost three jury verdicts last year in cases related to its talc-based products, but won its first trial in March, when a jury in Missouri sided with the company.

Is talc safe? James Gallagher, health editor, BBC news website

There have been concerns for years that using talcum powder, particularly on the genitals, may increase the risk of ovarian cancer.

But the evidence is not conclusive. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies talc used on the genitals as " possibly carcinogenic" because of the mixed evidence.

Why is there any debate?

The mineral talc in its natural form does contain asbestos and does cause cancer, however, asbestos-free talc has been used in baby powder and other cosmetics since the 1970s. But the studies on asbestos-free talc give contradictory results.

It has been linked to a cancer risk in some studies, but there are concerns that the research may be biased as they often rely on people remembering how much talc they used years ago. Other studies have argued there is no link at all and there is no link between talc in contraceptives such as diaphragms and condoms (which would be close to the ovaries) and cancer.

Also there does not seem to be a "dose-response" for talc, unlike with known carcinogens like tobacco where the more you smoke, the greater the risk of lung cancer.

What should women do?

The charity Ovacome says there is no definitive evidence and that the worst-case scenario is that using talc increases the risk of cancer by a third.

But it adds: "Ovarian cancer is a rare disease, and increasing a small risk by a third still gives a small risk. So even if talc does increase the risk slightly, very few women who use talc will ever get ovarian cancer."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $110m in US talc cancer case - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Pharmaceutical firm Johnson & Johnson (J&J) has been ordered by a US court to pay more than $110m (£85m) to a woman who says she developed ovarian cancer after using its talcum powder. Lois Slemp, 62, from Virginia, Missouri said she developed the cancer after four decades of using talc products.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The UK will have a general election on 8 June. Here's what you need to know.

What is a general election?

A general election is how the British public decide who they want to represent them in Parliament and, ultimately, run the country. Everyone who is eligible - and registered (see below) - gets to vote for one candidate to represent their local area, which is known in Parliament as a constituency.

The candidates standing for election aare usually drawn from political parties, but can also stand as independents. The person with the most votes in a constituency is elected as its MP, to represent that area in the House of Commons.

The leader of the political party with the most MPs after the election is expected to be asked by the Queen to become prime minister and form a government to run the country. The leader of the political party with the second highest number of MPs normally becomes leader of the opposition.

Once elected, MPs work both in your area - or their constituency - dealing with local matters, and in Parliament, where they vote and help shape law, alongside 649 other MPs.

Why is there going to be a general election on 8 June?

UK Prime Minister Theresa May has called a general election on 8 June - three years earlier than scheduled.

Mrs May's official reason for holding an election was to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations. She claimed Labour, the SNP and the Lib Dems would try to destabilise and frustrate the process in Parliament. But Mrs May's Conservative Party has a big opinion poll lead over Labour so she will be hoping the election will see her getting a bigger majority in the House of Commons, tightening her grip on power.

As things stand, it does not take many Conservative MPs to decide they don't like something the government is doing to get it derailed. Mrs May is also tied to the promises made by the Conservatives at the 2015 election, when David Cameron was prime minister.

She has made a few changes - such as backing grammar schools and easing plans to reduce the deficit - but an election gives her the chance to set out her own vision for Britain.

Where do the parties stand in the opinion polls?

Find out the latest picture with the BBC's poll tracker. The latest polls have shown the Conservatives ahead, but that their longstanding lead over Labour has narrowed.

What manifestos have been published?

The Conservatives published their manifesto on 18 May with Theresa May promising a "mainstream government that will deliver for mainstream Britain".

Labour's manifesto was launched on 16 May - Jeremy Corbyn pledged to raise the income tax rate for earnings over £80,000 and £123,000.

The Liberal Democrats launched their manifesto on 17 May with leader Tim Farron promising a second EU referendum.

The SNP unveiled their manifesto on 30 May with a call for a Scottish referendum at the end of the Brexit process.

Plaid Cymru promised to give Wales a "strong voice" in Brexit when it launched its manifesto on 16 May.

UKIP launched its manifesto on 25 May with a pledge to tackle radical Islam.

In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein published its manifesto on 22 May saying a "new era" was opening up in Irish politics and the SDLP published its pledges on 30 May. The DUP followed on 31 May, saying the union with the UK was "by far" the most important issue of the campaign. The Alliance Party's manifesto was published the same day and the UUP's manifesto came on 1 June.

You can read and compare all the parties' hand-on-heart pledges with our super simple manifesto guide.

Who is allowed to vote?

Basically, if you're aged 18 or over on election day, registered to vote and a British citizen you can vote. Citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the UK and citizens of qualifying Commonwealth states resident in the UK can also vote if they are over 18 and registered to vote.

What if I'm abroad?

British citizens living abroad can vote if they have been registered to vote in the UK in the past 15 years, although the deadline to apply to register now passed, as has the postal vote application deadline.

People who will be temporarily abroad can vote by post (although it's too late to apply for a postal vote) or by proxy, which means getting someone else to vote for you.

How do I register to vote?

It's too late to register to vote in the general election on 8 June. You can register to vote in future elections online.

How do I vote by post?

It's now too late to apply for a postal vote. If you have already applied, post your completed ballot paper and voting statement back as soon as possible so they arrive in time. Alternatively, forms can be handed into your local polling station by 22:00 BST on polling day.

What about students who live away from home?

Students may be registered at both their home address, and at a university or college address. It all depends whether you spend an equal amount of time at each and, ultimately, the electoral registration officer will decide whether or not someone can register at both.

At the general election, it is an offence to vote more than once.

What if I've moved house?

Anyone who has moved since they last voted, must register at their new address - paying council tax does not mean you are registered to vote. If you did not re-register in time, you may be able to still vote at the address you originally registered at. If this is too far away, you can always arrange a proxy vote.

What if I'm on holiday?

You can vote either by post or by proxy - which is where you appoint someone else to register your vote on your behalf. To do that you can download the form here. Whoever you nominate must be eligible to vote in the election themselves.

The deadline for applying to vote by proxy for 8 June was set as 5pm on Wednesday 31 May. Details of where to find your local registration office are on this site.

Why is this a 'surprise' or 'snap' election'?

Theresa May had said she wanted to wait until 2020 for the next scheduled election but changed her mind, in a move that took everyone by surprise.

Prime ministers used to be free to hold an election whenever they felt like it - but under the 2011 Fixed Term Parliaments Act, a general election is supposed to take place every five years on the first Thursday in May, which is why the next one was scheduled for May 2020.

But an election can be called ahead of schedule for two reasons - if there is a vote of "no confidence" in the current government, or if MPs vote for an early election by a two-thirds majority. Mrs May chose the second option, which was overwhelmingly backed by MPs, by 522 votes to 13.

You have to go back to 1966 and Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson for the last example of a government holding an election after a short time in power to increase its number of MPs.

In 1974, there were two elections eight months apart - but that was under different circumstances because no party won a majority in the Commons in the first one.

When will the general election after this one be held?

A 2017 general election means that the subsequent election is now due in 2022. That's because the Fixed Term Parliaments Act, which decrees that elections take place every five years, is still in force.

But an election could be held at any time if two-thirds of MPs vote for it, as they did this time. A future government could also decide to scrap the Fixed Term Parliaments Act - the Conservative manifesto includes plans to do so.

What are the key dates?

Parliament broke up on 3 May to allow just over a month of full-pelt campaigning ahead of 8 June.

What about the local elections?

The general election didn't stop voting taking place in 34 local council areas in England, all 32 councils in Scotland and all 22 councils in Wales on 4 May.

The Conservatives gained control of 11 councils and Labour lost seven, with UKIP losing the 145 council seats it had been defending, and gaining just one.

In addition, six areas in England voted for newly-created "combined local authority mayors". The Conservatives won four mayoral races and Labour two. The Manchester Gorton by-election, caused by the death of Labour MP Gerald Kaufman, had been due to take place on 4 May but will now be held at the same time as the general election on 8 June.

What does the general election mean for Brexit?

Britain is still on course to officially leave the European Union on Friday 29 March 2019. Negotiations with other EU nations are not due to start until June, meaning the election will probably be over and a new government in place before any serious talking gets under way in Brussels.

The Conservative Party says this is a "one-off chance to hold an election while the European Union agrees its negotiating position". If Mrs May wins by a big margin in the UK, she will see it as a vote of confidence in her strategy for leaving the EU.

But if her slender House of Commons majority is cut further or she loses the election - with anti-Brexit parties such as the Liberal Democrats getting many more MPs - then the UK's current Brexit strategy will be up for grabs.

There's a summary of where Britain's parties stand on Brexit, if you'd like to read it.

What is a poll tracker?

There are lots of opinion polls carried out in the run-up to a general election. Their methods vary but they usually survey the views of at least 1,000 people to find which political party is likely to get most votes.

They give each party a percentage rating based on how many people said they would vote for them.

A poll tracker amalgamates the results of several opinion polls to try to get as clear a picture as possible.

The BBC tracker, for example, takes the results of the latest seven opinion polls, on a rolling basis, and works out the median (middle) rating for each party.

When you hear someone talking about one party having a poll lead over another - they are talking about the gap between the percentage ratings of the parties in the latest poll or set of polls.

Aren't the polls always wrong?

The opinion polls were wrong about the 2015 general election and the industry has yet to fully fix the problems that caused those inaccuracies.

So they should be taken with a pinch of salt. But the gap between Labour and the Conservatives in the polls leading up to the 2015 election was between 0% and 6%, and in the end the Conservatives did better than polls suggested.

The Conservatives have a bigger lead than that now, although it has narrowed recently.

How would the current opinion polls translate into seats?

It's not a straightforward process to work it out. Many Labour MPs have "safe" seats - they got thousands more votes than their nearest rivals in 2015, meaning they could lose votes and still retain their place in the Commons.

The Conservatives have fewer "safe" seats than Labour. They pulled off their surprise 2015 general election victory by winning seats just where they needed them, such as in previously Liberal Democrat-held constituencies in the south-west of England.

The danger for Labour is that it piles up votes in seats it already holds - something that happened in 2015 - rather than in areas represented by rival parties. This makes it harder for it to suffer large-scale losses, but it also makes it relatively harder for it to make big gains.

Are there going to be any boundary changes in this election?

No. They were not due to be introduced until 2020. A public consultation is under way with final proposals set to be made in 2018.

Who is standing?

The main parties faced a race against time to get candidates in place and some streamlined their normal selection procedures, with more candidates chosen centrally.

Some 68 parties and 191 independent candidates contribute to a total of 3,304 people standing for Parliament this year - a decrease of 664 from 2015.

Are any MPs standing down?

Oh yes - it's proved a good chance for people to get out, or try to return to, frontline politics. Some of the big names stepping down include former Conservative chancellor George Osborne - who is now editing the London Evening Standard newspaper - and ex-party chairman Sir Eric Pickles.

Labour's Alan Johnson is retiring, and former health secretary Andy Burnham will not stand after becoming Mayor of Greater Manchester. Some former MPs are aiming to get back, though - including former Lib Dem ministers Sir Vince Cable and Ed Davey.

And others are throwing their hat into the ring for the first time, including blogger Jack Monroe - who is campaigning over the NHS - while UKIP's Paul Nuttall is among his party's best known hopefuls.

How do the parties currently stand?

The Conservatives have 330 seats, Labour 229, the SNP 54, the Lib Dems nine and Plaid Cymru three. The Green Party has one MP.

UKIP have no MPs after their sole representative left the party and became an independent.

For Northern Ireland, the Democratic Unionist Party have eight MPs; Sinn Fein, who don't take up their seats, four; the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) three; and the Ulster Unionist Party two. Five MPs sit as independents.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The UK will have a general election on 8 June. Here's what you need to know. A general election is how the British public decide who they want to represent them in Parliament and, ultimately, run the country.

# data[].attributes.headline
Fifty years on: A turning point in history

# data[].attributes.subject
Fifty years on: A turning point in history

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifty years on: A turning point in history - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Alan Cumming & Ian McKellen read from the parliamentary speeches that helped alter law on homosexuality.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Decriminalising homosexuality: Lord Owen - BBC News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
David Owen helped to pass the 1967 legislation decriminalising homosexual acts in private.

# data[].attributes.headline
Man wins right to fight assisted dying law

# data[].attributes.subject
Man wins right to fight assisted dying law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A terminally ill man has won the right to bring a High Court challenge over the law on assisted dying.

Noel Conway, 67, asked the Court of Appeal to overturn a decision that prevented a judicial review over the blanket ban on providing a person with assistance to die.

The retired college lecturer, who has motor neurone disease, is not expected to live for more than 12 more months.

Mr Conway, from Shrewsbury, was diagnosed with the disease in 2014.
More updates on this and other stories in Shropshire
Mr Conway, who lives with his wife and son, used to enjoy climbing, skiing, walking and cycling, but is now dependent on a ventilator overnight, requires a wheelchair and needs help to dress and eat.

He wants a declaration that the Suicide Act 1961 is incompatible with Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which relates to respect for private and family life, and Article 14, which protects from discrimination.

He told judges in previous hearings he faced an "unbearable death", but lost a High Court bid on 30 March to challenge the law.

His lawyers have said that when Mr Conway has less than six months to live but still has the mental capacity to make the decision, "he would wish to be able to enlist assistance to bring about a peaceful and dignified death".

Analysis by Fergus Walsh, Medical correspondent

The judgement means that Noel Conway will now get a full hearing - a judicial review of the 1961 Suicide Act.

At the earlier High Court hearing, two out of three judges had ruled that this should not be allowed, primarily because two years ago MPs voted against changing the law to permit assisted dying. Lord Justice Burnett said it would be "institutionally inappropriate" to go against the "settled will" of Parliament.

But in the Appeal Court, Lord Justice Beatson and Lord Justice McFarlane said that should not prevent challenges to the law whatever the "fragility" of the prospects.

If Noel Conway was to win his case it would undoubtedly be appealed and potentially go all the way to the Supreme Court. Any further consideration of the law by Parliament might take years.

The case will be the first High Court challenge to the existing law since MPs rejected an attempt to introduce assisted dying in 2015.

Mr Conway, whose incurable neurological condition causes weakness and wasting in the limbs, had hoped a judicial review would ultimately result in terminally ill adults who meet strict criteria being able to make their own decisions about ending their lives.
Sign up to get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning
But two out of three High Court judges refused his request last month.

Now, the case will go back to the same court to be heard in full, following Wednesday's appeal court ruling by Lord Justice McFarlane and Lord Justice Beatson.

Tom Davies, from Dignity in Dying which has been supporting Mr Conway, said he was "delighted" the retired lecturer "would have his day in court".

He said that although any judgement might come too late for him, he said Mr Conway had always said it was not just for him.

"People deserve a choice... if he doesn't get to benefit then hopefully the many hundreds of others who have supported this case will."

'Entombed'

It will also be the first such case since right-to-die campaigners lost their appeal before the Supreme Court in 2014,

Mr Conway's wife, Carol, described his diagnosis as "devastating" when the couple spoke to the BBC in January.

He said he feared becoming "entombed" in his body as his health deteriorated.

The 1961 Suicide Act makes it a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison for anyone to assist in a suicide.

The 2014 case brought before the Supreme Court made it clear that it was up to Parliament to deal with any decision on amending the law.

A year later, MPs rejected plans for a right-to-die law in England and Wales, in their first vote on the issue in almost 20 years.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A terminally ill man has won the right to bring a High Court challenge over the law on assisted dying. Noel Conway, 67, asked the Court of Appeal to overturn a decision that prevented a judicial review over the blanket ban on providing a person with assistance to die.

# data[].attributes.headline
Ohio woman charged with knifepoint rape of male taxi-driver

# data[].attributes.subject
Ohio woman charged with knifepoint rape of male taxi-driver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Ohio woman has been charged with raping a cab driver at knifepoint before she and another man robbed him, according to police.

Brittany Carter, 23, is accused of performing a sex act on the 29-year-old driver while Corey Jackson, 20, allegedly held a knife to his throat.

Police said the pair then stole $32 (£26) from the victim before fleeing the scene in the city of Findlay.

"We don't know why she did it," police Lt Robert Ring said.

"Maybe it was a distraction because they took money from him."

The assault unfolded after Ms Carter called the Trinity Express Cab Service in the early hours of 28 January, according to police.

She was arrested after the driver reported the incident.

Ms Carter faces first-degree felony rape and aggravated robbery charges in Hancock County.

She was indicted twice on drug charges in 2016 and is accused of heroin possession.

Mr Jackson remains at large and a warrant has been issued for his arrest, say police.

He is charged with aggravated robbery and complicity to commit rape, both first-degree felonies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Woman charged with raping male cab-driver

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Ohio woman has been charged with raping a cab driver at knifepoint before she and another man robbed him, according to police. Brittany Carter, 23, is accused of performing a sex act on the 29-year-old driver while Corey Jackson, 20, allegedly held a knife to his throat.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charlie Gard case: Doctors can withdraw baby's life support

# data[].attributes.subject
Charlie Gard case: Doctors can withdraw baby's life support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic condition against his parents' wishes, a High Court judge has ruled.

Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital said eight-month-old Charlie Gard has irreversible brain damage and should be moved to palliative care.

His parents Connie Yates and Chris Gard, from London, had wanted to take him to the US for a treatment trial.

They said they were "devastated" by the decision but intended to appeal.

Their solicitor, Laura Hobey-Hamsher, said they could not understand why Mr Justice Francis had not "at least given Charlie the chance of treatment".

She said the couple would take further advice on challenging the ruling once their legal team had studied it.

They have three weeks to lodge an appeal.

Hospital bosses said they would continue to provide life-support treatment until a decision about an appeal had been made.

'Brave and dignified'

In his judgement, Mr Justice Francis said he made the decision with the "heaviest of hearts" but with "complete conviction" that it was in the best interests of the child.

He paid tribute to Charlie's parents for "their brave and dignified campaign on his behalf" and "their absolute dedication to their wonderful boy, from the day that he was born".

The judge, who had visited Charlie in hospital, added: "I know this is the darkest day for Charlie's parents...my heart goes out to them.

"I only hope in time they will come to accept it is in Charlie's best interests to let him slip away peacefully, and not put him through more pain and suffering."

Charlie, who was born on 4 August, has a disorder called mitochondrial depletion syndrome, a rare disease which affects the genetic building blocks that give energy to cells.

It causes progressive muscle weakness and brain damage.

His parents, of Bedfont, west London, had told the Family Division of the High Court they wanted to give their baby "one chance of life".

In their bid to fund the treatment abroad they set up a crowdfunding campaign which has raised in excess of £1.25m from more than 80,000 donors.

A GoFundMe spokesman said it will "be speaking privately to the family" about what would happen to the money raised.

Mr Gard was "shaking and visibly very upset" as he waited for the judgment, BBC News correspondent Helena Lee, who was in court, said.

When the judge ruled the treatment could be withdrawn, he shouted out "no".

Both he and Ms Yates broke down in tears and buried their heads in their hands.

They left the court building without listening to the judge's full reasoning behind his judgement.

During five days of evidence, Mr Justice Francis heard competing arguments over what should happen to Charlie.

Debra Powell QC, representing hospital bosses, had told the court a number of "world-renowned" experts agreed the child should not be given long-term life support as his "quality of life" is "so poor".

Barrister Victoria Butler-Cole, who was appointed to represent the eight month old, said proposed treatment in the US was "purely experimental" and continuing his life support would only "prolong the process of dying".

But the parents' barrister, Sophia Roper, argued Charlie would not suffer significant harm if he was taken to the United States and should be given a chance to improve.

She also claimed his parents' wishes should carry "great weight".
Sign-up to get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning
A statement from Great Ormond Street Hospital, released after the ruling, said its doctors had sought "multiple external opinions as to whether therapy could improve Charlie's chance of survival or quality of life" but "the consensus... was that it would not".

"Our focus now is to work with Charlie's family to plan for the next stages in Charlie's care," it said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Doctors can withdraw baby's life support

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Doctors can withdraw life support from a sick baby with a rare genetic condition against his parents' wishes, a High Court judge has ruled. Specialists at Great Ormond Street Hospital said eight-month-old Charlie Gard has irreversible brain damage and should be moved to palliative care.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charlie Gard doctors say treatment 'should be halted'

# data[].attributes.subject
Charlie Gard doctors say treatment 'should be halted'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Doctors treating a sick baby have said his life support should be stopped as his mother urged a High Court judge to give him "one chance of life".

Specialists say eight-month-old Charlie Gard is largely unable to move and has significant irreversible brain damage.

His parents want to take him abroad for treatment but doctors say he should be moved to having palliative care.

His mother Connie Yates said without the treatment "Charlie's only alternative is death".

A decision over whether to turn off Charlie's life support machines is being considered by the Family Division of the High Court.

Judge Mr Justice Francis said he aimed to announce his decision on Tuesday.

He has been told Charlie, who was born on 4 August 2016, has a disorder called mitochondrial depletion syndrome which causes progressive muscle weakness.

A lawyer representing Great Ormond Street Hospital said a number of "world-renowned" experts agreed life support treatment should be halted.

Debra Powell QC said Charlie's father Chris Gard and Ms Yates had given their son "complete and unwavering" love and support.

However, she said Charlie should not get long-term life support treatment because his quality of life was so poor.

A guardian appointed to independently represent the baby boy's interests said he should not travel to the US for treatment.

Barrister Victoria Butler-Cole, instructed by Charlie's guardian, said continuing life-support treatment would not benefit Charlie but "prolong the process of dying".

She said: "This is not pioneering or life-sustaining treatment, but a purely experimental process with no real prospect of improving Charlie's condition or quality of life."

Analysis by Jane Dreaper, BBC News health correspondent

Baby Charlie suffers from an incredibly rare and devastating disease affecting the genetic building blocks which give energy to cells.

The Family Division of the High Court has heard how this mutation in the RRM2B gene generally proves fatal in the first year of life, although children can survive for longer on ventilators.

The American doctor who proposes treating Charlie for up to six months has stressed that an experimental drug called nucleoside therapy is not a cure.

Such a treatment plan would also require detailed conversations with intensive care specialists about ensuring the baby was medically stable for the long trip to the United States.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London say Charlie could theoretically have been given the treatment here - but they do not believe this is appropriate because he is so ill.

Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital said the baby received 24-hour care and should be allowed to die with dignity.

But Ms Yates said: "All I ask now is for you to give him that chance for the treatment proposed.

"Charlie's best interests have always been at the forefront of our mind."

A crowdfunding campaign for the trip is about £50,000 short of its £1.3m target.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Doctors treating a sick baby have said his life support should be stopped as his mother urged a High Court judge to give him "one chance of life". Specialists say eight-month-old Charlie Gard is largely unable to move and has significant irreversible brain damage.

# data[].attributes.body
Take a look at the Supreme Court judgment

# data[].attributes.headline
Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

# data[].attributes.subject
Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A father has lost his legal challenge against a fine for taking his daughter out of primary school on an unauthorised holiday during term time.

The Supreme Court ruled against Jon Platt, who had won earlier legal battles against a £120 fine in a case brought by the Isle of Wight council.

Mr Platt said the decision, over a trip to Florida, meant the "state was taking the rights away from parents".

But Prime Minister Theresa May said it was for schools to decide on absences.

"It's right that the individual head teacher has that flexibility to make that decision," she said.

The judges ruled that the interpretation of "regular" attendance, at the centre of this long-running dispute, should be decided by the school.

The decision makes clear that parents in England can be fined if their children miss school without the agreement of the head teacher, except for reasons such as illness or family bereavement.

Holiday costs

But Mr Platt said parents would find it "utterly shocking" that they needed the "permission of the state" to decide on school attendance.

"You are not the final arbiter of what's right for your child."

In her judgement, Lady Hale said it would cause unacceptable disruption if parents were able to withdraw children whenever they wanted.

"Unauthorised absences have a disruptive effect, not only on the education of the individual child, but also on the work of other pupils, and of their teachers," she said.

Allowing parents to decide when they took their children away would be a "slap in the face" to parents who kept the rules, said Lady Hale.

The case has raised questions about the high cost of travel during school holidays and Andrew Shelton from the Cheapflights travel website said the tough message on term-time absences could "widen the price divide between term-time and school holiday even further".

Mr Shelton said that at present there could be a 50% difference in prices.

'Much-needed clarity'

The Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the appeal by the Isle of Wight council and the Department for Education, means that the case will be returned to the magistrates' court, where Mr Platt says he will continue to plead not guilty.

The court found that the penalty notice had been properly issued and without a reasonable cause for the absence, Mr Platt could have expected to face a fine.

The Isle of Wight council backed the decision as providing "much-needed clarity about what constitutes regular attendance at school".

The ruling rejects Mr Platt's argument that despite missing a week of school for a holiday, his daughter had regularly attended over the course of the year, with an attendance rate of over 92%.

The judges did not accept this interpretation and said parents would have to comply with the rules set by schools and education authorities.

The row centred on a week's holiday to Disney World in the United States two years ago, when Mr Platt's daughter was taken out of primary school without the head teacher's permission.

Mr Platt, originally from Northern Ireland, was fined £60 which with non-payment was increased to £120 - after which he faced prosecution for failing to ensure his daughter's regular attendance at school on the Isle of Wight.
Truancy prosecutions in England in 2015

Proceeded against: 19,920 (16,430 in 2014)

Found guilty: 14,890 (12,479 in 2014)

Fined: 11,493, average fine £176.

Immediate custody: 8

Suspended sentence: 111

Community sentence: 553

Conditional discharge: 2,280

Absolute discharge: 306

Source: PA

Magistrates had accepted Mr Platt's argument that "regular attendance" should consider attendance across the whole year - and decided that he had no case to answer.

When this was put to appeal, the High Court agreed that magistrates had been entitled to consider school attendance outside of the term-time absence.

But the Supreme Court has now overturned these earlier decisions.

End of uncertainty

Head teachers' leader Malcolm Trobe welcomed the court's decision, saying that it ended a "period of uncertainty" over term-time holidays.

But Liberal Democrat education spokesman, John Pugh, said the ruling was "disappointing" and called for more "flexibility" for families.

"Many employees have no choice when to take their holidays... Others simply cannot afford to go on holiday at peak times, when the cost of holidays goes through the roof," he said.

A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position - that no child should be taken out of school without good reason.

"As before, head teachers have the ability to decide when exceptional circumstances allow for a child to be absent but today's ruling removes the uncertainty for schools and local authorities that was created by the previous judgment.

"The evidence shows every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil's chances of achieving good GCSEs, which has a lasting effect on their life chances."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A father has lost his legal challenge against a fine for taking his daughter out of primary school on an unauthorised holiday during term time. The Supreme Court ruled against Jon Platt, who had won earlier legal battles against a £120 fine in a case brought by the Isle of Wight council.

# data[].attributes.headline
Term-time holiday dad awaits court ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Term-time holiday dad awaits court ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A father has lost his legal challenge against a fine for taking his daughter out of primary school on an unauthorised holiday during term time.

The Supreme Court ruled against Jon Platt, who had won earlier legal battles against a £120 fine in a case brought by the Isle of Wight council.

Mr Platt said the decision, over a trip to Florida, meant the "state was taking the rights away from parents".

But Prime Minister Theresa May said it was for schools to decide on absences.

"It's right that the individual head teacher has that flexibility to make that decision," she said.

The judges ruled that the interpretation of "regular" attendance, at the centre of this long-running dispute, should be decided by the school.

The decision makes clear that parents in England can be fined if their children miss school without the agreement of the head teacher, except for reasons such as illness or family bereavement.

Holiday costs

But Mr Platt said parents would find it "utterly shocking" that they needed the "permission of the state" to decide on school attendance.

"You are not the final arbiter of what's right for your child."

In her judgement, Lady Hale said it would cause unacceptable disruption if parents were able to withdraw children whenever they wanted.

"Unauthorised absences have a disruptive effect, not only on the education of the individual child, but also on the work of other pupils, and of their teachers," she said.

Allowing parents to decide when they took their children away would be a "slap in the face" to parents who kept the rules, said Lady Hale.

The case has raised questions about the high cost of travel during school holidays and Andrew Shelton from the Cheapflights travel website said the tough message on term-time absences could "widen the price divide between term-time and school holiday even further".

Mr Shelton said that at present there could be a 50% difference in prices.

'Much-needed clarity'

The Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the appeal by the Isle of Wight council and the Department for Education, means that the case will be returned to the magistrates' court, where Mr Platt says he will continue to plead not guilty.

The court found that the penalty notice had been properly issued and without a reasonable cause for the absence, Mr Platt could have expected to face a fine.

The Isle of Wight council backed the decision as providing "much-needed clarity about what constitutes regular attendance at school".

The ruling rejects Mr Platt's argument that despite missing a week of school for a holiday, his daughter had regularly attended over the course of the year, with an attendance rate of over 92%.

The judges did not accept this interpretation and said parents would have to comply with the rules set by schools and education authorities.

The row centred on a week's holiday to Disney World in the United States two years ago, when Mr Platt's daughter was taken out of primary school without the head teacher's permission.

Mr Platt, originally from Northern Ireland, was fined £60 which with non-payment was increased to £120 - after which he faced prosecution for failing to ensure his daughter's regular attendance at school on the Isle of Wight.
Truancy prosecutions in England in 2015

Proceeded against: 19,920 (16,430 in 2014)

Found guilty: 14,890 (12,479 in 2014)

Fined: 11,493, average fine £176.

Immediate custody: 8

Suspended sentence: 111

Community sentence: 553

Conditional discharge: 2,280

Absolute discharge: 306

Source: PA

Magistrates had accepted Mr Platt's argument that "regular attendance" should consider attendance across the whole year - and decided that he had no case to answer.

When this was put to appeal, the High Court agreed that magistrates had been entitled to consider school attendance outside of the term-time absence.

But the Supreme Court has now overturned these earlier decisions.

End of uncertainty

Head teachers' leader Malcolm Trobe welcomed the court's decision, saying that it ended a "period of uncertainty" over term-time holidays.

But Liberal Democrat education spokesman, John Pugh, said the ruling was "disappointing" and called for more "flexibility" for families.

"Many employees have no choice when to take their holidays... Others simply cannot afford to go on holiday at peak times, when the cost of holidays goes through the roof," he said.

A Department for Education spokeswoman said: "We are pleased the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position - that no child should be taken out of school without good reason.

"As before, head teachers have the ability to decide when exceptional circumstances allow for a child to be absent but today's ruling removes the uncertainty for schools and local authorities that was created by the previous judgment.

"The evidence shows every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil's chances of achieving good GCSEs, which has a lasting effect on their life chances."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Term-time holiday dad loses court battle

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A father has lost his legal challenge against a fine for taking his daughter out of primary school on an unauthorised holiday during term time. The Supreme Court ruled against Jon Platt, who had won earlier legal battles against a £120 fine in a case brought by the Isle of Wight council.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The number of people reported as potential victims of slavery and human trafficking in the UK has more than doubled in the past three years.

Statistics released by the National Crime Agency (NCA) show there were 3,805 people referred for help in 2016 - up from 1,745 people in 2013.

Recent Home Office estimates suggest there are between 10,000 and 13,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK.

Home Office minister Sarah Newton said the government was taking action.

Albanian, UK and Vietnamese nationals are the most commonly reported victims of modern slavery.

'Traded like commodity'

Tamara Barnett, from the Human Trafficking Foundation, said she believed the rise may be down to an increased understanding of what constitutes human trafficking and modern slavery.

"We are starting to recognise a lot more cases as being human trafficking cases," she said.

"It used to be very much seen as just the trafficking of women into the sex trade.

"There was quite a narrow view of what it involved but now there is definitely a broader view of what is human trafficking."

She said the increased awareness was in part due to the introduction of the 2015 Modern Slavery Act, which requires all public authorities to notify the Secretary of State or relevant authority if it has "reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of slavery or human trafficking".

However, she said additional training and funding was needed to improve awareness of the issue and called for better long-term support for victims.

'I was scared for my life'

A man who was trafficked to work in the UK from Poland has spoken to the BBC about his experience working in the West Midlands.

Using the pseudonym Jamusz to protect his identity, he said he met a man in the job centre in Poland who told him he would earn more in the UK.

"To begin with it was really good, then they started taking half my money and I felt like I was imprisoned," he said.

"I started work at 7.30am and finished at 17:00. I should have earned between £380-£400 a week.

"The money was being transferred into my bank account, but when I went to withdraw it, a person came with me and I would only get half of it.

"I realised this was definitely wrong and I escaped."

Jamusz spoke to police who helped him move to a safe house in Leeds.

"Police kept coming to the place where we were working for checks," he said. "One day they raided the warehouse, and I told the police everything.

"I was scared for my life. Here, my life has definitely got better since I escaped."

Figures from the NCA also suggest more children are potentially being trafficked for sexual exploitation, with the number reported to agencies having doubled in the past 12 months from 105 cases in 2015 to 215 in 2016.

The Salvation Army, which works with people who have been trafficked, said cultural practices, beliefs, poverty and a lack of education are used to "trick" people into being trafficked and enslaved.

"They all have one thing in common - the victims themselves are vulnerable individuals who are lured into a false sense of security or obligation," spokeswoman Anne Read said.

"They're traded like a commodity. In almost every case somebody has been told that there is a job for them, and they follow that person to our country."

She said it was important people were alerted to the problem and reported any suspicions to the authorities.

"Rather than mind our own business we should make it our business," she said.

"Britain is both a source and destination country for men, women and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labour, including domestic servitude."

Ms Newton, minister for vulnerability, safeguarding and countering extremism, said: "Modern slavery is a barbaric crime which destroys the lives of some of the most vulnerable in our society.

"This government has taken world-leading action to tackle it, giving law enforcement agencies the tools they need, toughening up sentences, increasing support for victims and encouraging more to come forward."

She said the government also funded a specialist victim care contract, delivered by the Salvation Army, for victims.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The number of people reported as potential victims of slavery and human trafficking in the UK has more than doubled in the past three years. Statistics released by the National Crime Agency (NCA) show there were 3,805 people referred for help in 2016 - up from 1,745 people in 2013.

# data[].attributes.headline
Thordis Elva and Tom Stranger: Should a rapist be invited on stage?

# data[].attributes.subject
Thordis Elva and Tom Stranger: Should a rapist be invited on stage?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An international project featuring a rapist discussing his crime on stage has drawn both condemnation and support. So should a perpetrator be given a platform to share his experience?

"There's a rapist in the building," the protesters shouted as they briefly blocked the entrance. "Get the rapist out."

Their banners and loudspeakers were an unusual sight outside a venue better known for world-class concert performances than controversy.

The anger at London's Royal Festival Hall at the Southbank Centre on Tuesday evening was over South of Forgiveness, an event that would see a woman inviting the man who raped her to discuss the impact of his actions.

The discussion between Thordis Elva, from Iceland, and Australian Tom Stranger had already been dropped from a women's festival at the weekend following pressure from campaigners.
Watch the full BBC Newsnight interview here
But it was rescheduled after organisers of the Women of the World (WOW) Festival said the debate was too important to silence.

"Rape is one of these critical issues and we need to shift the discourse around it, which too often focuses on rape survivors rather than rape perpetrators", Jude Kelly, artistic director of the Southbank Centre, said in a statement.

Diane Langford, one of the protesters waving placards on the banks of the River Thames, condemned the decision.

"I'm here because I feel a rapist is profiting from his rape," said the 75-year-old, herself a survivor of rape.

"I don't believe there can ever be impunity for a rapist."

Thordis Elva was 16 when she was raped by her then 18-year-old boyfriend, Tom Stranger, after a Christmas party in her hometown in Iceland.

After years of turmoil she decided to get in touch with him. And to her surprise, he replied with a confession and an offer of "whatever I can do".

By then it was too late for her to press criminal charges. Instead, they wrote a book together about what happened.

A TED talk they filmed last October has been watched by more the 2.7 million people and the pair have since taken part in a handful of stage appearances.

Their London fixture prompted a petition by campaigners who warned it would be a "trigger" for sexual assault survivors - bringing back painful and dangerous memories - and could "encourage the normalisation of sexual violence instead of focusing on accountability and root causes of this violence".

They said it risked "suggesting that standing on a platform alongside one's rapist is a model approach to addressing sexual violence".

The debate comes amid continued concern about the number of victims who report rape to police, both in the UK and around the world.

The BBC has previously covered cases - for example in Colombia and Myanmar - where women have been attacked and even raped again for speaking out against sexual assault.

Elva, who now lives in Sweden with her husband and son, insists she is not sharing a set of recommendations for others.

Instead, she wants to shift the focus of responsibility for sexual violence to the perpetrator rather than the victim, and bring about what she calls the "demonstrification" of attackers.

"Demonisation of perpetrators in the mainstream media got in the way of my recovery," she said.

"The fact that Tom wasn't a monster, but a person who made an awful decision, made it harder for me to see his crime for what it was."

When it was Stranger's turn to speak at the Royal Festival Hall on Tuesday, his words appeared very carefully chosen and he still seemed to have some difficulty getting them out.

"I'm not up here as some form of punishment... or searching for some kind of questionable redemption," he said.

"I'm not trying to benefit my profile or my bank balance. It would be disrespectful for me to do so."

More from BBC Women's Hour:
From rape to reconciliation: Thordis and Tom's story
Organisers of the event said Stranger would not be paid for his appearance and he has vowed to donate any profits from the book to charity.

He is being held up as the first and only confessed rapist to speak out publicly and internationally about his crime - without being identified by a court. So there is no guide on how to deal with these sensitivities.

Wrong signal?

But the attempts to make Stranger's involvement more palatable have failed to pacify some activists and victims.

"Even if he's not getting paid, he will benefit from the cultural capital and the media buzz. He will continue to use his position of the vocal rapist to be protected," Liv Wynter, an artist, activist and survivor of rape, told the BBC.

In a comment piece published before Tuesday's event, Wynter argued that rapists should not be applauded for purely admitting their crime, and worried that such a discussion could encourage other perpetrators to contact their victims.

No-one involved in the event encouraged this. But any possibility - however slight - that rapists might be somehow persuaded to contact their victims "would undoubtedly be concerning", says Katie Russell, a spokesperson for support group Rape Crisis.

"If there is any rapist reading about this who is considering doing so, we urge them not to; it's not your right or your decision," she says.

Rape Crisis as well as The Survivors Trust stress that, while they support Thordis Elva's process of recovery, her approach will not be right for everyone.

"We welcome the debate with caution as each experience is unique," says Fay Maxted of The Survivors Trust.

'Problematic individual'

Campaigners, meanwhile, have questioned how far Tom Stranger will go now to challenge other men who have perpetrated - or could perpetrate - sexual violence.

He told the audience in London he would be "deeply invested in listening to other men" and encouraged more men to take part the debate about sexual violence and responsibility around the world.

"I recognise I'm a problematic individual. But I think there's a hunger for this discussion and it is high time."

His involvement in the talk was broadly welcomed by those in the audience on Tuesday - perhaps unsurprisingly as they had devoted the time to listen.

"It was still her story", said Karla Williams, 34. "He didn't try to hijack anything or make it about himself."

"If you never hear from men, then how is anything ever going to change?" added her friend Simran Chawla, 41.

A handful of the men in the audience also shared their reactions in follow-up discussions after Elva and Stranger's talk. "I think what they are doing is extraordinary. I'm really pleased this is happening," one man said.

"Tom did something quite brave and courageous" in speaking up, said another.

But the small number currently engaging in the debate soon came in sharp focus. It emerged that a separate men-only discussion after Elva and Strange's event only attracted two participants.

"It seems men here weren't ready to have the conversation with themselves," one of them said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An international project featuring a rapist discussing his crime on stage has drawn both condemnation and support. So should a perpetrator be given a platform to share his experience? "There's a rapist in the building," the protesters shouted as they briefly blocked the entrance. "Get the rapist out."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Florida governor has removed a prosecutor from 21 murder cases after she said she would no longer be seeking the death penalty.

Republican Governor Rick Scott said he was reassigning all Aramis Ayala's murder cases because her stance sent an "unacceptable message".

Ms Ayala, a Democrat covering Orlando, cited "legal chaos" as the reason for refusing to pursue execution in the case of a murdered policewoman.

Her decision sparked an outcry.

But there were also some who backed her, and a rally was held in her support last week in the state capital of Tallahassee.

On Monday, Mr Scott said: "State Attorney Ayala's complete refusal to consider capital punishment for the entirety of her term sends an unacceptable message that she is not interested in considering every available option in the fight for justice."

Ms Ayala, an elected prosecutor in central Florida's Ninth Judicial Circuit, accused the governor of abusing his authority and compromising the independence of the judiciary.

She took office in January, to begin a four-year term.

The case that sparked the row involves a man accused of killing an Orlando police officer.

When Ms Ayala said last month she would not consider capital punishment for the accused, Markeith Loyd, the governor removed her from the case.

He handed it to State Attorney Brad King, who will now also take on the 21 other murder cases removed from Ms Ayala on Monday.

Capital punishment has been in limbo in Florida for 15 months.

A US Supreme Court ruling in January 2016 said the state's death penalty was unconstitutional because it gave too much power to judges over juries.

Governor Scott attempted to restart executions last month by signing a bill that requires jury recommendations to be unanimous before a death penalty can be imposed by a judge.
More from the BBC: Crowdfunding to witness son's execution
With just six weeks left to visit before her son is executed, Shankle-Grant posted a weary status to her Facebook page, lamenting the short amount of time she has left with her son and the financial struggle she faces just to see him.

It caught the eye of Abraham J Bonowitz, co-director of Death Penalty Action, an anti-death penalty charity. He had met Shankle-Grant many times over the years at death penalty abolition events.

Bonowitz reached out to Shankle-Grant to ask her permission to set up an online fundraiser on her behalf. He created a page on the crowdfunding site You Caring, which included a note from Shankle-Grant. Read more

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
US prosecutor removed in death penalty row

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Florida governor has removed a prosecutor from 21 murder cases after she said she would no longer be seeking the death penalty. Republican Governor Rick Scott said he was reassigning all Aramis Ayala's murder cases because her stance sent an "unacceptable message".

# data[].attributes.body
Summary table

# data[].attributes.body
Consideration

# data[].attributes.body
Offer and Acceptance

# data[].attributes.headline
Police bail limit of 28 days comes into force

# data[].attributes.subject
Police bail limit of 28 days comes into force

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A 28-day limit on police bail has come into force in England and Wales.

The move follows criticism of people being kept on police bail for months or years without charge in investigations such as Operation Yewtree - into historical sexual abuse - and others.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said the reforms brought "much-needed safeguards" over police bail.

The Police Federation of England and Wales said the limit will mean a "massive change" in custody culture.

Police bail can still be extended for up to three months more in complex cases with the authorisation of a senior police officer, or even further by applying to a magistrate.

'End to injustice'

Police use pre-charge bail when they have questioned a suspect, but need time to continue their investigations before determining whether to charge them.

A suspect is released from custody, sometimes with conditions attached, and told to report back to a police station at a later date.

Previously, there was no legal limit on how long someone could be bailed for.

The 28-day limit is one of several measures taking effect on Monday through the Policing and Crime Act 2017.

The limit is designed to reduce the amount of time people spend on police bail and strengthen safeguards for suspects.

In a number of high-profile cases suspects were kept waiting for long periods of time before being told whether they would be charged.

In 2015, broadcaster Paul Gambaccini - who was once held on police bail for a year - backed the 28-day limit.

In 2013, Mr Gambaccini was arrested on suspicion of historical sexual abuse but the case against him was dropped.

The Home Office said the change "brings an end to the injustice of people being left to languish on very lengthy periods of pre-charge bail".

'Legality and proportionality'

Home Secretary Amber Rudd said: "Pre-charge bail is a useful and necessary tool but in many cases it is being imposed on people for many months, or even years, without any judicial oversight - and that cannot be right.

"These important reforms will mean fewer people are placed on bail and for shorter periods.

"They will bring about much-needed safeguards - public accountability and independent scrutiny - while ensuring the police can continue to do their vital work."

The College of Policing previously criticised the proposals, warning it could hamper communication between police forces about potentially dangerous suspects.

David Tucker, crime lead at the college, said: "The new legislation is a significant change for policing and has sought to strike a balance between the need for police to manage investigations and not leaving a person suspected of a crime on bail for an unacceptably long period.

"We recognise this is a major change for policing and we are supporting our members by providing high-quality training materials to help them continue to manage investigations to bring criminals to justice and protect the public."

Andy Ward, deputy general secretary of the Police Federation of England and Wales, said the new limit could be unrealistic in complicated investigations.

He added: "Cyber-crime, for example, requires computers to be seized and equipment to be interrogated to gain evidence.

"The results for detailed forensic tests also take some time to come back."
Get news from the BBC in your inbox, each weekday morning Have you ever been held on police bail? What is your reaction to the changes? Share your views and experiences by emailing haveyoursay@bbc.co.uk .
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a BBC journalist. You can also contact us in the following ways:

WhatsApp: +447555 173285

Tweet: @BBC_HaveYourSay

Send pictures/video to yourpics@bbc.co.uk

Upload your pictures / video here

Send an SMS or MMS to 61124 or +44 7624 800 100

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A 28-day limit on police bail has come into force in England and Wales. The move follows criticism of people being kept on police bail for months or years without charge in investigations such as Operation Yewtree - into historical sexual abuse - and others.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By Prof Joanne Conaghan, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School).

The case of the Black Cab rapist, John Worboys, may well qualify as one of the most egregious failures of modern policing of our times. Alleged to have assaulted over 100 women using his taxi as a lure and a crime site, Worboys terrorised women in the London Metropolitan area for the best part of a decade before eventually being apprehended and imprisoned in 2009 for 19 separate sexual assaults. This week the Worboys case is once again in the public eye as a claim by two of his victims, DSD and NBV, that the Metropolitan Police violated their human rights by failing adequately to investigate their claims comes before the Supreme Court.

One has to wonder how such serious criminal activity in a public setting could go unchecked for so long. The simple answer is that the Metropolitan Police failed Worboys' victims utterly and unequivocally, their investigation marred by multiple systemic and operational failings, as elaborated in painstaking detail by Mr Justice Green in a High Court judgment in 2014.

At the time of the initial hearing, a mountain of studies already evidenced repeated shortcomings in police handling of rape complaints. Prominent concerns emerging from the extensive literature included a sustained culture of police suspicion of rape complainants, poor record-keeping, widespread misuse of 'no-criming', sloppy witness follow-up and evidence-gathering, and a lack of adequate senior officer supervision. All of these failings and more featured in the Worboys' investigation, which at times sunk to such levels of incompetence and/or neglect as to beggar belief. For the individual women involved, the woeful handling of their complaints after a traumatic attack must have been both shocking and deeply distressing.

How do we hold the police to account in such situations? Generally, when professionals carry out their duties negligently, those who are harmed by the negligence can bring a civil claim for damages. We are all familiar with suits against hospitals for negligent medical treatment or suits against lawyers and accountants for failing to take care of their clients' interests. It has proved difficult however, if not impossible, to bring a negligence claim against the police for failing to protect members of the public from criminal injury, even when the police knew or ought to have known that an individual was at particular risk. This position was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in 2015 when they denied a negligence claim brought by the family of a domestic violence victim, Joanna Michael, whose brutal murder could have been prevented had the police responded in a timely fashion to her 999 call.

This inability to bring a negligence claim against the police has prompted the exploration of other avenues of redress and this is why the Black Cab rapist case is so significant. DSD and NBV are arguing not that the police were negligent (though they were), but that they breached the claimants' human rights, specifically the right not to be subject to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 3.

Now it is true that the police themselves did not carry out the sexual assaults - Worboys did that. What the police did was fail to protect women from Worboys' violations and fail properly to investigate the assaults after the fact. It is this latter concern which is the particular focus of the current claim before the Supreme Court. The claimants argue that because their human rights were involved, the police had a duty to investigate their complaints properly.

When the case came before the High Court in 2014, Mr Justice Green reviewed the legal authorities and concluded that the claims were merited. He awarded damages of £22,250 and £19,000 to DSD and NBV respectively. These are not huge amounts when compared to negligence awards but they are at least enough to signal that wrong has been done for which account should be made.

The following year, in 2015, the Court of Appeal rejected an appeal against the judgment by the Metropolitan Police and upheld the damages awards. At this point, it might have been hoped that the police would back down, the weight of legal opinion now falling firmly in favour of the claimants. Unfortunately the police chose to appeal again followed hotfoot by the Home Office who are 'intervening' in the Supreme Court in support of the Met's position. Lined up against this formidable team are two rape victims, their barrister, and legal counsel for a number of NGOs concerned about sexual violence issues, including Liberty, Rape Crisis England and Wales, End Violence Against Women and Southall Black Sisters. The number and range of intervenors is itself indicative of how much is at stake in this decision. Are the police going to continue to be free to deliver a substandard service to rape and domestic violence victims with no practical mechanisms of accountability or means of redress? Or are the Supreme Court going to uphold a claim which might put some incentive on the police to handle these kinds of investigations more effectively?

Of course, if such a claim is recognised it must be placed within clear and fairly limited parameters. This was emphasised by the High Court and the Court of Appeal, who do not wish unduly to inhibit the police in carrying out their essential functions. Inevitably a balance must be struck between facilitating policing on the one hand and righting wrongs on the other; and where the balance is right, these two concerns do not have to compete but can in fact reinforce one another. In my view, recognising a claim against the police in a narrow range of particularly egregious circumstances, such as those in the Worboys case, will enhance not inhibit policing by placing some incentives on the police to raise their game when it comes to investigating crimes of sexual violence. I have to hope that the Supreme Court agree, as we await their final judgement on this critical matter in due course.

__________________

For further critical analysis, see J Conaghan, ' Investigating rape: human rights and police accountability' (2017) 37(1) Legal Studies 54-77. You can also watch Joanne's Inaugural Lecture on " Civil Liability - Addressing police failures in the context of rape, domestic and sexual abuse ", delivered at the University of Bristol on 19 February 2015.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Rape Investigations and police accountability: the case of the Black Cab Rapist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Prof Joanne Conaghan, Professor of Law (University of Bristol Law School). The case of the Black Cab rapist, John Worboys, may well qualify as one of the most egregious failures of modern policing of our times.

# data[].attributes.headline
Farmer, 83, cleared of GBH for shooting convicted burglar on his property - Sky News

# data[].attributes.subject
Farmer, 83, cleared of GBH for shooting convicted burglar on his property - Sky News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Farmer, 83, cleared of GBH for shooting convicted burglar on his property - Sky News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An 83-year-old farmer who shot a man he suspected of being a thief has been found not guilty of grievous bodily harm.

# data[].attributes.headline
Metropolitan Police appeal against Worboys rape ruling

# data[].attributes.subject
Metropolitan Police appeal against Worboys rape ruling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police have launched an unprecedented appeal at the Supreme Court against a ruling that they failed victims of one of the UK's most dangerous rapists.

Judges said Scotland Yard had breached the human rights of two women because officers did not properly investigate and potentially apprehend John Worboys.

He was jailed for life in 2009 for more than 100 rapes and sexual assaults.

Monday's appeal could have profound implications for how police investigate serious sexual offences.

The case is so important to the law around police negligence that Theresa May, when she was still home secretary, intervened to support Scotland Yard.

The victims who sued

The two women in the case, known as DSD and NBV, were raped in 2003 and 2007 by John Worboys.

The black-cab driver drugged victims in his vehicle by offering them sedative-laced champagne, claiming he was celebrating winning a big cash prize.

The women were left confused, disoriented and with only a partial memory of what had happened.

Worboys was so confident he could get away with it that he even drove DSD to the police station so she could get help. Judges said if officers had taken his details - including, crucially, his cab registration - investigators may have identified him as the prime suspect.

NBV had some recall of the events of her attack and Worboys could be seen with her on CCTV - but officers dropped their investigation after failing to secure potential evidence of crucial links.

Police negligence

In a landmark 2014 judgement, the High Court awarded both DSD and NVB damages totalling more than £40,000, ruling the Metropolitan Police's failings had breached Article Three of the European Convention on Human Rights which bans inhuman or degrading treatment.

Until then, police couldn't be found to be negligent for generally failing to identify and apprehend an unknown suspect.

But if the Worboys ruling stands, it means they could be sued for the most serious of crimes that amount to inhuman or degrading treatment if they fail to conduct an effective investigation.

On Monday, Lord Pannick QC told a panel of five justices headed by Supreme Court president Lord Neuberger, that imposing an investigative duty on police raised policy concerns.

He asked the panel to allow the appeal so that a "dialogue" could take place with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

Lord Pannick said there was a concern that any investigative duty would "reduce the efficacy of police investigations of crime".

He also argued that Article 3 did not give rise to an entitlement to damages for failings of a police investigation.

The hearing continues on Tuesday and a judgement will follow at a later date.

A spokesman for Scotland Yard said: "Our defence of these claims should not be taken as a reflection of any doubt upon the veracity of the claimants' accounts.

"The case has raised important arguments regarding the boundaries of police responsibility and liability and we believed that it was important for these principles to be tested before the courts."

What duties are the police under to investigate?

Repeated rulings have made clear the police are not under a general duty of care in relation to their investigation of crime

Judges in key cases have ruled the police can't be liable for a crime committed by someone else

There are legal duties to warn someone their life may be in danger if police have intelligence of a threat

The Worboys case expands the law by saying that the police have a duty to act if a victim is going to become the victim of inhuman and degrading treatment

The Home Office declined to comment ahead of the hearing as to why it had intervened in the case.

Its national strategy to end violence against women and girls says it wants to see an increase in victims coming forward and more investigations leading to successful prosecution.

Rachel Krys, co-director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said the police, like all other public bodies, must be held to account - and that would lead to more rapists being apprehended.

"If things go disastrously wrong with other public services, there is some form of redress," she said.

"In cases of gross negligence by the NHS, the victim or the family of the victim can sue. If the Metropolitan Police and the government get their way in this case there are no such mechanisms for dealing with the police in UK law.

"That is why it is so disappointing that the Met along with the UK government are now seeking to overturn this judgement."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police have launched an unprecedented appeal at the Supreme Court against a ruling that they failed victims of one of the UK's most dangerous rapists. Judges said Scotland Yard had breached the human rights of two women because officers did not properly investigate and potentially apprehend John Worboys.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jack the Ripper mystery finally solved as Patricia Cornwell unmasks the killer - Mirror Online

# data[].attributes.subject
Jack the Ripper mystery finally solved as Patricia Cornwell unmasks the killer - Mirror Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jack the Ripper mystery finally solved as Patricia Cornwell unmasks the killer - Mirror Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 60-year-old best seller has spent millions of her own money unearthing who was behind the grisly murders

# data[].attributes.headline
Retiring judge Lindsey Kushner issues drunk women rape warning

# data[].attributes.subject
Retiring judge Lindsey Kushner issues drunk women rape warning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A female judge has warned women who get drunk they are putting themselves in danger of being targeted by rapists.

Lindsey Kushner QC said women were entitled to "drink themselves into the ground" but their "disinhibited behaviour" could put them in danger.

Judge Kushner made the courtroom plea as she jailed a man for six years who raped a girl he met in a Burger King in Manchester city centre last year.

But, Rape Crisis slammed her comments as "outrageous" and "misguided".

Yvonne Traynor, chief executive of Rape Crisis South East, said: "As a judge and a woman she should know better.

"The only person who is responsible for rape, is the rapist.

"Women are yet again being blamed for rape."

The judge spoke out as she retired from the criminal bench.

'Time and time again'

Judge Kushner, 64, said "as a woman judge" it would "be remiss" if she did not beg women to protect themselves from predatory men who ''gravitate'' towards drunken females.

The mother of two, who has sat as a senior circuit judge since 2002, said judges have been criticised for "putting more emphasis on what girls should and shouldn't do than on the act and the blame to be apportioned to rapists".

"There is absolutely no excuse and a woman can do with her body what she wants and a man will have to adjust his behaviour accordingly," she said.

But she said she does not "think it's wrong for a judge to beg woman to take actions to protect themselves".

Analysis by Danny Shaw, BBC home affairs correspondent

Judge Kushner's plea to women to protect themselves was strongly - but carefully - worded: she was emphatically not blaming them for an attack but warning them that when drunk they're more vulnerable.

Other judges who've stepped into this tricky territory haven't always framed their remarks so delicately.

Judge Mary Jane Mowat's comment in 2014 that "the rape conviction statistics will not improve until women stop getting so drunk" was designed to highlight a point Judge Kushner also made - that victims are less likely to believed if they've had a lot of alcohol - but she made it sound as though women were responsible for rapists getting off.

But even more insensitive was the comment made by Mr Justice Leonard in 1987 when he declared that the trauma suffered by Ealing vicarage rape victim Jill Saward "had not been so great". He later apologised.

Judge Kushner said "potential defendants to rape" target girls who have been drinking because they are "more likely to agree as they are more disinhibited, even if they don't agree they are less likely to fight a man with evil intentions off".

She said a woman would be less likely to report a rape "because she was drunk or cannot remember what happened or feels ashamed to deal with it".

"Or, if push comes to shove, a girl who has been drunk is less likely to be believed than one who is sober at the time," she said.

"It should not be like that but it does happen and we see it time and time again."

She said women "are entitled to do what they like" but asked them to "please be aware there are men out there who gravitate towards a woman who might be more vulnerable than others".

"That's my final line, in my final criminal trial, and my final sentence," she concluded.

Judge Kushner jailed factory worker Ricardo Rodrigues-Fortes-Gomes, 19, after Manchester Crown Court heard he ignored his 18-year-old victim's screams as he attacked her on a canal bank.

A witness heard the teenager, who had been drinking lager and vodka as well as inhaling the party drug amyl nitrite, begging Rodrigues-Fortes-Gomes to stop.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A female judge has warned women who get drunk they are putting themselves in danger of being targeted by rapists. Lindsey Kushner QC said women were entitled to "drink themselves into the ground" but their "disinhibited behaviour" could put them in danger.