BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//LSE Law School Events - ECPv6.17.4.1//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:LSE Law School Events
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for LSE Law School Events
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20210328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20211031T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20220327T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20221030T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20250330T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20251026T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20260329T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20261025T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20270328T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20271031T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260311T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260311T180000
DTSTAMP:20260202T120000Z
CREATED:20260202T120000Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260202T120000Z
UID:10001035-1773244800-1773252000@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Legal and Political Theory Forum – Utopian Threads and Legal Frames
DESCRIPTION:The Legal & Political Theory Forum was set up in September 2007 in order to provide an umbrella for seminars and colloquia on topics of common interest to scholars and graduate students working in various disciplinary areas\, but particularly in the fields of politics and law. The Forum holds a series of seminars during term-time\, at which papers are presented by academics who are based either at LSE or more commonly elsewhere. \nOn Wednesday\, 11 March 2026\, Neil Walker will present the following paper: Utopian Threads and Legal Frames. \nOur policy is to make Forum events as inclusive as possible. All Forum events are open to staff and students from all departments and all academic institutions. The Forum is run by Thomas Poole (LSE Law School). \n This seminar is open to the public and will operate on a first-come\, first-served basis. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/legal-and-political-theory-forum-utopian-threads-and-legal-frames/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/OIP-1-e1700223978220.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260218T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260218T180000
DTSTAMP:20260202T115357Z
CREATED:20260202T115357Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260202T115357Z
UID:10001033-1771430400-1771437600@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Legal and Political Theory Forum – Beyond Nationalist Thought: India as an Idea\, From Sacrifice to Creation
DESCRIPTION:The Legal & Political Theory Forum was set up in September 2007 in order to provide an umbrella for seminars and colloquia on topics of common interest to scholars and graduate students working in various disciplinary areas\, but particularly in the fields of politics and law. The Forum holds a series of seminars during term-time\, at which papers are presented by academics who are based either at LSE or more commonly elsewhere. \nOn Wednesday\, 18 February 2026\, Salmoli Choudhuri will present the following paper: Beyond Nationalist Thought: India as an Idea\, From Sacrifice to Creation. \nOur policy is to make Forum events as inclusive as possible. All Forum events are open to staff and students from all departments and all academic institutions. The Forum is run by Thomas Poole (LSE Law School). \n This seminar is open to the public and will operate on a first-come\, first-served basis. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/legal-and-political-theory-forum-beyond-nationalist-thought-india-as-an-idea-from-sacrifice-to-creation/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/OIP-1-e1700223978220.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20260121T183000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20260121T200000
DTSTAMP:20251211T175713Z
CREATED:20251208T144713Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251211T175713Z
UID:10000981-1769020200-1769025600@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Electoral reform: is it in the national interest?
DESCRIPTION:In the first of a series of workshops addressing the question of national interest in the wake of the end of globalisation\, Professor Peter Ramsay and Dr Richard Johnson will discuss whether or not electoral reform is in the national interest followed by questions and comments from workshop participants. \nOpinion polls now indicate a highly fragmented electorate in the UK. Five parties are polling in double figures and nationalist parties and independents are polling well in particular regions and localities. With the breakdown of the two-party system\, and the possibility of a government formed by a new party\, Reform\, after the next election\, would proportional representation lead to better government\, more of the same or political paralysis? \nSpeaker: \nRichard Johnson is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Sociology\, Politics and International Relations at Queen Mary University of London. \nYou can read his policy brief on First Past the Post here: \nhttps://www.qmul.ac.uk/mei/media/mei/qm-policy-hub/briefs/Queen-Mary-Policy-Brief—Is-First-Past-the-Post-Undemocratic.pdf \nChair:  \nPeter Ramsay is Professor of Law at LSE Law School. You can read an article on proportional representation by him here. \nhttps://thenorthernstar.online/2024/07/29/why-britain-needs-pr/ \nThis event is open to the public and will operate on a first-come\, first-served basis. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/electoral-reform-is-it-in-the-national-interest/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Public Lectures 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Boat-e1713784906870.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20231206T120000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20231206T130000
DTSTAMP:20231204T111445Z
CREATED:20231204T111445Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231204T111445Z
UID:10000500-1701864000-1701867600@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Central Bank Undersight: Assessing the Fed’s Accountability to Congress
DESCRIPTION:Abstract: The Federal Reserve is the most distinctive federal entity in the United States government.  It exercises some of Congress’s most important constitutional duties and prerogatives—namely\, the duty to regulate the value of money and the power to spend and borrow against the good name of the United States—yet does so with effectively no oversight from Congress.  This Article details the patterns and structural sources of Congress’s “undersight” of the Federal Reserve and illustrates the consequences of this phenomenon by discussing the losses on the Fed’s most recent round of securities purchases. \nSpeaker: Christina Parajon Skinner \nBio: Christina Parajon Skinner is an Assistant Professor of Legal Studies & Business Ethics at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. She an expert on financial policy and regulation\, with a focus on central banks and fiscal authorities.  Her research pursues questions surrounding central bank mandates\, monetary and fiscal policy\, capitalism and financial markets\, and the constitutional separation-of-powers.  Professor Skinner’s work is international and comparative in scope\, drawing on her experience as an academic and central bank lawyer in the United Kingdom.  Her research has been published in the Columbia Law Review\, the Duke Law Journal\, the Vanderbilt Law Review\, the Harvard Business Law Review\, and the Georgetown Law Journal\, among other leading academic journals.  Professor Skinner has also contributed to financial regulatory policy working groups\, including those convened by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York\, the Financial Stability Board\, and the U.K. Banking Standards Board.  She is presently an Affiliate Fellow at the Stigler Center\, at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and a research member of the European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI). \nPrior to joining the faculty at Wharton\, Professor Skinner served as legal counsel at the Bank of England\, in the Financial Stability Division of the Bank’s Legal Directorate. Previously\, Professor Skinner was an Academic Visitor at the University of Oxford\, Faculty of Law and a Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics\, Law Department. From 2014-2016\, she was a post-doctoral fellow and lecturer in Law at Columbia Law School. Professor Skinner received her J.D. from Yale Law School\, and an A.B. from the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University\, with a concentration in international economics. \nChair: Alperen Gözlügöl \nA Buffet lunch will be served from 12pm. \nThis event will be on a first-come\, first serve basis  \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/central-bank-undersight-assessing-the-feds-accountability-to-congress/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/corporate_city_1701251362-e1707478734815.jpeg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20230315T083000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20230315T171500
DTSTAMP:20230203T110119Z
CREATED:20230119T115144Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230203T110119Z
UID:10000302-1678869000-1678900500@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Workshop: Intermediate verdicts in criminal justice and beyond
DESCRIPTION:Please note\, due to unforeseen circumstances\, the workshop will now be held in the Vera Anstey Room\, Old Building\, LSE\, where step-free access is not available. See Campus Accessibility Map. \nThe binary verdict system\, that is\, a decision-making arrangement comprising a single standard of proof and two possible verdicts\, is often taken for granted by those operating in jurisdictions that feature this system. England and Wales are such a jurisdiction. There appears to be a widespread view that the reasons for endorsing the binary system are self-evident\, such that there is no need for articulating them. The study of intermediate verdicts (the Scottish ‘not proven’\, in primis)\, and of the debates surrounding them\, is a healthy reminder that alternatives to the binary system do exist and that\, therefore\, a justification for such a system should be given\, instead of being merely assumed. By addressing the question whether intermediate verdicts can be justified\, we aim to overcome the current dogmatism concerning the binary verdict system\, that is\, we aim to encourage an open discussion about the reasons in favour or against binary verdicts. The workshop will feature leading academics who are currently working on the topic of intermediate verdicts in the contexts of criminal and of civil justice\, both in the UK and abroad. \nPlease note that space for this workshop is limited. If you wish to attend\, please register at this link  \nProgramme \n8.30 – Coffee \n9.00 – F. Picinali (chair): Welcome and introduction \n9.30 – J. Chalmers\, F. Leverick\, V. Munro: The Case Against Scotland’s ‘Not Proven’ Verdict \n10.30 – Y. Rabin and Y. Vaki: The Israeli Intermediate Verdict: Its Jurisprudence\, Implications and Frequent Use in Practice \n11.30 – Coffee break \n11.45 – A. Pundik: Adding a Third Verdict to Reduce the Risk of False Conviction \n12.45 – Lunch break \n14.00 – M. Barneron: The Powerful Influence of Third Alternatives on Social Decision-Making: Theory and Evidence from Controlled Experiments \n15.00 – G. Tuzet: Proportional Adjudication and its Discontents \n16.00 – Coffee break \n16.15-17.15 – Discussion \nAll talks will last 25 minutes and will be followed by a 30-minute discussion. \n  \nAbstracts \nJ. Chalmers\, F. Leverick\, V. Munro: The Case Against Scotland’s ‘Not Proven’ Verdict \nScotland\, unusually\, has three verdicts in criminal trials: guilty\, not guilty\, and not proven. The not proven verdict\, regarded by many as an intermediate option between the other two\, has been the subject of a long-running debate as to whether it should be abolished. We argue that it should. Drawing on empirical evidence from two recent studies\, we cast doubt on the arguments most often made in its favour – that it serves a valuable communicative function\, protects against wrongful conviction\, and/or increases juror satisfaction. There is no consensus on its meaning or appropriate application in any given case\, and it risks both stigmatising an acquitted accused and diminishing complainers’ opportunities for closure. It is doubtful that it prevents wrongful conviction\, but even if it does\, there are more effective measures in this regard. \nY. Rabin and Y. Vaki: The Israeli Intermediate Verdict: Its Jurisprudence\, Implications and Frequent Use in Practice \nIn most common law jurisdictions\, a trial ends with a verdict of either an acquittal or a conviction. By contrast\, in Scotland and Israel\, a trial might also end with a third alternative: a verdict of ‘not proven’ (Scotland) or ‘acquittal for the benefit of the doubt’ (Israel\, henceforth ‘ABD’). We begin the talk by defining the Israeli ABD judgment and describe its historical development in Israeli law. We show that this verdict was not created in a single conscious act of legislation but was rather developed incrementally by the courts. We also show that unlike in Scotland\, the ABD in Israel has serious legal implications\, for the courts relied on it to violate the acquitted person’s rights (e.g. denying them compensation due to acquittal). We then present some data on ABDs in Israel. Intuitively\, one might expect that ABDs would constitute the exception rather than the rule\, particularly given their lack of a statutory basis. However\, the data we collected shows the opposite. We present the high volume of ABDs and their proportion within group of all acquittals. We then compare this data with that available on the ‘not proven’ in Scotland. \nA.Pundik: Adding a Third Verdict to Reduce the Risk of False Conviction \nThe aim of the current project is to examine whether\, to what extent\, and why adding a third verdict assists in preventing false convictions. The research will be carried out through 6 randomised controlled experiments on the Israeli ‘acquittal for the benefit of the doubt’ (henceforth ‘ABD’) —the first ever to be conducted on this Israeli verdict. We seek to identify the type of wrongful convictions that ABD might assist in preventing and to isolate the psychological and emotional mechanisms that may explain this effect. Our hypothesis is that the availability of the ABD verdict reduces the risk of wrongful conviction by encouraging fact-finders to overcome powerful emotional biases. If our hypothesis is correct\, ABD would be particularly useful in preventing false convictions within an important type of case: when the incriminating evidence is too weak to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt (so the defendant should be acquitted)\, yet the emotional charge of the case is so strong that it might sway the fact-finder to hand down a guilty verdict nonetheless. \nM.Barneron: The Powerful Influence of Third Alternatives on Social Decision-Making: Theory and Evidence from Controlled Experiments \nOver the years\, the psychological literature has identified several factors and biases influencing decision-making processes. In this talk\, I will present the results of a recent work focusing on social decisions\, that is\, decisions impacting not only the lives of the decision-makers themselves but also the lives of other people. In particular\, I will focus on one type of social decisions that is of interest for both legal scholars and psychologists: decisions that are made under conflicts of interest. I will show how adding a third alternative dramatically influences the tendency to make self-interested decisions. In controlled laboratory experiments\, a group of participants had to choose between two alternatives: one self-interested and a second other-oriented. A different group of participants had the opportunity to choose a third alternative\, in addition to the two previous alternatives. The third alternative was worse for the other person and not any better for the participants compared to the self-interested alternative. The results revealed that participants who were given the opportunity to choose the third alternative made more self-interested decisions than did participants who were not given this opportunity. I will discuss the implications of these findings for the legal system in general and intermediate judgments in particular. \nG.Tuzet: Proportional Adjudication and its Discontents \nThe work argues that standards of proof and proportional adjudication are different legal responses to the problem of judgment under uncertainty\, and compares their features. It focuses in particular on civil cases of two sorts: (1) cases in which liability can be proportionally determined according to the probability of causation or negligence; and (2) cases in which property rights can be proportionally determined according to the strength of the relevant claims. Objections to proportional adjudication are considered\, and possible rejoinders are suggested. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/workshop-intermediate-verdicts-in-criminal-justice-and-beyond/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/justice_statue_1674129073-3948084875-e1696593052679.jpeg
ORGANIZER;CN="Federico Picinali":MAILTO:F.Picinali@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20230117T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20230117T180000
DTSTAMP:20230111T145854Z
CREATED:20221129T115044Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20230111T145854Z
UID:10000359-1673978400-1673978400@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:The making of sexual consent: Narratives of consent and resistance in early 20th century criminal courts
DESCRIPTION:Speaker:  Dr Laura Lammasniemi (Warwick) \nThe aim of the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Theory Forum is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue on the criminal law and the criminal justice system. Its members and affiliates (mainly from LSE Law School but also other LSE Departments and institutions) conduct research on various aspects of criminal law and criminal justice from a variety of methodological standpoints (moral\, political and social theory\, criminology\, anthropology\, epistemology etc.). \nEvents take please in the Vera Anstey Room (Old Building\, LSE)\, 6pm. A Zoom link will be circulated in advance of each seminar for those wishing to attend remotely. For further information\, contact f.picinali@lse.ac.uk \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/the-making-of-sexual-consent-narratives-of-consent-and-resistance-in-early-20th-century-criminal-courts/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/trees.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Federico Picinali":MAILTO:F.Picinali@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221207T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221207T200000
DTSTAMP:20221130T141628Z
CREATED:20221129T141657Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221130T141628Z
UID:10000363-1670436000-1670443200@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Remembering Karen Knop
DESCRIPTION:Speakers: Catriona Drew\, Gerry Simpson\, Rob Howse and others \nKaren Knop was a professor at the Faculty of Law teaching in the areas of public international law\, private international law\, foreign relations law and citizenship law. She wrote on issues of diversity\, interpretation and participation in public international law. Her scholarship was broadly concerned with the challenges of gender and cultural differences to core concepts in public international law\, including sovereignty\, self-determination\, nationality and the relationship between international and domestic law. Her recent articles develop alternative approaches to these topics by turning to private international law and foreign relations law. Professor Knop’s book Diversity and Self-Determination in International Law (Cambridge University Press) was awarded a Certificate of Merit by the American Society of International Law. \nThis event will be followed by a drink’s reception. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/remembering-karen-knop/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Convene 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Karen-Knop.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221206T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221206T180000
DTSTAMP:20221117T002946Z
CREATED:20221004T110335Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221117T002946Z
UID:10000318-1670349600-1670349600@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Doing justice to expectations of being heard
DESCRIPTION:Speaker:  Professor Sarah Summers (Zurich) \nThe aim of the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Theory Forum is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue on the criminal law and the criminal justice system. Its members and affiliates (mainly from LSE Law School but also other LSE Departments and institutions) conduct research on various aspects of criminal law and criminal justice from a variety of methodological standpoints (moral\, political and social theory\, criminology\, anthropology\, epistemology etc.). \nProfessor Sarah Summers\n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/doing-justice-to-expectations-of-being-heard/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/trees.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Federico Picinali":MAILTO:F.Picinali@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221122T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221122T193000
DTSTAMP:20221117T001738Z
CREATED:20220920T103537Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221117T001738Z
UID:10000303-1669140000-1669145400@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Free speech on campus: Who needs the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill?
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Professor Peter Ramsay (LSE) \nIs freedom of expression under threat in Britain’s universities or is that idea a moral panic? The government claims that its Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill now before parliament is necessary to strengthen the legal duty on universities to protect freedom of speech on campuses. The bill’s supporters argue that legislation is necessary in the face of constant campaigns against it from within universities. Its critics respond that the Bill is unnecessary culture war grandstanding and the government is the real threat to freedom of expression. Peter Ramsay will examine the claims of both sides and ask why the question matters.  \nProfessor Peter Ramsay\n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/free-speech-on-campus-who-needs-the-higher-education-freedom-of-speech-bill/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Convene 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/protesting.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221116T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221116T193000
DTSTAMP:20221028T135215Z
CREATED:20221028T133518Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221028T135215Z
UID:10000337-1668621600-1668627000@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:IT and Law Book Club
DESCRIPTION:Register for the event\n  \n  \nThe Law\, Technology and Society book group will discuss the book Invisible Women\, authored by Caroline Criado Perez. \n“Imagine a world where your phone is too big for your hand\, where your doctor prescribes a drug that is wrong for your body\, where in a car accident you are 47% more likely to be seriously injured\, where every week the countless hours of work you do are not recognised or valued. If any of this sounds familiar\, chances are that you’re a woman …” \nAbout the author. \nThis is a Law Technology and Society Research Hub event for LSE Students. \n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/it-and-law-book-club/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Convene 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/invisible.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Law Events":MAILTO:law.events@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221115T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221115T180000
DTSTAMP:20221004T110534Z
CREATED:20221004T105759Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221004T110534Z
UID:10000317-1668535200-1668535200@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Fight\, flight\, freeze ... or lie? Rethinking the principles of res gestae evidence in light of its revival
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Ruth Coffey (Yale) \nThe aim of the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Theory Forum is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue on the criminal law and the criminal justice system. Its members and affiliates (mainly from LSE Law School but also other LSE Departments and institutions) conduct research on various aspects of criminal law and criminal justice from a variety of methodological standpoints (moral\, political and social theory\, criminology\, anthropology\, epistemology etc.). \nRuth Coffey\n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/fight-flight-freeze-or-lie-rethinking-the-principles-of-res-gestae-evidence-in-light-of-its-revival/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/trees.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Federico Picinali":MAILTO:F.Picinali@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221011T173000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221011T173000
DTSTAMP:20221004T162213Z
CREATED:20220926T100107Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20221004T162213Z
UID:10000314-1665509400-1665509400@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:The Mandela Brief: Sir Sydney Kentridge KC\, advocate of the century\, and the trials of apartheid
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Thomas Grant KC (Visiting Professor in Practice at the LSE\, and author of The Mandela Brief: Sydney Kentridge and the Trials of Apartheid) \nSydney Kentridge\, now aged 99\, carved out a reputation as South Africa’s most prominent anti-apartheid advocate. His story is entwined with the country’s emergence from racial injustice and oppression. He is the only advocate to have acted for three winners of the Nobel Peace Prize – Nelson Mandela\, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Chief Albert Lutuli. Already world-famous for his landmark cases including the Treason Trial of Nelson Mandela and the other leading members of the ANC\, the inquiry into the Sharpeville massacre\, and the inquest into the death of Steve Biko\, Kentridge went on to become England’s premier advocate. Tracing the great set-pieces of the legal struggle against apartheid – cases which made the headlines not just in South Africa\, but across the world – this lecture is a portrait of how advocacy can challenge the status quo and shape the future. \nThomas Grant KC\n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/the-mandela-brief-sir-sydney-kentridge-kc-advocate-of-the-century-and-the-trials-of-apartheid/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Convene 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/kentridge.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Law Events":MAILTO:law.events@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20221004T180000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20221004T180000
DTSTAMP:20220928T110417Z
CREATED:20220914T133135Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20220928T110417Z
UID:10000289-1664906400-1664906400@lselaw.wpcomstaging.com
SUMMARY:Criminal proof: Fixed or flexible?
DESCRIPTION:Speaker: Dr Lewis Ross (LSE) \nThe aim of the Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Theory Forum is to provide a platform for interdisciplinary dialogue on the criminal law and the criminal justice system. Its members and affiliates (mainly from LSE Law School but also other LSE Departments and institutions) conduct research on various aspects of criminal law and criminal justice from a variety of methodological standpoints (moral\, political and social theory\, criminology\, anthropology\, epistemology etc.). \nDr Lewis Ross\n\n\n	Related
URL:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/event/can-anarchists-have-rule-of-law/
LOCATION:Vera Anstey Room (VAR)\, First floor\, Old Building\, Houghton Street\, LSE\, WC2A 2AE\, United Kingdom
CATEGORIES:Seminars 
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://lselaw.wpcomstaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/wanderer.jpg
ORGANIZER;CN="Federico Picinali":MAILTO:F.Picinali@lse.ac.uk
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR