Justice Secretary Jack Straw says that

Yes, it should. And he is right to say that
But why then didn't he do anything about it in the four years [1997-2001] in which he was Home Secretary? After all, it was during his tenure as Home Secretary than Tony Martin, the man on whom much of this is based, was convicted of murder [reduced to manslaughter on appeal].

It is during the last decade that people have become increasingly shy of becoming a "have-a-go hero" because of the way in which Labour have consistently undermined them. Criminals have been given rights under the law way beyond that which belong to the standard law-abiding person. It is under Labour that it has been possible for a burglar to sue a house owner for injuries sustained whilst robbing them. It is under Labour that the police force has been reduced to form-filling all day, and not preventing or even properly investigating crime. It is because of Labour that people are wary of enforcing the law because they are as likely, or at least feel that they are as likely, to be charged as the criminal they apprehend.

Jack Straw can apprehend criminals like he has said to have done three times because he isn't going to get dragged up before court for doing so. But for anyone else, it doesn't hold true. He claims that he was "always uneasy" about the government not doing anything about protecting those citizens who try to uphold the law, but why then didn't he do anything about it? He was Home Secretary for four years, during the period when this all began. He is to blame for it.

They have consistently done nothing about it, and rejected Conservative calls to do so. It is all well and good for Straw to try and fix it - but he has to acknowledge his, and the last decade of Labour government's, huge role in causing the problem in the first place. Until they accept that it is them who caused it, it is all just meaningless rhetoric.

Source: BBC, The Telegraph, The Guardian, The Times, The Independent

"MINISTERS are considering new laws to give women a right to breastfeed their babies in public and take statutory breaks at work to suckle their infants...
It would become an offence for anyone to stop a woman from breastfeeding in public, a change that has already been enacted in Scotland. It follows complaints from mothers that they have been accused of indecency and barred from breastfeeding when they have attempted to do so in public.
Employers would also have to allow mothers to take breaks each working day to breast feed." (The Times)

Whilst mothers should be able to breast feed their babies for the six months recommended World Health Organisation, I think it would be a big mistake to make this into a "right".

Mothers who want to breastfeed in public should be circumspect about it, as I am sure the vast majority are, but it does depend on the situation. Whenever possible, they should, and I am sure most would prefer to, go somewhere private to breastfeed. There should not be a "right" to breast feed in public, but an acceptance that it is all right to do so if no alternative provision is available.

Breastfeeding at work should not be a "right" either. All employees are entitled to 26 weeks (about six months) of 'Ordinary Maternity Leave' which can thus cover the large part of the recommended time spent breast feeding. Employees should be understanding of new mothers and provide the opportunity for breastfeeding or for expressing milk. But having it as a "right" simply opens the door for ridiculousness. Providing time for women to breast feed should be encouraged in employers, but not required by law.

Breastfeeding is something that new mothers should be encouraged to do, but it should be be a "right" of either the mother or the baby. Alternatives exist, and they should be used when the opportunity for breastfeeding is not available. It would be best if instead of making breastfeeding in public a "right", more provision was made for new mothers to go somewhere private and do it instead.

Source: The Times