The Armchair News Blog

Move over to the new-look Armchair News here, complete with forum. This blog will stay up for a little while longer before it will be deleted. Change your bookmarks for the new home.

The Armchair News Blog is being relaunched sometime tomorrow. This is the last time you’ll see my current home. More soon….

Well, well… it seems that former Arsenal footballer Ian Wright is fed up of being turned into a ‘comedy jester’ by the BBC, and wants to be taken more seriously.

Sorry, you may have been great as a player, but you’re a practical joke as a TV and radio presenter. You should be grateful that you’re earning a lot of money playing the fool!

Two examples of what is wrong with British justice.

1. An Islamist activist was sentenced to four and a half years in prison for terrorism offences. Abu Izzadeen, 32, was found gulity of fundraising for terrorists and inciting acts of terrorism abroad. Five other men were also sentenced for similar offences.

So, they were imprisoned because they had an opinion…. an opinion which was far too unpalatable for the British, so, in the eye of the law, they have committed an offence. Right?

WRONG!

The law as it stands on this is very confusing. Talking about committing terrorist acts and actually committing terrorist acts are two completely different things. Yet the government seems too determined to blur the boundaries of difference when it comes to the so-called war on terror. No wonder ministers are finding it difficult trying to convince MPs to support a raised limit for police to hold suspects without charge to 42 days.

2. A high-flying City lawyer driven from her job after an 18-month campaign of bullying could receive millions in compensation. Gill Switalski, 51, had won a sex discrimination claim from her former employers F&C Asset Management. She is claiming around £19million for psychiatric damage, loss of earnings, pension rights and career prospects.

It’s right that she has to claim compensation from her former bosses…. but not for that much. F&C were initially wrong, but are right to appeal against this high level of compensation. It’s ridiculous that some people who know the law can try to rig it on order to get what they want, while many others who are less fortunate cannot afford to get genuine legal representation for more serious cases.

A key enquiry into the London Underground shooting of Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes has been controversially shelved until after the mayoral elections.

The London Evening Standard report looked into the investigation over the role  of Metropolitan Police Chief Sir Ian Blair after the shooting of de Menezes in Stockwell, nearly three years ago. A report was due to be published in February, but it has been hit by what critics describe as ‘unacceptable delays’.

The Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) admitted that the report may not be published until after the mayoral elections on May 1st. Publication would have renewed calls for Blair to resign, and would have seriously damaged incumbent mayor Ken Livingstone’s hopes of re-election for a third term. He has openly supported Blair in spite of the criticism the latter has received. Both his main mayoral rivals, Boris Johnson (Conservative) and Brian Paddick (Lib Dem), have refused to back Blair.

The decision to delay the report is nothing short of scandalous. The de Menezes family and others need to know what went wrong on the day their family member was killed. If Blair was found to have done something wrong, he should own up, and not hide behind his office at Scotland Yard. If it meant he would have to resign, then so be it.

Livingstone should have sacked Blair at the first opportunity. He has followed the typical Labour party trick of trying to ‘bury bad news’, but even this scandal, on top of the other problems he’s facing, may yet bury him deeper in the brown stuff…