I don`t get angry very often.  I might get a bit grumpy;  I might even be annoyed but it takes something really distasteful for me to get angry.  And in recent days I have been following the circumstances surrounding the untimely death of Dennis Hutchings.   Like me, he was the wrong side of 80;  like me he was an army veteran but, unlike me, he was heavily involved the the Northern Ireland troubles way back in the 1970s, whereas I was fortunate to miss all that but instead spending my national service in the relative calm of BFPO 16 in what was then West Germany.   So I have a lot of admiration for what Dennis, from Cawsand in Cornwall and a member of the Life Guards, went through and I mourn his passing.

But it`s the circumstances of his death that are profoundly depressing, leading to my genuine anger.   I suppose because it has been so widely reported elsewhere that it is unnecessary for me to go into too much detail here;   suffice to say that for an 80-year old with serious health problems to have been hauled into court to account for an incident for which he was alleged to have been responsible over 50 years ago is of itself questionable, especially when those on `the other side` were given immunity from prosecution under the Belfast Agreement.

But it is worth reminding oneself that Dennis Hutchings` trial had been adjourned for three weeks due to his illnesses which included heart failure and kidney disease requiring dialysis.  As a result, the non-jury trial had been sitting at Belfast Crown Court for three days a week to allow him to receive the dialysis treatment he required.  He had previously survived Covid  but also suffered from fluid on the lung.   He was admitted to Belfast`s Mater Hospital where he contracted Covid again and died on Monday.   A real and genuinely tragic end to a life lived for half a century under the strain of a questionable prosecution hanging over him.

His case is an object lesson in how politics and especially political expediency can have unintended consequences for someone who may have been proven innocent had a `normal` legal process been allowed to be followed.   I suppose it`s the injustice, the unfairness and the avoidability of it all that makes me seriously angry about this case.  And it is now all too late for those responsible to show any sign of regret.

 

A lot going on yesterday.  The Euro Footy Thing, the BBC`s unconvincing self-flagellation about the Martin Bashir fiasco and the report of the Inquiry into the alleged `institutionalised  corruption` in the Met. which led to no-one being brought to justice for the murder of Daniel Morgan 34 years ago.   It was a truly damning report, eight years in the making following all kinds of obstruction and delay and delivered with a measured authority by the Inquiry Chairperson, Baroness Nuala O`Loan.

Following its publication there were questions in the House and the Home Secretary turned up to  make an announcement.  She has written to Met. Police Commissioner Cressida Dick asking for a full and detailed response to the recommendations in the report.  Meanwhile, the Home Secretary herself might have some questions to answer about the apparent delay in publishing the report.

In a written statement last night, Commissioner Dick said that the failure to bring Mr. Morgan`s murderer to justice was a "matter of deep regret.  Our mistakes have compounded the pain suffered by Daniel`s family - for that I apologise again now."   (I suppose we`re used to those in charge of big organisations coming out with the stock response about lessons being learned to ensure that this can never happen again - I was surprised this wasn`t included in the written statement, but give it time....)

Sometimes it seems that sorry is the easiest word and so becomes meaningless.  Nonetheless it was nice to see that the Met. is sorry about that, so that`s alright then.

Jed Mercurio rides again?

 

QUESTIONABLE DECISIONS...

First an apology for being absent from these pages for a week or so - entirely due to matters beyond my control but good to be back and thank you to those aficionados who have enquired about my whereabouts.   Anyway, here we go again.

And I resume normal service by referring to two decisions taken over the weekend concerning sporting issues.   The first is the selection of the England squad to compete in the upcoming European Championships which begin at the end of the week.  And being a Saints fan my first gripe is about the apparent omission of Southampton captain James Ward-Prowse despite his really quite impressive performance in the last two pre-tournament `friendlies.`  

It was plain for all to see that his abundant energy, his relentless pressing, incisive passing and dead ball brilliance would bring something a little different to the options open to manager Gareth Southgate.  But no, instead Southgate has preferred Liverpool captain Jordan Henderson who has not played a full game since mid-February and is clearly less than match fit.  In addition he displayed his usual arrogance by donning the captain`s armband, pulling rank over Dominic Calvert Lewin, the designated penalty taker, and promptly missed the one penalty chance he was given with a tame effort that summed up his performance in the time he was on the pitch.

Trouble is, he plays for one of the `big six` - you remember them, the ones who were prepared to tear up competitive football in favour of a closed shop European Super League. I feel more than a trifle miffed for Jame Ward-Prowse who, of course `only` plays for Southampton.  The rascal in me hopes in a way that Southgate`s decision comes back to haunt him.

The second questionable decision concerns England cricket`s new man Ollie Robinson who made an impressive debut in his first test match for England in the drawn game against New Zealand.  The storm broke around him when somehow a couple of 10-year old tweets that he put on Twitter were apparently deemed sexist and/or racist in nature.  Once this came to light, Robinson issued a prompt, heartfelt and genuine apology for something he did all those years ago when he was still a teenager.

Never mind all that, the ECB have banned him from international cricket `pending an investigation` so Robinson has left the England camp and trudged back to Sussex, his playing county.  I was not surprised to hear that Culture Secretary Oliver Dowden has queried the ECB decision of which I hope there is a swift reversal very quickly.   Now when I was 18 or 19, despite Twitter and its ilk not having been invented, I`m pretty sure I did and said a few things that were of their time and in hindsight likely to have caused some offence to some people.   But such is the innocence and inexperience of youth and I would have hoped that Robinson` apology and regret would have been accepted so we can all `move on,` as they say.

(Preview alert ::  Also in my enforced absence some other `issues` have come to light which might encourage me to rant about but which might also impact on those of a sensitive nature.  Watch this space.....or not, a the case may be.)

I have posted this cartoon as it reminded me of an ongoing case which is intriguing for a number of reasons.Once again I must proceed with caution as the case in point is still the subject of `legal proceedings` - in fact, an appeal to the Employment Tribunal following a case of alleged dismissal on grounds of gross misconduct.

The case involves a gentleman hereabouts who was a magistrate and employed in a high ranking position with the local NHS, both of which positions he had occupied for about 20 years.  He is a committed christian and it was in his capacity as a magistrate that he apparently fell foul of today`s rampant political correctness which leans heavily - arguably too heavily - in favour of `minorities.`

He had presided over countless adoption cases without any complaint or criticism until, a while ago now, he suggested that adoptive children might be better off in an environment where the adoptive parents are a man and a woman rather than a same sex couple.   This led to a bit of an uproar with the result that he was suspended and subsequently dismissed as a magistrate and in good time was also relieved of his duties with the NHS.  He has appealed against both decisions on the grounds of discrimination, the result of both appeals are awaited.

Now it would be inappropriate of me to pre-empt the outcome but the issue which attracted my attention was the decision somewhere along the line that he should be required to undergo `equality training.`  And like me he is of another generation, one that might be accused of being out of touch with the `normalities` of life today;  of being of another time, another age when things were so very different - a time when things that are supposed to be normal these days did not even scratch the surface of our consciousness in times gone by.

Now I have always had a kind of inbuilt aversion to any form of compulsion - I resented having to do my National Service, for example, maybe it`s one of the reasons why I voted leave in that long ago referendum and I would most certainly be pretty miffed about being forced to go on `equality training.` I guess it does what it says on the tin but I don`t believe it should force people like the gentleman in this case to alter his deeply held convictions which would have themselves been accepted without question at the time of his formative years.

There`s a deeper issue too - that of self-expression being compromised for fear of upsetting one of a number of burgeoning minority groups.  Freedom of expression is a long standing freedom and one which should be respected. but maybe should not be used as an excuse to dismiss well meaning people from positions which benefit society at large?

There are a couple of high profile criminal cases being heard at the moment and so it is with measured caution that I write these notes. I really truly do not want to stray into the details of the cases themselves, both of which are likely to take weeks to conclude but there is one aspect of each of them that I suggest makes detached comment legitimate.

The first concerns the accusation against former police commander David Duckenfield on a single charge for the manslaughter by gross negligence in which 95 people died in the Hillsborough disaster way back in 1989 and Graham Mackrell, a former chairman of Sheffield Wednesday FC who is accused of health and safety failings and issues concerning the stadium safety certificate.

A touch more recently, there is also the trial of Andrew Hill, the pilot whose plane crashed on the A27 near Shoreham in Sussex in 1995 killing 11 men and who is also accused of manslaughter by gross negligence.

The Hillsborough tragedy took place 30 years ago - David Duckenfield is now 74 - and the Shoreham air disaster happened getting on for four years ago.  Now I know that legal processes take time and setting aside any personal opinion about the accused in both cases, it does seem an inordinately long time for all of those involved, both the victims, the bereaved and the accused, to have to wait for these events to be drawn to a close, at least in legal terms.

There`s an old saying about justice delayed being justice denied - denied  to\ the victims, the bereaved and to the accused of course..

TWO WRONGS ?..

I`m intrigued by the news that Formula One Chief Executive Bernie Ecclestone is to make a $100million (£60million) payment to a court in Munich to bring an end to his trial on bribery charges.

He went on trial back in April accused of bribing a former German banker as part of the sale of a major stake in the motorsport business eight years ago.

The court said that $99million would be paid to the German treasury and the other $1million to a German children`s hospice charity.  The money must be paid by Ecclestone within a week, after which time the trial will be officially abandoned.

Now, having originally been charged with bribery, I`m struggling to understand the difference between that and the payments now to be made to the German treasury and the children`s hospice.   Maybe it`s just me - again?  Help !!

DRS GETS IT RIGHT...

Well, it may not be working in cricket too well but the judicial appeal process has come up with a couple of good decisions in the last couple of days.   First there was the appeal by former Lost Prophet Ian Watkins to reduce his 35-year sentence for a string of sex offences against children, one of which was the attempted rape of a baby.   But one of the judges who heard the case said that the punishment handed down was appropriate, saying, "These offences against children were of shocking depravity, which demanded a very lengthy prison sentence."

In another heartening judgement, two convicted killers who argued that a ban on prisoners voting in the Scottish independence referendum infringed their human rights, lost their bid to overturn it in the UK`s highest court.   In yet another outbreak of common sense, the Tory Scottish justice spokesperson, one Margaret Mitchell, welcomed the decision, saying, "Voting is a basic human right and it is completely correct that you forfeit that right when you commit a crime and are sent to prison."  

So, Judges 2 - Appellants 0.  (Although the cynic and minor rebel in me suggests that giving the referendum vote to Scottish prisoners might just help the cause for independence - every little helps and all that.)

But to go by these two decisions at least, it gives hope that the judicial decision review system might be beginning to get it right.   The other interesting decision this week seems to have been the awarding of £680,000 to Sharon Shoesmith, sacked as head of Children`s Services in Haringey Council following the appalling murder of Baby P on her watch.  Now there has been a bit of an outcry about the amount of compensation involved here but it might be worth remembering that the Appeal Court ruled last year that the then Children`s Secretary, Ed Balls, removed Shoesmith from her post in December 2008 and was partly responsible for Haringey`s subsequently unlawful decision to sack her without compensation.

Justice is justice, whatever the circumstances and however much the massive amount of compensation might grate, especially with the Council taxpayers of Haringey, Mrs. Shoesmith had been denied due process which, at least in the eyes of the law, has now been recognised as another `basic human right.`  Just a pity Baby P didn`t enjoy the same privilege.

THE WRONG ARM OF THE LAW ?

I see that a couple from Shropshire have been fined almost £1,000 for taking their children out of school during term time so they could have a family holiday together for the first time in five years.   Their `crime` was to do so without the express permission of the children`s school and thus they infringed recent legislation introduced by the Government.

Now on one hand it`s hard to disagree with the notion that it is wrong to compromise the education of children in such a way and yet on the other hand I remember very vividly how difficult it can be to afford a family holiday during school holiday times, simply because of the grossly inflated prices charged by holiday companies at those times.

We go away quite often and we rent holiday cottages and we have noticed the steep rise in prices from `term times` to school holiday times - summer, Easter, even half terms see prices almost doubled.   Quite simply, the holiday companies see the families coming, know they are ripe for being ripped off and proceed to do just that.

So, instead of having a law which penalises families  if they have the effrontery to have a family holiday during school time, why not have a law that penalises holiday companies from inflating their prices during school holidays?  They will kick and scream, of course, but all they have to do to maintain their profit margins is to even out their prices across the year.   Those like me wouldn`t complain about paying a little more if it meant that families could afford to go on holiday without compromising the education of their children.  Simples?

KERCHING!!...

I`ve been intrigued to see reports that the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) have been selling the personal details of licence holders to all manner of  individuals and`organizations,`some of which might be classed as `legitimate,` but others perhaps not so.   The instances of personal details being disclosed are quite staggering.   For example, the DVLA has sold the names and addresses of 4.85million drivers to parking enforcement firms alone in the past six years - at a charge of £2.50 for each detail supplied.   

Requests for such information amounted to 9.5million in the past year with the vast majority (7.8million) coming from the police and local authorities, presumably following up cases - assisting them with their enquiries if you like.  It`s a paying business for the DVLA, who rather unbelievably claim that they do not make a profit because they are not allowed to.

Now as far as I know, I have committed no parking or driving offence so I would hope that my personal details held by the DVLA have not had cause to be released to any third party.   However, should the DVLA receive  a request for my details then I would hope that I might be asked to give my permission before they do so.   After all, one`s personal details - name, address, age, etc., - are just that;  personal and they are mine, no-one else`s to do what they like with.  

Those details amount to personal intellectual property and should not be disclosed to anyone else without permission.  So I`m surprised there hasn`t been more fuss made about this kind of intrusion into personal information.   Yes I know there has been the odd squeal of indignation from the occasional MP, but they have been more concerned with the antics of parking and clamping companies than with the safeguarding of personal information.

One last thought - if the DVLA charge £2,50 for each detail disclosed, then surely any fee should be returned to the person whose details have been sold.   Once again, we`ve been sold down the river by yet another dubious practice that simply contributes to bureaucracy getting a bad name.   

EYE WATERING..

Despite fiddling us taxpayers out of thousands of pounds whilst she was MP for Luton South, Margaret Moran was found unfit to plead when her case involving 21 criminal charges of false accounting and forgery came before Southwark Crown Court a year or so ago.   She was, however, found by a jury to have committed the acts alleged and sentenced to a two-year supervision and treatment order with the judge commenting that some might feel she had `got away with it` although the court `had acted according to the law of the land and on the basis of evidence before it.`

Now just some of Ms. Moran`s claims were indeed eye-watering.  For example, her MP`s expenses claim for 2004-05 somehow amounted to £168,569 with a large chunk going on `stationery and postage.`  Then there was £22,500 spent on treating dry rot in a house in Southampton, which she had `flipped` as her second home, a mere 100 miles from her Luton constituency.   Her second homes claims for five years came to £87,206, whilst her neighbouring MP for Luton North, Kelvin Hopkins - who lived in the same street as Moran - claimed just £8,894.  It also came to light that Moran had claimed for driving no less than 26,028 miles even though her constituency is a mere 32 miles from Westminster.

The abuse of trust and accountability just went on, so no wonder the Crown Prosecution Service brought the charges against her.   Now, although one might have been seduced into a feeling of sympathy for the pathetic figure she struck during her court proceedings and although it may be true that she did repay the princely sum of £6,000 of the expenses she received, nonetheless it comes as a startling reminder of just how out of touch the Commons Authorities still are that Moran has now been paid almost £27,000 in a `resettlement grant` given to MPs when they leave Parliament. 

Far from having any sympathy with her current situation which, after all, includes an alleged £1million property portfolio, it`s us taxpayers who should be doing the weeping as yet another chunk of our hard earned cash is squandered on yet another undeserving case.    

LAGGING BEHIND ?

As controversy reigns over the conflict between the European Court of Human Rights and HM Gov, over the question of votes for prisoners, I suspect Ministers may be lagging behind in their quest for a solution.

Despite the fact that Dave Cameron has said that prisoners will not get to vote all the time he has a say in it, there are fears that to deny old lags the chance to cast their votes might lead to a huge number of claims for compensation, if the UK Government defies the ECHR edict.

There have been mutterings about finding a compromise, aka fudge, involving the prospect of votes being given only to prisoners serving up to two years in the nick, which would be OK for them but not for the longer term rascals detained at Her Majesty`s pleasure.   What`s needed is a solution that will satisfy all prisoners, the ECHR and HM Gov. and it surely lies in the beezer wheeze to give all prisoners the right to vote.....but only at Parish Council elections and, just to add a delicious irony, those for the election of Police and Crime Commissioners.

THROW AWAY THE KEY..

I think I`ve mentioned before in these pages that, for me at least, arguably the most precious thing in life is children.   They are a blessing, there to be loved, enjoyed and cherished.   And this week we have had two desperately painful episodes which I`m sure touch the hearts of us all.   The first was the killing of two children by their father, who then took his own life, in a remote village near Andover in Hampshire and it seems to me that, if there are `issues` that lead to that kind of desperation, then by all means end it all for yourself but for heaven`s sake spare the children.

And now we have the heart rending case of little April Jones and although hope must  of course continue to spring eternal, the signs are not encouraging.  It goes without saying that we will all be feeling the pain for the family and friends of a beautiful little girl displaying all the innocence of childhood.  But I think my own considered reaction to this outrage is one of sheer anger.   I`m angry that this kind of thing can ever happen in what is alleged to be a civilised country and I`m angry that there are people who are capable of such grotesque acts against defenceless children.

So, when the perpetrator is finally brought to book, my anger, which will refuse to subside, dictates that I want no reports from psychologists, no weak kneed mitigation or any wish-washy excuses for his behaviour from the goody-two-shoes apologists.   I simply want him locked up and the key thrown away. End of.

So much for my earnest hope that Abu Hamza and his cohorts might be flown out of Heathrow by the end of the week.   He and one other have lodged yet another appeal against extradition to the USA, although I had thought they had now run out of appeals.

It`s worth just considering the `processes` that have been involved here over the years:-

* May 2004 - Hamza arrested in London for allegedly organising military training camp in 

                  Oregon;

* Oct 2004 - Charged in UK with 15 offences under Terrorism Act;

* Feb 2006 - Hamza found guilty on 11 charges and jailed for seven years;

* Jul 2006 - Given go-ahead to challenge some convictions;

* Nov 2006 - Court of Appeal dismisses case;

* May 2007 - Preliminary extradition hearing;

* Nov 2007 - Hamza loses legal arguments against extradition - Home Secretary to decide;

* Feb 2008 - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith signs extradition order;

* June 2008 - High Court rules extradition decision `unassailable`;

* Jul 2008 - Hamza refused permission to appeal to House of Lords;

* Aug 2008 - European Court of Human Rights rules no extradition until case examined;

* April 2012 - ECHR rules extradition lawful;

* July 2012 - Hamza appeals ECHR decision;

* Sept 2012 - Appeal rejected;  extradition can go ahead;

* 26 Sept 2012 - High Court appeal launched to avoid extradition.

It`s a quite extraordinary chain of events and as I understand it the latest appeal can only consider whether there are any new and compelling reasons to halt the extradition and it remains to be seen whether the judges meeting in open court next Tuesday consider that there are.   If so, then the ball game might continue;  if not then unless there is yet another appeal, the extradition might finally happen.

It`s difficult to see where any `new and compelling evidence not previously heard` can conceivably come from.   Unless, of course, Hamza claims air sickness or that flying in a plane across New York might just be a tad dangerous, thus infringing his human rights and the whole circus starts all over again.  I just hope next Tuesday we might finally see common sense prevail for once, for the ass of the law is in danger of becoming a donkey.

FLIGHT DELAY...

I see that radical cleric Abu Hamza and his dissident chums have finally lost their appeals to stay in this country and stave off extradition to the USA to face terrorism charges.   HM Gov. has welcomed the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and said yesterday  that the extradition should take place `within a matter of weeks.`  Today, however, their timescale has been revised down to `a matter of days.`

That`s better, although I`m genuinely surprised that they weren`t stuck on a plane (military or civil) just as soon as the judgement was released.   After years of prevarication, untold benefits and a bill for legal aid of well over £1million, I would have hoped that some contingency plans had already been worked out so that these malcontents were flown out immediately.   But it seems not and instead we have a Home Office spokesman explaining that `the practicalities of extradition are complex.` Well, they might be but they should have been resolved in advance.

Lets just hope that by the end of the week at the latest, this cargo of undesirables have finally left our shores, never to return.   

I`M WITH DES..

Archbishop and Nobel Prize winner Desmond Tutu`s call for Blair and Bush to be called before the International Criminal Court at The Hague is intriguing.   The ICC (not to be confused with the International Cricket Council) is chiefly concerned with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes and it is in regard to the latter that Tutu makes his claim, citing the alleged illegality of the Iraq War which gave rise to untold thousands of deaths.

At first glance, his call sounds straightforward enough.   But why limit it to just Blair and Bush, when others in both the US and UK administrations would seem to have been as much involved in the dubious decision making and the liberal interpretation of the law?   Trouble is, the ICC isn`t recognised by the United States, so Bush`s appearance before it is immediately reduced to the realms of wishful thinking.

As for Blair, well we`ve had the whitewashing Hutton and Butler Inquiries and the Chilcot Inquiry is now in cold storage whilst `negotiations` continue about the content of its final report.   Blair himself has, predictably, rubbished Tutu`s call with the kind of dismissive arrogance that we`ve come to expect and, since Blair seems to inhabit a stratospheric world which we mere mortals find difficult to comprehend, it seems unlikely in the extreme that he will also set foot in The Hague.

However, despite all of that, I`m with Des.   For there`s a principle here which suggests that those responsible for events such as Iraq need to be held properly to account for their decisions.   It`s clear that the series of Inquiries we`ve had so far have proven ineffective, partial and successful only in coming up with the answers they were set up to provide.   The problem with Tutu`s statement is that it suggets he might be assuming guilt, always a dangerous assumption.   However, he is right in the sense that there seems to be a case to answer and that a more independent, detached view needs to be taken; and although I know the appearance of the Chuckle Brothers before the ICC ain`t gonna happen, it doesn`t change the conviction that something should.

INQUIRIES, INQUIRIES..

Here we go again.  Looks like we`re going to get some kind of Inquiry into the alleged misdeeds of the banking industry and although Cameron has said it will be a joint Commons/Lords Inquiry calling witnesses under oath, there are growing calls for a full blown judge-led Public Inquiry.   Seems possible, especially now that the Chairman of the Commons Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie, has raised fears that anything less will be overshadowed by political bias.   

In the meantime, the Leveson Inquiry into the relationship between politicians and the media is still going on with Elvis Costello still in full flight.   Well, it`s a professional career.   Chilcot and his chums are still deep in consultation as we await the publication of their report following their Public Inquiry into events leading up to the Iraq war.

Over the years, there have been loads of Inquiries covering such diverse subjects as the Dunblane shootings, children`s heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary, the death of Victoria Climbie, the overspend on the Scottish Parliament building, the death of Dr. David Kelly, the E.coli infection in South Wales, mass murderer Harold Shipman, the Paddington Rail crash and the explosion at the ICL plastics factory in Glasgow.  Now, some of these have been whitewashes, some have dealt soberly with serious issues of public concern and others have been little more than political conveniences.   

But they`re all expensive, time consuming - the Saville Inquiry for example - and have a tendency to gather a mass of evidence that very often leads to little or no real action or change. So maybe it`s time we had a Public Inquiry into the establishment and effectiveness of Public Inquiries?   I rest my case.

FIRST IN THE QUEUE ?

At a hearing in the High Court last Friday, Mr. Justice David Richards dismissed the latest attempt by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have the so-called 'Football Creditors' rule declared unlawful.   In simple terms, the rule ensures that, if and when football clubs become insolvent and go into administration, then the club`s players are assured of their wages being paid in full and any debts to other clubs being honoured whereas other creditors may get only a small fraction of what they are owed.   These other debts often include tax and VAT liabilities, small local businesses, public authorities and local charities.


There have, of course, been recent examples of clubs becoming insolvent and going into administration and not surprisingly HMRC has been pursuing their legal challenge against the rule which sees the very high salaries of players paid in full whilst only a tiny fraction of the tax owing on those salaries has been paid.   Also unsurprisingly, whilst the Judge said that the rule does not break current insolvency law, he referred to it as having been "subject to a good deal of criticism" and that "the Football League (whose rule it is) should not regard the result of this case as an endorsement of its approach to football creditors."


The result is, however, that the Football League are over the moon, leaving the small creditors as sick as parrots and all the while the players, with their often offensive salaries, continue to find themselves first in the queue when a club becomes insolvent.   The ongoing basket case of Portsmouth FC has highlighted the difference between their highest paid players such as Tal Ben Haim reportedly on £36,000 a week being paid whereas the local florist, the local scouts, the St. John Ambulance and local charities are still  owed money.


But the cavalry might be on the hill in the form of Damian Collins MP who proposes to introduce a  Bill in Parliament to make the Football Creditors rule illegal.  One of the principles behind insolvency should surely be that all creditors are treated equally, so I wish him well.   I suspect we may have a long wait though, what with Parliament not sitting very much and anything to do with the law taking ages to settle.   

MOVING ON ?

It`s funny how things get overtaken by other things.   Some months ago there was quite a fuss about the prospects of convicted felons being given the right to vote whilst detained at Her Majesty`s pleasure.   I guess like many others, my immediate reaction was to object, principally on the grounds that if you are a convicted murderer, rapist, fraudster or any of the other menu of crimes for which you may have been incarcerated, then you really should lose not only your freedom but also most if not all of the rights enjoyed by honest citizens.


But yesterday`s `judgement ` by the unelected jurists who make up the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg has meant that the issue about old lags having the vote has been overtaken by the much bigger question as to whether sovereign countries should have their laws and the wishes of the majority of their citizens being overridden by this remote and unaccountable outfit.


I hope that our own Parliament will show the backbone needed not only to defy the EU but also refuse to pay the £150million fine if it does not adopt the Court`s ruling within six months.  If not, it will bring into serious doubt the value of voting at all for a `sovereign parliament` whose powers are being diminished with alarming regularity.


On the now narrowing issue of votes for prisoners, I suspect too that it has been overtaken by the precedent set by John (Captain, Leader, Legend) Terry who, by appearing in his Chelsea kit and collecting the Champions League Cup despite being banned from the game, cocked yet another snoot at the football authorities and brought the game into yet more disrepute.   But what`s good enough for Terry must surely be good enough for our prison population.

GUILT EDGED? - NOT THIS TIME..

I don`t think I`ll be accused of perverting the course of justice by writing this because, in one of the most horrendous cases I`ve ever heard, the accused had already pleaded guilty before today`s hearing in Truro Crown Court.   33-year old Shane Jenkin of Hayle in Cornwall admitted grievous bodily harm with intent and he will be sentenced sometime next month.


The scale of the assault he carried out on mother of two, Tina Nash, is scarcely believable, but as well as gouging out both of her eyes, leaving her permanently blinded, Jenkin also broke her jaw and her nose, inflicted a gruesome beating and then leaving her for 12 hours before any help arrived.   These days, we`re in danger of getting used to violence on the streets and in the home but this case simply beggars belief that anyone could be capable of such barbaric behaviour.


Now, we have to wait a few weeks before Jenkin is sentenced and I hope this will not be a case where any semblance of mitigation is even contemplated. I imagine there will be `reports` about Jenkin for the judge to consider but there can surely be no excuse for his actions, such as those that we hear about all too often - deprived upbringing, difficult childhood, social inadequacies and all the usual claptrap that gets trotted out.


This time it`s clear that Jenkin is not the victim of any mitigating circumstances whatsoever, there can be no excuses and his admission of guilt cannot be edged in any  way by namby pamby apologists for his indefensible actions.   If ever there was a case to lock someone up and throw away the keys, this is it. 

IS IT JUST ME ?  PART 3..

The other afternoon, I was out with Barney walking through the snow covered orchards and when I got back to the car I turned the radio on just in time to catch the news.   And what I was hearing made me wonder if I had somehow been transported to a different planet.

First there was the report that the two hoteliers from Marazion in Cornwall had lost their appeal against their conviction on a charge of discrimination when, because of their deeply held religious beliefs, they declined to allow a gay couple to share a room.   So it seems that deeply held christian beliefs in a country that has been predominantly christian for 2,000 years come a poor second to `human rights,` the definition of which is becoming as absurd as that for our old friends health and safety.


Then there was another appeal decision which decreed that local councils cannot include prayers on the agenda for their meetings - yet another slap in the face of another centuries old tradition inflicted by yet another vociferous minority.   The daft thing is that it seems perfectly legal for local councils to say their prayers before meetings so long as they don`t formalise it by putting it on their agendas;  and in any event the introduction of the Government`s localism legislation is likely to mean that local councils can make their own minds up about things like this anyway, so the court case really was a lot of fuss about nothing.


As Harry Redknapp might say, "Should never have been brought to court."  And yet it was only a couple of days ago that we learned of yet another extremist Muslim cleric who shouldn`t be in this country anyway and who cannot be deported as he might be tried in his home country and convicted on evidence that might have been obtained through torture.   So we have to live with this threat on our own streets and doubtless fork out a shedload of benefits to maintain his human rights and lifestyle.


Is it me or are there times when the law really is an ass?   Beam me up, Scotty !!