Henderson says the Sun has shone on Claims Direct

TIt was the Sun wot won it - or, in the case of beleaguered personal injury compensation company Claims Direct, the Sun wot 'campaigned against the old regime', 'brought to light some fundamental problems' and was indirectly responsible for 'the firm's caseload falling by 70%' (21 November).

Last year the tabloid campaigned against 'Shames Direct': by last week its turnover had collapsed from 42.7 million to 9 million in six months.

But astonishingly, 'new Claims Direct boss Ronnie Henderson thanked the Sun for campaigning against the old regime'.

Not only was Mr Henderson grateful to the Sun for 'bringing to light problems and giving us the opportunity to fix them', but more tellingly because 'the old management got kicked out and I got the job'.Another person safely settled in his job is former City solicitor Garry Hart, the special adviser to the Lord Chancellor.

Lord Irvine was last week cleared of sexual and racial discrimination in his appointment of Mr Hart, an old friend.

Jane Coker, a white solicitor, and Martha Osamor, a black legal adviser, claimed that by not advertising the 73,000 a year post the Lord Chancellor had 'indirectly discriminated against them' (The Guardian, 23 November).

Ms Coker originally won her claim in an employment tribunal, only for it to be overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal earlier this year.The Court of Appeal ruled in Lord Irvine's favour, 'declaring that making an appointment from within a circle of family, friends and personal acquaintances is seldom likely to constitute indirect discrimination', but the ruling added a postscript that 'it does not follow that this practice is unobjectionable - it will often be open to objection for a number of reasons'.Another practice which seems open to objection at the moment is the rushing through of Home Secretary David Blunkett's emergency anti-terror legislation.The highly controversial anti-terrorism Bill was 'savaged by MPs' as it 'came under a hail of all-party criticism in both the Commons and the Lords' (The Guardian, 20 November).

The Bill, which includes plans to detain terrorist suspects without trial, was described as 'smacking of the worst aspects of the Soviet Union and other repressive states' by MPs, and 'unlawful' by the solicitor director of Liberty, John Wadham (The Times, 20 November).

Although an 'angry' and 'frustrated' Mr Blunkett 'attacked his media critics, saying the most difficult decision some of them faced was choosing what to buy at Sainsburys' (The Guardian), strong support came from an editorial in The Times.

A 'convincing' Mr Blunkett had outlined with 'admirable clarity' the reasons for this 'necessary Bill', and'Parliament should now ensure its rapid passage into law'.The Independent also gave the Bill the benefit of the doubt, saying that the 'tightening of anti-terror laws is inevitable', and 'if the home secretary did not act and a terrorist act was to ensue, he would be accused of failing in his duty' (21 November).It is obviously the season for big legal hitters to speak to the press - after last week's Telegraph and Times interviews with Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith came the 'people's judge', Lord Woolf, talking to The Independent (23 November).Harry Woolf, as the paper called the Lord Chief Justice, has 'established himself as the first people's judge' during his 18 months in the post, with his 'willingness to speak out on issues traditionally eschewed by his predecessors propelling him into the political limelight'.While backing proposals for specialist courts to deal with drugs and domestic violence offences, he is less certain on the issue of relaxing the laws for possession of cocaine and ecstasy.

Obviously showing his famous 'people's touch', Lord Woolf admitted in a surprising burst of honesty that 'although I'm good at identifying the problem, I'm afraid that I'm not very good in providing the solution'.

Just what one wants from a judge, of course.Victoria MacCallum