Hardly the first time, is it now? And that applies to cash for peerages (what do you think all those "services to the party" that got titles meant?) or looking the other way when we trade with nasty regimes.

Couple this with the Bill of Attainder* against Bowland Dairies and it becomes clear that the Blair Government is a very real threat to liberty.

* a Bill or Act of Attainder is a law passed against a specific named individual or organisation, and had been thought to have been abolished in England. In fact matters are even worse: the order passed against Bowland Dairies was a statutory instrument, and did not even get the cursory assent of Parliament.

You've got it in one, Stephen. This is totalitarian, which is why I guffaw when I hear the moaning about Putin. Take care of your own despot first.

Apropos of Acts of Attainder: I reckon it would have been preferable (just) to have passed an AoA against the alleged murderers of Stephen Lawrence rather than to abolish the double jeopardy rule. (I'm surprised that nothing yet seems to have been done - maybe, after all, there is still no evidence which would stand up in court - or, indeed, no evidence at all.) An AoA may be consonant with the rule of law but abolition of the dj rule certainly isn't. BTW, the rule of law is damaged by frequent retrospective legislation - a speciality of our Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury acting through HM Revenue & Customs. You can expect much more damage from Mr Brown when he becomes PM.

Umbongo, that is plainly wrong. The double jeopardy rule was invented when there was no such thing as criminal investigation (read Cicero: in all his great discussions of crimes and conspiracies, there is not a single suggestion as to how things might be found out) and is now a guarantee that justice shall not be done and shall be seen not to be done. If a man can let himself be tried before crucial evidence against him is found, he is safe home, and there are known cases of murderers who owned up to their murders after being found innocent and thumbed their noses at the law. To imagine that, rather than correct an obvious archaism in the law, one should allow the most tyrannical of instruments to be used at the mere pleasure of ministers and parliament is simply dogmatism gone mad. The double jeopardy rule is not in the Ten Commandments; it is a technical instrument to prevent harassing of people disliked by local powers, not a constituent part of the principles of justice. The basic point of justice is that a proven and self-confessed criminal should pay. If a so-called rule, however hallowed, gets in the way of that, it can go to Hell.

Paolo

I wasn't being entirely serious - I think both AoAs and abolition of the double jeopardy rule are affronts to the rule of law. Contrary to your fears there are very few instances that I know of of murderers getting off free and gloating about it. The whole purpose of the criminal justice system is to reveal the evidence and see if a jury can be convinced that the evidence is sufficient to convict. If the CPS or Michael Mansfield, wish to mount an action on insufficient evidence then more fool them - no-one forces them to do so, least of all the accused. Now our glorious government can in theory (how long before they do it "in practice"?) keep bringing an accused before the courts until the "correct" verdict is reached.

As for AoAs - my thought was rather than upset a common law rule of considerable antiquity (about which I cannot recall any serious criticism) the government should consider using another affront to the rule of law - an AoA. At least the government would have to make a particular actual case in attempting to pass a particular AoA. Abolishing the DJ rule was another exercise in feelgood legislation (done for the same reasons as the wholesale pardoning of those found guilty of desertion etc in WW1, quasi-apologising for the slave trade etc) which plays well to the gallery - and you apparently - but patronises our ancestors by assuming they were ignorant authoritarian know-nothings.

Umbongo, if you imagine that there has been no serious criticism of the double-jeopardy rule, you must have missed half of what was said at the time of the OJ Simpson trial. But then, it seems to be your habit to ignore arguments you do not want to answer: you said nothing about my point that DJ was invented in times when criminal investigation was impossible - torture of prisoners was the closest they had - and trials could only focus on matter of record. And you said nothing to answer my point that the point of justice is that a proven criminal should pay, and to Hell with any "rule" that stands in the way. You did, on the other hand, bring in a deliberately insulting red herring about "feelgood legislation". There is nothing "feelgood" about a bill that increases, however marginally, the power of police and prosecutors, and the comparisons you make are wide off the mark. I am especially insulted by your comparison with the contemptible pardon for WWI traitors, against which I protested in the strongest terms in the Biased BBC blog, under my real name - Fabio P.Barbieri. These are poor debating tactics and do nothing to establish that there is anything beyond reverence to ancientry to be said for DJ.

Paolo

1. Just because a law is ancient doesn't mean it's useless, ineffective or unnecessary. I notice you ignore my point that the government can now bring a person endlessly to trial until the "correct" verdict is reached.
2. A principle of the practice of criminal law in England is that the state has to prove guilt at the time of the trial. If the state can't prove guilt then the accused is acquitted. The prosecution - with the weight of the state's resources behind it - has hitherto only been given one chance for two reasons at least: point 1 above and that the state has limitless resources (and time) to bring to the prosecution. This is not an equal fight and, as a partial restoration of "fairness" the state was given one chance only.
3. Another principle of English common law and the rule of law is "due process". Part of this is that "proven" criminals (just how are they proved to be criminals outside a trial process?) sometimes get off for technical reasons, because the jury brings in a "rogue" verdict, because of incompetent prosecution or for any number of reasons. This is the price of having a system which is biased in favour of the innocent.
4. You say there is nothing "feelgood" about a bill that increases, however marginally, the power of police and prosecutors. So it appears that you're happy with the legislation (abolishing DJ despite the increase in power it brings the state) and are insulted by my description of it. Since one of the characteristics of this government is endless redundant, unusable and oppressive legislation (the umpteen public order acts, security etc acts) which are done for PR purposes to give the electorate the impression something (no matter how ineffective) is being done, I consider that as a description of such legislation "feelgood" is as appropriate as any.

I'm sorry that you are insulted by this. There was no insult meant and, on re-reading my comment, it's difficult to see in what way it was insulting. I concur with many of your comments on B-BBC but how would I have known that "Paolo" and "FBP" are the same person?