New Labour's attempts to abandon the need for evidence is a recurring theme. They have a complex attitude towards evidence - they don't need it to initiate brutal imperialist wars and occupations for oil or to attack the UK population and they supress it when it reveals their own murderous acts. Perhaps we should have the same attitude towards New Labour Fascists war-crimanals and murderers? Hardly tough on the causes of crime when that cause is Fascist New Labour and New Labour's political policemen are they?

The corporate press continues to ignore the fact that the anti-terrorism bill intends to introduce hidden inquests and appoint their own favoured coroners. It's not only about locking people up for 42 days without any evidence.

 
Tim Worstall at The Register

As an example of those freedoms and liberties we are losing think of this case:

Four years ago he walked free from charges of trafficking heroin after a jury delivered a not-proven verdict. But despite escaping a conviction then, George Buchanan was yesterday forced to hand over £200,000 worth of assets – including cars in the names of his wife and children – after a judge's ruling that they had almost certainly been paid for from his involvement in drug-dealing.

Something of a reversal in the normal course of such matters, don't you think? That even after you've been found not guilty they still take your money on the basis of an "almost"? Whatever happened to beyond all reasonable doubt? Thrown out because such cases are not heard as criminal trials, but as civil ones with that lower standard of proof. But that's not all, here's the next bright idea from our Jacqui:

Police will be able to seize high-value assets from suspected drug dealers as soon as they are arrested under plans to be unveiled this week by Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary.

Yes, they'll take your house, your cars, your bank accounts, anything with a realisable value, at the moment of your arrest. No court case necessary at all, simply forfeiture to the State on the basis of no evidence whatsoever. Even better, they won't leave you with enough money to hire a lawyer to defend yourself on those drugs charges:

More than 30 barristers from London, Leeds and Sheffield were approached to represent the offender, but refused because they felt the new fixed-rate legal aid fees of £175.25 per day does not justify the complex workload that would be involved. The case would have involved 6,586 pages of documents and a total of 4,548 transactions to prepare for an estimated six-week hearing. The offender, who has served a nine-month sentence for two drugs convictions, could not pay for the legal fees himself because his assets had been frozen.

That pretty much puts paid to the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial and all the rest of that gubbins that our forefathers fought and died for, doesn't it? That's what I'm worried about, the leeching away of the very things that make us a free country in the face of this mass hysteria. It's decades since I last felt the urge to indulge beyond alcohol and nicotine, so the specifics of the drugs laws are an academic issue for me. But the abandonment of even the pretence of a fair trial should worry you as much as it does me.