The right to face your accuser
Similarly if they didn't have 2,7,14, 28, 42, 56, 88, 104, 365, 1500... days detention without charge X murderers would get away. Because individual rights don't matter, and millions of small injustices don't count as much in newspaper headlines as individual major injustices. Headlines are very important when trying to win elections...
Except they do matter and those individual random arrests and DNA and fingerprintings, and injustice, and seizure of vehicles and assets without trial, each and every one of them will vote against NuLabour in the next election. I reckon the 'viewing extreme porn is a crime' and 'legal to descriminate against men' cost Labour every man in Britain and many mothers of teenage boys.
A far more troubling thing is this:
I didn't know that the UK had removed the right to face your accuser. In the past a suspect could face the accuser and the jury could see if they were lying as they gave evidence. They could tell from the shake in their voices, the mannerisms etc. When faced with having to tell their lies to a hostile council.
However that right has been removed by Blair & co. The witness hides behind a screen, with a disguised voice and controlled set of questions. They can lie with impunity, the jury is shown by this that the suspect is sooooo dangerous that the witnesses need special protection. Yet they've been convicting people on NOTHING BUT THAT EVIDENCE!
The Lords ruled that if that evidence was pivotal, then secret witnesses alone were not enough. Which makes a lot of sense, since otherwise the jury is simply convicting someone on heresay of an anonymous witness.
Worse still, they've been letting CONVICTS give anonymous evidence, which includes people convicted of deception. The evidence of their previous conviction is withheld as it can aide in their identification. The police are supposed to decide if any details need to be revealed, but they're not impartial. Private eye suggested that the police seek protection for witnesses that suspect are lying to avoid exposure in court.
But these laws have lasted centuries and these tossers won't stay in power much longer. One of these two things is not like the other, one of them has stood the test of time and one not.
How safe are you if the secret words of a convict are enough to convict you?