In fact I suspect they would prefer no witnesses at all.
And no trials.
Extend the 42 day deadline, I say.
Lock everybody up forever.

And dear old David Davis (a fan, I hope, of the song in Vile Pervert: The Musical called Shami Chakrabarti) approves of capital punishment but NOT locking people up for 42 days.

It's OK to kill 'em, not to lock them up.

Is it just me or have we all gone barking mad?

David Davis is in favour of the death penalty, but he said that he would never push for it because it's just his personal opinion. The worst is Ann Widdicombe who claimed the death penalty saves lives. Not sure how she works that out.

On the witness issue, the likes of Jack Straw miss the point that there are no criminals and victims until the courts have ruled on the evidence. Both sides should be treated equally, in the interests of fairness and justice, so if a witness can remain anonymous then so should the accused who might be innocent.

I agree the accused should receive full anonymity especially in high profile cases. I can think of one particular case where the individual concerned was never going to get a fair and impartial trial after the media spewed its lies and filth for months beforehand.

So let's pretend for the moment (ridiculous but still) that the presumption of innocence still exists in Britain.

Then the news story would be "an innocent man was released today when the Court of Appeal threw out his conviction".

But no, it's "a double murderer escaped justice..."

And Jack Straw wants to change the law not to make sure innocent people get convicted but so guilty people get sent to jail.

Doesn't the law matter any more? Media can twist the truth, politicians can do it, police can do it - what chance for the rest of us?

I dread to think what would happen if they introduced lie detectors in police stations for the police as well as the public !