He argued it was fair that breaches of anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) should be punishable by up to five years' jail. And he claimed the ability to impose Asbos on individuals without trial did not contravene the principle that individuals are innocent until proven guilty.
Charles Clarke today accused the UK media of perpetuating "myths" that his law and order agenda is an attack on human rights and civil liberties. Aside from all the other dubious contentions Home Secretary Charles Clarke makes (including his attack on the three liberal newspapers - the Guardian, Independent and Observer - for showing "general intellectual laziness"), this would appear to contradict everything he states. I wonder if Clarke could explain how the ability to place an anti-social behavioural order on an individual, which could lead to five years' imprisonment, without trial is not "destroying the rule of law"?