In by the tradesmen's entrance?

I must have dozed off - how the heck did Parliament manage to pass a law overturning centuries of tradition by allowing an accused man's past misdemeanours to be put before a jury as evidence that he has committed the crime of which he stands charged before them? Where were the voices of reason? Where were the screams of outrage? Quite apart from the highly dubious probative value of such evidence, the mere fact that the prosecution feel the need to rely on it would seem to indicate that their case is basically weak. I am utterly appalled, and cannot help but feel that it is a yet another step on a very slippery and dangerous slope.