Your Account
Community
Topics (Upcoming)
More |
View story
Do you think the UK Government will comply to the ECHR ruling by March 4tH
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/Marcus-Lasance?id=34
Submitted by
LASANCE
9 months, 2 weeks, 6 days, 19 hours agoAccording to a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in the case S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom the government has till March the fourth to respond how they will comply. Will they put everyone in the UK on the data base? If they start erasing the records of innocent people wrongfully held, will this be like clearing King August's stables? What should we wattch out for?
#1 - By LASANCE, 9 months, 7 days, 10 hours ago.
Hayley Youngs, information Compliance Manager at Suffolk Constabulary commented:
"I can confirm a Planning Group chaired by the Home Office including the Association of Chief police Officers (APCO, Association of Police Authorities, National Police Improvement Agency, Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice has been established to consider the judgement in the context of legal, operational and technological implications. I note your expectation to receive a full response from the Constabulary by the time the deadline set by the courts [ECHR] expire. However in summary, police officers will continue to take DNA and fingerprints, as per current practice until further national guidance is communicated." My reply to Hayley was:
"This puzzels me. I will keep you informed about the progress of my campaign #2 - By LASANCE, 8 months, 1 week, 9 days, 21 hours ago.
The Register is on the case.
Read an overview of the responses from different police forces around the country and what the expectations are to resolve this issue. In the usual political wrangling by March 4th will probably be stretched to 'By the last possible day in March' see http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/02/dna_dbase_stalling/ #3 - By LASANCE, 8 months, 1 week, 9 days, 20 hours ago.
An indication of how and when the government will respond to the ECHR ruling can be gleaned from a written response by home office minister Waqui Smith to Andrew Dismore MP, Chair JCHR. In this letter she basically says that the first opportunity for a response will be in June. See http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/HRJ08-095Marper.pdf
#4 - By LASANCE, 6 months, 5 days, 14 hours ago.
Well on May 7th the UK government finally outlined new proposals for DNA database but Liberty’s Shami Chakrabarti quickly likened it to sticking up two fingers to the European Court of Human Rights. That covers my sentiments exactly. Read more about this here
http://www.bloglines.com/blog/Marcus-Lasance?id=43 #5 - By LASANCE, 5 months, 1 week, 13 days, 9 hours ago.
GeneWatch comments:"This is a long time for innocent people to wait to have their records wiped", said Dr Helen Wallace, Director of GeneWatch UK. "DNA profiles can be used to track an individual or their relatives. Where are the weighty reasons that the European Court demanded to justify retention of this data?"
The Home Office cites many examples where DNA has been useful in investigating crimes, but these examples are mostly misleading because they do not rely on retaining DNA profiles from innocent people. The number of crimes detected using DNA has not increased despite the database more than doubling in size. With more than 5 million records, Britain's DNA database is by far the largest in Europe, yet Britain has one of the lowest conviction rates for rape. The DNA database is not used or needed to exonerate innocent people, who carry their DNA with them at all times More information is available on: http://www.genewatch.org/sub-539491 #6 - By LASANCE, 1 month, 1 week, 10 days, 9 hours ago.
We are now in September 2009 and eagerly awaiting the outcome of the Home Office consultation on the new proposed DNA retention guidelines for people arrested, but not convicted of any crime.
I do not have much confidence in this consultation excercise, if even after repeated submissions I can't even get a simple acknowledgement of receipt out of the the incompetents running this enquiry. What is more worrying is that the quasi science they produce to back their flimsy case has been thorougly debunked by reputable statisticians. see http://www.straightstatistics.org/article/dna-database-innocent-or-guilty-whats-difference#comment-198 |
