"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
snip

In the meantime police forces are building up a DNA database by holding
on to all samples even from people who are not suspects.

Thats good, there are two sides to the DNA coin and many people have been
absolved of crimes due to DNA, as well as convicted. The very first DNA
case
involved (AFAICR) someone who confessed to the crime and was proved not
to
have done it leading the police to catch the real murderer.

But it makes nonsense of the DPA argument used by Humberside police,
does it not?

Do you mean that holding DNA evidence long term contradicts Humberside
police deleting other evidence after a short time?
Possibly, but it may be that its not humberside police who are holding the
DNA foir there area but a central agency, and since each agency seems to
make its own analysis of what the DPA means its not surprising there are
differences.
Once thing this fiasco does show is that local databases really arent worth
much and whatever the rules are, and for however long you are allowed to
keep data, it should be stored centrally if its to be any real use.

--
Tumbleweed

Remove theobvious before replying (but no email reply necessary to
newsgroups)