"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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.

--
Tumbleweed

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

"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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.

--
Tumbleweed

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

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"hugh" ] wrote in message
...
In message , Tumbleweed
writes
"Franz Heymann" wrote in message
...

"Jaques d'Alltrades" wrote in message
...
The message
from martin contains these words:

DPA was used as a very poor excuse for police incompetence in the
Humberside Police Force. It was quite clear that the DPA does not
apply in this case.

The Humberside dibble claim to have taken legal opinion.

They have to be absolutely scrupulous about adhering to the law
(criminal law especially) and whatever your gut feeling is about the
stupidity of some legislation, they have to heed legal opinion -
especially in an area so easily checked.

Perhaps they might consider sacking their legal advisor, just in case
another booby like this occurs?

If they had disregarded theit legal advice, which no doubt cost them a
lot
of money, they would probably have solved the case much more quickly,
thus
saving themselves money which might have helped the progress of other
cases.
The worst that could have happened would be that they might have had
their
knuckles formally rapped with a cotton wool covered ruler. But they
would
have emerged from the issue with considerably more honour.

Franz

No, the worst would have been headlines in the tabloids screaming how the
stupid police broke the DPA by not erasing data of 'innocent' people, and
demanding the person in charge be sacked. Thats the way the DPA works in
practice, its so vague that its meaning is defined by the results of
prosecutions, rather than by anyone being able to make sense of it and no
what to do in the first place. The very fact that different police forces
work differently with regard to it shows this, they are just going on
legal
advice, and the lawyers cant make their minds up collectively what it
means.

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?
--
hugh
Reply to address is valid at the time of posting

"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)