Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Data protection Act
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Re data protection act | United Kingdom | |||
OT (just) Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT (just) Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT Data protection Act | United Kingdom | |||
OT. Data protection Act | United Kingdom |