Well, There's Always A First Time....

Thanet Councillor Suzanne Brimm faces three charges related to Freedom of Information requests for details about a dog DNA scheme including getting rid of records so that they could not be disclosed.

It is believed to be the first time that anyone has been charged under section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act.

 One to watch!

Cllr Brimm, who previously who held a Cabinet post in the council as a UKIP member before quitting the group to become Independent, has denied the charges and will go on trial at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court on September 3.

 And what about that scheme? Well....

Thanet's dog DNA scheme used high-tech testing to try and work out which owners had failed to pick up after their dogs as part of a zero tolerance approach.

The scheme was launched last July but later abandoned.

 Yeah, there's a lot of that going around....

The charges allege that she blocked, concealed or destroyed records held by Thanet council “with the intention of preventing the disclosure by TDC of information” in response to FOI requests between July 31, 2017, and September 2 and 5, 2017.

A further charge says that between her election on May 7, 2015 -and February 9, 2018, Cllr Brimm “being a data controller, processed personal data without having entry in the register maintained by the Information Commissioner.”

The Campaign for Freedom of Information said that this there (sic) has "never been a s77 FOI prosecution before."

It's going to be interesting to see what the real issue is here, isn't it?

Another One On The DNA Register!

Mr Holloway, 46, of Malvern Close, Eastbourne, was well known in the area for sitting on benches outside public toilets by the Hampden Park station level crossing.

At about 7.30pm on Saturday, September 29, police were called to the spot and found him on the ground. Mr Holloway was conscious at the time and was taken to Eastbourne District General Hospital with what were thought to be only minor injuries.

But his condition worsened and he died at Hurstwood Park Neurosciences Centre in Haywards Heath at 6.15pm on Sunday.

Quick! Arrest the usual suspects! Literally...

Sussex Police arrested a 48-year-old Polish cleaning contractor on suspicion of murder and released him on bail.

They carried out house-to-house inquiries at dozens of homes.

Ah. But wait. Maybe there was no crime at all?

But detectives now believe that Mr Holloway had become abusive when the toilet attendant arrived to close the toilets for the night.

As the attendant drove off, Mr Holloway is believed to have hurled himself at the side of his van, bounced off and banged his head on the pavement.

The man has been told that no further action will be taken.

/facepalm

Now, I've no doubt the police commenters will be here soon to argue their corner but…is this really what we expect from the police ‘service’?

That they start arresting people before they even know if a crime has been committed? And if it turns out none has been, then it’s just ‘Off you go, sonny!’ with no apology..?

Meanwhile, over in Kingston, if they get real cases that aren't immediately solvable they just … close them.

Yes. Really!

Police came to the house after the incident and took fingerprints. But they closed the case after Mrs John was unable to identify the trespassers from photographs of known criminals.

She said: “The police just closed the case. What if they are new people who have not been in trouble with the police before? They would never catch them, would they?”

Well, indeed! But don't worry, when they have everyone on their database, things'll work just fine, I'm sure...

Fuel Injected Moose Is Right – We Are Populated By Sheep

… detectives have ruled out a mass DNA trawl of the city where she lived, it emerged yesterday.

And does that please the ‘Mail’?

No:

The decision will come as a blow to many who supported a call for ¬widespread testing across Bristol in the quest to match a DNA sample from saliva found on the landscape architect’s dead body.

The move will also be seen as controversial – especially as the Daily Mail understands that the sample has already been run through the national DNA database without finding a match.

Of course, it won’t please those who have already made utter fools of themselves either.

Among those who have already voiced support for mass testing among male residents of the affluent area of Clifton and beyond are a local MP, and Miss Yeates’s best friend, as well as residents who live close to the street where the ¬victim lived with her boyfriend.

And it certainly won’t please those who believe the state is always right and acts only in our best interests, either.

Neighbours in Bristol’s affluent Clifton area living in and around Canynge Road, where Miss Yeates lived, said they had asked police for a mass DNA test.

One resident, who belongs to the area’s neighbourhood watch scheme, said: ‘It’s ridiculous. We would welcome the tests as we’ve got nothing to hide.

‘This was raised with officers, but we were told that this was not the investigation team’s plans and would not happen. I think they should just get on with it.’

I think people like you should volunteer your DNA if you wish.

But not mine, or anyone else’s…

The New McCarthy-ism?*

The brains trust that Labour decided would make an idea 'Twitter Csar' has opened her mouth and crammed both feet firmly into it once more:

An MP has called on police to DNA test every man in Bristol in a bid to track down the killer of Joanna Yeates in what could be the biggest ever screening carried out by British police.

Kerry McCarthy, Labour MP for Bristol East, wants swabs to be taken from the entire male population - around 250,000 people.

Hang the cost! Right, Kerry? And I'm sure the labs have the time to sort through this particular haystack to find a needle that may not actually even be there...

The mass testing would echo that of a case in 1995 which eventually led to the conviction of David Frost who raped and murdered 18-year-old Louise Smith on Christmas Day when she walked home from a nightclub.

He was caught 14 months later when police noticed he had avoided providing a DNA sample and travelled to South Africa, where he was working, to take a swab.

I notice the 'Mail' doesn't see fit to remind us of another case - a rather less successful one - that of Colin Pitchfork...

Miss McCarthy said: 'I understand some people think this is an invasion of their privacy...,'

'But who cares about them, I have a chance to get my face in the paper and demand yet more authoritarian actions! Wheeee!'

'...but I think most people would understand that city-wide testing could get the killer off the streets.,'

At what cost? And not just in monetary terms, as outlined by Al Jahom, in manpower, in the loss of rights, in the ever-increasing contempt in which people hold the state? Does that even matter to you?

I mean, no-one knows if the killer is male (because no-one knows if the unidentified sample allegedly found on her body is relevant) or even if they are still in Bristol!

The idea was also backed by Louise's mother, Gillian, 63, who said that DNA tests would help achieve justice for Jo's family.

And being a grieving mother, that's all she cares about. Which doesn't make her a monster, but it does make her someone whose opinion should be taken with a good deal of caution...

She said: 'I would hope that people in the area are tested when the police are ready to do it. If they have a sample of DNA and no match on the national database, then they should use it.

'They should test residents near where she lived in Clifton and where her body was found. The tension in Bristol and around Clifton will not be relieved until someone is caught.'

Meanwhile, the tension between the law-abiding taxpayer and the State that we are paying for, yet increasingly treats us all as guilty until proved innocent, ratchets tighter and tighter daily...

* post title suggested by John M Ward

Another Day, Another Throw Of The Authoritarian Dice…

Carl Gardner (a former government lawyer) has another crack at getting support for the DNA database in CiF:

The law on DNA has to change. Currently the police in England and Wales can take a sample from anyone they arrest for a recordable offence. The sample, and the DNA profile that results from analysis (20 numbers, plus two letters representing chromosomes) are kept on the national DNA database, for ever.

You’re right, that does need to change.

And for once, the ECHR helped us, rather than hindered us:

But in its judgment in S and Marper v UK at the end of 2008 the European Court of Human Rights ruled out the "blanket and indiscriminate" policy of permanent retention…

And now…

…the government now proposes change in its crime and security bill, due to come before the House of Lords next week. If it's passed, although the DNA profiles of offenders will still be retained permanently, those of innocent people – arrested once, but never convicted of anything – will be destroyed after six years.

Not good enough.

But that's too little for the Conservatives, who want DNA profiles of innocent people retained only after arrest for violent and sex offences, and then only for three years initially.

Still not good enough.

The Liberal Democrats go even further, wanting only the DNA of convicted offenders kept.

Aha!

I knew if I waited long enough, there’d be a Lib Dem policy I could fully support…

Needless to say, little Carl is still sucking government (censored):

The government, though, is in no mood for compromise. Alan Johnson may even make DNA an election issue. I hope he does.

According to one argument, the largest possible database, or at least a large one including everyone who's come into serious contact with the police, will have the greatest use for investigators.

So what? So would locking us all up 24/7/365.

Anyway, the Human Genetics Commission was surely right in its report Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear? last year to ask government to consider funding research into the forensic utility of DNA – including into the possible benefits of novel uses of DNA evidence.

Was it? You might think so, you greasy-cheeked little weasel, but you merely prove that you are the government’s man, through and through…

My fear is that limiting the retention of DNA unnecessarily now may hobble a technology that could be a very powerful tool for identifying offenders, eliminating innocent suspects and protecting human rights in 30 or 50 years' time.

Eh..?

It’s going to protect our human rights, so long as we give up our human right not to be considered guilty from birth? That’s pretty retarded…

The growth of the DNA database over the last 10 years has been a brave experiment…

..for a brave new world?

The best reason to back the government, though, is that civil liberties concerns about DNA, now almost conventional wisdom, are abstract and overstated.

According to you and all the other authoritarian control freaks…

What's the actual fear?

People like you, Carl…

…much queasiness about storing DNA profiles is based on a vague perception that they contain something ineffably "intimate" that can't, so needn't, be explained. But such higher superstition is no basis for sensible policy: retaining DNA profiles does not meddle with anyone's soul.

I’m fairly sure a soul is something you don’t need to worry yourself about…

Metaphysics aside, being on the DNA database takes away no freedom (and yes, if the bill gets through, I'll go on it voluntarily).

Good for you. But you don’t get to make the choice for me as well…

Lord Steyn was right to suggest that any human rights invasion is "very modest indeed".

No, he wasn’t.

Against this, keeping even innocent people's DNA for six years is amply justified in order to fight crime.

No, it isn’t.

Alan Johnson should take his case to the people.

And if they tell you, loud and clear, to go forth and multiply, what then?

Longrider isn't too impressed with this joker either...

CCTV – Keeping Us All Safe From…

…pub band members who might have possibly had a gun, or at any rate a gun-shaped object, well, be fair, it was dark out and the resolution on those things isn’t great, and hey, if you pay peanuts you get…

A band who had just performed in a Staffordshire pub spent the night at a police station over allegations a firearm had been seen in their van.

You’d think that wouldn’t take a night to clear up, would you? How big was this van?

Band manager Kingsley Slater said they were eventually released but had been "totally shocked" by it all.

Only ‘shocked’? I’d be furious…

The men were later released and their cars were driven over to the police station so they could drive back and pick up their equipment.

"I feel a bit let down," Mr Kingsley said.

"It was a blunder."

Hmm, was it?

Or was it an attempt to harvest a bit more DNA for that database?

Staffordshire police said they had had a call from CCTV operators who saw two vehicles and people acting suspiciously in a car park in High Street, Chasetown.

They also believed they had seen a firearm in one of the vehicles.

Note the ‘believed’. If they’d believed they’d seen a nuclear bomb, would the Army have been called out?

Did no one think to check the recordings first, or at least immediately afterward?

"Armed officers were deployed and six men were arrested outside the Oak pub in Burntwood," a spokesman said.

"After further investigation and viewing of the CCTV footage, the six men were released without charge.

"No firearm was found."

Because no firearm was there, you dolt!

Insp Dave Challinor said the six men faced no further action but that police had responded "appropriately and proportionately."

‘No further action’..? Well, how bloody magnanimous of you!

You can’t take any ‘further action’ because they didn’t do anything wrong.

You could, however, take ‘further action’ against the minimum-pay drones monitoring the CCTV, to prevent six other innocent men having the living daylights frightened out of them and their DNA stored on the database the next time you decide you really haven’t the faintest clue what the words ‘appropriately and proportionally’ actually mean…