snowychap Posted May 7, 2009 Share Posted May 7, 2009 A third way: innocentish Smith's DNA database by stealth Jacqui Smith's new plans erode principles of innocent until proven guilty to create a New Labour-style third way: innocentish It is perhaps ironic that the home secretary should seem so hellbent on collecting the nation's DNA while still reeling from the embarrassment of her husband's presumed attempts to spill his at the taxpayer's expense. If it is irony then it is doubly so, as Smith is the minister charged with upholding the rule of law yet has such utter contempt for it and its principles. The EU court ruling stated very clearly that the DNA profiles and samples of the 850,000 innocent people currently on the database should be removed. Smith's response is to leave them on the DNA database for between six and 12 years. At best this is a childish kind of belligerent foot-dragging and at worst it is plain illegal. What is certain is that campaigners will challenge this, and once again Smith will be hauled into court. The continued inclusion of innocent people's DNA on the database throws up several concerns. At a most basic level it flies in the face of our most natural notions of fairness. Why should some have their DNA profiles among the guilty and others not. The only reason provided so far is chance, a chance encounter with the police. Secondly, Smith's new regime leaves the innocent who have been cleared of charges of minor, non-violent crime on the database for six years, which erodes the principle of innocent until proven guilty and in classic New Labour fashion creates a third way, neither innocent or guilty but innocentish. Then there is the very simple issue of privacy, something consecutive Labour home secretaries simply don't understand. Why should the police have DNA information that could relate to a person's paternity or genetic prevalence to certain illness when the individuals concerned may well not hold that information themselves? Most galling of all, though, is that Smith's proposal still clings to the notion of creating a compulsory national DNA database by stealth. Instead of openly arguing and campaigning for this, Smith seeks to build one incrementally, slyly and on the quiet. Writing yesterday in the Guardian, Jonathan Myerson argued for the creation of just such a database. Unfortunately when it comes to arguing for what private information should be placed in the public domain, Myerson's last contribution to this debate renders him an inappropriate poster boy for this campaign. Myerson went on to say that he would fight for genuine civil liberties as much as the next man, on issues such as ID cards and detention without charge. I decided to search LexisNexis for any sign of campaigning articles from Jonathan on these issues and found precisely none. So either I searched in error or it would appear that the next man frankly does not give a toss about civil liberties. At least Myerson had the openness to argue for the national data, unlike Smith, who shulks around the issue without comprehending that the public simply don't trust politicians with their personal data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 8, 2009 Moderator Share Posted May 8, 2009 Some interesting light reading for a new Britain. Sorry but I aint reproducing all of these. All travel plans to be tracked Should schools be fingerprinting our children? Secret ID card reviews published at last Thousands getting terror traniing Stasi HQ UK... where details of all your journeys are secretly logged and kept for a decade Government plans to store details of ordinary people's journeys into and out of UK Jacqui Smith's 'Stasi': Now council posts 'Wanted' pictures of litterbugs and keeps them on file Millions of passengers' details 'should be given to the Government' Them and us child register: Politicians and celebrities can keep their details off a controversial new database Thought police muscle up in Britain £1,000 penalties for out-of-date ID details Jacqui calls Vodafone man to run massive snoop database Big Brother database recording all our calls, texts and e-mails will 'ruin British way of life' 60,000 civilian spies to get three-hour lesson in how to spot terrorists Council uses spy plane with thermal imaging camera to snoop on homes wasting energy Just noticed a lot of those are Daily Mail, though not all of them. That Jacqui Smith is some piece of work though :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I do not know how or why she remains in post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 8, 2009 Moderator Share Posted May 8, 2009 I think it's fairly clear from the articles above exactly why she is in post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 I do not know how or why she remains in post Does anyone really think that all this ID card stuff is personally her idea?? IMO - It is an agenda that is being played out using "terrorism" as justification for amongst other things snooping, it is/has happened in the US via the back door in The Real ID Act and more than likely would be banded around by whatever party is in power in the UK regardless of what they say now. I agree though, she is a worthless word removed 50 people voted for ID cards as a good idea in the poll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Does anyone really think that all this ID card stuff is personally her idea?? Of course it isn't - it has been sloshing around the Home Office for decades. It does, however, fit right in with her authoritarian nature. Before she became Home Sec she was the chief whip and she was known as being pretty ruthlessly authoritarian within her own party in that job. A few MPs said that this would probably characterise her tenure as Home Sec when she was appointed: I don't think they were far wrong. Here is an extract from a Diane Abbott article from 2006 about, the then chief whip, Smith and 'due process' within the PLP: Jacqui Smith’s innovation is to demand her very own disciplinary powers. There will be no due process; no transparency and no guarantee that MPs will even be told who their accusers are. It will be Star Chamber justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 8, 2009 Share Posted May 8, 2009 Was frightening last night on Question time that a woman in the audience suggested that everyone should have their DNA taken and held on record and that quite a number of people agree with her .... that same logic probably explains the 52 votes for Yes on the ID cards .. for some it's a case of if you've nothing to hide , you've nothing to fear .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted May 8, 2009 Moderator Share Posted May 8, 2009 for some it's a case of if you've nothing to hide , you've nothing to fear That statement is not a million miles from "if you've nothing to hide then you've no need for personal freedom", sure what would you be up to anyway, eh ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted May 8, 2009 Author Share Posted May 8, 2009 Was frightening last night on Question time that a woman in the audience suggested that everyone should have their DNA taken and held on record and that quite a number of people agree with her .... that same logic probably explains the 52 votes for Yes on the ID cards .. for some it's a case of if you've nothing to hide , you've nothing to fear ..That should read - "it's a case of if you've nothing to hide or have the power to amend the freedom of information act etc through statutory instrument, you've nothing to fear" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 24, 2009 Share Posted May 24, 2009 Fury as Commons denied DNA vote Home secretary bids to bypass Commons vote on database Jacqui Smith, the home secretary, has been warned that the government risks further damaging the public's faith in politics after it emerged that plans for the police to keep innocent people's DNA profiles for up to 12 years will become law without a Commons vote. Opposition parties and civil liberty groups united to condemn plans that are being steered through parliament while MPs are distracted by the expenses row. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats claim the government is seeking to make controversial changes to the national DNA database via a "statutory instrument" because it fears losing a vote that would be required if they were introduced by the more conventional method of primary legislation. A statutory instrument has to be discussed only by a specialist committee which meets for 90 minutes and is usually made up of 16 MPs and a chairman. Critics say the Labour MPs who will dominate the committee will be handpicked by government whips and therefore back the Home Office proposals. "It is not good enough for ministers to circumnavigate parliamentary process just because they are running scared of another defeat," said Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman. "With this administration's history of legislative diarrhoea, there should be room for the discussion of something so important on the floor of the House." Under the government's proposals, the DNA profiles of those arrested for minor crimes and offences but not charged or found guilty will be held for six years before being destroyed. Those arrested for murder and rape but not convicted will stay on record for 12 years. The government is being forced to destroy the profiles of some 800,000 innocent people held on the database following a European Court of Human Rights ruling. Judges in Strasbourg said the government's retention of innocent people's DNA was disproportionate. While the government has signalled it accepts the ruling, its proposal to allow the police to hold profiles for years has provoked widespread criticism. Last night the home secretary was warned that the government risks further anger over the way it intends to make the proposals law. "The public might expect the length of time innocent people's intimate details are kept would warrant lengthy parliamentary debate," said Anita Coles, of the civil rights group Liberty. "Yet the home secretary wants regulations that will be rushed through in 90 minutes. Is this a good way to rebuild faith in politics?" In an interview in today's Observer, the inventor of DNA fingerprinting, Sir Alec Jeffreys, warns that the government's commitment to keeping innocent people's profiles has created intense grievance throughout the country. "Some people are seriously distressed," Jeffreys says. "They feel they are being branded as criminals when they are innocent. This is compromising the use of DNA profiles. Certainly if I was asked now to give a blood sample to help solve a crime I would have serious doubts about supplying it." The Home Office says it needs to use a statutory instrument to comply with the court ruling as quickly as possible. It has launched a "full public consultation" on the proposals and is seeking the views of expert groups such as the police. A spokesman said: "The findings from the consultation will help form the contents of the regulations which will then be put before parliament for debate and approval." Another example of what needs to be changed in politics and parliament. As much as being worried about the disdain for the public shown by a lot of politicians over the expenses scandal, we need to continue to be worried about the disdain for parliament shown by the executive. It's not just about 'cleaning up' Westminster - it's about making politics and parliament work again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Pilots refuse to take part in national identity card trials Now dropped: Identity card trial for air industry staff dropped A compulsory identity card trial for pilots and 30,000 other airport workers due to start in September has been abandoned by the new home secretary, Alan Johnson. But he intends to accelerate other elements of the scheme, including plans to issue £30 voluntary ID cards to young adults across north-west England. Johnson is also looking at making ID cards free for over-75s. Longer-term plans to make ID cards compulsory for critical workers at railway stations have also been dropped. British citizens would not be forced to carry ID cards, the home secretary insisted. Johnson said: "Holding an identity card should be a personal choice for British citizens – just as it is now to obtain a passport. "Accordingly, I want the introduction of identity cards for all British citizens to be voluntary and I have therefore decided that identity cards issued to airside workers, planned initially at Manchester and London City airports later this year, should also be voluntary." Asked if the cards would ever be made compulsory he said "No", adding: "If a future government wanted to make them compulsory it would require primary legislation." Johnson said he still believed the cards would help improve security at airports. But he admitted the government had allowed the perception to develop that the cards would be a "panacea" that would stop terrorism. Listing the benefits of the scheme at a press conference in central London, he did not at first mention tackling terrorism. Instead, he said the cards would help stop illegal working, people-trafficking and ID fraud. Johnson said he was an instinctive supporter of ID cards and wanted to accelerate their delivery. A pilot scheme covering Greater Manchester would be extended to the whole of the north-west of England from early next year, he added. Everyone who wants a card, or a biometric passport, will have their details stored on the national identity register. Civil liberties groups said this amounted to a compulsory scheme. Isabella Sankey, director of policy for Liberty, said: "The home secretary needs to be clear as to whether entry on to the national identity register will continue to be automatic when applying for a passport. If so, the identity scheme will be compulsory in practice. However you spin it, big ears, four legs and a long trunk still make an elephant. And this white elephant would be as costly to privacy and race equality as to our purses." The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, accused the Government of an "absurd fudge". He said: "They have spent millions on the scheme so far – the home secretary thinks it has been a waste and wants to scrap it, but the prime minister won't let him." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 "They have spent millions on the scheme so far – the home secretary thinks it has been a waste and wants to scrap it, but the prime minister won't let him." Sums the whole thing up really. This would have been scrapped ages ago, but it's got to the point where it's gone too far. Scrapping it now would effectively end any dwindling hope labour had of winning an election with Brown in charge. Even though keeping the scheme will inevitably be even more of a waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 I will not be accepting the ID card scheme, I'd sooner be arrested and charged- it is a absolute joke to spend such a monumental sum on something that is unlikely to promote safety nor security. I think should this go through in a supposedly liberal country, Rousseau would be further proven correct: Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 anyone think labour are doing a Saddam and trashing the resources before they pull out ?? they announce they've dropped plans to make ID cards compulsory for pilots and airside workers at Manchester and London City airports. and then announce the national roll-out of a voluntary scheme was being speeded-up - with London to get them a year early in 2010 baffling stuff ..mind you it's another nail in browns coffin , anymore nails and his coffin will be made of iron seeing as the next government has already said they will scrap them they should be prevented from wasting everyones time and money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted June 30, 2009 Author Share Posted June 30, 2009 Anyone know if the contracts contain redemption / penalty clauses where the contractors get a nice wedge pay off when the next govt cancels the project? Or are they just front loading the payments so the contractors already have their pound of flesh? Any ongoing FOI requests on the matter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted June 30, 2009 Share Posted June 30, 2009 Anyone know if the contracts contain redemption Former home secretary Jacqui Smith told Parliament in March that to cancel the scheme for two of the contractors would incur £40m in costs for the government ... If the Tories have in effect given notice and win the election I'm guessing it will be a court case to settle matters as I'm not sure they can legally tell them not to sign ? Red Ken put huge contract penalty's on the congestion charge so that nobody called feasibly scrap them in the event of his demise .. seems scorched earth is now standard policy in some quarters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 seeing as the next government has already said they will scrap them they should be prevented from wasting everyones time and money Strange thing as they supported the idea for so long.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 seeing as the next government has already said they will scrap them they should be prevented from wasting everyones time and money Strange thing as they supported the idea for so long.... Eh? No they haven't, the Tories have been against ID Cards on principle since Labour floated the idea. Remember David Davis? If however you can prove otherwise I'd be interested to see it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villal Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 A bit old - from 2004... Conservative backing for ID cards The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards. The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats. 'Hold to account' They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme. Privacy? They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration." Margins? Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [iD cards] they are going to be detained". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawny Posted July 2, 2009 Share Posted July 2, 2009 Nothing to hide here, so i vote a good . As long as i dont have to pay, or if i lose it i have to have a new set of eyeballs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts