Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Boris - The Prime Minister

First thoughts on PMBoris, will he make a difference?


  • Total voters
    666
what harm is there to you in that record being kept? You will never be charged with an offence.
In which case, why record it? Where does collecting data about people who are of no interest (because they have done nothing to merit interest in the first place) stop? As the monkey says,
Vast numbers of people are NFA because they just didn’t do anything wrong,



offence. If you're worried about Big Brother, go and protest outside Tesco, Google and facebook HQs.
and with that comment, you become one of those with whom further discussion is pointless.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
In which case, why record it? Where does collecting data about people who are of no interest (because they have done nothing to merit interest in the first place) stop? As the monkey says,
Personal information is part of the price a citizen pays for being under the protection of the state, along with adherence to the laws. I have no problem in having any information where I have been questioned by the Police being held as a record. Some decades ago, a friend and I were walking rather unsteadily home from the pub one night and came across a very drunk middle aged woman who was incapable of walking and was in a right state. My mate stayed with her, whilst I ran (with a wobble)to the nearest phone box and dialled 999. Plod duly arrived, and the pair of us made to go home, at which point pissed doris point a finger at your faithful reporter and slurred "He tried to RAPE me!" Details were taken from both of us, and questions answered (putting me in the clear). No further action was taken, as the Plod knew the doris and it was her normal SOP,I learnt. Now if there is a record on the system about that incident, it worries me not a jot. The few occasions I have had contact with the Plod, I've never had call to worry about what information they were collecting on me. And outside of fevered TV fiction, I've not heard of anything to make me worry.

(I was rather offended that she only accused me of TRYING to rape her.)


and with that comment, you become one of those with whom further discussion is pointless.

I would hope not. It's a fair point, more personal information is held by those companies than by the Government in UK. Not that I'm particularly worried by it myself, if Google is interested enough to scour my browsing history and query my scat porn fetish and propensity for buying model kits, then I'm just flattered that they're interested.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
Why?

There's a whole slew of tasks that a well-regulated democracy needs doing as a priority over ephemera such as this.

Scooping up failed asylum seekers and helping them get back home would be of more use than spunking resources recording the non-crime of not using someone's preferred pronoun, for instance.

You're not advocating "the least worst option for Police", you're advocating "the least effort option for Police".
I don't defend the current state of policing (nor do I blame most coppers), but I think you have misunderstood my standpoint. If I was questioned as a person of interest in a criminal investigation, I would not have a problem with the record of that interview being kept.

I'm not saying that I agree with an awful lot of the social worker crap the Plod now do is what they should be doing. But keeping a record of what interaction the Police have with the public has to be done. To use your example, multiple recordings of the non-crime of not using someone's preferred pronoun could be used to show to a court a pattern of behaviour, which might be useful.

I'm advocating the least worst option for society IMHO. Surely the least effort option for the Police is a good thing - do you want them having to jump through extra hoops to get the job done?
 
Playing Devil's Advocate: At what point does the "pushing downwards" stop? I would state the immediate person inviilved, and his/her immediate supervisor.

I'm not happy with the keeping of NFA for those involved peripherally to a possible crime. If there is a strong suspicion that someone is the primary cause, even if there is NFA, keep that record. Mrs Bloggs out looking for her cat who may have seen something, but helped the police by answering questions about what she may have seen? No point in keeping her records. Witness refuses to take further action? The primary "offender" is NFA'd but their record is kept. The witness has decided that he or she is no longer prepared to assist? NFA, record deleted.

Either way, Boris Grrr.
Was not the Yorkshire Ripper interviewed then released with NFA then later flagged up as of interest? I believe that Levi Bellfield was too.
 
Let's add a few facts. First of all forget GDPR. It is not relevant...

GDPR Exemptions...

Law enforcement – the processing of personal data by competent authorities for law enforcement purposes is outside the UK GDPR’s scope (e.g. the Police investigating a crime). Instead, this type of processing is subject to the rules in Part 3 of the DPA 2018.

Now, Part 3 of the DPA 2018 states...

‘The prevention, investigation detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, including the safeguarding against and the prevention of threats to public security.’

So if the data is used for the PREVENTION of a criminal offence or threats to public safety by the police, then the data is fine to be collected and retained. The controller of the data in the Police services within the UK will publish their own guidelines to say what data can be kept for prevention purposes, but unless it has been tested in the courts, it will be quite loosely worded to enable retention of the maximum amount of data possible.
 
Agreed. My argument is that every opportunity to make political capital out of a success is taken, regardless of actual involvement, and every opportunity seems to be taken to distance and push mistakes downwards.

I struggle with that, you either are the boss and take it whether it’s positive or negative. I’ve seen it in the army and police, not just politicians.
So as, the boss she should fire the person responsible for this cock up? If this was non public sector someone would be out by now. Top person is responsible, but remember delegation, does Home Sec check the coffee machine in your cop shop every week and do a white glove inspection of the cells?
 
I don't defend the current state of policing (nor do I blame most coppers), but I think you have misunderstood my standpoint. If I was questioned as a person of interest in a criminal investigation, I would not have a problem with the record of that interview being kept.

I'm not saying that I agree with an awful lot of the social worker crap the Plod now do is what they should be doing. But keeping a record of what interaction the Police have with the public has to be done. To use your example, multiple recordings of the non-crime of not using someone's preferred pronoun could be used to show to a court a pattern of behaviour, which might be useful.

I'm advocating the least worst option for society IMHO. Surely the least effort option for the Police is a good thing - do you want them having to jump through extra hoops to get the job done?

It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the events detailed in this thread - https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/an-odd-occurrence-this-week.303421/unread (as an example only) resulting in something being passed on - and recorded - as an incident, because there was a copper at the ER waiting to take someone else's statement, say, then filed (ostensibly) as NFA.

Fast forward a couple of years to the subject recorded in the (non) incident moving on to a new relationship and someone deciding under the auspices of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme to warn the new partner of the report of the subject's involvement in a suspected DV incident.

Cheers, hypothetical Plod. We can all sleep safer in our hypothetical beds.
 

Themanwho

LE
Book Reviewer
It's not too much of a stretch to imagine the events detailed in this thread - https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/an-odd-occurrence-this-week.303421/unread (as an example only) resulting in something being passed on - and recorded - as an incident, because there was a copper at the ER waiting to take someone else's statement, say, then filed (ostensibly) as NFA.

Fast forward a couple of years to the subject recorded in the (non) incident moving on to a new relationship and someone deciding under the auspices of the Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme to warn the new partner of the report of the subject's involvement in a suspected DV incident.

Cheers, hypothetical Plod. We can all sleep safer in our hypothetical beds.
Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.


Hopefully a copper will be along shortly to tell you why that can't happen, although given the often reported policing shortages, who knows?
 
Let's add a few facts. First of all forget GDPR. It is not relevant...

GDPR Exemptions...



Now, Part 3 of the DPA 2018 states...



So if the data is used for the PREVENTION of a criminal offence or threats to public safety by the police, then the data is fine to be collected and retained. The controller of the data in the Police services within the UK will publish their own guidelines to say what data can be kept for prevention purposes, but unless it has been tested in the courts, it will be quite loosely worded to enable retention of the maximum amount of data possible.
And if a case hits the Courts regarding the excessive retention of data that does not satisfy the requirements of GDPR then how will the Courts respond ? For a law passed via the UK Parliament from the EU after a considerable numbers of years of debate and discussion or guidelines laid down by someone appointed by the people the guidelines benefit ?
 
Sounds like a bit of a stretch to me.


Hopefully a copper will be along shortly to tell you why that can't happen, although given the often reported policing shortages, who knows?

Of course it can't happen.

The only crimes that matter these days are committed on Facetwat and in the media.
 
Nothing plod loves more that an NFA DV, no work and a detected crime you see, its all in the statistics



Archibald

There is no “detection” in an NFA crime.

It also involves a lot of work, attend the scene, listen to and statement the informant, find and arrest the suspect, book them into custody, interview them under caution, after waiting for a solicitor and carrying out disclosure, complete a MG 3 and send it digitally to The CPS, await a decision on charging from them. All the while a custody centre is dealing with a prisoner in accordance with PACE 84.

Plus, possibly photographing the scene, getting medical evidence, carrying out house to house enquires and completing a risk assessment for the victim and children present for Social Services to take appropriate action.

Then there is the statutory safeguarding measures that police must take to mitigate further incidents.

That’s all for a potential NFA without preparing a court file.
 

Tool

LE
Was not the Yorkshire Ripper interviewed then released with NFA then later flagged up as of interest? I believe that Levi Bellfield was too.

The Yorkshire Ripper was, AFAIK, NFA'd but still of interest. My point is - he (and Bellfield) were not interviewed as innocent bystanders, but as primary points of concern, hence my stipulation between Mrs Bloggs and the primary.
 
I would tend to disagree, elimination is detection as is narrowing the field QED.

Detection, is a term used to describe a Home Office standard that would indicate a charge, caution, FPN in relation to a crime as opposed to The Sherlock Holmes type.
 
GDPR rules. If the records had to be deleted as they're no longer relevant under GDPR law then so do the backups. Deleting a primary source that is not needed whilst keeping a backup is a major No No.

Ironically under GDPR you have to keep backups of the data deleted so you can prove what was deleted if necessary, rather defeating the object
 
Ironically under GDPR you have to keep backups of the data deleted so you can prove what was deleted if necessary, rather defeating the object


*Cough*

Bollocks. There is NO exclusion for back ups. If someone requests their data is deleted from a company's systems they have no choice but to check all stored data, no matter where or how it is stored and delete that data. Can be a hard drive in a fire proof safe, tape drive in an off site store or a USB stick in someone's home desk. It has to be checked and deleted. Failure to so do may end up with a fine up to equal to 4% of Global GDP or €20mn. Which ever is the higher figure

So if you have a Google account, delete it and discover something on a site that is from your Google account after you have deleted it and Google fail to remove it.....
 

Latest Threads

Top