What are they going to do?

Nothing.

Nada.

Nowt.

Just ignore it and hope it will go away.

Pleeeeease....

Don't tell me somebody thought THAT Jill Dando important enough to have some sort of centre named after her FFS!!!!

I think it would just save a lot of time and perhaps gain this current bunch of idiots in the home office some kudos if they just came right out and said "you know what UK? We're gonna remove all DNA from the database ASAP and confirm to you that it's been done."

What a nice dream eh?

You are #6

This government won't be happy until we all have barcodes on our foreheads, and CCTV in every room of the home wired up to their intelligence network.

This country stinks. If I could afford it I would have left already.

Ditch The Lot!

"A Home Office statement said today: "The Government will take the most expedient route to address the issue as soon as possible in order to comply with the European Court's judgement.""

The state is under no obligation to retain DNA samples or profiles of anyone. The state is, however, obliged to discontinue keeping samples and profiles of innocent people.

The solution is therefore simple and obvious: destroy the lot.

The government has had more than enough time to comply with their obligations. They shouldn't have been infringing the rights of innocent people in the first place. They should simply destroy all DNA samples and profiles taken from innocent people without any further delay. And if that means destroying samples and profiles from guilty people as well, so be it.

I doubt they would actually have to destroy samples and profiles of guilty people, though. I presume they can quite easily tell which samples and profiles are from those convicted of crimes, and which aren't. Go through the lot of them, and destroy everything that's not from someone convicted of a crime.

It's about, you know, putting the rights of innocent people first. Otherwise there's no point in tackling crime in the first place anyway.

Guilty of Being Suspected?

http://www.theregister.co.uk/Design/graphics/icons/comment/stop_32.png

Perhaps this is the way for Crook, Suspect and Robbem & Co., sorry the Goophymint to go forward, - make those not guilty of a crime guilty of having been a suspect in a crime.

Will they be adding dodgy MP's DNA to the database?

Richard

Chutzpa

You have to have some sneaking admiration for the Home Office's complete lack of shame and conscience in suggesting not doing anything at all for another 6 months at least, after postponing any action for 10 months already through its ludicrous consultation on some proposals designed to stave off doing anything till a court case on the new 6 years limit, as "expeditiously complying with the ruling".

Note, too, that by removing the relevant order-making power from the bill, they have ensured that no incoming Home Secretary can change the situation without further primary legislation. If it is not going to get the changes in the way ot wants them, then there won't be any changes. The equivalent of taking the ball home after being sent off for a foul.

Soddin' ACPO!!!

Can't someone charge the bunch of unaccountable twits with incitement to break the law or something?

Anonymous for obvious reasons...

Someone at JDI should get fired

Scientists that publish after receiving govt funding and produce material that is false should not be working in any scientific field.

If they had any honour they would be getting out the ceremonial sword and the prayer mat and doing the decent thing.

How the fuck these people have kept jobs is beyond me anyone else who did this kind of thing would be fired on the spot for gross misconduct.

I can imagine the conversation at JDI headquarters:

drone 1: " That smith woman from the home office wants us to publish this research"

drone 2: "we cant, its a steaming pile of shit, a chimpanzee on crack could work out that we made the whole thing up"

The boss: " I can think of 3.9 million reasons to publish, just get on with it, after all, its for a home office consultation, who is going to read it?"

Undoudtedly Smith knew she was asking for research to be produced to order to match her agenda, she should be prosecuted for Malfeasance in Public office and the woman from the JDI and the "researcher" who wrote this junk should be fired immediately,

Paris, at least she has more credibility than the JDI

@ Dick Emery

Dick Emery: "This government won't be happy until we all have barcodes on our foreheads, and CCTV in every room of the home wired up to their intelligence network."

http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of-tech/government-wants-more-cctv-cameras-in-homes-622368

so how many bigwigs have their DNA on file

None...and won't...they're special you know.

either appeal the decision or get on with dumping them

Either agree you are trying to implement an authoritarian police state using very discredited data or attempt to defend your position.

@Dick Emery

I had the opportunity to emigrate about 15 years ago. I kick myself hard every day for turning it down.

wtf has it to do with ACPO

They are a private company that acts as a pressure group for a very small group of self interested and power hungry people. They should be forced to close and stop pressuring the Govt. to give the Police, ie themselves, more power.

Wrong way round!

We shouldn't be fighting to RETAIN our rights, the Politicians and the Knobs should be fighting to PROTECT our rights...

Who's in charge?

Ultimately, we are.

Does the UK have a Bastille?

Well as everyone...

Well as everyone is against keeping DNA profiles, i have to go against the flow.

Why care if they got your DNA profile in a database?

Our passport photo is already on databases, and everyone who has gone through US customs will have their fingerprint taken as well.

Big deal, if they have some DNA taken off you as well. Makes no difference

Granade, as I expect one in the post

@Jon99

AFAIK, the police can't (officially) get away with, "I arrested him for looking like a criminal", but they can get away with, "I detained him because a small portion of his DNA, which is not guranteed to be uniqe to an individual is similiar to the same region in some DNA found at a crime scene". I can't think of any situation where the police would be using your passport photo to imply your involvement (or otherwise) in a crime.

And your point about US customs is quite valid - this is exactly why I won't travel to the US unless I ABSOLUTELY must. I am deeply uneasy that the fingerprints taken from people by customs officials will end up in a police database and will be used, possibly erroneously, to link a person to a crime. Tie this in with the ridiculously one-sided extradition treaty we have with our Merkin cousins, and a person could find themselves extradited and tried in the US for a crime that they have no link to, simply because they once travelled to the US and their fingerprints resemble some found at a crime scene.

Fingerprints have not been proven to be unique either, they are just ASSUMED to be, since they have been in use for over a century. Strangely enough, it is not beyond the realms of possibility to have studies conducted into the degree of statistical confidence that you can get from matching large numbers of fingerprints, but TPTB seem to be dragging their feet on this one. Instead, the police claim 100% accuracy in matching fingerprints and resist calls to have their accuracy properly tested. This is in part due to the fact that when (not if), they are found to be not 100% accurate, those 'guilty' of a crime (in the police's eyes) would be able to use that fact in their defence, and the police would have to rely on other evidence to gain a conviction. This is clearly too much like hard work, and we couldn't possibly expect that of poor plod.

Jill Dando Institute - how apt

Lock up the first sad f%£&er you can stitch up for the crime - case solved!

In the case of DNA retention - arrest anyone whose shed skin cell happened to come to rest near a crime scene possibly years before it was committed - even assuming you didn't mix up the samples at any stage in the process. FAIL

@ Ed Blackshaw

You might like to look at the situation in the Scottish forensics lab (reported a while ago on Panorama)

Prints no where near those taken at crime scene climed to match those at crime scene.

Repeated "we are the experts" defense in face of mouting evidence they were not fit for purpose.

IIRC they are digitised on a 512 x 512 grid. If it is a true binary picture that is 2^512^2, a very big number. However twins have identical fingerprints, so what about slightly further seperated relatives?

@John Smith

My point exactly! However, I do feel the need to correct you on the common misconception that identical twins have identical fingerprints. Although having fingerprints in the first place could be viewed as a genetic trait, the shape that a person's fingerprints develops into in utero is not genetically determined.