Staffs Police face data protection probe over 'drink drivers named' Twitter campaign

Re: Dodgy cops?

its also an "open and shut case" in the more traditional sense.

Anyone who blows over the limit on the station test machine is going to be found guilty - no two ways about it.

except that lucky dude in Scandinavia the other day who got a crazy judge whose judgement was "well alcohol affects Asians differently, so its fine for him to drive around wasted"

Re: Dodgy cops?

Better yet, opt for #institutionalracists - that was established as fact in the Macpherson report. No worries about being sued and a nice clear message to send the institutional racists.

Public Records?

Are not arrest records public in the UK? They are in the US. Being arrested does not mean the person is guilty, just that they have been arrested. The court proceedings are also public (in the US) so even if the person in the end is found innocent, no privacy laws are violated.

In the public domain

If it's gone to court and no restriction placed on reporting, if you have been caught you are fair game.

Sadly though this may be determined as a double punishment, first the fine and ban then the humiliation of being outed in the press.

The only things missing are the stocks or the orange suits and leg chains while they clean up the cemetery.

Re: Dodgy cops?

Call the hashtag police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3twwafch4g

Re: If it's good enough for the Yanks

Let's call it what it is - jury tampering. The shame is just a little bonus.

... that will result in tax payers getting a worse service?

There's a 'worse' level of service?

Re:

No. You misunderstand the principle. Innocent until PROVEN guilty. And potentially faulty breathalysers and blood tests are not proof of guilt until a court says so.

I'm all for the naming and shaming of miscreants

(something for which Twitter is eminently suited), but it'd be polite to at least wait until they've been convicted - naming someone as a "drink driver" when they are charged is probably libellous, not to mention likely to prejudice any trial.

@Connor

The funny thing about a civilised society is that everyone is required to follow the law, even the police. Therefore, if the law says this is wrong, it's wrong. Doesn't matter if it's the police or not. There are numerous ways in which someone can be found innocent of drink driving, even after blowing positive. Police procedure incompetently followed is a common one. Technical devices (i.e. speedos, breathalysers etc.etc.) all need regular calibration as set down in law. There are even circumstances when drink driving is actually allowed. I know someone who was found not guilty (even though he admitted being above the limit) of drink driving as he was only driving to escape an attacker!! The court said as he was under attack, he was entitled to try and get away!!

So, simply being charged with a crime is a million miles from being guilty of the crime. You only have to look at court stats to see how often prosecutions fail. There is no such thing as an open and shut case I'm afraid.

As to the victims of crime. I totally agree. Victims are generally badly treated, but the way to get round this is to ensure the police, CPS etc. do their jobs properly and effectively, not just to attack everyone charged with an offence. There is a reasonable argument that people should be anonymous until found guilty as people such as yourself use the excuse of 'no smoke without fire' to justify persecuting people on the groups of charges rather than convictions. The classic one is kiddie fiddling. Doesn't matter what the court says, whether the charges are proven (or in some cases laughed out of court), you're tarnished for life and will never get away from it. Men have been charged with rape and had their lives made hell, even though the woman was found to have lied and made the allegation up.

The law is not perfect, but simply treating everyone charged as guilty is heading towards a Judge Dredd state. Why bother with the court case? After all, they've been charged, they must be guilty!!

..If you've been breathalysed and presumably blood tested it is open and shut anyway...

On the contrary.

If I'd been arrested in this way I'd opt for jury trial, and then point out that, with the police advertising my 'guilt', I could not receive a fair hearing.

Case dismissed.