Cops wanted compulsory DNA cards

hate to ruin your headline but

"The Police felt that the absence of any obligation to carry or produce identity cards would substantially remove the administrative savings and some of the other advantages that Identity Cards would offer."

dose not mean they wanted to to be compulsory it just means that if it is not compulsory then you can not clam all those wonderful cost savings

These people are Civil Servants!

They have the same mentality as the clowns from the Treasury & FSA. Our money isn't safe with them so why should we think our ID would fare any better. Including DNA is just another element for them to get wrong and loose.

"Who will save us from these unruly priests"... or something like that.

They are demented. If they were old they may well be in a care home.

Just because its easy doesn't make it right!

Might as well arrest everyone as then you are certain to get the villans..

Cops need to grow up! and get real. start treating people as Innocent until determined by a court that they are guilty. the present attitude of everyones a villian or should be treated as if they are is plain wrong and will lead to a breakdown of respect.

The powers of the Police are already abused..A night in the cells will sort him out.. - what kind of law is that? jail with no trial, no conviction and no proof.. its wrong.

The legal system needs drastic reform and possibly 24 hr judges.

"potential for success is not in doubt. "

"We want it, therefore we're right. Anyone else must be wrong".

Of course...

... the Cops wanted these cards to be compulsory, all they want is their jobs made easier and to hell with basic rights like the presumption of innocence.

(There's an expression I'd use here, but I'd probably attract the wrath of the Moderatrix if I used it...)

Hold on...

'the main potential beneficiaries of an Identity Cards scheme, such as police, DVLA, Passport Agency, IND, DWP, Inland Revenue and the financial sector'

New Labour told me that WE were going to be the main potential beneficiaries of an Identity Cards scheme.

Could they have been lying?

Hold on. Lips moving, making a noise - yep they were lying.

errrr.....

Police support police state? Who would have thought ?

No, I didnt read the rest of the article.

The police?

This would be the same police who have refused to be put onto the database in the past? Hey if WE have nothing to fear from being on the DNA Database then what's the problem the police have?

The default opt-out

The Ministry of Justice guidelines on Freedom of Information are that summaries and conclusions of Gateway Reviews should, as a rule, be withheld.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/foi-assumptions-gateway-reviews.htm

"There is a clear public interest in public authorities being robustly audited..."

"There is an overriding public interest in the continued robust assessment of major procurement projects..."

"There is a wider public interest in the transparency of the assessment of major projects, and knowing that this function is robustly performed."

"... significant disclosure of the detail of the processes could work against the strong public interest..."

So, in order that the public can be provided with transparent and thorough reviews they should not, as a rule, have access to the conclusions of these reviews.

As time goes by, this might wear bit thin:

"For information over two years old the public interest in withholding is likely to have changed, meaning that a more careful argument is needed when refusing to release the information. In these circumstances, such cases should be referred."

Presumably that nice Mr Straw or one of his colleagues may be available to help think up another excuse.

Am I reading this correctly...?

"The second review again confidently claims: 'The Identity Cards programme’s potential for success is not in doubt. As the SRO and Programme Director recognise, however, >>>there is much work to be done before a robust business case can be established for a solution that meets the business need<<<'."

Translation: "Our ID cards are a solution in search of a problem..."?

...Nice of them to admit it.

Re: Am I reading this correctly...?

That's the way it came across to me, too.

Re: Just because its easy

>> Innocent until determined by a court that they are guilty.

Surely you mean: Innocent *unless* a court determines that they are guilty.

Blue Lamp

When I was young you respected the Police, looked upon as guardians of the population,

Now, after political manipulation, many high profile mistakes and a change in attitude towards the Public, the Police find them in a situation where they are despised.

In addition they are finding it more difficult to get assistance from the Public.

They failed to stand up to their political masters in the past, so they should not be surprised to find themselves in the current situation.

Horse before the cart

"however, there is much work to be done before a robust business case can be established for a solution that meets the business need".

So we want to implement the technology and then identify the reasons why we need to do it.

No wonder this country is in a mess if the goverment thinks in that way. It just goes to show how inept and incompetent the civil servants, politicians really are.

Heh

It is already compulsory to carry your ID in The Netherlands. Caught without it when stopped by police? you get fined.

Oh, and the card hides a variant of a certain chip, connected to a long copper coil antenna embedded into the card; containing a digital copy of your photo, social security number, address, full name..

Our Government? Cricky!

They really did use the OGC logo.

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/

I am just amazed they did that.

I am not amazed that when they changed the name of Traffic Wardons to Civil Enforcement Officers that this was leading to them getting new roles. They now assist police with fraud cases and can in return expect the police to respond prompty when they call for assistance. It was in this weeks Worthing Herald but missing from the online version.

So not having to carry an ID card does not mean that will be the case in a few years. I expect we all realise it will be manditory in a short while.

@Wayland Sothcott

"not having to carry an ID card does not mean that will be the case in a few years"

Not making carrying it mandatory was a condition of getting Labour back bench support, who duly voted it in.

Sometime later her Wackiness, in one of her more petulant moments warned that it would only take a 1 clause bill to make carrying an ID card mandatory.

Of course that would require 1) A government putting this out 2) Enough MPs who can be "persuaded" to vote for it. 3) An actual ID card system.