back to article Civil rights group Liberty walks out on British cops' database consultation

The UK Home Office's alleged indifference towards civil rights groups' concerns over the creation of a mammoth policing database has caused Liberty to ditch the government-run consultation group on the project. The Home Office is planning to replace the creaky Police National Computer (PNC) and Police National Database (PND) …

  1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Joke or accident?

    … has already raised eyebrows with the biometrics commissioner, and a particular concern is automated facial recognition

    If that was intentional, well played.

  2. Arthur the cat Silver badge

    Good news, bad news

    The good news is that this is a government IT project so won't work for decades. The bad news is by default it'll say everyone's a criminal.

    1. James 51 Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: Good news, bad news

      They don't need a database to tell them that, only what of.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      'This is a government IT project so won't work'

      But it will leak data to officials who shouldn't have it, hackers and criminals who will exploit it, and ethically challenged commercial firms who will use it to build a China-2020 Social-Credit-Score system, without people's knowledge or awareness.

      The larger problem is, it will be run like the clusterfck below. None of the dangers will stop these projects from proceeding:

      ________

      "One of Labour's shadow cabinet, Jon Trickett, criticised the Conservatives for the breach and said: "How can we trust this Tory government with our country's security when they can't even build a conference app that keeps the data of their members, MPs and others attending safe?"

      ________

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45693143

      1. 's water music Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: 'this is a government IT project so won't work'

        But it will leak data to officials who shouldn't have it, hackers / criminals who will exploit it, and ethically challenged commercial firms who will use it to build a China 2020 Social-Credit-Score system without people's knowledge or awareness.

        There's your solution then. Get the police federation onto it. They wont stand for the loss of monetisation opportunities for their members

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Good news, bad news

      The bad news is by default it'll say everyone's a criminal."

      The bad news is by default it'll say everyone's a criminal - except MPs who will be automatically exempt.

      FTFY

  3. fluffybunnyuk

    Dogs Dinner

    So many places for this to be insecure or break. Why would anyone bid to write this dogs dinner, unless its for large amounts of money?

    I'm sure it mentions integration with a kitchen sink somewhere.

    On the plus side it was good of them to release the technical details (not published here) so any hacker can have a go at it in their spare time...

    1. What are the technologies being used ? NLEDP is currently seeking to use Apache Camel or more broadly Fuse ESB to handle many integration points with SOAP, REST, FTP and SMTP using CSV, XML, JSON data payloads. However, there are multiple legacy interfaces that use technologies such as Fujitsu Universal Transaction Manager (UTM) and Software AG Entire X Broker to support IBM 3270 and EDIFACT messaging and then also EJBs that should be modernised but may need to be sustained in some instances.

    2. Can you give more detail around the technical stack this team works with? NLEDP is currently seeking to use Apache Camel or more broadly Fuse ESB to handle many integration points with SOAP, REST, FTP and SMTP using CSV, XML, JSON data payloads. However, there are multiple legacy interfaces that use technologies such as Fujitsu Universal Transaction Manager (UTM) and Software AG Entire X Broker to support IBM 3270 and EDIFACT messaging and then also EJBs that should be modernised but may need to be sustained in some instances.

    1. Radio Wales
      Black Helicopters

      Re: Dogs Dinner

      Congratulations. You have just blown open every HO civil servant's brain breaker.

      The good news is: It will push back the introduction of their "Bleeding edge" tech to well after I have passed on.

      The bad news is: They know where you live - so preparing the charge list for the summons will be a piece of cake - once they have found it of course, in their new Matrix toy.

      1. fluffybunnyuk

        Re: Dogs Dinner

        "The bad news is: They know where you live - so preparing the charge list for the summons will be a piece of cake."

        They do indeed. But its been 7 years since the last call I had from 2 MIB turning up at the front door.Something about writing encryption they can't break, and some sort of explaining how its not in my best interests. I explained that the genie is out of the bottle, and good luck with stuffing it back in. I was disappointed they left deeply unhappy but you can't please everyone.

        Im well overdue for another informal "chat".

        1. Mark 85 Silver badge

          Re: Dogs Dinner

          Im well overdue for another informal "chat".

          As will many others because "the computer said so". The non-techie types running this and other projects, see it as a "one stop shop" for all their needs and the computer, of course, is never wrong.

          1. Jack of Shadows Silver badge

            Re: Dogs Dinner

            "LEDS cannot be considered in a vacuum," Couchman said. To do so ignores the fact that combining technologies has a cumulative effect on society's human rights; and that collating seemingly innocuous pieces of information can build up a detailed and intrusive profile of a person.

            Which is, as you state, the raison d'tre.

    2. hplasm Silver badge
      Holmes

      Re: Dogs Dinner

      "Why would anyone bid to write this dogs dinner, unless its for large amounts of money?"

      Large amounts of money.

      1. Is It Me

        Re: Dogs Dinner

        Correction, Very Large Amounts of money

  4. }{amis}{ Silver badge
    Big Brother

    3 steps forward and 3 paces back

    I can't make up my mind which is worse a bunch of legacy system's that don't talk to each other or 1 "Modern" system that is just a fat target for abuse.

    Either way, the home office's continuing position that innocent just means we have nabbed you yet has no place in a democratic society.

    Sadly this I don't think this will change as in the all the time I have given a dam about politics the home secretary has always been a loon regardless of what colour rosette they wear.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 3 steps forward and 3 paces back

      "[...] in the all the time I have given a dam about politics the home secretary has always been a loon [...]"

      Indeed - you probably have to go back to the late 1960s and Roy Jenkins to find a Home Secretary who was a decent person concerned for people's liberty and rights.

    2. Rich 11 Silver badge

      Re: 3 steps forward and 3 paces back

      all the time I have given a dam about politics the home secretary has always been a loon

      Now that's just not fair. Michael Howard wasn't a loon -- he was outright dangerous.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 3 steps forward and 3 paces back

        "Michael Howard wasn't a loon -- he was outright dangerous."

        David Blunkett too. If his scandals hadn't caused him to resign (temporarily) he would probably have tried to implement his call for random home inspections of anyone's PCs.

  5. Chewi
    Big Brother

    This is just the Snooper's Charter all over again. Let's invite everybody round for a chat, pretend we listened, and then do whatever the fuck we like.

    1. Radio Wales
      Devil

      Whaddya mean - All over again?

      It never went away.

      They had simply pushed it to the back of the 'To do' pile and amused themselves in the meanwhile by thinking up snazzy new names for it and creating a 'We listened to concerned parties' attendance list for their tea and biccies event where unavoidably the only people who knew anything about it were on paid holiday to the USA, researching NSA techniques for empowering the authorities.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

    Bought to you by the conservative government, no human rights act and no echr, lap it up.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

      Nice try at spreading FUD but Brexit means we're no longer bound by ECJ rulings, but we don't dump the ECHR at least not immediately although Mrs May-not has certainly expressed a wish to dump the EHCR but given the arguments over Brexit I doubt she has had time to think about the EHCR. The ECHR is a convention enshrined in UK law. You think Brexit and leaving the Union is a nightmare right now, leaving the EHCR would take years and years of legal wrangling that would make Brexit look like a Junior school debating class.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

        Leaving the EU as May envisions means that the UK will pull out the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights which includes some rights which are not in the ECnHR.

        May also has the option of rescinding the 1998 HRA which incorporates the ECnHR into British law which means that British courts at every level then won't have to take into account the ECnHR in their rulings. Instead the defendant has to take it all the way to the top in the UK then if that doesn't work appeal to the ECtHR - something which makes justice less accessible.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

      It's not the dividend, it's the whole point of Brexit for the politicians - screwing the population with no outside interference or accountability.

      1. veti Silver badge

        Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

        It's not the dividend, it's the whole point of Brexit for the politicians

        It's not "the politicians" who wanted Brexit in the first place.

        Something like 80% of them campaigned against it, and something like 75% would still like to stop it, if only they could figure out a way to pin the blame on everyone but themselves.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

          Something like 80 % of them are not campaigning against it, even though they could. For "will of the people" see their response to past demands for capital punishment.

          It's called opportunism. Or self interest.

        2. Rich 11 Silver badge

          Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

          It's not "the politicians" who wanted Brexit in the first place.

          But more than enough of them then decided to shrug their shoulders, waffle about "will of the people" (like they've ever cared before) and figure out how they could use it to advance their preferred ideology.

          Please won't somebody think of the country!!!!11!!!

        3. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

          Something like 80% of them campaigned against it, and something like 75% would still like to stop it, if only they could figure out a way to pin the blame on everyone but themselves.

          Henry VIII powers somehow convinced them to change their mind.

          1. phuzz Silver badge

            Re: And there my fellow commentards is THE brexit dividend

            No, a (slight) majority of people voting for it caused them to change their mind. All politicians care about is votes.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    a huge single resource for police

    and hackers

    1. Radio Wales
      Black Helicopters

      Re: a huge single resource for police

      ...and 'friends' of government ministers.

  8. Woodnag

    Presuming that editing individual records to delete unlawfully retained data is, as claimed, painfully and uneconomically difficult... then the reason not to create a script that filteres out the traffic on transfer to the new system is probably this: it won't get deleted (easily) from the new system. It will get moved instead (equally easily) to the the other 5-eyes databases. So ministers can say that LEDS doesn't have the data. But we won't get an answer on what got pushed to foreign databases for reasons of national security.

    1. veti Silver badge

      I can see "migrating the unfiltered data, then purging excess data from the new DB" as a sensible strategy. But that purge would have to be immediate - something that happens, done and dusted, before the first daily full backup gets taken.

  9. JimmyPage Silver badge
    Stop

    Surely, as IT professionals, we shoud be relaxed ?

    Speaking for myself, I can remember working on a CRM system of some 2 million records. Somewhere a new marketing director entered the scene, and decided that the metric of c. 90% accuracy wasn't good enough. (1 in 10 records had something wrong ... misspelling, old phone no/email, etc).

    Cue a massive drive to get it updated and improved over the slack summer period (loads of outcalls).

    After 6 weeks, we were pulling in about 94% accuracy.

    After 26 weeks, we were back to around 90%.

    Imagine the scope for inaccuracy in a project this big ? And whilst on the one hand, that's scary, on the other, it's a synonym for "reasonable doubt".

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Surely, as IT professionals, we shoud be relaxed ?

      The difference here, of course, is that your average CRM database is full of crud spewed up by marketing droids (I'm surprised they managed 90% accuracy to start with) .

      A police database will be full of data hurriedly entered by underpaid and overworked police staff, often not by the officer in the case, but by someone doing background and safeguarding checks on suspects and witnesses. Where information is entered by an officer, it will often be gathered from witnesses (who may be of questionable honesty and integrity), or consist of whatever the officer's body-cam happened to be pointing at at the time. You'd be lucky to get 50%.

  10. Ken Hagan Gold badge

    Despite this practice being ruled unlawful

    "At the moment, the government retains photos of people held in police custody who haven't been convicted – despite this practice being ruled unlawful – on the basis that its computer systems don’t support automatic removal."

    Really? "I'm sorry Your Honour, but I really find it hard to obey the law so you'll have to let me ignore your previous verdicts.". Does this work? Or do you get extra time in pokey for contempt?

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: Despite this practice being ruled unlawful

      It's not "I'm sorry Your Honour" because this does not go to court.

      At worst, it's a small remark at the Club over drinks and a <sigh>, of course, you're right, but we don't have the budget to change that right now.

  11. Marketing Hack Silver badge
    IT Angle

    The good news is that HM government has hired Capita to design, build and run the database

    "...and as in the past, another threat to freedom in the British Isles was defeated. This time with the fortuitous aid of soul-crushing incompetence."

  12. Mark 85 Silver badge

    Liberty is pulling out so who's now watching this and exposing the issues? I would hope they would continue watching and letting the citizens know what's going on. As it, the LED and others now don't have to be transparent at all. The secret police state just won and got stronger.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Is that the secret police state whose powers are set out clearly in public law passed by democratic vote in parliament, who require judicial or similar approval to act beyond their standard warrant badge's powers, who are accountable annually for the exercising of their powers (both legitemate and cock-ups) to parliament who then report their findings (cock ups and all) to us the general public, and whom can go to jail for the mis-use of those powers? Doesn't sound very secret to me...

      Anyway, the answer to who is now watching it is the remaining panel members, and parliament. Liberty are now on the outside of it all, which is probably where they're happier being: noisy but excusably ineffectual.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        There is no such thing as a "democratic vote" in Parliament. The MPs are (supposedly) elected by democratic process and - ideally - should vote on things according to the wishes of the majority of those who elected them (or at least, those who express a preference).

        What tends to happen is that the MPs vote along party lines regardless of what their electorate want, although it is quite noticeable that, even in areas where the majority of people voted to leave the EU, nearly all MPs want to stay in.

        That, if nothing else, should give Remoaners cause to reconsider their blind acceptance of the EU's continued bullying, threatening and attempted blackmail ("If you leave then we stop your medicines get in" sounds like blackmail to me.). For all the Labour voters, why are you suddenly agreeing with Big Business? For all the Conservative voters, why are you suddenly demanding to stay part of a Federalist superstate? For all the Liberal voters, your party seems to just go along with whatever they think people want to hear so it doesn't really matter since they do their own thing afterwards anyway regardless of what they promised. (Hmm, could Jezza be a closet Liberal?)

        I was going to post this under my own name, but posting under a pic of V seems more fitting somehow...

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "What tends to happen is that the MPs vote along party lines regardless of what their electorate want, [...]"

          My Tory MP is like that - except when the Vatican tells him to vote against civil rights bills.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          " The MPs are (supposedly) elected by democratic process and - ideally - should vote on things according to the wishes of the majority of those who elected them [...]"

          Westminster is a "representative democracy". An MP is elected to make the best call on an issue according to their considered judgement - even if the majority of their constituents have a different opinion.

          If the "Leave" vote had reached the usual constitutional change threshold of 66% then it would have been more understandable.

          Always acceding mindlessly to the opinion of the majority in the population is a recipe for mob rule and the oppression of minorities.

          That the MPs mostly just rolled over after the advisory referendum was a dereliction of their parliamentary duty.

          The USA Founding Fathers created the presidential Electoral College with the mandate specifically to veto the election of an obviously inadequate populist candidate. That safe-guard also failed this time.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            reached the usual constitutional change threshold of 66%

            The problem is that you just made this up.

            In the entire history of UK referendums, there has never been such a threshold. They have always, always, been enacted on a simple majority basis. See the referendum to join the common market (that somehow morphed into the EU without so much as a by you leave from voters), and the once in a lifetime scots indy ref.

            That you would prefer to rig the vote such that your preferred ideology won out is not democracy. It just isn't.

            1. strum Silver badge

              >They have always, always, been enacted on a simple majority basis.

              Nope. The 1978 Scottish devolution referendum had a pre-set limit.

      2. Martin-73 Silver badge

        Amber Rudd, is that you?

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Some Observations

    I wasn't there, so I don't know, but, some observations:

    1) By walking out, Liberty have in effect said they no longer wish to be in a position of influencing government policy, even if only minutely. Why should anyone invite them back in the future? If they're not at the table, they're irrelevant to the discussion going on around that table, and they cannot complain about the decisions subsequently made there.

    2) Walking away from a table they had previously been invited to demonstrates that they never had a serious intention of sticking with the task to the very end, no matter how hard that was. As such it raises questions as to whether Liberty is truly serious about what it sees as its cause, or is it merely a way for some people to collect remuneration so long is the present task isn't too difficult or depressing?

    3) Being on these panels may be frustrating and feel incredibly slow and pointless, but that can also be an asset. The government set it up. If the attendees continue to show up, but continue to make private and public complaints about the process, progress, etc. the emphasis is on government to either i) close it down to shut it up, which would be an acknowledgement that the government had no interest in taking it seriously, or ii) acknowledge eventually that there may be a point, which boosts the power of the forum. It's the old "I'm going to keep saying this in your house in front of your mother until you pay attention, and you can only shut me up by embarassing yourself" ploy. Similarly there's every possibility that Liberty might come to appreciate the government's / policing's point of view. Neither of these two outcomes will now happen.

    4) Whatever else one thinks, we do want our police to be better equipped than they currently are. Updating their IT and databases is almost certainly a vital step, even if it's not quite ideal to begin with. One could probably argue that better organised IT gives a better opportunity in the long run to monitor inappropriate use of data than their current (antiquated?) IT does, and any initial blemishes in that regard might have to be accepted for a period. The ultimate cock up, that misheld data gets used in a court case, is almost certainly safeguarded against by the courts deciding on what is and is not admissible according to the prevailing law. Deciding on admissibility is what courts do, day in day out.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Some Observations ( a reply)

      Point 1:

      Liberty are leaving because they are saying they are *not* influencing government policy !!!

      If you are told certain things are not to be discussed & any attempt to investigate details 'stonewalled' where is the influence? It is the old trick of getting all the 'right' groups together to show willing to be fair & open then you stall any attempts to progress to ensure minimal output from the participants. The issues that are raised are then brushed aside as misunderstandings and lack of seeing the full picture .... which you have not allowed anyone to see anyway as some information is out of bounds for discussion !!!

      Point 2:

      Your argument is nonsense !!!

      There is no kudos from sticking around if you do not do anything useful.

      Useful means both in terms of your organisations remit and the so called reason for the consultation.

      Point 3:

      You have far far too much confidence that govt *can* be forced to take notice, rather than ignore the grumbling and 'Brass it out'. Not to mention killing off the consultation is not impossible if it gets in the way, and can be quite easily explained away as 'they were exceeding their remit and causing delays to the project for political reasons etc etc'.

      Point 4:

      Even more nonsense than point 3.

      Yes better IT is good but any hope that it will automatically improve things is wrong.

      Remember 'Garbage in, Garbage out'.

      If the existing data is flawed and it is transfered in full it is still flawed.

      Depending on the courts to correct the errors is 'Hope against experience'.

      Mistakes are made now and changing the IT kit/Databases does not change anything.

      The bigger worry is that more people will be getting access to more data which increases the chances that mistakes will be made / data will be misused.

      Hoping it will be alright in the end is not a good strategy !!!

      1. Ken Moorhouse Silver badge

        Re: Some Observations ( a reply)

        Is Liberty supposed to be a "pressure group"?

        What would you do if the powers that be were to build a roundabout around your house (assuming you are a home-owner, and therefore having a strong vested interest in the outcome)?

        My guess is that you would take every opportunity you could to be a thorn in the side of the planning process, until you had achieved your goal, whether that be them abandoning the proposal, or keeping you sweet with enough compensation to shut you up.

        Having said that, many "thorn in the side" cases drag on for many years and the proposers often eventually get their way through dogged persistence, but at least you will stir up media attention and your views made known. In many instances it is a case of who runs out of money/steam first.

        The pertinent question there is how Liberty is funded? If there are constraints on funding that is the real reason for withdrawal then they should be making the case for greater funding. What price do you put on liberty?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Some Observations ( a reply)

        Liberty are leaving because they are saying they are *not* influencing government policy !!!

        Surely not! A lefty having a tantrum and flouncing off because they can't differentiate not being listened to and not getting your own way. It is not the job of Liberty to dictate to the government, and it'd do them the power of good to grasp that nettle sooner rather than later.

    2. teebie

      Re: Some Observations

      "2) Walking away from a table they had previously been invited to demonstrates that they never had a serious intention of sticking with the task to the very end"

      "Do you want to do this"

      " yes"

      "'This' isn't what you thought this was. At all. The words we used to describe this were completely inaccurate"

      " I no longer want to do this"

      "You never intended to do this"

      You do know that time goes ...forward, right?

  14. Wolfclaw Silver badge

    Watch This Space ..

    Have they already given Russia, China, North Korea and USA spooks their own login, as you can guarantee they will be logging in as soon as they get a sniff of its access portal.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Funny

    I dont recall Liberty asking me if I wanted them to represent my concerns. Is almost as if they are a bunchmmof unelected activists.

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Re: Funny

      I don't recall you asking anyone if they wanted to hear your opinion either. It's almost as if you are an unelected AC.

      Of course, saying the above is just as pointless and empty as your comment. You do know that the vast majority of people in the world aren't elected to their jobs, don't you? I fail to see how that would somehow invalidate their work.

      Oh, I get it - I've heard that "unelected" nonsense somewhere before - you're one of those people that gets all red-faced about those "unelected bureaucrats" in Brussels, aren't you? I'm going to go have to poke the hornets nest on this one, and point out that Whitehall employs about ten times as many of those "bureaucrats" than The EU parliament does. Talk about "taking back control", eh?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GDPR

    not really relevant but i couldnt think of somewhere to post it.

    https://ico.org.uk/action-weve-taken/enforcement/

    Surely worth a news story...

    A lovely page of what the UK ICO has done so far under GDPR.

    OK so its not alot but its a start...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      'A lovely page of what the UK ICO has done so far under GDPR'

      The hilarious thing is how often the *-Police-* appear on there. Central-Govt and Crown-Prosecution-Service get an honorable mention too. Feels like Brexit is a license for a Total Surveillance State, worse than the China '1984' *-nightmare-* that's coming.

    2. Mr. Flibble

      Re: GDPR

      Yes, it's great, but will any of them pay out?

  17. Winkypop Silver badge
    Big Brother

    Big Brother says:

    "Citizens, report yourself NOW, avoid the rush!

  18. Stork Bronze badge

    Can't you just let Facebook do it?

    They may even do it for free, and I don't see any major downsides. Of course access only to a closed group (And Zuck)

  19. Cynical Pie

    A large scale governement ICT project...

    What could possibly go wrong...

    1. Pascal Monett Silver badge
      Coat

      Apart from everything, you mean ?

  20. Dave Bell

    Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.

    I can see why the project exists. The existing system is horribly old. And transferring the old data to a new system is certainly an opportunity to deal with some of the retention problems. Though I have to wonder if there was ever the information in the database to identify the records that should be deleted.

    But, really, does anyone expect either side in this argument to be saying anything different to what they are doing?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well, they would say that, wouldn't they.

      Dave Bell,

      The information needed is simple and already there.

      1.) Does this record/person have an association with a known conviction ?

      2.) If yes ...... keep the information.

      3.) If no ...... delete the record.

      Simples !!!

      It was common policy to 'collect' information by using their implied authority.

      e.g. 30+ years ago, I reported a 'non-accident'* to the police in case it was reported by someone else attempting to gain compensation from my insurers etc.

      When I had finished I was asked to give my fingerprints and my passenger was asked also.

      Not knowing any better I complied with the request, as did my passenger.

      It is only years later I realised I was being 'profiled' and the request was not for a valid reason.

      I don't know if I could have refused but at the time thought the police were just doing their job.

      I did not have any convictions then or indeed now and there was no reason to 'collect' my fingerprints .... just in case I commit a crime !!!???

      * Someone almost caused me to crash into them and made a lot of noise about it. I decided it was probably 'dodgy' and thought I should report it in case they tried to report I had driven away or something similar. They never did therefore I had done no wrong !!!

  21. Dabooka Silver badge

    But nothing form the HO about Liberty's decision to quit?

    No instead it's a random soundbite about the need to replace the PNC etc. Woefully inadequate, you'd think the departure of such a relevant and respected outfit would have the PR bods at least trying to ascertain blame etc, but instead we get nothing.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019