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.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
