Cops hacked the Police National Computer to unlawfully retain suspects' biometric data Police employees have been hacking the Police National Computer to unlawfully retain suspects' biometric data, it has emerged. The manipulation of the national IT system has come in response to public demands to restrict the length of pre-charge bail, the Biometrics Commissioner has suggested. In his 122-page annual report ( …
UK judges like to allow all the evidence, however obtained, in order to have as fair a trial as possible.
This is unlike the US where unlawful evidence may be excluded even if it allows a murderer to go unpunished, as we all saw with OJ. Depends if you think the deterrent effect is worth it (especially considering the vast majority will be procedural cock-ups rather than genuine corruption).
I'd be more amenable to the idea of using improperly obtained evidence if people who improperly obtained it were also punished (lost of job, minimum). As it is the police can practically do whatever they want and nothing happens, so having the court pretend the evidence didn't happen either seems somehow appropriate.
"....Treasonous May....." LOL, are you still not over the thrashing you Lefties took in the General Election? Don't worry, when your hero Jezza Corbyn gets elected PM* you can have all the daft law changes you like.
*Oh, sorry - forgot to mention THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN! ROFLMAO
> are you still not over the thrashing you Lefties took in the General Election?
What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with the election, it has, as I said, to do with the Government forcing laws through Parliament to retroactively make legal something that was illegal when it was done.
Which part of that didn't you understand?
If the system is such that the police feel they cannot do their job properly, then the correct thing to do is to effect a change in the system through the proper channels within the relevant consultation process.
To do otherwise is to take the law into your own hands and become guilty of committing criminal acts.
However, the CPS can refuse to bring a prosecution if it isn't "in the public interest". This is a very vague term as far as I can tell and assuming they don't want the public to become alarmed that their so-called protectors are bent as nine-bob notes then they can just invoke this 'get-out-of-jail free' card whenever they feel like closing ranks.
What was that quote from Bladerunner...."If you aren't a cop, you're little people". Quite.
The police treat everyone as guilty. Being innocent just means you got away with it.
Treat the police the same. Assume they are all as corrupt as the flying squad, as racist as the Met, as willing to torture suspects as the RUC and as happy to lie about stadium disasters they caused as south yorkshire.
That means, you don't talk to police, don't socialise with them, don't serve them in your shop, don't let them on your PTA. Treat them as the occupying army they are.
On the contrary; on a personal level entrenchment is the very best way to approach individual dealings with the police. Whether you are guilty of something or not, say nothing; get a lawyer; trust nothing; and be very aware that they are allowed to lie to get results.
Taking the "Come, let us sort out this problem together" approach will get you stitched up every time.
"Whether you are guilty of something or not, say nothing; get a lawyer; trust nothing; and be very aware that they are allowed to lie to get results."
This, by the way, is bad advice. It stems from applying too much US law to England. If you want to make the process as painful as possible, spend ages on bail and have your house raided then take this advice. It only makes sense if you've done something really bad and all the above is better than prison.
If, on the other hand, you want to go home quickly then talk to the "legal advisor". If you are guilty then you may be eligible for a caution or a restorative justice order. Theconstable will be keen on these because there is massively less paperwork than preparing a case for CPS.
If you are innocent then its a bit more tricky. You need to explain yourself and you need to give the constable enough evidence to drop the case. Remember to get the case No Further Actioned then they need to prove to the satisfaction of the force auditors that no crime was conmitted. It's a high bar so you need to help them. Going "no comment" won't work, you'll just end up on bail for further investigation. Equally you don't want to say something that drops you in it "I never battered her, I barely touched her" is the usual mistake.
You do need some legal rep. both to keep you from making the mistake above and also because if you are eligible for a caution the police can't tell you, that might be seen a pressuring you into confessing, but they can tell your legal advisor.
And yes, the police are allowed to lie, that bit's true. Shouldn't matter if you're telling the truth though.
Sorry Adam 52 but your advice has no bearing on reality.
The police are not interested in your innocence, only in getting a disposal.
Simple advice, lawyer up, shut up and leave them to work it out.
By way of example I was arrested for multiple offences, did what you said and very nearly buried myself. I could prove I was not in the country for 9 of the 10 offences so instead of realising they had the wrong person, they decided to drop 9 of them and try and build a story around the remaining one.
Took two years before I was acquitted and the police force ended up with costs north of £250K.
Had I not done what you said we would have gone to trial on ten and the case would have collapsed on day one with the location evidence. Instead I endured 4 failed trials until the final acquittal.
There are many parts of this story that don't make sense. Police costs of £250,000 for example. That's 5 constables for a year, to get that you must have been up for murder.
If the evidence was that poor why did CPS go for it at all? Even more why did they go for it five times.... CPS guidance is not to go for a retrial more than twice so your case must have been truly exceptional.
But you're right about the disposal, that's not the police, that's the government - once a crime is recorded then it needs to be resolved, either by finding a perpetrator or by proving it didn't happen. Both are hard but the latter is really hard. If you want that changed talk to your MP, but you also have to stop complaining that "I reported a crime and the police did nothing" because you can't have it both ways - either you trust them to drop a case or you don't. If you don't then you can't complain when they prosecute you.
Before I get pulled up on a technicality, yes, you can get a big investigation for, say, running away to the Ecuador embassy, being a major drug baron, rape or child abuse.
If the op was accused of ten counts of those with reason evidence then I think the public probably did deserve a trial.
I will fill in the gaps for you and you will realise just how ridiculous it was and the lengths the police will go to if they decide they want to get you for something.
"There are many parts of this story that don't make sense. Police costs of £250,000 for example. That's 5 constables for a year, to get that you must have been up for murder."
4 failed trials at the magistrates courts, 37 pre trial reviews, the police barrister (reprimanded for coaching witness at the final trial!), my barrister and solicitors, expert witnesses etc. Its easy to run up to the costs over the 2 years it took from start to finish.
In terms of the charge it started as multiple counts of ABH and GBH and finally ended with one count of common assault for which I was acquitted once the CPS finally obeyed a court order to turn over evidence which proved my innocence.
"If the evidence was that poor why did CPS go for it at all? Even more why did they go for it five times.... CPS guidance is not to go for a retrial more than twice so your case must have been truly exceptional."
The "victim" worked for the Police and the trials "failed" before they started primarily due to the non attendance of the police officers involved hence the number of attempted trials and time taken.
The only exceptional part in all this was that I didnt back down and they didnt like it, but to them its just taxpayers money.
Still doesn't make sense. You've listed a whole load of prosecution issues, not Police issues.
Sounds like your beef is with the CPS not the Police. Unless this all happened decades ago - the Police really have changed since the 80s.
No police officer warned for court would fail to show these days - a contempt conviction really spoils your career (unless you're an ACPO rank).
CPS losing evidence or not producing until the last minute I can believe, happens a lot but that's mostly because they're massively overworked, badly administered and don't see a case until the last minute.
You really have no idea on how this works.
Firstly, the CPS work hand in hand with the police, the disclosure officer, the one marking things as CND (Clearly not disclosable) is the person the CPS then argues for when they fight disclosure.
As for Police officers not turning up, never heard of people phoning in sick? The magistrates courts are full of trials with no shows by a variety of people.
As for time to disclose the CPS actively fought not to disclose this material for 9 months despite multiple orders in the pre trial reviews to do so as they knew the disclosure would show the perjury that the officers had committed.
This didnt happen in the 80's either, mid 2000's was when it kicked off.
I was fortunate, my barrister was exceptional and without his work I would have had no chance.
As for the police changing since the 80's, they might not throw you down the stairs anymore but with the joys of modern technology they just have to put a marker on your car number plates to make life interesting.
No stay quiet and don't accept a caution if you know you are innocent, it's a criminal record, it goes on the police stats as a crime cleared and you get fucked while making their life easier. I know a few people who the police have tried get to accept a caution and as soon as they realise it's not going to be taken by them or their lawyer, all charges dropped.
If you are innocent then its a bit more tricky. You need to explain yourself and you need to give the constable enough evidence to drop the case. Remember to get the case No Further Actioned then they need to prove to the satisfaction of the force auditors that no crime was conmitted. It's a high bar so you need to help them.
So guilty unless proven innocent?
Sod that. Keep quiet and let them prove if they have a case or not.
"....So guilty unless proven innocent?...." No. The way English Law is structured, the Police are tasked with providing a case for prosecution to the CPS, who then make the decision whether to prosecute. In order to build a case, the coppers will look to either eliminate you from inquiries as soon as possible (so they can focus their limited resources on the main suspect) or select you as a suspect for further investigation. If everyone is eliminated then there is an NFA. So, it is in your interest to help the coppers eliminate you from the list as early as possible - being stupid and unhelpful will just move you higher up their list of suspects and garner you more attention.
But, if you don't believe me on that, then I suggest you consult an actual solicitor rather than take advice from commentards here. They seem to fall into three camps - the knowledgeable (like Adam 52 who provides actual facts), those with an axe to grind that relate fairytales about how they were "all innocent man in Shawshank", and the wannabe-gangsters that seem to base their knowledge of the law on rap records.
So now whose assuming every policeman is guilty of everything then eh! In my experience people that preach distrust of the police generally have good reason not to trust them and it is normally through not taking responsibility for their own actions.
This article is not really about the police it is about systems and dictates that do not fit the needs of the country.
"In my experience people that preach distrust of the police ... normally through not taking responsibility for their own actions."
Your experience on this subject seems a little bit limited, methinks. And as for taking responsibility for their own actions... police performance in this regard is not exactly stellar, either.
I don't think all police are guilty, also I do not think distrust is neccassarily a sign of criminality, some of its cultural.
My family grew up in the East End, and lets be honest coppers didn't have a great reputation being more a better gang than the others, things like the SPG etc don't help. My mum once told me not to let the police know my name when I phoned up after finding a drunk guy laying down in the park for no other reason than if he was injured they might try and fit me up, I was only about 15 at the time. My mum has never been a criminal as far as I know, but plenty experience of policing in the East End post WWII.
Generally speaking I'd say the police have got better, but if you are a generally law abiding citizen the decent coppers do not pull you over and give you grief, the twats and the bullies do, so you get a skewed statistical perception that all coppers are bastards.
Once you have had an encounter with said bastard, or once they have done something else wrong like abuse the system, casually club newspaper sellers across the back of the head, stuff like that, ranks close.
Its like they have to be better than other people in the eyes of the law which is fair enough but are so scared of not looking like they are they will deny everything even when its completely obvious. I'd rather a police chief stood up and went yeah we have a lot of police working here and odds are you will get some that are bad apples, we don't like it either lets prosecute them fully for being so untrustworthy in a position of trust.
TLDR: I can live with the police not being perfect as long as they try and do something about it, rather than deny it.
They lost my trust when they said they had no manpower to come out and investigate a burglary at my house. When they found out no insurance claim would be going in they even tried to not record a crime number.
Meanwhile the real criminals in my street (the ones illegally parked buying Nandos) seem to always get a visit and a ticket for their trouble. The most annoying part is the said officers are normally parked on a double red and when they have finished handing out their tickets they too often go in and order their chicken while parked in a worse manner than the people they have just handed the tickets out to. One even came out and tried to have me for photographing a police officer while he was inside and I was taking a photo of their illegally parked car. The first line trotted out was it being illegal to photograph anything to do with the Police. When I responded I was just taking a photo of the car and not a police officer it turned into not following a Police direction until the older one came out and realised that it was not in their interests to have me complaining.
The most annoying part is the said officers are normally parked on a double red and when they have finished handing out their tickets they too often go in and order their chicken while parked in a worse manner than the people they have just handed the tickets out to. One even came out and tried to have me for photographing a police officer while he was inside and I was taking a photo of their illegally parked car. The first line trotted out was it being illegal to photograph anything to do with the Police. When I responded I was just taking a photo of the car and not a police officer it turned into not following a Police direction until the older one came out and realised that it was not in their interests to have me complaining.
Time to invest in a car clamp and hook it to their tires when they're inside. Ought to make for a spectacularly embarrassing bit of YouTube when edited with a few of their earlier parking transgressions :).
...and a quick conviction for obstructing an constable in the course of his duty.
Easy: show me where the bit about collecting food using an official police vehicle is described as their duty, and there is no exemption for police vehicles re. parking when not responding to an emergency.
Doesnt matter. You can still spend 24 hours in the cells before being charged then subject to a restricting police bail bfor an extended period before being brought in front of the magestrates. In the meantime dont be surprised to be stopped regularly in your car and be subject to inspection to see if there is anything they can do you for.
Do not underestimate to power and vindictivness of the police to make your life a misery all perfectlu legally.
Responding to a call *is* their duty. Using the car you're committing criminal damage to.
Response officers almost never get time for lunch. 50% of the time that burger will go uneaten because a job comes in.
Downvote away due to uninformed prejudice if you like, but I suspect you know nothing of modern response policing.
And yes, parking on reds and zebra crossings is an asshole thing to do. I wish they wouldn't, but that doesn't change the reality of the job and the law.
One thing to think about; if someone dies or gets seriously hurt because you're being a prat you will have to live with that on your conscience even if you don't get charged with manslaughter.
"The first line trotted out was it being illegal to photograph anything to do with the Police. "
Which is BS of the highest order.
I once responded "I'm not, I'm filming you and live streaming to a website so you can't delete it. Do you value your career?" - he went a very funny colour and couldn't get away fast enough (whilst trying to avoid my filming his collar numbers)
So the Commissioner thinks that someone has broken the law, and reported (or included) that in his statement. Will any investigation take place? No. Will "Lessons be learned?" No. People fired? No.
And the police wonder why they're losing public trust.
I'm from a true blue conservative background, I know / have known many serving officers. More than one in my immediate family. I'm ex-forces, the type of person you would expect to be fully behind the police service. I am not.
Too many instances have occurred where police officers have broken the law, clearly and provably, and they haven't been charged or disciplined in any way.
Officers have defrauded the service by using their force issued credit cards to purchase personal items. Something that would get you or I prosecuted and then fired for. No prosecutions, no reprimands, no plods losing their jobs.
I see officers travelling on the busy commuter train to London, trying to conceal their warrant cards when they show them to get free travel. For a journey that costs me 10% of my GROSS pay. I have also sat opposite / beside them while they talk about current events, sneering at members of the public being abused by the police, in one instance laughing gleefully about an innocent person being shot dead by a police officer.
I have witnessed officers who have visited the Serious Fraud Office in a pub prior to returning home (the pub was between the SFO and Kings Cross / St Pancras.) Behaving worse than a street gang. Pushing locals out of their way, annoying everyone in general, threatening anyone who dared to complain. <sarcasm>Just the sort of people you'd take home to meet Mum</sarcasm>
I have even tried to help the plods. I found one traffic officers metal clad traffic note pad, complete with his notes, filled out tickets the lot. I returned it to the traffic station. He was in the station, (I'd checked and he was in and "wasn't busy.") He didn't have the civility to come to the door and retrieve it himself. maybe I should have just wiped my prints off it and thrown it over the fence. That would have saved some motorists a few quid.
There may have been bad apples in the police FORCES of the 50's, 60's & 70's. But when an officer was caught, they were held to a higher standard than the general public and their sentences and punishments were much harsher.
We used to have a Police Force which gave us a service. We now have a Police Service which likes to use force.
Don't speak for me, Matt - I'm employed and law-abiding, and teach law at university level to a wide range of professionals-to-be. I teach them not to trust the police, in part because some of the "we" you casually recruit to your cause are NOT happy with the police force, and wouldn't trust them at all, based on evidence. It is true that not all police are bad at the individual level, but, as a group, they keep showing that they cannot be trusted. This story provides another example that the police as a group think that they are above the law (unfortunately, with some justification) which is not acceptable. The police should follow the law scrupulously, otherwise they act hypocritically.
".....teach law at university level...." LOL, those that can, do, and those that can't..... Mind you, the UK uni system is often the last resting place of the more rabidly Left.
"....I teach them not to trust the police....." Then you are not a qualified solicitor as you would be in breach of the Solictor's code of conduct for making such statements.
@unwarranted triumphalism
As an offiicial criminal (I told a traffic warden to fuck off once, and am still vaguely astounded that this can be parleyed into a criminal charge, albeit with some glib lying on the part of the traffic warden in court), I'd be interested in what, exactly, you think a criminal is. Some sort of subhuman, perhaps, undeserving of any consideration or rights?
.....the average computer user in the police force is just like any user anywhere else.
Not enough resources to meet the arbitrary targets (in this case make a go/no go decision within 25 days).
System that deletes the biometric evidence after 25 days.
Outside auditor currently kicking up a stink about biometric evidence being deleted when the suspect hasn't been cleared; is still under active investigation although this has taken more than 25 days.
The Catch 22 is strong in this one.
Amongst all the police bashing nobody seems to have considered that most of the computer wrangling is probably done by civilian back office staff who are simultaneously being told to meet their targets and keep the data. Cue immense pressure to find a "third way".
As with all target driven systems, especially in the NHS, the situation where you are measured on targets not outcomes generates enormous pressure for mis-reporting when the targets are just not achievable due to circumstances outside your immediate control.
On a pure IT front, show me an IT person who has not been pressured to under report hours worked on a project to keep to the "plan". Used to be the bane of my life come project planning and costing time. How can you plan and cost realistically when your resources lie to you?
Anyway, this story to me just demonstrates a broken system with unachievable targets. So the process and targets need reviewing. And fixing. Probably by increasing the available resource until realistic targets can be achieved (see NHS).
All being blurred by bad experiences with the police.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
