David Davis - No case to answer - other than his deceit, dishonesty and lack of understanding - and total lack of any solutions to retain our Freedoms
I promised you a response to David "Freedom" Davis's free exposure on BBC4's "You and Yours" last week... but it wasn't worth responding too...now he is on BBC4 "Any Questions" with Dimblebore on Friday waffling away.
So far the man with the broken nose and swollen ego appears to be making three rather odd, ill informed points which neither make sense or a policy.
1. 42 days detention without charge
He is of course right to keep someone locked up without charging them is in breach of habeas corpus whose origins lie distantly in Magna Carta. The phrase means roughly, "bring forth the body" and was encoded in statute as long ago as Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and is a safeguard for the individual
freedom against arbitrary state action but not against statute.
Until the Terrorism Act 2000 criminal suspects had to be charged within 24 hours of detention or bereleased. Section 41 of the 2000 Act allowed detention for 48 hours with an extension to 7 days with the approval of a judge if they were suspected of being a terrorist. This period was extended to 14 days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and to 28 days by the Terrorism Act 2006.... which David Davis and the Conservative Opoposition voted for on the 2nd reading as they have for the previous acts which have beached the rights previously enshrined in statute and common law. and custom nd practice.
Therefore the pugilist's much publicised objection is based upon a pretence which conceals a lie.
His bleating at best calls simply for a maintenance of the status quo, depriving people of liberty for 28 days whilst Plod scurreis round searching for evidence which is hardly a call for maintenance of ancient rights and liberties that he seeks to pass off.
2. CCTV cameras
CCT cameras, their installation on private premises or public places and the use, provision, sale, copyright of images and data obtained are not controlled not by statute but by a very comprehensive 24 page Code of Practice laid down and revised in line with changes in type, function and use (for example"man-cams beloved by Police TV shows) by the Information Commissioner.
For example Freedom's champion complains images are frequently useless as evidence - in fact a recently published study said only 3% of criminal convictiions were aided by CCTV images ...well if he took the trouble to look at Section 7 he would see that .."It is important that a CCTV system produces images that are of a suitable quality for the purpose for which the system was installed. If identification is
necessary, then poor quality images which do not help to identify individuals may undermine the purpose for installing the system." Clear, simple, straightforward and in use for over a decade.
He gives as evidence the problems of non existent images relating to the public murder of Charles de Menezes - absence of images as evidence does not necessarily mean absence of images. The IPCC were illegally withheld from the crime scene for 5 days by the Metropoitan Police Commissioner whilst evidence was lost, mislaid, destroyed and police officers (and maybe people involved in the murder who were not police officers and therefore not covered by IPCC legilsation) sat down and wrote up notes together - a practice called "singing from the same hymn sheet" , which may ensure a coherent view but not necessarily truthful assmbly of evidence.
It is worth noting here that the cringeing Home Office Permanent Secretary who accepted Sir Iain Blair's bullying was none other than Sir John Gieve. The man who left the Home Office with accounts that the auditor would not pass, a Minister calling it not fit for purpose ...for him to go on and sit idly by or take his holidays whilst Northern Wreck went down the toilet along with (at the last reckoning £19.7 Bn of taxpayers funds)... n ot to mention his role in Blinkett' expenses fiddling, visa fidlling for his mistresses servant etc, etc.,
3. DNA evidence and databases
When Mr Steptoe induced the fertilisation and implantation of Miss Brown, there was no law, so what he did was not illegal, medical and biological science advances had outrun statute. Legislation subsequently followed in the form of Human Embryology and Fertilisiation Bills, supervisory bodies etc., to regulate the business of in vitro fertilisation.
The role of and use of DNA in providing DNA evidence in criminal cases is in currently in approximately the same state, and consequently leads to confusion in the public's mind.
DNA is unique to individuals, in criminal cases , small amounts left from a drinking glass, fingerprint, sweat is used to make copmparison with known samples from suspects. This technique requires sophisticated handling and lab techniques and provides for certain so called "locii" to be compared - just as a limited set of measurements froma face can form a pattern and provide automtic methods of identification - the process now being used in new passports. (Go here for excellent description of the technique)
Whilst not widely used , it has been responsible for a remarkable clear up rate, especially in rape cases where semen samples have been retained to be compared with all male entrants into the currently held databases. The effect of this clear up rate will eventually diminish, and indeed many criminals are aware how powerful the technique is and take precautions aginst leaving DNA at crime scenes.
This technique would of course have prevented such cases as the Police deliberately "fitting up" Stefan Kisko if it had been available - it would have certainly stopped the Yorkshire Ripper in his tracks and comsequently saved lives of sevreal women.
There can therefore be no reasonable objection by any male to having their samples run against historical rape cases - it is also difficult to see how central maintenance of locus data can be questioned.
DNA samples can however yield more information - a constant concern is genetic screening for insurance purposes, employment and marriage. Particularly because in the UK samples are held and their results by private companies. Sharing such data is not under statutory control and is routinely shared with criminal justice organisations withing Europe and probably the US.
Lord Patel has alread shown how data exchnages between the EU and the US are being forced on citizens ouside legislative control.
Neanderthal Davis (see X ray) merely wants to inflame fears, create concerns and thereby sanctify himself as a torchbearer of Freedom. He has no answers , only a few ill formed , ill informed questions.
What is needed, and soon, is UK wide legislation that ;
1. Repeals provisions of all the appropriate Acts to return the position to that prior to the 2000 Terrorism Act for detention of all suspects terrorist or otherwise.
2. Uses Current Guidelines on CCTV to be translated into statutory powers.
3. Codifies the collection and handling and storage of DNA samples for any purpose, procedures for testing, and the control and distribution of information extracted from them on the lines of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology legislation ,with any bodies having a majority of post held by people outside the criminal justice system.
4. Codifies the ownership of personal data, its storage, its location (for example few people understand that the UK fingerprint database is actually located in the USA), its destruction, how it may and may not be shared and personal access to individual records and procedures for amending / destroying records.
Hey it's a start ... and for a blonde with big tits its not a bad one.
PS :David , I apologise for breaking into your SAS records to get your X rays, shows you how such information can be bought from
bent coppers bad apples.