The Cops ever take your photo but not charge you with anything ?

Status
Not open for further replies.


Unbalanced Views said:
MPs slam UK.gov's 'unacceptable' hoarding of custody images


The UK government's approach to deleting custody images of innocent people – in that it only scraps them on request – is unacceptable and possibly illegal, MPs have said.

MPs slam UK.gov's 'unacceptable' hoarding of custody images
Click to expand...
Suppose it depends if you’re guilty of doing something wrong , if you haven’t then what’s there to worry about ( majority of police carry body cams anyway!
 
Ludwig said:
Suppose it depends if you’re guilty of doing something wrong , if you haven’t then what’s there to worry about ( majority of police carry body cams anyway!
Click to expand...


I think you're missing the point, the story is about the Police holding on file photographs of innocent people for no reason
 
Never been spoken to the police, apart from when I lived in Hylton Castle and CID knocked as apparently there had been an assault in the street and the chap asked me if I'd heard anything, which I hadn't..........never been in trouble with the law :cool:.
 
Just because they haven't been charged doesn't automatically mean they are innocent.

I'm not sure what harm it is doing retaining images. They could possibly prove vital in future investigations.
Perhaps the best way to not have images retained by the police is to avoid being in custody in the first place.
 
HABA87 said:
Just because they haven't been charged doesn't automatically mean they are innocent.

I'm not sure what harm it is doing retaining images. They could possibly prove vital in future investigations.
Perhaps the best way to not have images retained by the police is to avoid being in custody in the first place.
Click to expand...


Are you purposely misunderstanding for comic effect ? It is illegal for the Police to hold on file photographs of innocent people, but that is in fact the case - if you don't find that disturbing, I certainly do, the Police aren't above the law
 
Unbalanced Views said:
Are you purposely misunderstanding for comic effect ? It is illegal for the Police to hold on file photographs of innocent people, but that is in fact the case - if you don't find that disturbing, I certainly do, the Police aren't above the law
Click to expand...
The article you've linked says possibly illegal. You say it is illegal.
Is it illegal or not?

Edit- article is all over the shop. Opens with possibly illegal then suggests is illegal. Very unclear.

And to repeat myself, just because there is no charge it doesn't mean someone is innocent.
 
It's a strange one (I'm an officer in West Yorkshire) - DNA (if innocent) gets destroyed after a certain amount of time but we keep custody images even when innocent. They're only stored on local systems on that person's profile. They can't be accessed other than for a policing purpose otherwise it's a breach of data protection.

I've used custody photos to great affect in the case of missing people/wanted individuals/positively IDing people for certain crimes so they are useful in certain respects otherwise they don't get used or seen again save for a breach as mentioned above
 
PulseSafc said:
It's a strange one (I'm an officer in West Yorkshire) - DNA (if innocent) gets destroyed after a certain amount of time but we keep custody images even when innocent. They're only stored on local systems on that person's profile. They can't be accessed other than for a policing purpose otherwise it's a breach of data protection.

I've used custody photos to great affect in the case of missing people/wanted individuals/positively IDing people for certain crimes so they are useful in certain respects otherwise they don't get used or seen again save for a breach as mentioned above
Click to expand...
And used on photo Id parade? Used to get a fiver for going on an id parade years ago
 
HABA87 said:
The article you've linked says possibly illegal. You say it is illegal.
Is it illegal or not?

Edit- article is all over the shop. Opens with possibly illegal then suggests is illegal. Very unclear.

And to repeat myself, just because there is no charge it doesn't mean someone is innocent.
Click to expand...


Yes, you do seem to repeat your error, this is about innocent people, as per my OP - do try and keep up
 
Yeah they can be used for that although it's not ideal cos photos can be historic and they like to video they now from certain angles but if someone refuses to to attend they they can be used. Still is a fiver as far as I'm aware too

the boot said:
And used on photo Id parade? Used to get a fiver for going on an id parade years ago
Click to expand...
 
PulseSafc said:
It's a strange one (I'm an officer in West Yorkshire) - DNA (if innocent) gets destroyed after a certain amount of time but we keep custody images even when innocent. They're only stored on local systems on that person's profile. They can't be accessed other than for a policing purpose otherwise it's a breach of data protection.

I've used custody photos to great affect in the case of missing people/wanted individuals/positively IDing people for certain crimes so they are useful in certain respects otherwise they don't get used or seen again save for a breach as mentioned above
Click to expand...


I can fully accept they may be useful, but keeping them is unlawful, thats the point, they need to either change the law or sort their system out so they can be deleted - btw, why would the police have a file on an innocent person ?
 
I would imagine it’s standard if your a suspect and bailed pending inquiries

Only wrang uns will have there picture took at a po po station.
 
Unbalanced Views said:
I can fully accept they may be useful, but keeping them is unlawful, thats the point, they need to either change the law or sort their system out so they can be deleted - btw, why would the police have a file on an innocent person ?
Click to expand...

Not a 'file' in the traditional sense. A 'person' is created on our systems with their information for numerous reasons, a person ID is created on our system for;

Victims
Witnesses
Missing people
Concern for safety
Suspects
Intel reports
Etc...

What I will say about the article from a brief skim through regarding this statement;

unconvicted people may not know they can apply for their images to be deleted, and because these people shouldn't have less protection than those who have given fingerprint or DNA samples.
Click to expand...

Unconvicted people are still required to give fingerprint and DNA samples. Everyone that attends custody prior to or just after interview will provide both a photo and fingerprints regardless of innocence or guilt so to say they have less protection than those who give fingerprints is wrong, they're still required to do this.

If I've read it correctly I am 9 hours into my shift
 
PulseSafc said:
Not a 'file' in the traditional sense. A 'person' is created on our systems with their information for numerous reasons, a person ID is created on our system for;

Victims
Witnesses
Missing people
Concern for safety
Suspects
Intel reports
Etc...

What I will say about the article from a brief skim through regarding this statement;



Unconvicted people are still required to give fingerprint and DNA samples. Everyone that attends custody prior to or just after interview will provide both a photo and fingerprints regardless of innocence or guilt so to say they have less protection than those who give fingerprints is wrong, they're still required to do this.

If I've read it correctly I am 9 hours into my shift
Click to expand...
Keep safe mate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top