Roadside fingerprinting
Discussion
The voluntary (for now) scheme to fingerprint at the roadside motorists who are stopped by police (in 10 force areas) came into effect today. Fingerprint(s) are scanned using a device that compares them with the National Autmated Fingerprint System.
"Assurances" are given that fingerprints will not be retained, and that they wil only be checked against those held for "criminals and suspects" on NAFS.
To "prevent" motorists being browbeaten into providing their fingerprints, the police will complete the 'stop and search' form (which typically takes up to 20 minutes!).
Oh dear! Understatement of the year!
Waits for the "if you've got nothing to hide" brigade to appear ... and blows fat raspberry at them.
Streaky
PS - if BLiar had "nothing to hide" in the "cash for peerages" scandal, why is he so anxious not to be interviewed and to denigrate DAC Yates?
"Assurances" are given that fingerprints will not be retained, and that they wil only be checked against those held for "criminals and suspects" on NAFS.
To "prevent" motorists being browbeaten into providing their fingerprints, the police will complete the 'stop and search' form (which typically takes up to 20 minutes!).
Oh dear! Understatement of the year!
Waits for the "if you've got nothing to hide" brigade to appear ... and blows fat raspberry at them.
Streaky
PS - if BLiar had "nothing to hide" in the "cash for peerages" scandal, why is he so anxious not to be interviewed and to denigrate DAC Yates?
can some one please tell what is going to happen then if you refuse? they'll keep you there for anoher 60mins to convince you to do so?
go over the entire car to 'check' it's road worthy? suggest that you wil need a blood test as they 'suspect' you may be under th influence of drugs, etc?
Not impressed.
go over the entire car to 'check' it's road worthy? suggest that you wil need a blood test as they 'suspect' you may be under th influence of drugs, etc?
Not impressed.
As I understand it, the purpose of this is to check fingerprints if the identity of the driver cannot be established by other means (i.e driving licence, etc) or the BIB suspect that the details given by the driver are false.
However, the cynic in me thinks that taking fingeperints at the roadside will become de rigueur for all stops, irrespective of whether you have all proper and sufficient ID with you.
However, the cynic in me thinks that taking fingeperints at the roadside will become de rigueur for all stops, irrespective of whether you have all proper and sufficient ID with you.
This Is London said:
Tories warned that roadside tests must not become a means to bring the records of millions who have committed no crime on to the police National Automated Fingerprint System.
Somebody missed a trick, there. They could have called it the National Automated Fingerprint Facility. Much more appropriate.
So what we are suggesting here is...
I stop someone that for a motoring offence and suspect they may be providing false details. At the moment I have the choice of accepting what they say or detaining them for attempting to pervert the course of justice. This means going to the nearest police office that has custody facilities (and room), livescanning and waiting at least an hour on SCRO to get back.
Surely 15 minutes at the roadside must make more sense.
not applicable said:
So what we are suggesting here is...
I stop someone that for a motoring offence and suspect they may be providing false details. At the moment I have the choice of accepting what they say or detaining them for attempting to pervert the course of justice. This means going to the nearest police office that has custody facilities (and room), livescanning and waiting at least an hour on SCRO to get back.
Surely 15 minutes at the roadside must make more sense.
Or looking at it from the other side of the fence:
You stop me because you want to. You suspect me of no offence, but pull me over anyway (as it is within your power to do so). What happens if I refuse to let you take my fingerprints? Am I now obstructing a police officer? Will I then be arrested and forced to give my fingerprints at the police station?
And what happens if I do agree to give my prints? After the reports of the number of DNA records that the police have held onto after they should have been destroyed, why should I trust the police not to keep hold of my fingerprints indefinately?
It would be far easier to tattoo a barcode onto every new born child and immigrant, and issue all police officers with hand held scanners. It would provide exactly the same benefits to the police, and at least then we would be being honest and upfront about the intentions.
not applicable said:
So what we are suggesting here is...
I stop someone that for a motoring offence and suspect they may be providing false details. At the moment I have the choice of accepting what they say or detaining them for attempting to pervert the course of justice. This means going to the nearest police office that has custody facilities (and room), livescanning and waiting at least an hour on SCRO to get back.
Surely 15 minutes at the roadside must make more sense.
What is the %age of false positives on this roadside equipment?
not applicable said:
NO, I am only asking for your prints if I suspect you have provided false details.
Which is all well and good, but that is very open to abuse. It only takes the police officer to be having a bad day, or be a git in general (only human after all), and we have the situation in my post.
not applicable said:
NO, I am only asking for your prints if I suspect you have provided false details.
Just like you could only stop someone and breathalise someone if they were commiting an offence, but now you can stop them and breathalise them if you suspect they have been drinking......just like they did with me, a few months ago when the snides saw me driving out of a pub car park!!! The fact I had had one drink, it was 11.30pm, and I had to be up at 5.00am to go to work, didn't even occur to them!!! Tell me another ...... you are all the same, ....BRAINWASHED!!!
ginettajoe said:
not applicable said:
NO, I am only asking for your prints if I suspect you have provided false details.
Just like you could only stop someone and breathalise someone if they were commiting an offence, but now you can stop them and breathalise them if you suspect they have been drinking......just like they did with me, a few months ago when the snides saw me driving out of a pub car park!!! The fact I had had one drink, it was 11.30pm, and I had to be up at 5.00am to go to work, didn't even occur to them!!! Tell me another ...... you are all the same, ....BRAINWASHED!!!
If you admitted to the officer that you had consumed alcohol (even if it is just one) then that is sufficient grounds for requiring you to provide a specimen of breath.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff