The Police are their own worst enemy!

By disputing with the Information Commissioner over retaining minor offence data-with no relevance to the involved individual's current behaviour-and then appealing to the (generally unsympathetic) Tribunal, they have laid themselves wide open!

Iain, Leicester, UK

It is difficult to believe that the police need to keep data on someone who committed a minor offence as a teenager and who has lived a blameless life for the past 40 years. Why are records kept for 100 years? Are there any 115-year-old bank robbers?

Erik, Cardiff,

A conviction being 'spent' does not remove it from a record. The record is there for life. Being spent means that a person does not have to disclose it in certain circumstances. The worst offences are never spent. Perhaps those are the only ones worth keeping?

Richard, Jersey, CI,

An excellent and proper decision. The police's attitude is 'we should keep everything, just in case'. To cite the example of Soham to defend this policy of keeping data is perverse. Soham happened because of police incompetence not because of any failure to retain data.

Stephen, Kent,

Common sense at last prevails. All Minor crime commited by those under 18 with only ONE conviction should be removed after 20 years. Anything serious GBH etc must remain. The problem being that young men do stupid thinks to impress friends or girls especially under the influence of drink or worse.

Den, London, England

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 already provides for "spent" convictions to be disregarded.
Why has no one mentioned this???????

Stwphen Mannering, Nottingham,

This is long overdue The 1974 Rehabilitation of Offenders Act enabled some criminal convictions to become spent after a rehabilitation period. But in the database people remain criminal suspects for life. Things got worse with the CRB as law abiding people are stigmatized with every job application.

A Hariis, Kettering, UK

so let me get this straight... a "spent" conviction can still crop up on a trawl of your records some twenty years later? along with other "word of mouth" evidence which you will never be able to counter...

pcooke, Gloucester,

There seem so many police officers posting on here in support of data retention ,when in fact they should be neutral. The police cannot at all be trusted to use data properly ,I know that from personal experience believe me, and definately there has got to be a limit over what data is retained.

Alex, london, uk

Another rediculous decision. It is obvious that for the greater good of our people we must opt out of namby-pamby liberal Human Rights nonsense.

Fred, Denbigh, Wales

Common sense at last. Something very scarce these days with our pc police force. Sadly the police no longer have the trust of the public. They should learn from this but sadly nothing will change.

John, Lincoln,

By mutual agreement between the UK and the US, on accessing any web site of a certain nature deemed unlawful in the US, a person can be removed from the UK and transported to the US for trial, above and beyond all other UK man-made laws. Why the worry about a national database?

Abdul Majeed, Bradford, West Yorkshire, UK

This ruling is a travesty and flies in the face of the Bichard report and opens up the possibility of another Soham. There are retention guidlines regarding the use of conviction information and when used properly they provide a workable solution to the issues about retention.

Pete, East Sussex, UK

These revelations and the police attitude would not be a surprise in Mugabes regime or the worst days of the East German puppet government. We, the supposed beacon of freedom, are exposed as equals in the world of population control. Readhead et al are enemies of individual freedom.

mike gee, bournemouth, uk

The police should keep the data, it could be useful if the person concerned was to commit another offence. But common sense must be used when checking against job applications. It is indicative of society today to put these misdemeanors down to exuberence, all crime is counter-productive.

Chris G, London, UK

The Police seem to think their job is to control information on everybody, guilty or not, the disgraceful refusal to remove innocent people from the DNA database is a prime example.
It is time they were brought to heel; their job is catching criminals, not social engineering.

edwina langton, blackburn,

i know of thousands of us objected against the poll tax and a lot spent time in jail , 1-7 days if i remember rightly, so those will be on record among a number of things,

jonathan rose, Gt Torrington, uk

"...the Ethics Group..." "....gave warning that keeping DNA samples of people arrested but never charged or convicted is a potential breach of human rights laws."

In my view this is not a potential but absolute breach and have long said so, even as a serving Police Officer.

Jurgen , St Gilles Croix de Vie, France

A person with previous convictions is just what the Police want , it helps with gathering suspects when lacking any real evidence . I happened to be in the area of an apparent B&E and was stopped by Police the only thing they were interested in was any previous . I have none... they let me go .

Benzo, Nr Chelmsford,

This is long overdue. There are people who committed offences as juveniles in the late 40"s and are still on police files after 60 years despite living a blameless life since. How crime is seen and society's approach today has changed dramatically since then and like offences now go unpunished.

Maurice Smith, Medway,

I was horrified to discover that there is no system to gain a pardon or apply for minor juvenile records to be removed from the Police National Computer, especially after they become responsible adults..

The current process is far too punitive & out of step with other modern societies.

Pat, Wallasey, U.K.

Jay,London be real! Yes there is an argument for common sensical use of data especially criminal data but not to ruin a life on the basis of a misdemeanour 20 year before! It is human to err and it must also be human if not divine to forgive - and not wait 100 years to do so with a clean slate!

Willo, MK, UK

I'm all for purging data in a database, as one poster said it eventually becomes corrupt. Problem is where do you draw the line?
Urinating in a public place at 15? Stealing from a cornershop at 13? Vandalising a bus stop at 16? Will it be age specific or how long the record has been held?

Paddy, Leicester,

Maintaining for a century the record of a peccadillo committed by a 10 year old child decades ago is absurd, and for the police to defend the policy equally so.

Frank Greaney, Liverpool,

All databases contain errors and the longer a database is maintained the more corrupt it becomes. This alone is a sufficient reason for deleting old records of minor offences.

I expect the police have taken back-ups, though. They are probably on a stolen lap-top as I write.

Frank Upton, Solihull,

Hm, I just wonder how some of the liberal hearts would react if a 12 year old kid who started out kicking a little puppy (slap on wrist - no record) graduated to kicking to death their elderly mother 10 years later.

Jay, London,

We routinely perform an enhanced CRB on new employees. This often uncovers minor incidents which often simply demonstrate youthful exuberance. Typical example was where an individual had an entry relating to urinating in a public place when they were 15! Why do the police need to keep such things?

Dave, UK,

Some faith in sense has been restored....if only one could believe that the ruling would have any effect on the criminal Government and their puppets.

J.Wilkes, Gloucester,

Why are the police making policy decisions of this kind? The Home Office should decide such matters after discussions with Justice and other Ministries, and ensure that the rules are applied consistently. If you allow local police forces to decide they will go for '100 years' for everything!

Colin, shrewsbury,

There is absolutely no way any police force, or the government, is going to destroy any data, regardless of whatever The Law might proscribe. The principle of Control or Destroy shall be upheld.

martin brighton, sheffield, uk

Hurray

Finally the governments plans to build a database of all citizens lies in tatters. Great to see that 'common sense' has over-ruled the though police for the first time. How anyone can still be on file for over 20 years for stealing 99p pack of meat is beyond me. Rejoice. No Brave new world?

greg eaton, weybrdige, UK