Yesterday I wrote a short blogpost about how the coming election will define privacy and freedom in Britain for generations. From today we have started our 'GE2010 blog'.
Whenever you see the image on the right on a blogpost, it has been added to our General Election 2010 blog – our comment on the thrills and spills of the coming contest – now available here.
Today we have our first dividing lines drawn between the government and opposition – this time on the DNA database.
As the wash-up period gets underway in Parliament (for further information on wash-up and its implications for democracy do read this superb article by Martin Bell) the bills currently going through the house are horse-traded to get the statute books clean before the new government is returned.
One such bill is the Crime and Security Bill, which proposes limiting the retention of DNA profiles to six years, if the person is later found innocent. Of course, Big Brother Watch would prefer to see all innocent people removed from the DNA database immediately, but we nevertheless support the opposition parties desire to see the period limited to three years, as it is in Scotland.
Now the Guardian reports:
The home secretary today accused the Tories of being "soft" on crime and threatened to throw the reforms out of the crime and security bill, should the Conservatives pursue their efforts to limit retention to three years.
He said he would pull all provisions from the amendment bill today if the Tories refuse to sign up to the government's plans – including a six-year retention limit – in full. The bill is destined for this afternoon's wash-up session to complete the government's legislative programme ahead of the dissolution of parliament for the election.
Johnson told Sky News: "This is a basic example of how they [the Tories] talk tough on crime but act soft."
This is disgraceful politicking by the Home Secretary who is, in essence, holding the profiles of one million innocent people to ransom for his own perceived electoral advantage.
Alongside the rulings on section 44 – Stop and Search and, as we revealed last month, the I v Finland judgement on medical data security, the UK is now in breach of at least three major European Court rulings.
Alan Johnson may think it looks weak to support the law-abiding citizen who has never committed any crime and who simply wants their privacy, but we hope the public think differently.
By Dylan Sharpe
-
http://digitalproductions.co.uk Crosbie Fitch
-
Simon T
-
Purlieu
-
http://www.oilofscotland.org Truth Teller
-
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html www.oilofscotland.org
-
LeChiffre
-
Marcus Junius Brutus
-
Femina Street
-
Lee
-
http://discernthesignsofthetimes.blogspot.com/ Wirkal



