NO2ID

Stu, you say:
The police have, and should have, every right to stop you and require you to produce evidence that you are licenced to drive the vehicle you are in, that it is insured, that it has been tested for safety, and that you have paid your road tax. Motorists should know that the police can stop them at any time and ask them to prove that they have the necessary licensing, insurance and safety verification and that they don't need any reason to suspect that they haven't.

Again, at the risk of your saying "what do you know, you don't even live here", I am making this comment generally. I live in NZ, not some small island out in the middle of nowhere where we don't even have police and I couldn't possibly be qualified to comment on this, this is still a (relatively) free society and I can say what I like (within reason of course).

However, the whole issue of "random stopping" (or what ever you call it - the power that the police have to stop any motor vehicle that is being driven - or bicycle as it turns out - at any time, in any place, for no apparent reason) may, on the surface, sound quite reasonable.

But I find it indicative of a police state. Human rights legislation (actually the magna carta at the beginning) says (maybe this is not worded exactly): All people have the right to FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT (which logically must be by whatever is the usual means if anyone is thinking of saying "but they can walk") without molestation". Well, what is "random stopping" if it is not molestation?

Yes, the police should most certainly "....... have a reason to suspect that they haven't" As anything else is calling all motorists liars by virtue of the fact that they exist and are driving on the road.

However, the words that really stuck out to me in the above quote, were: "...and that you have paid your road tax.." Am I being paranoid, or is this "road tax" 99% of "what it is all about"? Also I wonder a lot at your motive in saying that motorists should be able to be stopped so as the police can ascertain whether or not they have paid for insurance. Somehow I think that this has less to do with "are they insured if the hit my car?" than it has to do with "have they paid?".

Paying, or not paying, road tax or insurance has got nothing to do with whether or not the driver of the car has stolen it or is a danger to the public.

This may, seemingly, not have anything to do with the proposed NIR/id cards but it is important to examine how far we have gone towards a police state already and much worse it will, inevitably, get when/if this horrible legislation is passed.

I have just been reading the news item about the trial with "automatic number plate recognition" checks and; "motorists who have been pulled over after their vehicle has been flagged up by an ANPR check are currently being asked to volunteer to have their fingerprints taken at the roadside". The word "currently" makes it clear that this "voluntary" nature is very temporary.

So what happens if a motorist is driving their car seemingly innocently along the public road, but unbenown to them their car, according to its registration number, is the subject of an "unpaid fine" (you must realise the potential for bureaucratic incompetence in the "fines" system AND YES I AM TALKING ABOUT UK) and all of a sudden the "innocent" motorist has his fingerprints on the "National fingerprint database".

I don't expect to be agreed with much, but it is this sort of thing that "random stopping" has made so much easier, and more acceptable to the public.

Sorry, this post should have gone with the thread: "Do police officers want the power to ask for your papers".

I must have pressed the wrong button. Sorry again.

Magna Carta was written long before the days of motorised transport. When driving, you are controlling a vehicle that may weigh anything from half a ton upto forty tons. The vehicle may be capable of travelling well in excess of 100mph. You are driving it in close proximity to other people and their families, their vehicles and other property, and you are doing so not on some dirt track, but along elaborately constructed roads, motorways and bridges for which our society has to pay a great deal of money to build and maintain. There are several thousand people every year killed on the roads, and hundreds of thousands injured. The value of property lost in road traffic accidents runs into billions of pounds every year. None of this was envisaged by Magna Carta. Driving a vehicle on public roads is a fundamentally different activity to walking through a forest.



That's not the case here in the UK. I can't comment on New Zealand, but here, people don't have to carry their insurance, vehicle test certificates or registration documents with them - and most people don't. You are issued with a disc that is affixed to your windscreen when you pay your road tax, and that disc not only confirms that you have paid the duty, but also that all the other valid documentation was in order when you paid. This is because you don't get a disc unless the post office has checked them first. A motorist can tell the officer his vehicle is insured and has passed the MOT (safety test), but if his vehicle isn't taxed, that's a strong indication that he may not be telling the truth. Nowadays, the road tax legislation itself is enforced not by the police, but by the agency that is responsible for vehicle and driver licensing.



The road traffic legislation that you refer to has hardly changed since the Road Traffic Act 1925. Eighty years ago, the police used to carry out spot checks on vehicles and their drivers!



Please show where you have seen this: I have NEVER heard of such a thing. If I were asked to supply my fingerprints, I'd refuse!!!



You have just made a number of assumptions about the way things work here that are quite wrong.

Firstly, cars do not have "unpaid fines" markers on the police computer - in fact, nor do people for that matter!! Unpaid fines are enforced by magistrates issuing warrants of arrest - BUT - unlike other types of warrant in the UK, a fines warrant can ONLY be executed (i.e. the officer can arrest) if the officer is in possession of that original warrant at the time.

Secondly, the NAFIS system (national fingerprint database) only contains the fingerprints of people who have either been arrested for, or convicted of, a recordable offence. It is illegal to keep other any fingerprints on that system.

I am alarmed at some of the developments that have taken place in recent years that have undermined our civil liberties and privacy. I agree that our state has moved in a worryingly authoritarian direction and is beginning to threaten some of our freedoms - and I deplore the concept of the NIR and identity cards. My freedom is just as important to me as yours is to you. But PLEASE let's keep our feet on the ground, recognise that the police have a job to do, and it's in all our interests that they do it. In spite of our concerns, we should not start thinking we have reached the stage of being subjects of some jackboot totalitarian dictatorship. Not yet, anyway.

Here it is Stu;

http://management.silicon.com/governmen ... 037,00.htm


That is far from the only mention of the system, as it has been on the cards for quite a long time now.

If you refuse to give you fingerprints when requested, you will be arrested.

Read the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, section 117 (i think it is 117 - just search for "fingerprints" otherwise), and you will see that the power to demand fingerprints for ID checks is now law.

Notice also that the Act mentions that you can be demanded to provide fingerprints "in a palce other than a police station", which is the key part of the legislation which allows the use of mobile fingerprinting scanners in all places, not just if you stopped in your car.


As for random stops, stops that are carried out without justifiable cause, they are a blight on Freedom, and should never be tolerated.

ANPR is the same, as it displays the same ideological drive - check everyone, just in case.

That is the idea that stands behind the "audit trail" on the NIR, indeed the whole NIR itself, and it is an idea which will place the whole world under the paranoid eye of our rulers.

Here it is:

Fingerprints and footwear impressions


117
Fingerprints

30

(1)
Section 61 of PACE (fingerprinting) is amended as provided in subsections (2)


to (4).


(2)
After subsection (6) insert—


“(6A)
A constable may take a person’s fingerprints without the appropriate


consent if—

35

(a)
the constable reasonably suspects that the person is committing


or attempting to commit an offence, or has committed or


attempted to commit an offence; and


(b)
either of the two conditions mentioned in subsection (6B) is met.


(6B)
The conditions are that—

40

(a)
the name of the person is unknown to, and cannot be readily


ascertained by, the constable;


(b)
the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a


name furnished by the person as his name is his real name.







--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill
Part 3 — Police powers etc.


83




(6C)
The taking of fingerprints by virtue of subsection (6A) does not count


for any of the purposes of this Act as taking them in the course of the


investigation of an offence by the police.”


(3)
In subsection (7), for “or (6)” substitute “, (6) or (6A)”.


(4)
In subsection (7A)—

5

(a)
after “police station,” insert “or by virtue of subsection (6A) at a place


other than a police station,”,


(b)
in paragraph (a), after “an officer” insert “(or, in a subsection (6A) case,


the constable)”.


(5)
In section 63A of PACE (fingerprints and samples: supplementary

10

provisions)—


(a)
after subsection (1) insert—


“(1ZA)
Fingerprints taken by virtue of section 61(6A) above may be


checked against other fingerprints to which the person seeking


to check has access and which are held by or on behalf of any

15

one or more relevant law-enforcement authorities or which are


held in connection with or as a result of an investigation of an


offence.”,


(b)
in subsection (1A), after “subsection (1)” insert “and (1ZA)”.


(6)
Section 64 of PACE (destruction of fingerprints and samples) is amended as

20

follows.


(7)
In subsection (1A), for “or the conduct of a prosecution” substitute “, the


conduct of a prosecution or the identification of a deceased person or of the


person from whom a body part came”.


(8)
After subsection (1B) insert—

25

“(1BA)
Fingerprints taken from a person by virtue of section 61(6A) above


must be destroyed as soon as they have fulfilled the purpose for which


they were taken.”


(9)
In subsection (3AB), for “subsection (3)” substitute “subsection (1BA) or (3)”.


(10)
in subsection (3AC)—

30

(a)
in paragraph (a), after “that” insert “fingerprint or”,


(b)
at the end add the following new sentence—



“This subsection does not apply to fingerprints taken from a


person by virtue of section 61(6A) above.

From what I read, I don't see a problem with it:



For your vehicle to be "flagged up" on ANPR, you will almost certainly be suspected either of involvement in crime, or it is believed that the vehicle is being used by a person disqualified by a court. But even under those circumstances, there is no power to deman fingerprints at the roadside - the giving of them is voluntary. If you don't volunteer to give them then yes, you may be arrested - but that would happen anyway if you were suspected of crime or disqualified driving. I don't see this as especially sinister - it is just the police doing their job.

There is no general power for the police to fingerprint the public. There has been a power to take fingerprints from crime suspects for decades, and it is hard to imagine how the police could do their job without such a power.

The objection that I have with regard to the recent changes in law concern the retention of the fingerprints of people who have either been charged and acquitted in court, or (more recently) arrested but never charged. People in these circumstances will have their fingerprints and DNA profile placed on the national databases and will have no right to require them to be removed or destroyed. A few of us - including some police officers - argued that this was a serious attack on civil liberties because a peson who is not charged or convicted should be treated as every other person who is innocent, and this is discriminatory and grossly unfair. When we highlighted this, we were ignored, or called "politically correct" or "namby pamby liberals". Now that ID cards are on the horizon, suddenlt people are starting to wake up to what's already happened. Well, better late than never I suppose - but this is the action of government, not the bobby at the sharp end of policing.

So they're not voluntary at all!

Stu

"For your vehicle to be "flagged up" on ANPR, you will almost certainly be suspected either of involvement in crime, or it is believed that the vehicle is being used by a person disqualified by a court. "

OR a screw head, dirt, or water has caused the machine to mis-read the plate, in which case they have pulled you over without being suspected of a crime. Does the equipment tell the officers which number it thinks it has matched or does it just issue an order to stop this vehicle?

Of course they are voluntary. Suspects aren't arrested for declining to supply fingerprints, but for the offence they would have been arrested for anyway.



Unlikely to happen for several reasons. Firstly, the ANPR will show the exact make, model and colour of the vehicle. Secondly, the ANPR will only prompt the police to stop the vehicle - it is the police officers who must establish who is driving or using it and whether they have any grounds to suspect those in the vehicle are guilty of offences. In the rare event that someone is stopped because of a misreading - and it is VERY rare - the matter is quickly resolved and the driver is allowed on his or her merry way. Remember that mistakes happen because of human error far more often than through ANPR misreadings. An officer could mistakenly write down the digits of a suspected vehicle wrongly and stop the wrong driver. Or he could arrest someone in the street whos only crime is to bear a remarkable resemblance to a wanted criminal or escaped convict. It's just part of the risks of normal life, and if we want the police to lock up the bad guys to keep us safe, mistakes are going to happen occasionally, whether through technology or human error.

Stu. I must start this by saying that I owe you an apology for wording my first message on this subject badly and assuming that "fines" were tied to the number plates of vehicles and a "fine defaulter's" vehicle would be "flagged" by the ANPR.

I am also sorry for not understanding how your system of road tax and insurance works in UK and assuming that I did.

However, (and this is a big "however") I have since seen ".... or if it is believed that the vehicle is being used by a person disqualified by a court" (I think you wrote that, but I'm not 100% sure, so my apologies again for not finding out, or to the person who DID write it). This tells me that, somehow, "registration" numbers of vehicles ARE tied to court decisions. And this begs the question: I am driving a vehicle belonging to someone I know - I have not stolen it for this purpose - and, I am or am not, aware that this person has been "disqualified by a court" and therefore, the ANPL system "flags" my vehicle. (By "my" I mean for the purpose of temporary possession).

Continuing the scenario, I then "refuse to volunteer" to have my fingerprints taken, as I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG AND AS I SEE IT ONLY A MORON WOULD "VOLUNTEER" SOMETHING SO PERSONAL, and I am then arrested and my DNA ends up on the "national dna databank" and my fingerprints on the "National fingerprint database" and I end up with a criminal record for "resisting arrest" as how could you consider "refusing to be fingerprinted" as anything else, and probably a criminal record for "assault on police" as the police were feeling particularly threatened that day and one imagined that I had pushed him/her?

As I said in another post, society (yes yours as well as ours) has ensured that parents have no right to know what their child has been doing so we would have no way of knowing whether or not our 16 year old has been "disqualified by a court" and so could be driving his vehicle and as a result could end up in all sorts of strife.

To another of your points: You said that when Magna Carta was introduced one one could have anticipated motorised transport. I did say that "freedom of movement" must "be by whatever is the usual means", you have to be real. "Freedom of movement only as far as you could walk" would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

And, assuming that you had a valid point about Magna Carta. Isn't this a good reason to take into account what might happen in the future when making rules?

I seem to recall that this was unsuccessfully challenged recently. You have to ask yourself why would they want to retain this information. Sinister doesn't even begin to describe it.

Stu: I saw a mis-read result in a vehicle stop on a telly programme so it does happen soemtimes. For the bad apples in the force automatic machine prompted action is/or would be the perfect excuse to do something they might not have done off their own back.

Longrider:

I understand that you may be arrested and not charged but admit an offence whereby the police may caution you. You may choose to reject that caution in which case the police may decide to charge you formally and take you to court. If you accept a caution it is your choice but in effect you have admitted your guilt so the police will enter this in their own (local) register of offences. They may fingerprint you so that they can prove you were the person that committed the prior offence if you commit the same offence again. The purpose of the caution is to say to you "Look you were naughty, we both know it, so own up and we won't say anything more unless we catch you doing it again - and we are going to fingerprint you to make sure we know who you are"

So if you commit an offence and are guilty - please consider accepting the caution and the fingerprinting that might go with it. The alternative is to be in front of the magistrates who will throw the book at you giving you a criminal record and possibly a prison sentence (complete with fingerprints! The police will take good care to explain all this to you (been there done that) should you ever be in that position.

Often the police will ask for some other form of ID like a drivers licence of course. Actually I think they like to fingerprint some people just to make them feel really bad and teach the naughty ones a good lesson. Of course if we had ID cards they wouldn't need to do it cos it would already be done.

I was thinking more of those who are not guilty of anything and are subsequently released without charge, the charges are dropped or are acquitted.

I think you're missing the point. The police now routinely fingerprint anyone taken into custody and add that data (name, electronic version of fingerprints) to their national fingerprint database for the rest of time, regardless of whether an individual is charged with an offence or charged and later found not guilty. It's not done to make anyone feel 'naughty', it's done because that's procedure, that's law and that's how the government intends to obtain the fingerprints of a lot of innocent people.

Stephen

Fingerprint and DNA "hits" come from the relevant database managers - they don't arise as a result of a police officer's actions.

If a police officer is vindictive then he will find ways to get at the object of his hatred. The same could be said for anybody with any power. The tax inspector could give you a hard time (as ours did and that was pure vindictiveness), so could a traffic warden, or some council exployees. Whatever you do, don't upset your dentist unless you want to suffer pain, or any of the staff in a restaurant where you are dining!!

We have no choice but to trust certain groups of people. If that trust is abused because the individual is unprofessional, has an axe to grind and misuses their powers or betrays the trust, then they should be punished severely. That's the best we can hope for.

Section 117 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, as quoted above, is exactly that.

It doesn't mean that the prints are taken and STORED, as they would be when they are taken from you under arrest, but they can be taken without your consent in order to be used to ID you on the spot.

my wife was done for shoplifting, got a caution and only after she accepted a caution as a "punishment" they took her fingerprints the old fashioned way - seems a bit of a daft ritual if you are going to store them electronically. They made this all crystal clear as this progressed and you can get a print out of their records whenever. Bad news is that whilst the police were quite nice and the caution only lasts 5 years she has been banned from all the supermarkets forever so I have to do all the shopping.

The police are just ordinary people - my brother-in-law is one and my uncle used to be. Blair might be in all sorts of strange groups but it doesn't mean that the officers on the street are going to follow everything he tells them. Its difficult enough to get them to do their proper job! If you want to worry about this sort of thing remember that the Army reports to the Queen! Now that really is something to worry about!

It's not my understanding that it provides a "general power to fingerprint the public" at all. This section simply closes a narrow but significant gap in s61 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

Under s.117, a police officer firstly has to have reasonable suspicion that the person is committing or attempting an offence, or has committed or attempted an offence, and either:

1. the name of the person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained, OR

2. the officer has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name supplied by the person is his real name.

I'm as much of a libertarian as you are, but I really can't see a problem with this bit of legislation.

What do you mean by that? The Police and the Army report to the Queen utimately, but they do so in her position as head of State and has she swore to uphold and protect the laws and customs of her people I would trust her to know her constitutional postion far more than Phoney Blair or some minor public official.

I just meant that the head of state is the monarch, an unelected person and the army report into the monarch (I am not necessarily referring to the present, seemingly sane, Queen). Yes, according to the British consititution the monarch promises to uphold the laws of the state, but where would the Army stand if the monarch claimed that Parliament itself was not upholding the law of the land and therefore called upon the Army to dissolve Parliament by force?

I am not entirely sure about that but it sounds like a good idea to me if this present lot get too much above themselves! I would like to see TB frog marched out of No 10 arrested on suspicion of Treason when he signs an EU treaty too far. Lets see him having his fingerprints taken and being locked up for several days without charge. It would put him back in touch with reality somewhat.