This is bollocks @brianpaddick. This issue goes to the heart of trusting the police with data retention and destruction of evidence. It should have been destroyed after the 2008 case but a cop kept his own private copy of the data #DamianGreenhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/damian-green-case-former-police-officers-public-interest-brian-paddick?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet …
1st, my understanding: they didn’t retain data - they kept personal notes about it. 2nd, “Chris Pounder, an expert in data protection laws, said: “You could argue it was in the public interest the information was disclosed, because Mr Green was dismissed at the end of the day.””
-
-
My understanding was he unlawfully retained a copy of the evidence and kept it once he left the policy force. So a member of the public retained evidence, notes or otherwise, of an investigation. Clearly data protection safeguards have failed if he was able to keep information.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Certainly it needs an investigation into what information he kept and why he sat on it for 9 years. At the minimum he retained personal identifiable data.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I'm no lover of the Tories but this puts the police and retention of information into a criminal case into a very grey area. As an NHS worker, you would not accept me retaining personal notes about people.
-
There is an investigation by the Information Commissioner.
-
It's certainly a can of worms.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.