The Department of Education from keeping records on innocent people under the Protection of Children Act (Poca list)

There is, quite rightly, serious concern about the police keeping DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people.

However, did you also know that the Department of Education have a policy of keeping records on people who have come under suspicion regarding children ie violence/sexual and have been proven to be totally innocent. The 'Poca list'  (Protection of Children Act) is checked as part of a CRB check.

They are keeping records for 10 years on people suspected of misconduct even if proven later to be totally innocent.

There internal policy states –

'This category includes allegations relating to misconduct or pupil mismanagement of children and including allegations of theft, or misuse of school property, harassment of an adult and other less serious non sexual offences or behaviours'.

They are keeping such records even when a person has been shown to be totally innocent and not charged with any offence.

They do so just in case some similar allegation takes place in the future.

Like the keeping of DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people such a practice by the Department of Education is a disgusting and a breach of civil liberties.

 

Why is this idea important?

There is, quite rightly, serious concern about the police keeping DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people.

However, did you also know that the Department of Education have a policy of keeping records on people who have come under suspicion regarding children ie violence/sexual and have been proven to be totally innocent. The 'Poca list'  (Protection of Children Act) is checked as part of a CRB check.

They are keeping records for 10 years on people suspected of misconduct even if proven later to be totally innocent.

There internal policy states –

'This category includes allegations relating to misconduct or pupil mismanagement of children and including allegations of theft, or misuse of school property, harassment of an adult and other less serious non sexual offences or behaviours'.

They are keeping such records even when a person has been shown to be totally innocent and not charged with any offence.

They do so just in case some similar allegation takes place in the future.

Like the keeping of DNA and fingerprint records on innocent people such a practice by the Department of Education is a disgusting and a breach of civil liberties.

 

Compulsory paternity tests

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Why is this idea important?

With statistics as high as 1 in 20 fathers not being the biological father of their child and the implimentation of a DNA database I think it's time we began DNA testing all fathers.  This will help prevent  storys such as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-10845112

The law would help protect mothers, fathers and children and in most cases cement the bond between father and child and in 5% of cases allow the parner to choose or not to choose to undertake the task of raising a child that is not biologicly his own. 

Removal of the innocent from Databases

All innocent people must be taken off all data bases, including those found innocent of sexually related incidents and violent crime, because innocent is innocent regardless of what.

These innocent people are given a life sentence in effect because their names remain linked to crimes they did not commit, but are seen by anyone checking at job interviews and other such occasions.

They must be removed from CRB lists, DNA bases and police records of all types including arrest reports.

Please see to this as a matter of urgency  and restore some faith in British justice, which I thought was a model for other countries.

Why is this idea important?

All innocent people must be taken off all data bases, including those found innocent of sexually related incidents and violent crime, because innocent is innocent regardless of what.

These innocent people are given a life sentence in effect because their names remain linked to crimes they did not commit, but are seen by anyone checking at job interviews and other such occasions.

They must be removed from CRB lists, DNA bases and police records of all types including arrest reports.

Please see to this as a matter of urgency  and restore some faith in British justice, which I thought was a model for other countries.

Naming of unmarried/absent fathers on birth certificates for geneology reasons.

I was recently unable to name a father on my childs birth certificate when registering his birth, as the father is both not married to me, and absent from the childs life. At present, if a father's name is to be entered on the birth certificate, current law requires either; the father to be married to the mother, be present at the time of registration or provide the registrar with documentation to express his wish to be included on the certificate in his absence. As a result many children who's biological father is absent are being left with the indignity of having a blank space on their birth certificate where the father's name should be. This law is creating future generations of children who will effectively be eliminated from geneological, anthropological and historical records to a greater or lesser extent.

At present parents stated on birth certificates are directly linked to parental responsibility and as a result the law is in place to protect men from having all the implications of this linked to them if the child is not biologically theirs. However if the system was altered in a way that eliminated this problem, whilst still giving children the right to have a father named at their birth, both sides would be better served. For example a birth certificate as well as a 'parental responsibility certificate': the former for the purpose of geneology ect and the latter being linked to the current laws for birth certificates.

As parents have to provide no identificaton upon registering a birth under the current laws the process is already open the a level of abuse. For example, in my case I registered my child's birth with my partner (who is not the biological parent of my child) present. I was asked if I was the mother and then my partner was asked if he was the father. We explained that my partner was not here to register his name, being honest people. Yet it would have been very easy for him to have just replied 'yes' and the registrar would have been non the wiser. With research suggesting upward of 20 percent of UK residents having incorect parentage registered on their birth certificates surely this system is ready for a review?   

Why is this idea important?

I was recently unable to name a father on my childs birth certificate when registering his birth, as the father is both not married to me, and absent from the childs life. At present, if a father's name is to be entered on the birth certificate, current law requires either; the father to be married to the mother, be present at the time of registration or provide the registrar with documentation to express his wish to be included on the certificate in his absence. As a result many children who's biological father is absent are being left with the indignity of having a blank space on their birth certificate where the father's name should be. This law is creating future generations of children who will effectively be eliminated from geneological, anthropological and historical records to a greater or lesser extent.

At present parents stated on birth certificates are directly linked to parental responsibility and as a result the law is in place to protect men from having all the implications of this linked to them if the child is not biologically theirs. However if the system was altered in a way that eliminated this problem, whilst still giving children the right to have a father named at their birth, both sides would be better served. For example a birth certificate as well as a 'parental responsibility certificate': the former for the purpose of geneology ect and the latter being linked to the current laws for birth certificates.

As parents have to provide no identificaton upon registering a birth under the current laws the process is already open the a level of abuse. For example, in my case I registered my child's birth with my partner (who is not the biological parent of my child) present. I was asked if I was the mother and then my partner was asked if he was the father. We explained that my partner was not here to register his name, being honest people. Yet it would have been very easy for him to have just replied 'yes' and the registrar would have been non the wiser. With research suggesting upward of 20 percent of UK residents having incorect parentage registered on their birth certificates surely this system is ready for a review?   

law of the removal of dna records of juveniles

This law obliges all police to ensure that all dna and fingerprint record of juveniles are removed when they have attained a certain age.  The person concerned should be informed of this.  If juveniles have done their "time", been fined, or performed community punishment (such as attending local exercise and instruction sessions), they should then be allowed to continue adult life with a clean slate, rather than a lifelong label of "criminal" hanging over them.  Some children who have done crimes (sometimes little more than pranks) when aged 12 or 13 do not attend magistrates court until then are 14 or older and are charged as if adults. It is unfair that police secretly hold on to this DNA to boost their record base. 

Why is this idea important?

This law obliges all police to ensure that all dna and fingerprint record of juveniles are removed when they have attained a certain age.  The person concerned should be informed of this.  If juveniles have done their "time", been fined, or performed community punishment (such as attending local exercise and instruction sessions), they should then be allowed to continue adult life with a clean slate, rather than a lifelong label of "criminal" hanging over them.  Some children who have done crimes (sometimes little more than pranks) when aged 12 or 13 do not attend magistrates court until then are 14 or older and are charged as if adults. It is unfair that police secretly hold on to this DNA to boost their record base. 

Abolish the oppressive DNA datase and discretionary justice metered out by the police

Abolish the excessive powers given to the police to retain DNA data on people who have been wrongly accused or acquitted or have had no further action taken against them removed from the database.  The European Court ruled that this was excessive.  This breaches the principles of the right to privacy and a fair trial.  It gives those intent on making a false allegation legitimacy.   

There is no mechanism whereby the discretionary powers metered out by the police are reviewed.  These should be given back to the courts so that there is independent review.   At least this means there is a trial by peers by an indpendent prosecutor.  Even if a citizen challenges the police using the current mechanism of internal review and the IPCC they will virtually be guaranteed a biased and unfair review.  Any invesigation on the conduct of the police is conducted firstly internally by the Professional Standards Department (Job for the Boys) who are generally less than competent and are not interested in getting to the truth .  If the citizen is able to appeal to the IPCC (who in a recent report was deemed not fit for purpose) they are unlikely to get a fair and effective investigation.      

Why is this idea important?

Abolish the excessive powers given to the police to retain DNA data on people who have been wrongly accused or acquitted or have had no further action taken against them removed from the database.  The European Court ruled that this was excessive.  This breaches the principles of the right to privacy and a fair trial.  It gives those intent on making a false allegation legitimacy.   

There is no mechanism whereby the discretionary powers metered out by the police are reviewed.  These should be given back to the courts so that there is independent review.   At least this means there is a trial by peers by an indpendent prosecutor.  Even if a citizen challenges the police using the current mechanism of internal review and the IPCC they will virtually be guaranteed a biased and unfair review.  Any invesigation on the conduct of the police is conducted firstly internally by the Professional Standards Department (Job for the Boys) who are generally less than competent and are not interested in getting to the truth .  If the citizen is able to appeal to the IPCC (who in a recent report was deemed not fit for purpose) they are unlikely to get a fair and effective investigation.      

Get former drink drivers off the DNA database

Though nobody personally wants to be identified as a convicted drink driver, the fact and truth is that at one time or another millions of people have fallen foul of this law, including many celebrities, and otherwise good citizens like doctors, teachers and many others.

There are NO legal defences to this law, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. even taking the wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth) which makes it one of the most suspicious laws on the entire statute books.

So although everybody accepts that seriously drunk drivers, or even possible those narrowly over the limit are a potential danger to the public, it  remains mostly "a victimless crime."

It is of course very popular with the police, who are very keen to use it to swell their arrest and conviction statistics, whereas what the public really cares about is muggers, vandals, car thiefs, burglars, rapists, muderers and so on, where in each case there IS a genuine and often very traumatised or harmed victim.

At present, the situation is that a convicted drink driver will have this noted on their license for around 10 years, and could even end up in prison on repeat offences, even though they have not ever injured or killed anybody.

But worst of all it means that though they have harmed or stolen from nobody, they have a permnanent criminal record.

So I don't object to drink driving over a certain limit being a criminal offence, because it is a danger to the public, but it may interest readers to know that at least 90% and as many in places as 96% or more of road accidents, and in particular DEATHS, are NOT caused by drink drivers, but simply by incompetent or careless motorists, and drink drivers are scape goated en masse for serious problems they are rarely causing, and even in cases where drink drivers have caused injury or death, it has rarely been shown that alcohol was THE CAUSE, but only that drink was INVOLVED in the offence.

So at the very least please, can we have people who are otherwise good citizens, who made maybe one mistake and ended up criminalised after being accidentally over the limit on perhaps a single occasion years or decades ago, taken off the DNA database and have their criminal record struck off (let's say after 3 years perhaps if they don't reoffend), when they are not common criminals, who have never actually committed any serious crime against any other citizen, and pose no threat to the public?

Because on the whole, these people are not genuine criminals, simply people who made an error of judgement on a single occasion and harmed nobody.

Why is this idea important?

Though nobody personally wants to be identified as a convicted drink driver, the fact and truth is that at one time or another millions of people have fallen foul of this law, including many celebrities, and otherwise good citizens like doctors, teachers and many others.

There are NO legal defences to this law, no extenuating circumstances (e.g. even taking the wife to the hospital when she's about to give birth) which makes it one of the most suspicious laws on the entire statute books.

So although everybody accepts that seriously drunk drivers, or even possible those narrowly over the limit are a potential danger to the public, it  remains mostly "a victimless crime."

It is of course very popular with the police, who are very keen to use it to swell their arrest and conviction statistics, whereas what the public really cares about is muggers, vandals, car thiefs, burglars, rapists, muderers and so on, where in each case there IS a genuine and often very traumatised or harmed victim.

At present, the situation is that a convicted drink driver will have this noted on their license for around 10 years, and could even end up in prison on repeat offences, even though they have not ever injured or killed anybody.

But worst of all it means that though they have harmed or stolen from nobody, they have a permnanent criminal record.

So I don't object to drink driving over a certain limit being a criminal offence, because it is a danger to the public, but it may interest readers to know that at least 90% and as many in places as 96% or more of road accidents, and in particular DEATHS, are NOT caused by drink drivers, but simply by incompetent or careless motorists, and drink drivers are scape goated en masse for serious problems they are rarely causing, and even in cases where drink drivers have caused injury or death, it has rarely been shown that alcohol was THE CAUSE, but only that drink was INVOLVED in the offence.

So at the very least please, can we have people who are otherwise good citizens, who made maybe one mistake and ended up criminalised after being accidentally over the limit on perhaps a single occasion years or decades ago, taken off the DNA database and have their criminal record struck off (let's say after 3 years perhaps if they don't reoffend), when they are not common criminals, who have never actually committed any serious crime against any other citizen, and pose no threat to the public?

Because on the whole, these people are not genuine criminals, simply people who made an error of judgement on a single occasion and harmed nobody.

Retention of intimate body samples on a database

Intimate body samples collected from a suspect should be destroyed upon the decision that no further action will be taken or upon acquittal, whichever is sooner.

Why is this idea important?

Intimate body samples collected from a suspect should be destroyed upon the decision that no further action will be taken or upon acquittal, whichever is sooner.

I want my Country back you dont own it we the people do!

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

Why is this idea important?

Get rid of most CCTV

Get rid of ANPR

Get rid of DNA and other databases

Get rid of speed cameras

Get rid of SORN (DVLA)

Scrap ID cards and Bio passports

Deport all known terror suspects

Get out of the EU

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by removing from the DNA Database any records relating to innocent people

The immediate removal of all details of innocent people from the DNA database and restricting any Police DNA database to consist only of people who have been convicted of a crime, and even then for a maximum period of 5 years following release from prison. On arrest of course a suspect’s DNA can be taken to be matched against unsolved crimes, but should then also be destroyed once checked.

Why is this idea important?

The immediate removal of all details of innocent people from the DNA database and restricting any Police DNA database to consist only of people who have been convicted of a crime, and even then for a maximum period of 5 years following release from prison. On arrest of course a suspect’s DNA can be taken to be matched against unsolved crimes, but should then also be destroyed once checked.

STOP POLICE TAKING DNA AND FINGER PRINTING OF INNOCENT INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR TARGETS AND BY DOING SO COLLECT EXTRA BONUSES FOR THEMSELVES

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Why is this idea important?

My idea is to curb the Law which allows the Police to take innocent people into the cells in order to meet their targets (which came into being under the Labour Government) and by doing so collect extra bonuses for themselves at the year end if they met those targets of profiling innocent peoples DNA DATA  AND FINGER PRINTING.

 

All innocent people who have had this happen to them should  have that data removed (just like Damien Green had his removed ) IMMEDIATELY and be informed of this by the POLICE and not only that but restitution should be made by way of including an APOLOGY by the CHIEF OF THAT POLICE AUTHORITY  to that innocent individual who has been released without any charges made against them. 

 

The Police should have no Authority to abuse their Powers in such a way. 

Driving license renewal

After being asked to renew my license at a cost of £20 pounds, I can't help but think that you could and should use this as the new ID and Passport.

I for one am sick of having to carry so many bits of information with me to prove who i'am!.

And i can't help but think the only people who can object to DNA profiling is criminals themsefts. I should know this as i was at one time a criminal i would have hated the idea of my DNA anywhere.

Why is this idea important?

After being asked to renew my license at a cost of £20 pounds, I can't help but think that you could and should use this as the new ID and Passport.

I for one am sick of having to carry so many bits of information with me to prove who i'am!.

And i can't help but think the only people who can object to DNA profiling is criminals themsefts. I should know this as i was at one time a criminal i would have hated the idea of my DNA anywhere.

DNA Database – Destroy All Records Of Those Not Convicted

No Conviction should mean that NO DNA is held.

All DNA samples held on the Database should be DESTROYED for EVERYONE

who has NOT been convicted of a Criminal offence.

Once an investigation has been completed then those NOT accused should have

their DNA samples Destroyed WITHIN 5 DAYS and RECEIVE written Confirmation

that this has been done.

 

Currently, procedure for DNA removal is totally unacceptable as it is dependent upon

the heuristic decision of the chief constable. Again, as with ALL police matters,

NO ACCOUNTABILITY, often very long times awaiting Chief Constable decision.

Complete rubbish.


 

Why is this idea important?

No Conviction should mean that NO DNA is held.

All DNA samples held on the Database should be DESTROYED for EVERYONE

who has NOT been convicted of a Criminal offence.

Once an investigation has been completed then those NOT accused should have

their DNA samples Destroyed WITHIN 5 DAYS and RECEIVE written Confirmation

that this has been done.

 

Currently, procedure for DNA removal is totally unacceptable as it is dependent upon

the heuristic decision of the chief constable. Again, as with ALL police matters,

NO ACCOUNTABILITY, often very long times awaiting Chief Constable decision.

Complete rubbish.


 

Abolish the Retention of DNA for those Not Convited of a Criminal Offence

Dear Sir,

 

I invite you to introduce legislation to repeal the law permitting the retention of DNA of those either arrested or charged of an offence, but not found guilty of that offence, so that that DNA information is immediately destroyed upon an outcome that does not result in a guilty conviction.

Why is this idea important?

Dear Sir,

 

I invite you to introduce legislation to repeal the law permitting the retention of DNA of those either arrested or charged of an offence, but not found guilty of that offence, so that that DNA information is immediately destroyed upon an outcome that does not result in a guilty conviction.

Allow Illegitimate Children Citizenship Through Their British Fathers

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Why is this idea important?

Currently, only British mothers and married British fathers are able to pass on their citizenship, by descent, to their children. The one and only group left out of their birthright are children born before 1 July 2006 to unmarried British fathers.

There is a registration system put in place for fathers to register their minor children for UK citizenship.  However, it is being misused by immigration officers.  There are numerous news stories about children shut out of British citizenship because an immigration officer refused to register an illegitimate child's birth.  Once that child reaches the age of 18, they are exempt from the opportunity to acquire British citizenship. 

No other group of children have a cut-off date attached to their births for nationality purposes.  Only illegitimate children have such unfair rules applied to them by the British government.  Every other child born to at least one British parent can apply for citizenship at any time in their life. 

Both the Nationality, Immigration, & Asylum Act and the Borders, Citizenship, & Immigration Bill sought to remove this inequality completely.  However, each time it was removed, continuing to shut out children born to unmarried British fathers, while giving British mothers the right to pass on their nationality to their children, regardless of birth status.  It was last year, during the Borders Bill, when the then Immigration Minister, Phil Woolas, stated that giving illegitimate children any rights would be a "step into the unknown".  Another MP told a "who's your daddy" joke.  

This behavior towards illegitimate children is unacceptable and goes against both the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.  The British government must find a way to offer some path to citizenship for the very last group it has admitted to discriminating against — illegitimate children born before 1 July 2006 to British fathers.

This is clearly a human rights issue.  Only one group of children are being singled out of their nationality rights.  Remove ALL cut-off dates so that ALL children born to at least one British parent can register their births and acquire British passports, not just specific groups.

Remove the right for the police to take DNA samples and other personal samples and Photographs

Remove the right of the Police to take (by force if necessary) DNA samples Photographs Finger prints and foot prints from any one questioned by the Police.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the right of the Police to take (by force if necessary) DNA samples Photographs Finger prints and foot prints from any one questioned by the Police.

Right to refuse to supply DNA and other Personal identification

I want the Citizens of the UK to have their rights restored to refuse to supply a DNA sample or be fingerprinted and have foot prints taken and to have ID photos taken by the police and State.

I also want records currently held to be destroyed after 5 years and if you are not charged with a crime or found not guilty then for this information currently held by the Police and the State destroyed immediately.

Why is this idea important?

I want the Citizens of the UK to have their rights restored to refuse to supply a DNA sample or be fingerprinted and have foot prints taken and to have ID photos taken by the police and State.

I also want records currently held to be destroyed after 5 years and if you are not charged with a crime or found not guilty then for this information currently held by the Police and the State destroyed immediately.

Remove innocent people from the police DNA and fingerprint database

People are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty therefore the police should not be allowed to hold onto peoples DNA and fingerprints unless they are proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps it would be better if the police only took DNA and fingerprints of those charged rather than everybody arrested and quite oftern on faulse accusations.

Why is this idea important?

People are supposed to be innocent untill proven guilty therefore the police should not be allowed to hold onto peoples DNA and fingerprints unless they are proven guilty in a court of law. Perhaps it would be better if the police only took DNA and fingerprints of those charged rather than everybody arrested and quite oftern on faulse accusations.

ALL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD BE SCRAPPED

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD HAVE THE CAUTION OVERTURNED, ALL THEIR PERSONAL DETAILS, DNA, PHOTOS, FINGERPRINTS AND ALL OTHER DATA TAKEN BY POLICE AND OTHER AGENCIES (CRB, HOME OFFICE, ETC) SHOULD BE DESTROYED, DELETED, ERASED. THE STATUS OF PEOPLE WITH FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE STATUS AS THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN ARRESTED OR IN TROUBLE WITH THE POLICE. THE STATUS OF PEOPLE WITH FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE STATUS THAT MANY OF US PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE OR EVEN ARRESTED BY THE POLICE ENJOY.

Why is this idea important?

THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ISSUED FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD HAVE THE CAUTION OVERTURNED, ALL THEIR PERSONAL DETAILS, DNA, PHOTOS, FINGERPRINTS AND ALL OTHER DATA TAKEN BY POLICE AND OTHER AGENCIES (CRB, HOME OFFICE, ETC) SHOULD BE DESTROYED, DELETED, ERASED. THE STATUS OF PEOPLE WITH FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE STATUS AS THOSE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER EVER BEEN ARRESTED OR IN TROUBLE WITH THE POLICE. THE STATUS OF PEOPLE WITH FORMAL POLICE CAUTIONS SHOULD GO BACK TO THE STATUS THAT MANY OF US PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER BEEN IN TROUBLE OR EVEN ARRESTED BY THE POLICE ENJOY.