This week the Government climbed down over its proposals to hold the DNA profiles of innocent people on its database for between six and 12 years.

 The proposals were attacked in an an article on this website, which showed that the research on which they were based was wholly unconvincing. Those responsible, the Jill Dando Institute for Crime Science, have said that the research should not have been used in the way it was, because it was incomplete.
 
The climb-down came on Monday when the Government announced it was withdrawing the proposals, fearing defeat in the House of Lords. A spokesman offered the following words of explanation which, try as I might, I cannot decipher.
 
He said: “We have now completed a public consultation on proposals to ensure the right people are on the database as well as considering when people should come off. These proposals were grounded in the research and allowed us to respond to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights both swiftly and effectively. The Government will take the most expedient route to address the issue as soon as possible in order to comply with the European Court’s judgement.”
 
What does this mean? Here’s my translation. “We launched a consultation to buy time. It worked. But everyone, including the people whose research we based it on, told us our proposals were rubbish. We wouldn’t have got them through the Lords. So now we’re thinking of another way to avoid complying with the ruling.”
 
Honestly, what can you do with the Home Office? Its approach to research is so often shoddy.