lozgti

Don't know if someone knows the answer.Work related but outside the scope of what I do.

Man arrested following allegations of commiting a certain offence .Colleague dealt with it but I understand DNA swabs taken by police etc.

Following couple of interviews and CPS considering ,no further action taken.Concern is,despite being wholly innocent I understand police will hold on to this chaps 'info'.Suggestions of a central register of info??

Poor bloke.Done nothing wrong but I would be a bit annoyed and a half if that was me.And I don't subscribe to the 'if he does nothing wrong in the future he is ok' camp .

Do they ever destroy it?

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

Wouldn't have thought so, they will keep it until the end of time! lets just hope he doesn't **** off a local thug who swipes his used pint glass before murdering someone and leaving the glass by the dismembered corpse.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Yes, the police now have permission to keep all profiles on the DNADB once they are on it. This not only includes samples taken from people found not guilty (or not charged at all), but also people who volunteraly supply a sample in the case of mass screenings. Once you're on, you stay on. The police have made no secret of the fact that they'd like the DNA profile of everyone in the country.


M

leonpoole

I think its a good thing they do keep you DNA to be honest

AudiLover

the ****s told me theyd destroy my DNA. They better have! Can I ask for any info they have on me under the freedom of info act?

hedgehog

By James Slack
Home Affairs Editor

POLICE have been given secret advice on how to keep the DNA of tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens on the national database.

[New] Labour came under fire ear*lier this year when it was revealed that law changes had led to the genetic blue*prints of 140,000 innocent people being stored - including those of 24,000 children.

The Home Office, faced with accusations it was building a 'national DNA database by stealth', insisted police forces had the power to destroy the samples.

But chief constables have now been issued with new guidance.

It advises them to reject all requests for DNA to be destroyed other than in 'exceptional cases'.

Even when it is 'established beyond doubt that no offence existed', the advice says it only 'might' be grounds for the sample to be deleted from the data*base.

The rare example of DNA details being taken after a suspected murder, where it later emerges the death was from natural causes, is suggested.

But the guidance, which was issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers, concludes: 'Exceptional cases will, by definition, be rare.'

It even includes pre-prepared letters to be sent to those who request the destruction of their DNA, telling them their request has been turned down.

Police forces have also been told not to undertake any 'proactive exercise' to determine - before a request is made -whether stored DNA samples ought to be destroyed.

A 'library of circumstances that have been viewed as exceptional' will be set up by ACPO to provide chief constables with precedents for decisions.

All forces have been told to prepare for a flood of applications for DNA to be destroyed over the next 12 months.

The advice was attacked by Tory home affairs spokesman Damian Green. He said: 'If the Government wants a database which has the details of everyone, not just criminals, they should be honest about it.

'More than 100,000 law-abiding citizens have been added to the database since last year, even though they have not been charged with a crime.'

The controversy stems from 1999, when Tony Blair ordered a huge expansion in the number of DNA samples taken by police.

Previously, officers could take the DNA only of those charged with a crime. It had to be destroyed immediately if the prosecution was dropped or the suspect was cleared in court.

Under the instruction of the Prime Minister, this rule was swept away so officers no longer had to erase any data.

In 2004 the power to take DNA was extended to cover anybody arrested - regardless of whether they were charged or not. Police are also allowed to take DNA from a child without the permission of a parent or guardian.

On January 1 this year, the net was cast even wider when every crime was made arrestable.

That means dropping litter, driving in a bus lane or not wearing a seatbelt could all get you on the database.

The changes have led to Britain having the largest DNA database in the world, containing the records of more than three million people. A total of 140,000 have never been charged.

The Government admits that, by 2008, police will have the genetic data of 4.25million individuals - one in every 14.

The Home Office has defended the retention of DNA by pointing out it has allowed the police to match 541 samples from teenagers to crime scenes from unsolved offences.

Dracoro

The chances of being incorrectly matched to someone elses DNA is something like in a million.

So if a murder happens in london (say pop of 10m), that's 9 people that could be incorrectly sent down for murder due to dna "evidence". By itself it can't be used, however with lots of other evidence yes......

nufc1892

From HMP Holloway.


Im innocent, hold on there is a screw about to come b

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

That was ten years ago, now it's more like one in three billion, assuming a full profile and no genetic relationship between perp and a possible "wrong" match.


M

danwrx1980

LOL

Dracoro

Is that a uniqueness of dna being 1 in 3bn? I'm referencing what is called a false positive where the actual dna can be different but the tests don't say so as the tests are limited (but new tech may help - is this what you meant by improvements in the last 10yrs?). There are humans involved so mistakes are made as well, dna samples mixed up, multiple dna sample on a crime victim and not necessarily the right one used (i.e. you could **** some girl one night and the next night she happens to get raped by someother bloke and your dna could get involved and so on). The point is, I completely support the dna technology and using it where possible by we can't completely rely in many cases on the dna, certainly it's a big factor, just not the sole one. We can't let it be either else we'll have people planting dna wherever they can etc.

steffiraf

If your house was burgled, wouldn't you want scenes of crime officers to come and print it? How do you think they make a match to offenders if their dna isn't held on file. Get a grip people. If you've nowt to hide, whats yr problem? And dont give the Human Rights Bull****, its been done to death

r32

The real plan is for mass screening, the whole population all kept on a data base. Wait a few years, its in the pipeline.
But then if youve nothing to hide it shouldnt be a problem. Unless your concerned about rights.

Abdabz

I'm all in favour of it, so much so, I often rub cotton buds on the inside of my mouth, just for pleasure

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

The figure being quoted is this: "The odds that a member of the buplic, chosen at random, had the same DNA profile as the stain from the scene, are one in three billion." The wording is important - it is NOT the same as saying: "The odds that someone else's DNA is the same as yours is one in three billion". But it still means it's pretty d*mn unlikely to be anyone elses's DNA at the scene.

As for your false positives bit, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by: "where the actual dna can be different but the tests don't say so as the tests are limited"? The DNA test is limited in the sense that it looks at a short length of one chromasome, but it is one that it pretty well understood.

As for the human errors, these are obviously possible, but all the reputable DNA testers go to considerable lengths to check everything (literally - they employ people who's sole job it to check other peoples work). Multiple DNA samples in DNA tests are a diffierent issue: you get a mixture (since everyone has the same length of DNA being examined) which requires very specialist interpretation. And it's why the police always ask the woman if she's had sex volunterally in the last forty-eight hours.

But you are correct that DNA is an answer, not the answer.


M

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

They don't use cotton buds - this is the UK, not the USA, so we don't slavishly copy CSI...


M

GC8

The people still saying: 'if youve done nothing wrong then youve nothing to hide' are unbelievably stupid !

Simon

Abdabz

and there was me thinking I'd fallen asleep in England and woken in Florida
I still like sticking cotton buds inside my mouth though its one of my many hobbies, along with fettling pumpkins and throwing bbq food over the roof of my house once burnt.
As for the topic though, I am all in favour of DNA screening being used to help capture criminals and believe we should all volunteer to have our samples recorded. If it gets just one more paedo, murderer, rapist or scouser off the streets its got to be a good thing...
This is unless the paranoid amongst us have examples of where wrong DNA matching to crimes has been proven to lead to prison terms being overturned...

Jerome

Get a grip yourself. Don't give us the "if you've nothing to hide, you've got nothing to worry about" bull****. It's been done to death.

Leslie

The ambition of the Government and the Police Service is to have a complete DNA record for every person in the country. They will eventually try to take records of all at birth!

Total control wanted as ever with these loony control freaks.

Les

DCI Gene Hunt

ID card's, Full DNA database, No cash just credit/debit cards, CCTV everywhere.......

scoobynutta555

It's moronic thoughts like this that allow a creeping police state to rise up. Yes DNA is used to trap criminals now, but how long before it's used for something else.

Can't get a life insurance policy in 20 years time? Thank the 'I'm alright I've nothing to hide' *****.

DCI Gene Hunt

Or "Your DNA profile doesn't match the specific job role..."

scoobynutta555

Yes, like that film Gattaca.

TopBanana

Or "Sorry we won't give you life insurance because you're genentically predisposed to a horrific disease"

Moley

iTrader: (9)

As you may have read on another thread i was recently in a similar position.

Was arrested on suspicion of murder and had my DNA taken. (After being locked in a cell for 3.5 hours not having a clue what was going on)

After weeks of waiting they eventully gave me the all clear, and have now actually charged someone with the crime.

I asked a few people about having my records destroyed, and was told by a retired police officer and a soliciter that i could walk into the police station and demand they destroy the records in front of me.

_Meridian_

iTrader: (1)

Do any of you actually understand the DNA profile used by the NDNADB? It uses a small length of "junk" DNA, which is known to have a lot of variation between individuals - which "useful" DNA does not. The section used (and which is likely to be used for many years) contains no useful genetic information - hence "junk". While the police/government might or might not use it for dodgy law enforcement, it CANNOT be used as a back-door health screen.


M

scoobynutta555

All the more reason for some do-gooder to campaign for a comprehensive DNA registration of the populus. After all it's only one small step away from the registration by stealth which we have now. I think the ID card is the perfect vehicle for such information.

TopBanana

Erosion of our civil liberties - Blair laid bare:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/pol...cle1129827.ece

Mick

iTrader: (1)

Thanks TopBanana - worth a read...

Mick