pslewis

Finally!!

Some sensible views from the Judges bench .....

This is something I have long been a supporter of ......

EVERYONE on the DNA database .... I would also add blood sample and fingerprints.

Start in the Pikey Parks, Council Estates and Gypsy Camps ..... that will solve 95% of all crime.

Then migrate into the more affluent areas to mop up the final 5%.

Anyone who objects would be guilty of a criminal offence and therefore need their DNA, Fingerprints, photo taken in any case

Lets fight back, lets get this country into the kind of place where your grannies and daughters can walk the street at night, where you can drive the car of your choice and park it where you wish, where the door on your house is locked simply to stop the wind blowing it open.

dpb

Along with every Tom dick and Harry eastern european mafia ...?

PeteBrant

It is an idiotic idea. Only those convicted of a crime should be on the database. Not those arrested, not those bought in for quesitoning, not witnesses.

The problem of everyone being on the database is that is shifts the burden of guilt from proving guilt, to proving innocence, and that can't be right.

We all hear stories of the benefits office paying out too much due to computer error, or the Gas company charging £30,000 to a customer.

What happens when the DNA databse makes a mistake? "Opps sorry, didn't mean to put you inside for 25 years, like.."


This quote summed up for me, the typical attitude of the police these days

See, being arrested, doesn't make you guilty. We all know police have long wanted to do away with all that hassle of having to prove someone did something, let's hope they don't get thier way.

pslewis

I disagree, there have been cases where a person - brought in for questioning on a minor offence - have had their DNA matched to a previous serious crime, like Rape or/and Murder!!

You would have a kiddie killer - arrested for shoplifting and released without charge - not have his DNA taken and therefore never be nailed for the killing and torture of a 4 year old child?? as an example ....................... because that's what you are saying!

PeteBrant

You cannot use extreme examples to justify a policy that covers everyone - I could quite easily give another hyothetical extreme example that goes the other way.

Let's deal in realities - People who commit those sort of horrible crimes, Rape, murder etc should be convicted on the strength of the case against them, not because they have thier DNA on record.

I agree the debate need to be had because the situation as it is is ridiculous.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Who should/could be trusted to run such a scheme?

fitzscoob

Homer J Simpson

Its a **** up waiting to happen.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

pslewis

Disagree - why should we be 'limited' in our arsenal to fight and detect criminals ............... just because you don't feel comfortable about it?

Nah, anything that makes catching - just ONE - kiddie killer gets my vote EVERYTIME ............ regardless whether the PC Brigade cry about loss of civil liberties.

It's about time we got TOUGH and I mean really tough!!

Henrik

iTrader: (5)

I agree, let's turn England into a police state! Yee-haaa!

MJW

It's not detecting criminals that's the problem, I think traditional policing methods already have that covered. It's securing convictions that seems to be the sticking point, and adequate sentencing.

dpb

coperal punishment

PeteBrant

It's a bit more than that

(i)It shifts the burden of proof from guilt to innocence
(ii)It relys on the system being fail safe


I think the you have to consider the needs of the majority and not individual cases when dealing with national matters.

warrenm2

Instead of DNA database of everyone, why dont we just tattoo everyones arm with a number?

Oh right - that's been tried hasn't it?

kingofturds

iTrader: (1)

What about the millions of people here illegally, I am not sure they will voluntarily sign up for this The Eastern Europeans at work seem to be able to get anything into the country atm .how about tightening customs first.

jjones

you been down the station to volunteer your dna then pete? if it is such a great idea then lead by example.

then when the labour (well any government because they are all as bad as each other) govt sell the DNA database to insurance companies in 2 years time to cover their huge huge debts and you can't get life/health insurance because your genes are defective don't come crying to me.

DCI Gene Hunt

Even in the 'best case' scenario the insurance companies could use the raw (unnamed) data to calculate (as a percentage of the population) the actual amount of defective genes within the population and use that to increase premiums or even cease certain policy types.

All very dangerous!

fitzscoob

No need for a database here, I've found one!

jjones

who is saying it will be unnamed? what else will it be used for? so you going down the station to volunteer your DNA, after all you have nothing to fear and you should lead by example.

jjones

DCI Gene Hunt

The man does protest too much me thinks? something bothering you?



PS - A DNA styleee corner as well

DCI Gene Hunt

...........

jjones

ah the old "if you have nothing to hide" bull****, yes something is bothering me, many of the fators already mentioned on this thread combined with the fact that I don't trust the (any) government to look after my best interests when they eventually force us all to provide samples.

i have no criminal record and have "nothing to hide", but i disagree with a national dna database. this is my opinion and it would take a lot more than a "nothing to hide" argument to sway it.

myblackwrx

iTrader: (1)

Would the government be willing to put their DNA on file or the Police?

DCI Gene Hunt

Do you REALLY think you've a choice in this? because you haven't.... it will be maneuvered into law on the back of some 'anti-terror' drive and that will be that....

Before this goes too far..I'm also against it, here's why.... we (in the UK) have the data protection act which looks after how all our personal data is stored and managed. My company have just issued new contracts and within that new contract is a clause whereby they can 'send' this data to a country where there are NO data protection laws.. and I can do **** all... apart from resign etc.

So whats to stop our government doing the same thing, oh yes and when its introduced they'll be new laws for its safe guarding... until its sent to China to be 'held' by a UK branch or government agency

TopBanana

Do they store your entire DNA sequence, or just a fingerprint of it? I don't want to hand over the essence of my very make up to big brother.

jjones

but we do, unless we let apathy rule as per usual - we are masters of our own destiny!! unfortunately we all seem to be excellent about moaning about things on internet forums but ****ing useless at doing anything about it in the real world.

davegtt

Niether do I, we definately dont want a clone of you do we

PeteBrant

No - It's just a "slice". Imagine a helix, viewed from top down, which is then sliced in two across from side to side - what you see is your DNA record. So in essence its 2D plan view of a 3D object.

Your entire DNA sequence would probably be terrabytes of data.

jjones

three gigabytes of computer data storage space are needed to store the entire genome