By Last week a horrendous knife murder took place on the same road I live on. As of yet, the motives of the killer are unknown, and the police are investigating the incident. Without hypothesising, or getting caught up in the hysteria of such a shocking incident, it is difficult to rule out the possibility of the person - or people - who are responsible, reoffending before they are caught.
Currently, the DNA of convicted criminals is kept on a database for six years, and the Conservatives want to reduce this to five, as this is believed to be the period in which another offence is most likely to take place.
As a member of the Labour Party, I would like to argue why I believe a DNA database, where swabs of DNA are taken at birth - and of people coming into the country - is not only fair but also vital.
“Do you want to live in a society where everyone is considered a potential criminal?”, asked Will Self on Question Time last Thursday. The reality, and I hate to break it to you, Will, is that everyone is a potential criminal.
The DNA argument cuts both ways. Not only has the current database helped convict 270 people in the last year, but also the use of DNA has released innocent people from wrongful inprisonment. When questioned on this, it is easy to flare up Minority Report rehtoric, and state that the government having your DNA is somehow ‘scary’, but the only logical objection I could possibly have to it is if I planned to commit a crime in the near future. I don’t, if you’re asking.
I think the fact that convicted criminals were on the database first is another reason people would feel aggrieved, as it may be perceived as something of a humiliation, a punishment, perhaps; this is precisely the reason why the importance of DNA in the solving of crimes, and its influence in preventing crime, need to be explained properly.
Of course, DNA evidence does not solve a crime in itself, but it certainly has a significant role to play. In the run up to the general election, we need to set out our exact intentions, and not be afraid to stand up for extending the DNA database to the entire British population. If it reduces crime, or helps to solve incidents like the one that occurred on my street more rapidly, then taking a swab from everyone is a small price to pay.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Surely no matter what you personally believe, the right policy in a democracy is the one most people want. I'd have more respect for you if you were to say "Well I personally believe in the database but I can see that everyone else disagrees, so in the interests of democracy I think we need to rethink this one".
It's the ploughing on with something deeply unpopular, being devious about its implementation and then accusing people who disagree with it of being extremist/criminals that we see again and again from this government.
Like I said in my last post, I can't understand the mentality of those who are so fundamentally opposed to mainstream opinion. I don't think they are normal people, and even though I respect their right to hold strange opinions, I certainly don't think they should be in a position of power.
I'm personally more than happy to stand up to these freaks of nature in order to bring mainstream opinion back to the centre of political policy.
You still haven't answered any of the questions I posed other than to try to imply we'd all get used to it eventually...
So to make it simple for you:
I will under no circumstances give my DNA over willingly. I imagine many others feel the same. How then will you get your perfect reality of "The only fair way is for everyone to be on there"?
Areests?
Prosecutions?
Forcibly taking DNA from protestors?
You have no answer because you know you dare not give an answer for fear of looking exceptionally police statist or showing the pointless nature of the statement you made.
However I do notice that you will not answer some questions and in particular I would love to have your response to the following which I also asked some days ago
"1.What lengths would you go to in order to live in a crime free country? Perhaps you like the sound of Singapore - where I believe they have very low rates of crime but also the death penalty for a number of offences.
2. Do you include all crime in your vision of a crime free country? I think I would rather a few speeding motorists got away with it than being forced to give any info to a government that are likely to be bigger crooks than 99% of the population."
Pay raise!
?
No, it would seem that technique doesn't work.
So actually, you're not helping, but hindering.
You can point out the practical difficulties all you like, I'm not denying that it's a massive undertaking. But the principle of a national DNA database is one I believe in. I'm sure there would be practical difficulties with taxing people if tax was invented now.
"What!? You're going to take my money? For living here? Why!?"
My point is that just because it's something you aren't used to it doesn't mean you won't get used to it. When the benefits are realised, people won't be too bothered about their child's DNA being taken at birth, if anything it would deter their child from breaking the law.
As for your last comment, I spent hours on here Monday night defending myself. The fact that you want to keep talking about the issue is thoroughly irritating. If you can't understand my position on it by reading the article and the previous comments then I would be surprised as you do seem intelligent. This will just have to go down as another thing we disagree on.
"The only fair way is for everyone to be on there"
So answer the questions I asked before then:
"Could you explain how you intend to get the DNA of all UK citizens?
Given that most of us will refuse to give samples willingly, are you proposing the police forcibly take samples and maybe arrest a few tens of thousands of protestors?
Are you also going to instruct NHS staff to have to forcibly take DNA samples from newborns, maybe whilst having a police presence to restrain parents who don't agree?
Have you any idea of the levels of civil unrest all this would cause? "
Or is your version of debate to run back every now and then and say "nah nah I'm right and your wrong" then run off again?
Roadblocks every 2 miles and a 9PM curfew would also help the police.
Have you volunteered your DNA to the police yet?
Look, did you watch Newsnight last night? I suggest you do on iPlayer, they were talking about how much a database like this would help the police, and what sorts of crimes would warrant going on the database.
The only fair way is for everyone to be on there. I stand by it. You disagree with me.
End of discussion.
police-I mean would you hand to the police something you found after reading this:-
http://www.libdemvoice.org/teenager-arrested-for-handing-in-a-mobile-phone-13230.html
I have does in the past,now I would not.
(a)blisteringly naive
(b)actually seeking to establish a 'benevolent dictatorship'
(c)have a financial interest in forcing 60+ million people to undergo massive data entry, data capture, data storage systems and all the associated clutter so they can make a quick buck.
In the face of all these arguments against a DNA database containing details of innocent law-abiding citizens, anyone defending it would seem to have at best catastrophically poor judgment about what is good for society, and at worst some sort of serious psychological problem resulting in them wanting an unhealthy degree of control over other people.
Either way, anyone who cares about society and making life better for normal people will instantly realise this is a terrible idea that will only alienate everyone and destroy even further the already damaged relationship between the public and the State. Therefore the only moral thing to do, the thing that will serve the greater good, is to stand firmly against the DNA database.
I noticed the following paragraph.
"The report says there is very little concrete evidence on the importance of the DNA match in leading to a conviction and whether the suspect would have been identified by other means anyway."
It blows Matthew's theories right out of the water. Care to comment Matthew? If you're man enough to demand our DNA, you should be man enough to admit when you are wrong.
It also states that three quarters of young black men are on the database. The finding risks stigmatising a whole section of society, the equality watchdog has warned.
The revelations will fuel the debate about the DNA database, the world’s largest. They are included in a report by the Human Genetics Commission, an independent government advisory body. It criticises the piecemeal development of the database and questions how effective it is in helping the police to investigate and solve crimes.
Jonathan Montgomery, commission chairman, said that “function creep” over the years had transformed a database of offenders into one of suspects. Almost one million innocent people are now on the DNA database.
From the Times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/nov/24/dna-database-inquiry?CMP=AFCYAH
The biggest DNA database in the world with "no clear statutory basis or independent oversight".
"the commission had received evidence from a former police superintendent that it was now the norm to arrest offenders for everything possible. "It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons, if not the reason, for the change in practice is so that the DNA of the offender can be obtained,""
Matthew were are you? I'd have thought you would be here arguing how this is all perfectly acceptable?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6544706/DNA-of-protesters-could-be-held-for-life.html
protest against the goverment,get on the databases.Also
a quote from the Torygraph
"The landmark came as a poll showed eight in 10 people believe a Big Brother state in the UK has eroded freedoms and that the Government cannot be trusted with personal information"
The landmark is a tenth of popularion on the DNA database and
as I have said the number of detections using this is falling:
from a peak of 41,148 in 2006-07 to 31,915 in 2008-09.
Quality not quanity is the answer.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230362/The-DNA-snatchers-Police-arresting-innocents-just-grab-genetic-details-Big-Brother-database.html?ITO=1490&referrer=yahoo
Evidence (backed by a senior police officer) that the police have been arresting innocent people solely to build up the DNA database.
Three quarters of black men aged between 18-35 are on the database, that seems reasonable to people does it?
A 200 pound fee for innocent people to remove details from the database, that’s not an abuse by the state?
Anyone now want to argue that misuse of powers by the police and state isn't cause enough to oppose the DNA database?
Matthew you argument to "trust the authorities" just died a nasty death, just like the possibility of a DNA database hopefully.
to prove their guilt.
I think matthew has every right to raise this issue:it should be
examined and hopefully the problems raised in this discussion
will have some influence in the future.This topic will not
go away either on a UK or even a Euro level so a chance
to rehearse some arguments might be of some good.
For that reason I don't have a Tesco club card either!
So a vigorous response to your demand is hardly a hypocritical overreaction..
Some information on facebook usage is here(bit old thought)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/feb/21/facebook.digitalmedia
I don't think a DNA database is for the greater good of society.
Could you explain how you intend to get the DNA of all UK citizens?
Given that most of us will refuse to give samples willingly, are you proposing the police forcibly take samples and maybe arrest a few tens of thousands of protestors?
Are you also going to instruct NHS staff to have to forcibly take DNA samples from newborns, maybe whilst having a police presence to restrain parents who don't agree?
Have you any idea of the levels of civil unrest all this would cause?
Disclosure has wrecked many voluntary organisations (from the Scouts to Age Concern) ability to provide services that fill in the gaps in New Labour's Social Welfare Program. Simply because people who give their time freely objected to be inferred as guilty until proven otherwise and refused to sign up.
What part of the fundamental right of trial in the UK (in both legal codes) - you are innocent until proven guilty or you admit guilt of any crime - do you not see the storage of DNA ultimately abuses. It is that important for the basis of UK Law and Society to oppose this idea at every turn.
The problem with all forensic evidence is it can easily be manipulated to prove what ever you want - depends on your expert and their ability to bamboozle juries.
A real life example: A girl was murdered near Biggar, strangled in a sexual assault. It was clear a soft cord like those used for dressing gowns was the implement. Fibres from the cord were like those in the dressing gowns of lads in the nearby approved school and on the night in question 20 lads had been let out on an unsupervised pre-release night. The only other evidence was a salivary trace on a bite mark which provided no DNA but did serum traces revealed the assailant had blood type A+. At a stroke your DNA database is rendered useless. Luckily the photograph of the bite mark was taken with a scale rule and the five lads with the specific blood type at the school were invited to permit the taking of dental models. The forensic dentists at Edinburgh University found over seven unique marks that only a specific bite could have made and all identified the same assailant on an independent blind sampling of all five models.
The point is, as made by the Scottish Law Lords, a DNA database would have little or no impact as fresh DNA from the accused would need to be provided for direct comparison (ie using the same chromatography machine), hence the database is inadmissible in evidence.
You still have not answered the number of folk who have pointed out anyone's DNA can be replicated in a test tube which I could then use to stitch you up - if that was my desire.
As for trust in government, in the 35 years I have been an adult in the UK - working in the armed services and the NHS for the majority - I can assure you I would trust any politician as far as I can throw them and advise others to think likewise - whether elected or promoted to chief constable as there is little difference.
"You have misunderstood my point here. If there was no crime in a society, everyone in that society would be more free. The DNA database contributes towards that ideal of a crime free society, in my opinion."
That all depends on your definition of freedom. Guilty until proven innocent is not a "freedom" that I would relish. And it seems that your opinion doesn't seem to be shared by many people.
If you think government would be satisfied with just a DNA database, you are naive in the extreme. As the old saying goes "give someone an inch, they'll take a mile". The idea of satellite based speed limiters on cars was proposed by this governemt not too long ago. Domestic violence is a serious problem that could easily be solved by having CCTV cameras inside peoples homes. Should we do that? Limiting the spread of sexual disease would be extremely beneficial to society. So should the governement take control of our sex lives and issue sexual intercourse licences? Where do you want to draw the line? You can think up any crazy scheme that would restrict people's rights and privacy and argue that it would be for the benefit of society. That doesn't ever make it right.
"As for Mavern Jones' point, we already trust numerous government agencies such as the Foreign Office with highly personal information about us."
No Matthew, we don't. We ENTRUST them with our information. That's not the same as TRUST. As you are aware, many of those government agencies have proven that they are incapable of keeping those very personal bits of information secure. Officials have had their laptops stolen or simply left them on their train/cab seat. Disks have been lost. The DVLA sold (yes SOLD) personal information without permission. Most people don't TRUST goverment departments. And they are right not to.
"...most people are quite happy to publish personal photos on the internet via Facebook"
Some people publish personal photos on facebook, that's true. Conversely, some people don't. It's a personal choice. And therein lies the difference. Publishing personal details/photos on facebook isn't mandatory. The DNA database you advocate would be. It should also be noted that those people that decide to publish personal information/photos on facebook decide who gets to view them. The list of people who have access is fully customisable by the owner of that information. If they want to share their information with all 250 million Facebook users, they can. If they want to limit access to just their list of friends, they can. If they want to exclude specific individuals, they can. It's their CHOICE. They OWN their own personal information. You might recall that Facebook recenlty attempted to change their terms and conditions so that users' information became the property of Facebook. They backtracked pretty quickly because the vast majority of Facebook users were up in arms about the idea.
"people are protecting their DNA as if it was their favourite pet"
My DNA is mine. MINE! You have no right to it. The government has no right to it. You would have no legal right to take my car or my laptop. What makes you think that you have the right to take my DNA? Damn right I'm protective of my DNA.
Please feel free to get the Labour Party to adopt a DNA database as policy. Rest assured, it'll be the last thing they do. They'll never see power again.
You have misunderstood my point here. If there was no crime in a society, everyone in that society would be more free. The DNA database contributes towards that ideal of a crime free society, in my opinion.
As for Mavern Jones' point, we already trust numerous government agencies such as the Foreign Office with highly personal information about us. For goodness sake most people are quite happy to publish personal photos on the internet via Facebook. When something personal is being asked to be handed over for the greater good of society, you get this hypocritical overreaction, as though people are protecting their DNA as if it was their favourite pet.
You wrote..."It won't, on its own, create a crime free society. I never claimed such a thing."
Really? 13 hours ago you wrote...
"Surely a nation where there is no crime would make you more free"
A nation where there is no crime, is by definition "crime free". See, you did claim such a thing.
Mavern Jones makes a valid point. If according to your assertion, every man woman and child in this country is a potential criminal (I don't agree), then that must surely include those entrusted with the running of your proposed DNA database. So hundreds, possibly thousands of potential criminals will have access to all our DNA samples.
All newborn children to be fingerprinted at birth.
Children of school and advanced education age to be fingerprinted during school hour hours.
Working adults to be fingerprinted while at work.
Unemployed to be fingerprinted when either first claiming Benefits or when signing on.
DLA claimants to be fingerprinted during case reviews.
Pensioners to be fingerprinted when either when first claiming pensions or at Post Office when collecting their winter fuel allowance.
The dead while at the morgue.
Sitting MPs and Lords to be exempt by Act of Parliament.
That just about covers it for you Matthew.
If I'm a potential criminal then so is everyone in the government (I'm being charitable by using the word "potential"). Either we're ALL potential criminals, including Gordon Brown and Peter Mandelson, or we're not.
For a party that bangs on about equality (which is a meaningless concept anyway), Labour has a very good knack of attacking this country's self-esteem and making its inhabitants feel small and powerless. I suppose it's a kind of equality...we all feel equally pissed off!
There is a spectacaular breakdown in trust between politicians and the public and until that is resolved, handing over any more personal details to politicians than is absolutely necessary will continue to be a major vote loser.
For once I agree, but the Tories have to ensure they do all that they can to be a representative and transparent Government, or this thing will continue to rear it's ugly head.
We need, from whatever Party some pragmatic leadership.
I think Labour and I say "Labour" with respect to the whole PLP, departed from its calling after 1997. You cannot dismiss the good things they did in 1997, such as the minimum wage, after 2002 though there was a serious U-turn in policy.
Today the devil is in the detail, MP's have analysed the rules (they seem to love so much) to ensure there are many ways around there own rules. Part-time contracts that prevent people from claiming dole money (some contracts that permit as little as three hours work a week).
So the people in charge use the catchy gimmicks to sell policy, but on the ground (at a time when millions are feeling the pain) the gimmicks do not manifest.
Obsession with manipulation of legislation though, is all you can expect from a bunch of losers who have very little in life experience, in particular professional experience.
Remember John they are constantly compensating for their failures and inadequacies and the BNP are simply capturing those people who have fallen afoul of all this.
This does not detract from the fact that the BNP is a serious threat to the lives of hundreds of thoudands of innocent men, women and children.
In fact should the BNP be elected, the unelite politicians may well choose to condemn those that voted them in, I can just see them doing it in their supreme arrogance.
The reason we have seen no involvement of Ministers in barking is because they are completely out of their depth with no idea what to do.
They have been meddling with things they never really understood John. We are in a Constitutional crises and the electorate are trppaed in a narrow place.
The move of Labour away from this - and it happened before 1997 - is welcome, but in many areas since they have proved less competent than ideal.
But rather a Tory government than anything remotely like Griffin's rabble-rousing.
This may be controvertial. Outside of the obvious racist nature of Nick Griffin, he is actually championing working class issues and needs. I understand the delivery is very poor when they are elected, however to get elected you need the public to think you know what they want.
What is it telling me? The Labour party divorced the working classes in 1997.
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
You write very well, its a pleasure to read your comments. However, I think you are wrong in your presumption that DNA alone can prove if someone is innocent or guilty. That's simply not the case, a database would allow for the police to potentially draw up a list of suspects based on DNA found at the scene.
I think the film you are referring to is Minority Report, where they jail people for what they refer to as 'precrime'. I can only draw weak comparisons between the database and the film, no one is being jailed for something they haven't done by going on a DNA database - and that DNA is only being used to convict them of an actual crime if they decide to commit one.
I can't say anything about your lack of faith in the government to use this data in an appropriate way, that's your viewpoint, but its one I disagree with. Perhaps its naive, perhaps its idealistic-al. Do you at least agree with the idea in principle but not on a logistical level?
How do you think so many schools, trust hospitals, etc appear to reach their 'targets' - because they have people whose sole job is to find the easiest and least detectable way to make the 'numbers' look right. Put someone on a trolley and they are no longer in A&E and count as a 'completion' as they are waiting for a decision on admission. They may still require stitching or other medical procedures but as soon as they are 'considered for admission' that's the end of the A&E event timing.
There is a sad history of police forces across the UK manipulating forensic evidence to win their prosecution cases. I am old enough to remember the infamous West Midlands Crime Squad at their worst and that is what will happen with the DNA database you think will reduce crime. Sadly it will not. In fact I would suggest that the biggest increase will be in miscarriages of justice. Hence this database will be used to infringe and limit people's right to a fair trial by manipulation of data. That is the whole point of the Scottish Law Lords ruling on the use of DNA - to prevent that from happening by ensuring a correct series of checks and balances are in place against an over weaning state and its agencies. To protect people's human rights and right to a fair hearing.
For me the crux of why so many of New Labour's bills and acts fail time and time again is they do not, like your proposal, address the key foundations of law in Scotland and England which are the right to a fair hearing and that no one, not even the Government or Crown is above the Law of the Land.
The Crown has by and large accepted they are not above the law but Government, particularly this current New Labour shambles, have not as the evidence of the last years from the Iraqi Invasion based on an over hyped dossier, numerous criminal breeches of PPER 2000 that went unchallenged, through to Parliamentary expenses and Harman's arrogant response to her recent Road Traffic Act summons clearly demonstrates.
As you can now engineer DNA from proteins and bases, how would your database idea prevent me from creating matching segments of your DNA from the database then placing it at the scene of a crime to incriminate you?
If you and police chum are right, as your DNA is all over the scene of the crime - you must be guilty and that can not be a breech of your civil liberties or human rights, can it.
That's why the idea is dangerous.
It was a few years ago , There is one law for voters and no laws for the mps , I was trying to get across that if this proposel goes through there will be the law of unintened cons , The justice system is slow and many innocent people have gone through what i have been through , No dna database would have helped , this is where reform is needed , I dont know what the answer is .
ricki
How is it an attack on people's right to a fair trial and their civil liberties? You keep saying this but have failed to justify why it would be.
I would like to offer a example of "justice", I ot aressted and charged with gbh , I was banned from visiting my partner and banned from going to Dagenham, I went from court to court until it went to crown court 18 months later , The person who acussed me never turned up to give eveidence and the it was thrown out , This is how the system can be abiused at the moment .
By the way i never assaulted anyone but lost 18 months of my private life .
ricki
1/ This government are rubbish at IT, really really rubbish, they haven't a clue, they p*** money up the wall left right and center on IT that never ever works.
2/ Given the choice would you like all of your personal information including your DNA details left on a train or in a taxi?
We need leaders and integrity, we need honour and transparency, sadly we are stuck with the unelites. The weak, craven and cowardly.
Poverty (still the same percentage of the population as it was in 1942 at 20%), illiteracy (95% of young people in HMYP are functionally illiterate and innumerate), unemployment, substandard housing, inequalities in health care, dependency on the state .... the reduction of all will have a far greater impact on crime than your DNA database.
To do what you say you want to do, you will have to persuade the Scottish people to give up rights and liberties they hold dear which have been enshrined in Scots Law since 1326 and which were held immutable by the 1707 Act of Union but go on, please, encourage Labour in Scotland to support you and hand the SNP an even bigger vote share in Scotland than they currently have. Better still just get Millbank to put a padlock on John Smith House and tell everyone in Labour in Scotland to go home as your DNA database will win the day for them in 2010.
How hard is it to get you to see your idea is a dangerous attack on people's right to a fair trial and their civil liberties. A case that the independent Scottish Law Lords have already agreed on in their stipulations of the use and storage of DNA used in criminal prosecutions in Scotland. If this was a Tory blog I could understand your inflexibility but it is not and I can not.
This database is just going to be yet another costly mess along the lines of New Labour's MoD Procurement System (just in time but its not), PFI (6x the cost of traditional public financing) or NHS (England)IT Network (billions of pounds spent and it will never work).
In terms of Constitutional "control" there is no difference I am afraid.
The scary thing for me has been that the only Politician to not only listen to me , take me seriously, but to also use my terminology is Nick Griffin.
Nobody else.
What does that tell you?
"Everyone who lives in this country at the moment and everyone born from here on in, is what I am proposing."
So the millions of us who have not committed a crime and who refuse to co-operate would be arrested I guess?
Get ready for a mass campaign of civil disobediance and unrest.
Slightly scary that a member of a mainstream political party with aspirations of public office holds these views. I do hope some of you Labour people do something about this.
That's a fair point. Clean up politics and then its feasible, but then you have to take into consideration future governments I suppose. Total transparency and absence of corruption is perhaps me being idealistic, but on the surface I don't believe I've said anything a lot of people are thinking: if the technology and infrastructure are there then why not? At present there are problems with the technology (and people who leave discs on trains), and the infrastructure (the government), as you have said, may abuse this information. But if that's the case then surely there are ways around it? Surely the answer then is to ensure no one abuses this information, and work at enhancing the technology and security rather than disregard the idea completely?
Anyone with any common sense and who is not a inexperienced idealist will see this for the dangerous and repressive suggestion that it is.
The public will rightly never go for it and hence it is a vote loser that no sensible party will touch with a barge-pole
Do you understand the crimanl justice system ? from start to finish?
ricki
Of course not Bob. Sorry for the misunderstanding here. Everyone who lives in this country at the moment and everyone born from here on in, is what I am proposing.
Don't think this cannot happen. It can and does.
Remember the old man arrested under Terror legislation at the Labour conference for disagreeing with the Labour Leadership.
These people genuinly believe they are superior and that we are inferior. You only have to watch their conduct when questioned. Any group in society that believes itself to be elite are dangerous.
Your focusing on the idea that you present in a decent society. The tragedy is not your idea, it is that most of the establishment from bankers to the police and politicians have been exposed as corrupt.
This is not a good time for more power and information to be granted to the State. it has already been abusing the incresed powers it has granted itself.
The government showed their contempt for the Courts when they overly redacted the information they were commanded to give to the public by the Courts.
We cannot as things stand currently entertain your proposal because the idiots in charge cannot be trusted with it.
Welcome to my view! I have nobody to vote for!
You may have answered this so I apologise.
I had a look through the comments but could not find it.
Are you saying that my wife, being foreign and a potential criminal, should have her DNA taken, and I, as I have been born a long time should not?
well siad better way than i could have put it .
ricki
One thing for certain, is that the Tories recently said they wanted to place the police under local political control - how scary is that?
You could be investigated under Terror legislation police would then be able to plant genetic evidence while you are locked away and you are screwed.
The BNP might not be elected but the way things are going we are going to end up with them anyway. There is no escaping this as the current corrupt Labour and Conservatives intend to see all this through.
They will rule over us as ruthless dictators and we will not be able to question anything, we will have a choice of voting for Tory A or Tory B. We will be monitored and controlled at all levels.
There is no political alternative at the moment.
No of course, I'm aware this wouldn't solve the world's problems, but it would help a dam sight better than people on here are giving it credit for. I respect your professional opinion on this though, and it has given me valuable insight into how even genetic evidence can be refuted, which is obviously a good thing - but surely that adds weight to my argument? If a list of suspects can be drawn up from the database then all can defend their innocence then does that not mean there is nothing to fear and it can only help?
I cannot remember, I watched Shrek a long time ago (Top tip: Star Trek has just been released on DVD and it is brilliant).
The idea of a National DB is terrifying when viewed in the context of dictatorship and misuse the state could make of this information. It must be fought for this reason.
I was just asserting that a senior police officer happens to agree with me. It's his job to solve crimes, you know.
If you're more likely to be caught you're less likely to do it.
End of discussion.
It is not always that clear-cut. You need to get some serious experience of evidence in Law.
Your talking like a child who has complete faith in a system which will never be 100%.
Lawyers both defence and prosecuting can qustion evidence including genetic, criminals can plant evidence, they do it a lot. They are not stupid. DNA database does not guarentee anything, but it would help sometimes.
There is no 100%
Welcome to Law
"better 10 gultiy persons go free than 1 innocent be sent to jail "
It would only help find the "guilty" people they wanted to find , once you give power to the state it is much harder to get back .
ricki
What's your point?
Finding someone after the crime, is not crime prevention.
In any case I think you've failed to notice someone elses gentle hint.
I did notice.
End of discussion.
What's worse: a guilty person walking the streets or a guilty person being brought to justice?
What's worse: an innocent person in prison or an innocent person free because DNA evidence has contributed towards their defence.
I believe in innocent until proven guilty, but I don't believe this would contravene such a thing. It is just a measure which helps find the guilty people.
What was the name of the chap in Shreck, Lord Farsomthing. Wanted a 100% perfect town or whatever....
Thats obsurd , why not tag everyone and have cameras in there homes? Crime prevention , have you ever known a system set up by the state that has not made mistakes/been left on a train /been abused? This would give the exeucitve unlimieted control of the voters , What happens if the bnp get power how would they use it?
ricki
It won't, on its own, create a crime free society. I never claimed such a thing. But it will help in a number of cases, such as the one Stuart Cundy was in charge of. We disagree on this, and I really appreciate the debate but I'm standing by this proposal because I believe in it, and believe it would make a difference.
There is no need for us to get personal, or rude. I'm sure I agree with you on a lot of things we just happen to disagree on this.
"Law and Order" is not perfect and can never be trusted 100% that is why we have an appeal process. All human systems are flawed.
Have you heard of innocent till proven guitly? What your are proposing is a reverse of centriy old law , If you want to change that to gulity till proven innocent that would seed to much power to the state.
ricki
An innocent person should have their DNA taken as part of a national contribution towards law and order. Whilst my philosophy of 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' has come under some scrutiny, I stand by it 100%.
When you can explain how it was possible for the IRA and nowadays the Real IRA and every professional criminal to bypass DNA evidence, it will suggest you have some knowledge on the subject, and understand why it won't work.
I'm only interested in cutting crime, not infringing on people's rights. It's a shame you would feel as though what I am proposing would infringe upon your rights, and that your rights are more important than measures designed for the sole purpose of crime prevention.
Det Supt Stuart Cundy, a senior police officer: "It is my opinion that a national DNA register - with all its appropriate safeguards - could have identified Sally Anne's murderer within 24 hours.
"Instead it took nearly nine months before Mark Dixie was identified, and almost two-and-a-half years for justice to be done."
Yes you are suporting law and order , Just forgeting people civil liberties , Can i repeat a question , why should a innocent person have there dna taken?
ricki
Thanks for the comment. I understand what you're saying, and I hope you become a more trustworthy MP than those you have very little or no faith in.
Such scaremongering! Comparing me to fascist dictators, the BNP, what else? Am I the new Jedward? Yes, I am proposing a measure to support law and order, because I believe the existing measures aren't sufficient. What's your point?
Visit a few court cases at Maigistrates and Crown Courts. The number of times Police "lost" CCTV evidence when asked to provide it to the Court was unbelievable.
Your idea in principle is good. But unforunately many people who are supposed to serve us, don't.
I don't think anyone is questioning your motive in trying to do something that benefits us all, and yes, DNA evidence is and can be very important. But like all other forms of evidence it can manipulated and abused.
In your hands I would have faith in it. You come across as a decent fellow, but sadly there are many people who are not.
But the simple fact remains, that those in power are frequently ultra vires, they frequently abuse their positions for a variety of reasons, especially with this kind of information.
You were right to raise the issue for discussion and debate, as it is contraversial but there is and are very few topics that are 100% salient.
But that is why we are here to discuss the pros and cons of the issue you raised.
Everybody would like to be free from crime.
How many posts have you actually bothered to read that explain why your proposal doesn't do this?
Go back to the drawing board and come back with a proposal that works, and stop trying to flog this dead nag.
Why should a innocent person have there dna taken ?
ricki
Where's your supporting data?
What you proposing is currently illegal.
Yes, I'm open to new ideas, delving into the unknown in the pursuit of a better society. Why is that?
'All available evidence point to you being wrong'.. what? The Guardian poll?
Have you asked the police? Have you asked the entire population? Have you even considered the benefits of this?
If I come across as though I'm shouting, turn down the volume in your head.
Do you mean open minded? Forward thinking?
By writing this article I am of course challenging Scottish Law, I am already aware of that. I don't see how it would contravene Human Rights, I disagree with that judgement entirely. As I have said before, I believe you are only truly free when you are free from crime and the fear of crime. Do you agree with the Scottish position on such a database?
I'm half Maltese not Greek, but don't let that stop you.
Some advice for you, 'comrade': be more progressively minded and less patronising. Perhaps then I will bother to listen to you.
Yet, three days on, we still have 'Zarba the Geek' trying to defend the indefensible with regards to a UK wide DNA database - which he can't have because Scots Law has already deemed such a database as illegal and a breach of an individual's human rights and any case based on this proposed database will be thrown out of court in Scotland.
Here's a wheeze: what if someone the Metplod wanted to stitch up in England, using this database, fled to Scotland and requested refugee status on account of a serious breech of his or her human rights ...... I mean the Scots Law Lords told Tony where to park himself in the original let Al Megahri go scam ... so I wonder, given what has already been decided in Scots Law, if they would be willing to hear a refugee case on this basis. Maybe the person could flee to Eire where they have a similar stance to Scotland on the use of DNA or Holland ...... or appeal to the EU Court of Human Rights ...
I leave you to ponder that lot for a little while, Zarba the Geek.
If you bothered to listen yourself (or read) then you would know that my definition of freedom includes freedom from crime and the fear of crime. To compare me to the BNP is completely disgusting, there is nothing fascist about what I have suggested.
Please learn some listening skills before you start campaigning in earnest.
The last time you called me a Tory I was annoyed. This time I am laughing as you have continued to show that there is a vacuum between your ears. Sadly you do not know when to shut up and are making a complete fool of yourself with your juvenile outbursts.
Some advice shut up, get some life experience and come back in 20 years.
I'm getting fed up of childish shouting from you on this.
All available evidence points to you being wrong. You haven't been able to contradict a single point raised.
Your original article is factually incorrect, and you've not bothered even acknowledging this.
How many chances do you need to be given to provide supporting evidence, or dare I say a way out of making yourself look more of an idiot?
'Mom and apple pie' dreams are fine in their place, but you want to deprive all of us of our liberties illegally because you have a pet theory. You're concepts are no more Britsih than those espoused by the BNP fascists.
I don't know what they teach political science students, but common sense is seemingly way down the list.
Clearly repeating the same tripe often enough so that somebody might think it's believable is somewhere near the top.
Read through the whole blog post. Do you think you come across as well meaning and combative, or as arrogant and the type of person who would be contemptuous of data that shows there are no WMD in Iraq?
You are meant to be representing a valued and much loved democratic socialist party. (Check out the definitions of democracy and police state.)
Just at the point when the party is starting to accept policies and proposals should be fact based (See Left Foot Forward) you are going off and trying to undermine everybody else's good work.
@ john smith
'Local council candidate believes DNA database would help to cut crime' - how dare I make such assertions?
How am I supposed to back up my points with evidence when what I am proposing has never been done before. I can only use what I know.
john smith, you aren't fooling anyone, everyone on here knows you're a Tory.
@ Mike C
How is taking a fingerprint from you 'destroying your civil liberty'. Surely a nation where there is no crime would make you more free, which is the ultimate purpose of what I am proposing?
I'd like to see what the local Southend papers makes of this next week, assuming they have one, and a political editor, and that person checks out blog posts from council candidates.
On reflection he's probably safe from warranted attention just now. It would have to a very, very, slow news day.
and I would fight any attempt.
The problems with CCTV is not in its use, but in limitations
with recording/resolution.In any case the police have a good
idea of who was responsible,but DNA evidence would be useless in my case:being mugged leaves little useful DNA.DNA can't solve
every type of crime.
The best defence against crime is good intelligence,a visable
police presence and the trust of the local community..
I wondered how many crimes are solved by DNA and how useful
it is.I was suprised to find the number of crimes solved
**falling** according to these reports..
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6884681.ece
http://info-wars.org/2009/10/22/dna-database-now-holds-profiles-of-5-6m-britons-but-crimes-solved-using-it-falls-by-a-fifth/
Now this does not mean DNA is in itself useless but I suspect
that criminals are now more aware and so take the necessary
precautions.It will interesting to see if this trend
continues.
You said to Guy M "I respect your opinion, but for you to insinuate you are speaking on behalf of the entire country is rather outlandish."
Would you care to take a look at a poll the Guardian did?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/poll/2009/nov/11/dna-database-civil-liberties
As you can see, 84.9% agree with Guy M's stance.
You of course are free to surrender your freedom and liberty at any time you wish, but to presume that you have the right to withdraw my own personal freedom and liberty without my consent is what is outlandish.
You are right, it will only get worse if the electorate show themselves up by electing Mr Zarb-Cousin.
I'm not sure about 'certain' politicians. 'Most' of the current crop seem to be living brain donors.
And some of them appear to have added oxygen thief to their list of abilities as well.
It is a bit depressing. Still it can't get any worse surely.
"I'm glad you acknowledge that something needs to be done to reduce crime rates, and that they are at an unacceptable level in this country."
Yes crime rates are unacceptably high. The attitude that "prison doesn't work" is largely to blame. Those that advocate community service and short sentences seem to forget that one of the primary purposes of prison is to remove the offender from society. Once in prison, the offender cannot re-offend.
"...Has CCTV helped? I think it has helped convict a lot of people,"
Care to support that claim with some evidence? Your thoughts don't count as evidence.
"...and if there is an area of a community where there are high levels of crime, the first thing the local residents ask for is a CCTV camera."
No, the first thing the residents ask for is more police presence. When refused, the second thing they ask for is CCTV. The fact that residents ask for CCTV, doesn't mean that CCTV is effective. Just that the residents really don't have much option for anything else.
Wish I'd thought of that. It would have been a lot quicker that what I did write.
Whilst I'm impressed with your persistence in pushing something you believe in, I believe you are deeply misguided.
You've not answered any substantive point with anything other than empty rhetoric. We can get this type of thing from our current crop of time serving politicians. The next generation has to show they are different and better than that.
What we have currently has already been found to be illegal. You are in effect advocating breaking the law further.
I like the comment about better CCTV cameras. They will always be limited by lens focal length, the range of the object within the field of view, and CCD resolution. You canna change the laws of physics.
Professional criminals have worked out how to bypass the risks of DNA evidence being gathered. Anybody giving it some thought understands this because we have a law enforcement service that has to make sure they don't contaminate a crime scene. The criminal merely needs to take the same precautions.
You are making no attempt to win hearts and minds, if you ignore the need to substantiate any of your claims. Your rhetoric can only appeal to the heart, never the mind because of this.
When someone takes a knife with them as protection, they are not intending to commit a serious crime, therefore the deterrence effect you hope for with this authortarian system just doesn't stand up to more than a moments thought.
Your whole argument is based on foundations of sand.
Labour needs thinking politicians for the future, who can appeal to the minds as well as hearts of the electorate. Are you going to be one of those people, or are you going to flog dead horses on a purely emotional basis, and doom us all to permanent opposition?
I respect your opinion, but for you to insinuate you are speaking on behalf of the entire country is rather outlandish.
Actually I do object, but it's my job and livlihood.
There's no way I'd go on holiday there, even though I have friends there.
"That's where we disagree, you can spout the 'police state' rhetoric all you like, but I want to live in a country where there is no crime, as that would make us more free"
Have you ever heard the comment about "freedom"?
Your "freedom" would impact on someone elses "freedom".
I do not want to be stopped on the street and have my details demanded of me. I do not want my records on government databases and intrusive questions asked of me and my family. I do not want to by videod, tracked, traced, analysed by state security and police services.
In other words Matthew I want to live in the UK that most posters on this site remember from before NuLabour.
I would not trust you and those like you with one item of personal data, I would not help or engage with any of those you said I should or authorised to have power over me.
You propose a deeply repressive system thathas no place in the UK. Please either stand for election under these policies and get what you deserve from the electorate or move to China where I'm sure the "People's" Communist Party will welcome you with open arms.
It's an interesting one. I believe that a DNA database would certainly send a message of "if you do it, you're going to get caught", and they are far more likely to. I agree with what you're saying here: if crime didn't exist, we wouldn't need to put any restrictions on our civil liberty, but seeing as crime exists (and we don't live in an anarchical society) these restrictions are necessary, and I believe, make us more free as a consequence of lower crime rates.
If CCTV caught the incident and was useless then there needs to be a reform in how the CCTV is used, rather than to disregard it completely. I'm sorry to hear about the quite unacceptable crimes you were a victim of, but let's be clear on this point: with both a DNA database and had CCTV been properly used, and the scumbag responsible caught, would you be happy for your DNA to be on the database too?
That's what it comes down to.
I'm glad you acknowledge that something needs to be done to reduce crime rates, and that they are at an unacceptable level in this country. Has CCTV helped? I think it has helped convict a lot of people, and if there is an area of a community where there are high levels of crime, the first thing the local residents ask for is a CCTV camera.
I can imagine circumstances where a horrific crime is committed locally and everyone nearby is asked to help solve it by voluntarily providing finger prints/DNA or whatever. And I would be very happy to do so, providing the info was not used for anything else and I could see it being destroyed immediately afterwards.
Your position seems to be far too extreme - but perhaps you could enlighten us by answering the following:
1.What lengths would you go to in order to live in a crime free country? Perhaps you like the sound of Singapore - where I believe they have very low rates of crime but also the death penalty for a number of offences.
2. Do you include all crime in your vision of a crime free country? I think I would rather a few speeding motorists got away with it than being forced to give any info to a government that are likely to be bigger crooks than 99% of the population.
How about having the freedom of not having our E-mail monitored?
Maybe the only way to reduce crime is to reduce
the number of crimes:3,600 new crimes under labour and counting..
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/more-than-3600-new-offences-under-labour-918053.html
Also I take issue with your assertion that thousands of people
have been convicted using CCTV.Every time I have been a victim
of crime (one racial,one mugging) CCTV has been useless and both
events happened in clear view of at least two CCTV cameras.
This article from the Guardian would seem to suggest that is not
an isolated case..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/06/ukcrime1
I think the current restrictions on libery have little to do with
fear of crime,goverments will always try to get as much information on its subjects as it can and will resort to any method it can to do this.Technology has opened a pandoras box
which allows more detailed information to be collected,and as
such it it the duty of every citizen to ask if its justified
for the goverment to ask for the information and to vigorisly
object (and to refuse if possible) if not.
I ask, what exactly do you want the freedom to do?
"I personally would rather see a criminal go free than to live under a police state."
That's where we disagree, you can spout the 'police state' rhetoric all you like, but I want to live in a country where there is no crime, as that would make us more free.
you point is to do with disney land? There is always Euro-disney
or disney land in Japan.)
People will vote with their feet and I can't see very many
americans giving their DNA to their own goverment yet alone
a foreign one:one that has seen its civil liberties erroded
over the past few years.
It is not just techology-there are some pretty serious problems
for instance I suppose that you would have to take a DNA sample
via a cheek swap-how much compensation would you give to a
immigration office bitten by a Hepatitis infected tourist? or
a HIV postive one? Would an immigration officer want to do this
procedure in the first place?
One scheme would be to fingerprint tourists on arrival
but as these webpages show it has its problems too..
http://www.japantoday.com/category/national/view/deported-s-korean-woman-passed-through-japans-biometric-immigration-screening
http://www.japanprobe.com/2009/02/20/the-tape-that-beat-japans-fingerprint-scanning-machines/
I guess the best solution is for each country to share the DNA
information of convicted criminals-better focus rather than a
simplistic shotgun approach might just be a better bet.
I note no reply to my comments re. data systems and their security. No reply to the eternal issue of abuse by law enforcement of powers given to them. No reply to your lack of understanding of British rights of freedom that have evolved over thousands of years.
I personally would rather see a criminal go free than to live under a police state. May I suggest that if you are so in love with the vision of 1984, you move to China and leave the UK to those of us who remember what it was like 12 years ago before the onset of the NuLabour jackboot.
Sorry, my point about the US was that the checks there are rigid on entry (it was a rebuttal to ian jordan), but no one seems to have a problem with it.
On that, though, do you have no problem with your thumb print being taken by the US government?
Some men are potential rapists, yes. Would I hand over my DNA so a rapist may be caught in the future? Yes.
Not every crime has DNA left at the crime scene is true, but the majority do, and even if it helps to catch one person, one murderer or rapist, I believe it is then justified.
Fair enough, your arguments are based on it being logistically impossible. However, the idea should not be discredited just because the technology is not there at the moment.
I find you not travelling the the US because of security checks admirable on the one hand (you can live without going to America, trust me) as you are standing up for your principles, but at the same time if your children really wanted to go would you really be so stubborn?
Anyway what you suggest is not practial-getting a DNA sample
without contamination is not simple,and to do this at a busy
border control desk? Then there is the danger of samples
being swapped and god knows what other problems could arise..
The lost of freedom in this country has already had an adverse
impact and this would make it worse..
In any case I doubt that the number of crimes committed by tourists would make this worthwhile (I tried to find some
figures but in the time I have I could not find any,I suspect the
number to be tiny)
Are you sure this is happening in the US.
My last trip to Detroit included taking of thumb prints and a picture. No DNA.
They weren't insults obviously.
Just like every man is a potential rapist I suppose?
So how would you propose preventing child abuse? All I have inferred from your comment is that the common sense approach would be to do nothing.
This government is a joke - actually it is no loger a joke, it is desperately serious, and we need a new one with some sense. If you cant see the harm they are doing I feel sorry for you.
Empty, personal insults aside, you make some good points. Everyone is a potential criminal though, let's just be clear about that, and crime is unacceptable, and the message a DNA database would send out is 'if you commit a crime, you will be caught'.
You obviously don't see crime as much of a problem in our society.
Hardly. Nobody complains about the rigid checks on entry into the United States. It'd simply be a case of tourists giving a DNA sample over to the database when they come in, and when they leave it is removed.
I firmly believe this will happen on an EU scale anyway.
Interesting to read that Guy specialises in data systems. I work in IT for the NHS so maybe our similar views stem from the kind of work we do and our observations. I see at first hand how the state handles confidential data, and although 99.99% of the time this is secure and safe, no system is perfectly foolproof.
One concern about the DNA database is that, at several points, this data will be accessible to relatively junior people. All it takes is one link in the chain to fail and the data becomes vulnerable. Someone leaving a memory stick on a train, a laptop being stolen from an office, someone hacking into the system...
Also the idea that we could all be potential criminals is hardly going to endear voters, is it? Labour needs to encourage people's aspirations, not insult them. The trouble with anything "Big Brother" is that it is highly disrespectful and patronising to the general public, especially when announced by repulsive politicians lacking even the most basic empathy and people skills.
industry stuffed then!
DNA on scene is not always sufficient to provide the legal level of infallibility required. Criminals these days are not so stupid to leave DNA lying around. For the more grotesque examples, the use of bleach, caustic soda and acid on their victims to destroy their DNA is used.
Or criminals using someone else's DNA to divert Police attention.
With a national DNA database what would the Police then do?
Go on 'fishing trips' with it. Use the DNA they do have and then perform a search for a list of potential suspects. So rack up many innocent people accused of a crime because their 'infallible' DNA says so.
Next of course, the lobbying comes to weaken the legal non-repudiation of a 'match' from say 1 in 10 million to 1 in 100,000.
As for 'everyone is potential criminal', what an utterly despicable thing to assume. Innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Then again, Labour have trampled over civil liberties with the zealousy of the very worst authoritarianism seen in this country since the formation of the modern Parliamentary system.
You have absolutely no idea at all just how thoroughly stupid that makes you sound. Still, you are probably of such limited intellect that the phrase "Nothing to hide, nothing to fear' is your idea of a sound rebuttal too.
There are many crime fighting tools that could be deployed to help the Police. One that springs immediately to mind is the Police National Database (PND), a single means for all law enforcement agencies to share and search their intelligence.
This government have been woefully incompetent in their backing for this intelligence database (incidentally costing a mere hundred or so million) preferring to waste billions on the crass stupidity that is ID Cards.
Next, would be to remove the duplicated targets and crime recording, after all do we need two crime surveys?
Next, reduce the paperwork, to file a crime report, create a electronic form onto the PND and have some back-office types bang the info in. Get the plod back out there making their presence felt.
Finally, civil society, enshrine in law in very clear terms the ability for the public to defend themselves, to protect their families and protect their property. Forget Human Rights, commit a crime you lose all rights.
We hear how more police are on our streets. I`m afraid the only time I see them in my area is when they pop into the local Tesco for their papers and snacks.
Matthew, you say " we need to set out our exact intentions, and not be afraid to stand up for extending the DNA database to the entire British population."
This will be a surefire vote loser for the Party, I can see it as can many others on this forum.
THERE IS NOT A DATABASE ON THE PLANET THAT HAS BEEN BUILT THAT WILL NOT AT SOME POINT HAVE DATA TAKEN FROM IT "ILLEGALLY".
From a crime point of view there is not a resource provided for law enforcement activities that has not at some point been abused and twisted to provide a wrong result.
May I say to you Matt, that from your name and picture you don't appear to be 10th or 20th generation British (I may be wrong). This is not a racist comment merely an observation where I query whether you have had the basic liberties and freedoms that Brits have held for hundreds of years seep into your consciousness.
The DNA database is deeply anti British and rouses exactly the same level of anger in people as the 42 days detention farce, ID cards and other "police state light" nonsense Labour has pushed these last 12 years.
Personally I'd like to see you stand for parliament with around 400 like minded Labour candidates as you'd never get elected in 100 years with this sort of anti-freedom, anti-British crap as policy.
If you want to solve crime , Then why not relase the police from the station and cut down the paperwork , Having been arrested (so have 1st hand experince) , The amount of paperwork that needs doing is mind-numbing , We should be conctrating on education and addiction not some scheme that will cause more injustice than we have now .
ricki
Also, in the case you mentioned, not having a knife would have stopped a stabbing, not having the DNA evidence, if he actually was stupid enough to leave the weapon behind, to catch him afterwards.
Have you experience of ANY crime scene. I think you've spent too much time watching CSI.
The Keystone cops who turned out to deal with a burglary at our place couldn't even be bothered to take the fingerprints clearly on the broken window pane.
In fact they did more damage than the burglars, but that's not the point.
The police don't give the impression of caring about 'low level' crime. Your whole argument seems based on ignorance and wishful thinking.
I don't doubt you intend well, but so did the guys who set up the state police apparatus in 1920's Germany, probably the most liberal democracy in Europe at the time.
Think about it. How many known criminals, in organised crime, are carrying on regardless at the moment even with their DNA recorded.
And once again, why do you propose an illegal system be perpetuated, when there's a legal alternative running north of the border?
Funny that. The Scot's decided to use facts and data to support their policy.
When there is a crime scene, it is left untouched by police before forensic scientists attempt to find DNA samples, which helps to convict suspects. The pursuit of suspects by police would be made much easier if the said samples could simply be matched up to a database.
It would make the job of the police a lot easier, but it wouldn't 'do their job' if you know what I mean?
If that was a reply to mine I hope Ralph does fight for labour values then we might have a choice at the election .
ricki , Going to tidy up then going to bed ( i hope ) , Goodnight Labourlist
I think Ralph will put himself out to fight on for Labour values regardless of the donkeys in charge. It lends a certain value to his criticms, that mine lack.
Still I'll concentrate on picking on those who act like they want us to be in permanent opposition after the next election.
Totally agree about guilty people walking the streets.
How exactly would a DNA database have stopped corruption in parliament?
Like someone else recently, you present no facts, no data, just unsubstantiated opinions.
Try you vapid arguments with the Sun readership, this is the wrong place. Opinions cost nothing, because that's what they are worth when isolated from supporting evidence.
Name one case where DNA has identified a culprit who previously didn't have a criminal record.
What you propose is completely disproportional to any possible result.
DNA evidence existed during the later stages of IRA campaign. The Omagh bombers weren't stupid enough to leave sufficient traces around to be convicted through it.
I am a convicted crimanal , I have served my time , I dont think the goverment can be trusted with that amount of infomation .
ricki
I was apologising for acussing you and ralph of being the same person and for that i am sorry .
Your second point has some legs
ricki
Thanks for the advice, I'm clearly living in dreamworld wanting to reduce crime merely by extending an existing database.
Such an idealist, eh!
Didn't think you were in favour. Just an example why you shouldn't be apologising.
I guess Matt's replaced Dan McCurry.
you summed it up there , We have the right wing torys or the right wing torys on the "new Labour " bench , There is no left of centre party for the poor or the working class.
ricki
Accepted and really not required.
I know the BNP are a problem. Just baffles me why anybody think it's an option.
Thing is. New Labours drift right has left a vacuum, and some of their policies have inadvertently discrimated in favour of drawing in foreign labour instead of dealing with giving the skills training to those at home who aren't getting onto the further education escalator.
To be honest the NF vapourised under a Tory government, it's possible the BNP might do the same.
I misread the text and got mixed up , and if you read my postings further down you will see i am not a fan of this proposal .
ricki
Not sure what you're apologising for. Just curious which text looked the same.
Now if you were proposing to take my DNA for no other purpose that to add to your collection on the off chance that it may be useful before hell froze over, or it was lost. That would be another matter.
I hope you accept my apolgey , I am in east london we have councillers and a london assembliy member , They have honed there media skills and are picking up votes .
ricki
I suspect similar East of England idiom may explain it. I think Ralph's an Essex girl though ;)
It's heck as alike more civilised on the north bank of the Stour, than down south. None of those nasty BNP types making waves, when we have Suffolk Together (Somewhat to the right of UKIP) with council seats.
i do , I made a misjudgement and a cock up , I am sorry Ralph and Thomas
ricki
I aplogise i got it wrong ( I got a slow and crap provider), Please accept my aplogey .
ricki
you seem to have the same wording ? How undescribable.
ricki
Your lack of knowledge of what DNA could be used for clearly explains a lot. What it doesn't explain is the mindset that we're all criminals and should be treated as such.
We're a democracy where the government is told it's policy on DNA databases is illegal.
Isn't that meant to mean steps to stop it being illegal, or is your definition of crime different to that the rest of us use?
Instead of pedalling your Orwellian nightmare why not copy a legal process from somewhere, oh, I donno, like Scotland.
Or are you trying to make us believe all the criminals will head north?
If ever the Tories wanted ammunition against Labour, articles like yours provide it in bucket loads.
I can't honestly see why clearly intelligent people seem completely unable to see the harm this type of authortarian proposal does.
Unlike you I am fully aware of how Governments can use DNA "evidence". You clearly are ignorant of it. You are going to have to grow up at some point fella and realise that government is about power and there many ruthless people who will stop at nothing to hide the truth about and regarding what they are doing.
From large corporations to government secret services and military. All are controlled by MP's and businessmen who have very keen private and selfish interests and will use departments to enrich themselves with little regard for accountability.
I know people in the military that have done and seen things that would turn your shit white.
So don't act like you are living in some kind of cushy decent clean democracy, your not and your freedoms and liberties are being destroyed gradually.
I suggest you wake up.
My personal thoughts will often differ from government, even if i support them in other policy..
Idiots like the bnp or idiots by "newLabour" , Take a look outside the westminster village .
ricki
Your faith in the state is to be admired( wmd , 10 tax, no more boom and bust) But the state is there to serve the people not the other way round , You cannot ask innocent people to give there dna up , And yes i have been convicted of which i had a post on labourlist.
ricki
Don't vote idiots like the BNP in and you won't have to worry. This is a democracy, therefore the DNA database is possible.
Hi ricki,
Your DNA would be useless to the government unless you committed a crime. The point of the DNA database is to reduce crime, that is its purpose, and a purpose I believe would be fulfilled.
It cannot be compared to chipping people, which has many purposes other than to help solve crimes.
What would a bnp goverment do with the dna samples?
ricki
What could a government, elected by the people in a democracy, possible do with your DNA Ralph? Clone another Ralph? Heaven forbid.
I jest.
Your argument is absurd, Why are you not advocating for us all to be chipped?
ricki
I'm flattered.
The government needs to protect children, what a completely ridiculous example you have used. So you'd rather let any weirdo go and work with children without screening them first? Give me a break.
This is a necessary extension of that. The reality is crime happens, people commit crimes every day and I want to reduce that somehow. Yes its a teleological way to look at it, but I think if crime is reduced because of a DNA database, then it can be called a success.
After one brazillian man, unarmed and helpless was shot on the underground after committing no crime and a big cover up by all parties mentioned, I wouldn't trust them with anything....
You would be giving your dna to the state . If that doesnt ring alarm bells then go ahead .
ricki
We have a thing called innocent till proven gulity and a right to go about our buisness without hasle from the state , If you want all to have there dna taken then stand for parliment , I would not vote for you because what your are proposing is not in the voters dna .
ricki
Whilst DNA evidence considerably helps in the solving of a case, other evidence is of course taken into consideration.
A DNA database, I am arguing, would help to reduce crime. I don't think anyone can argue against that. The rhetoric about "civil liberties" is often used in rebuttal when I talk about this, but I can't personally justify why I wouldn't want to offer my DNA if it meant in the future a rapist or a murderer was caught.
Those that are claiming it would somehow inhibit freedom are incredibly misplaced. A society free from crime is a free one. Ask the rape victim, ask the family of a murder victim or an abused child what they would prefer - the person responsible being caught or not? It wouldn't be at the expense of freedom, you need to get this out of your heads. The sooner this happens the better, guilty people are walking the streets when they would have otherwise been caught - that injustice is far greater.
Have the contradictions in what you've just posted really not registered?
What are your sources on the current DNA database not deterring repeat offenders?
At least they can be caught if they do.
Simple test. How many votes will this win as opposed to how many does it actively lose?
Matt seems to resorted to getting his facts wrong to try and support his case. (That's being nice to him.)
I fancy it's the people who don't grasp that the only people caught by DNA evidence have a criminal record previously who miss the point completely.
You don't understand the science. You don't understand probability, and you clearly believe, that this complete lack of supporting evidence is somehow of merit.
Facts & data are ignored at your peril. An opinion is worthless without supporting evidence.
People who oppose this provide evidence and data to support their case. So far you've provided insults and emotional pleas.
Can you in all honesty think this is persuasive case you're putting?
I find your comments on other subjects often quite rational, even if I'm not always in agreement. What is it with this one that has caused this paranoia with what your fellow citizens might be up to?
I am interested because it might explain to some of us why some people keep pushing this in the face of the facts, and that it's an electorally suicidal policy with swing voters.
1. I don't trust this government, or all future governments, to hold this information securely
2. I don't trust this government, or all future governments, not to use this information now or in the future for unethical or inappropriate or undemocratic or otherwise oppressive purposes
3. I don't trust dna technology or analysis to be 100% error-free
4. I don't trust the police, or the IPCC in any way, except to make mistakes and abuse their position with impunity
5. Therefore there is a real risk of being wrongfully or mistakenly confused with a criminal, and I don't want that
6. I just don't want to be on a database
Oh, and I'm not planning to commit a crime either. You can't have it both ways, you can't say "everyone is a potential criminal. except me". Unless you're planning to make dissenting oppressive policies a crime? That's the only rational way your argument could possibly make sense.
If you want Labour to lose the election pdq, keep on pushing your vicious little Orwellian agenda. See how your party colleagues will thank you. The "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" argument relies upon an error-free and honourable government and judicial system now and for eternity. And that just simply isn't true, or realistic. You are living in cloud cuckoo land. If I was in the Labour party I'd disown you. You're a liability.
I am a carer on state benifits , Taking the dna of innocent people is wrong, The state is there to serve us not control us .
ricki
As for the DNA database, I think the comments on this thread show that lots of us misguided Labourites see it as a manifestation of some of the worst tendencies that have come to the fore in the parliamentary party, and believe it is in part these tendencies that have so alienated both floating and long-term Labour voters.
It's certainly true in my case. What really bothers me is that I don't feel Matthew grasps what is philosophically troubling in the statement "we are all potential criminals." I think he thinks that simply because it is true - which obviously it is - it means the state should act on it. If you break it down to something more specific you see how disturbing an idea that is. It is equally true that all (or nearly all) men are potential rapists; should we then treat them as such?
The disappointing fact is that this is merely one of a series in the same vain.
You do wonder at what point they realise that it's only a hardcore pushing this.
I was in Germany earlier this week, and they were openly ribbing myself and my colleague about the Gestapo state being built up in England with it's cameras and databases.
As one of them said. They learnt their lesson the hard way.
Cause of this discussion. My observation that they didn't seem to have any speed cameras on the roads we were evaluating a vehicle safety system on.
We have three times more of these than the whole United States. CCTV is even worse. All this is not going unnoticed by our neighbours.
The current government is just sailing on regardless, and assigns the reduction to road deaths to their cameras, and not the fact ABS is standard only since 2002 across the EU, and ESP fitment is increasing at a rate proportional to the decrease in road deaths in countries with and without these cameras.
The problem is that the government wants to believe it's their surveillance policies that are doing this, and ignore evidence to the contrary.
You tied yourself in knots last time trying to defend this type of policy.
Try taking a rational approach. What does this database allow to happen, and stop thinking of just the few things you want to be the result of it.
Of course we are not all potential criminals - unless of course the government passes laws that makes it almost inevitable.
We are already treated as potential car thieves (when we need to buy a nymber plate), money launderers when we need to open a new bank account), paedophiles (when we need to work with or help with children) and terrorists all the time. I am waiting for someone to suggest that we are all imprisoned until we can prove we are innocent of any crime.
Ido not trust any government (or the police acting on their behalf) to have this much power over my life.
It is a very big price for a small if! A price that I will not
pay and why I **CANNOT** vote labour.Time for a freedom bill
to restore the rights lost under this regime.
The point is that Cameron's government will privatise our personal records and in a nifty bit of nepotism, hand them over to the company of the wife of his director of strategy.
Our Polis can only hold onto your DNA data if you are found guilty of a crime - full stop. Using an innocent party's stored DNA to try and accuse them of a crime is inadmissible in evidence in Scotland. Hence there is no point of our Polis holding onto samples of 'innocent' people they think might be guilty of other crimes.
Its not difficult for the English Parliament to change the law to the same as Scotland ... if they wished - and there's the test.
A few years ago an IT worker on the Arizona DNA database found that two people matched 9 of the 13 locations on chromosomes used to do DNA matching. One man was black, the other white, so clearly they weren't the same person. The chance of 9 loci matching is apparently 1 in 113 billion.
Now imagine that probability being given in court. "M'Lord the defendants DNA matches the DNA evidence at the scene, only 1 person in 113 billion can have these matches, and since there are just 6.7 billion in the world the only possible conclusion is that the defendant is the assailant"
Impossible? No. The same thing happened during the trial of Sally Clark where Roy Meadows gave the convincing figure that the chance of two cot deaths in a family was 1 in 73 million, and the prosecution argued that since that probability was so low the only conclusion was that Sally Clark had killed one or both of her babies. Eventually that conviction was overturned, but Sally Clark, innocent of the charges and yet having had to suffer the grief of the loss of two babies and then the injustice of the conviction, died four years later. In this case the "statistics" were proven wrong. With DNA fingerprinting juries are similarly bamboozled with "statistics".
I am not in favour of people being convicted solely on DNA evidence. It is not infallible. For that reason I am totally against a DNA database from birth as you suggest. I am happy for DNA evidence to be used as supporting evidence ("Not only was the defendant identified by the victim in an ID parade, but his DNA matches the DNA found at the scene of the crime", that sort of thing).
If we get your way then the police will do very little actual detective work other than collect DNA samples and then trawl the database for matches, and if they are sloppy and use 9 loci as in the Arizona case they could have loads of people that they can choose to pin the crime on.
One final question. Why was DNA evidence thrown out in the Omagh court case? We need proper policing, not people simply trawling database.
If the author of this article is representative of a the next generation of labour activists then, to be frank, the labour party is screwed and i have no pleasure in saying that.
It's the one issue that means I'll stand by and not vote, because the Tories and Lib Dems have promised to disable this network of databases and oppression.
By all means put the blinkers on, stuff the earplugs in and carry on promoting this policy that has already been identified as illegal by the EU courts.
Even the 'facts' given above are false. The government is promising to now look only keep the data on innocent people for 6 years. Not criminals.
So far no one can show a case where someone previously unconvicted has been traced by DNA to another crime.
The opportunities to fabricate and plant false DNA evidence are facts, not science fiction.
The problem is that the proponents think they are better than everybody else and deserve the right to treat us all like criminals. They are also incapable it seems of logical thinking when considering the possible consequences of such an idiotic policy.
I'm sure the Communist Party of Great Britain will maybe make a better home for you than a democratic socialist party.
What some people seem to forget, assuming they even bothered doing any research first, is most repressive regimes tend to use the instruments of repression that their predecessors installed for rather more benign reasons.
"Currently, the DNA of convicted criminals is kept on a database for six years, and the Conservatives want to reduce this to five, as this is believed to be the period in which another offence is most likely to take place."
I think you are wrong here, it is 6 years if you are not found guilty, there is no time limit on keeping information on convicted criminals.
The Police are working on the principle that the people they pick up are guilty they just can't proove it yet. So they effectively want a database of the 'usual suspects'. Trouble is with the Police, they always want to increase their powers, so just keep widening the net, you gave your DNA because someone broke into your house and we needed to eliminate you - well we'll keep that as well.
Funny that the usual suspects on this site blame New labour for this, the Police have been collecting DNA since the mid 1980s when they discovered the benefits of it, and before that they were very keen on keeping your finger prints. I had a friend from school who spent 3 years getting his finger prints back after being arrested in 1980.
Government is a function of out lives as people and communities. We do not exist as functions of government.
From the perspective of this contributor there is no conceivable reason why the entire population should not be DNA tested, and totalitarian control imposed.
Here is why that should not happen. Government can be a force for good, but often oppressive people (elected or appointed) gain access to state and/or police power. Those people often (on any fair reading of history) act a forces of oppression.
While we need to advocate for the use of government as a force for good, we need to be aware that government can be oppressive.
Mr. Zarb-Cousin wants to turn us all into a sort of URL for the government to control.
That's dreadful.
It's much better to preserve freedom, even if some crimes go unpunished.
Regarding this specific topic, yes I agree that the police are now seen by Middle England as untrustworthy, which is an outrageous state of affairs. People are more likely to take the law into their own hands than rely on an organisation that they don't trust. I would join those who would refuse to provide their DNA if they are innocent of any crime.
The flipside to "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" is....
If I have done nothing wrong then you have no business having anything to do with me. It does strike me that one of the causes of the Labour government's paranoia is their own devious natures. They assume everyone is as macchiavellian and dishonest as themselves.
No offence to the honest lower-level Labour members amongst you - even if I think you are misguided, I don't want to rub you all up the wrong way in my first post.
Great, so you won't "whine" when planted or contaminated DNA evidence is used to put you away for a murder or rape you didn't commit. After all, there's "no threat to the innocent".
This Government's shameful record on data security is reason enough on its own to make a universal DNA database unthinkable.
Regarding this specific topic, yes I agree that the police are now seen by Middle England as untrustworthy, which is an outrageous state of affairs. People are more likely to take the law into their own hands than rely on an organisation that they don't trust. I would join those who would refuse to provide their DNA if I am innocent of any crime. If you're prepared to use force to extract my DNA then that says it all.
The flipside to "if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear" is....
If I have done nothing wrong then you have no business having anything whatsoever to do with me. It does strike me that one of the causes of the Labour government's paranoia is their own devious natures. They assume everyone is as macchiavellian and dishonest as themselves.
No offence to the honest lower-level Labour members amongst you - even if I think you are misguided, I don't want to rub you all up the wrong way in my first post!
I too grew up in the 70's. During my childhood, and early adult life, I had a lot of respect and trust in the police. Not any more.
Last year, I got a call from my frantic mother telling me that she'd had her handbag stolen. I picked her up and drove her to the Halifax and then Barclays so she could cancel her cards. As I waited for her outside the Halifax on a double yellow line, a police officer approached me and ordered me to move on. I tried to explain the situation, and that my mother was in a distraught state that would only be exacerbated if she came out of the bank to discover that I'd gone. Frankly he wasn't interested. As the officer was writing out my parking ticket, my mother emerged from the bank, and naturally assumed that I had stopped the officer to report the theft. When she attempted to give him details, he held up his hand to silence her, and said "madam, I'm dealing with this gentleman's parking ticket". Once complete, the ticket was handed to me, and the officer walked away. Two illegally parked cars in-front of me were ignored, and he refused to take a report from my mother on the theft of her handbag.
I've also been admonished on four separate occasions this year alone, for not wearing a seat-belt whilst driving my taxi. On each occasion, the officers have been rude and unapologetic when their colleagues have informed them over their radio, that taxi drivers are exempt from seat-belt laws.
Forgive me for being blunt and crass but I wouldn't piss on a police officer if they were on fire, let alone co-operate with them.
I have to admit I rarely disagree with the points you make and again today, I grew up very poor in the 60/70s, single mum, on a council estate where we had an ex seviceman and a Scot as our estate copper. We knew what we could get away with but never crossed the line as we were all sh*t scared of him. 6'4" ex serviceman, harsh but fair and we all respected him.
As to his point, if we actually started punishing those that commit real crimes when they first break the law, and then if they re offend the sentence should be doubled, These people need to know thier behaviour is not acceptable to a decent society. Those that wish to commit crimes against the person should be dealt with harshly.
Those that commit crime under the influence of drugs or drink should not be allowed out of Prison if they still have a dependency on drugs. Then when they are let out of prison there should be a system for weekly checks to make sure they are staying clean, if they reoffend then back to Prison. I know to be this tough we would have to have social services that actually work. But unless we get to grips with this we will continue too see violent crime increase.
I also believe that if the criminal is unable to read they should not be allowed out of prison until they have the tools to survive in our Capitalist nightmare.
The Prison Service should not be about revenge, we need to deal with the vast array of problems that lead these people to commit the crimes in the first place. We then need to help them when they come out by offering employers a tax incentive to employ them.
Remember the slogan "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"
unfortunately this has been shown to be just another Nu Labour lie. Nu Labours negligence in dealing with this serious problem and allowed anti social hours to get out of control and the disgusting Alchohol Policy where there is no constraint, has made the lives of the poor worse than before. A Labour trait, promise to help the poor, but legislate with good intentions but result in the poor paying higher taxes than the rich.
INNOCENT BEFORE PROVEN GUILTY.
Civil liberties should be preserved to the fullest extent possible for innocent citizens. If you commit a crime you forgoe these and are locked up. Protect the innocent - punish the guilty.
The most basic of concepts.
Having grown up as a child in the '70s where we viewed policemen as the sort of person you could trust if you were in trouble or ask for directions, my views are very different today.
The police are not your friends, they are not there to help the innocent and find the guilty. They are there to hit targets and achieve numbers/KPIs. It would not matter if you were innocent, a conviction is all they want. You are wise not to co-operate with them and indeed this has mainly happened in the last 12 years.
I find it odd how so many hardliners on crime who would happily fill up prisons and increase sentences start whining about civil liberties when something which would save time, money and present absolutely no threat at all to the innocent is proposed.
I've reached a point where I would not co-operate with the police as I think they are an extension of a deeply repressive autocratic government who have undermined our civil liberties overthe last 12 years.
Have a read of this.
DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/18/science/18dna.html
Just think how often this government has lost important databases in the last few years or if someone hacked (or bribed someone) to obtain the police DNA database.
No, I don't want my DNA held by any public authority, thanks.
Harman's trial is going to be a media circus, isn't it? I can't wait. Probably be just a few weeks before the election, too.
Dangerous and deeply disturbing, shame we can't make MP's give samples over.
If I am arrested for an actual crime I have committed then I do not have the right to complain about the punishment. Needless to say I have only been arrested once in 50 years, many many years ago.
As for helping with an enquiry I would refuse to talk to the Police as I and and millions of others no longer believe the Police act on our behalf and cannot be trusted. They are there to defend this joke of a Goverments Law and Order Policy where Political Correctness is more important than actually punishing thieves, rapists, robbers and thugs!
If I wasn't white, English, Southern and middle class or a Muslim I wouldn't be worried
Having CCTV in private homes, that is extreme and it would never happen. From yesterdays newspaper,
"Secret CCTV cameras fitted INSIDE people's homes to spy on neighbours outside"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1228876/Secret-CCTV-cameras-fitted-INSIDE-peoples-homes-spy-neighbours.html
Phillip, If you are ever arrested or "help with enquiries", you will by law provide a DNA sample if asked. If you refuse to give it, the sample can and will be taken by force.
Also , what happens if a mistake in logging the dna to the person it would cause choas and undermine confidence in the system and the courts , It would also cost millions to set up and billions to maintain and it would only take on person in the place to take a bribe and contamenate a sample .
ricki
For the first time in my life, I would urge any labour party member to vote for literally anyone else (but the BNP) to keep this dangerous individual out of power.
This sounds like more NuLabour, the 1984 version where everyone is guilty until proved innocent.
It is exactly this sort of scaremongering that led to the 42 days detention proposal etc.
My key question here is would I feel safer with no DNA database or with a DNA database run by the most autocratic and data security incompetent government we have ever had?
The answer is easy, no DNA database thanks.
As an aside I see now a local authority is sending out detailed questionnaires to parents of all kids starting school at age 5, asking about diet, friends, and happiness etc. all in all really intrusive stuff.
Anyone refusing to fill one in will get a visit by an agent of the state as their kids are classed as "at risk". All details will be stored in a database in perpetuity.
Can you honestly be surprised the public's aversion to Labour stasi like jackboot on issues of personal freedom when this sort of thing is going on?
And for Matthew I have another genius crime fighting solution - chain everybody down. Then there will be no crime. Everybody will be happy.
Or perhaps let's just kill everybody - safe in the knowledge there will never be another crime.
I`m still on it even though I asked for its removal. I`ll be on it for life & beyond. All thanks to New Labour.
You need to pull your head outa your arse and smell the coffee. We are marching towards total lockdown by the Gov of all the data generated by UK citizens. New Labour = Control Freaks.
I voted Labour for many years as my father before me. What Labour now stands for disgusts me.
"My genome is my property. It is not the state's. I will allow the state access to that genome under very strict circumstances. It is an issue of my personal genetic privacy,"
I would agree with him.
If we apply this principle to crime prevention then why not healthcare but again without your consent? If we apply this to DNA fingerprinting then why not other aspects of your personal life?
As for the argument about false trails of DNA being left intrentionally you only have to look at the case of
Dr. John Schneeberger who raped one of his sedated patients in 1992.
He left semen on her underwear, Police then drew what they believed to be Schneeberger's blood from his arm and compared its DNA against the crime scene semen DNA on three occasions, never showing a match.
Dr Scheenburger had surgically inserted a Penrose drain into his arm and filled it with foreign blood and anticoagulants in order to fool the system.
And remember this was back in 1992
If we were to adopt your proposals no doubt some enterprising but rather morally bankrupt individual would open a lab offering cheek implants or frozen semen samples to the criminal underworld.
Indeed you would have to be more careful of disposing of a condom or toenail clippings than you would have to currently be about your bank statements.
A study in the Journal Forensic Science International it was found that an In vitro (artificial) synthesized sample of DNA matching any desired genetic profile can be constructed using standard molecular biology techniques without obtaining any actual tissue from that person.
Importantly current forensic procedures are unable to distinguish between artificial and natural DNA.
Dan Frumkin the lead author of the study said "You can just engineer a crime scene... any biology undergraduate could perform this."
All rather worrying if your proposals are adopted.
However I read something this week that said the EU will be banning all fringe Parties so the BNP and UKIP will be finished. Democracy at its best!!!if this is true and in the press and on our Teles by May, then we could find it happening sooner than we think.
Has anyone stopped and thought what would happen in 20years if a racist party got elected to power , We would see "crimes" comitted by ethnicminortys rise , And the chance of a divided socity will rise , People will say that will never happen but we already have two elected bnp meps some local councillers and a london assembley member. Would we really want a party like the bnp have accses to every persons dna?
ricki
As a member of the Labour Party, I would like to argue why I believe a DNA database, where swabs of DNA are taken at birth - and of people coming into the country - is not only fair but also vital.
In the run up to the general election, we need to set out our exact intentions, and not be afraid to stand up for extending the DNA database to the entire British population.
Far simpler is just to tag everyone with a radio beacon so we can see where they are, day or night , And force them to have a camera attached to their head so what they do can be seen .
A more authoritarian argument from an authoritarian party I have yet to hear. The author would be better suited by living in North Korea or other Stalinist state.
Fail.
There are no absolute providers of guilt and innocence that a wise criminal cannot get around.
Especially in these days where governments are already abusing their powers to hide the truth from us, even blatently.
The phrase innocent before guity seems to have been discarded, I have had my dna taken because i was arrested and later convicted of a crime , should innocent people have there dna taken just in case they might commit a crime? No , We have a goverment breaking the law (by failing to uphold the court ruling) , People will say nothing to hide ,nothing to fear , No , The state is there to serve us not the other way round, We cannot trust the goverment with this infomation as it will be lost or abused.
ricki