DNA is a ‘breach of rights’ (From Swindon Advertiser)

Defence solicitors like Rob Ross are used to protecting the human rights of his suspects, it's people like him and the CPS that prevent justice being done for many victims. I cannot see a problem with holding DNA, if you do not commit crimes you have nothing to fear. A prime example of why this should be done is the recent story of a murderer being caught years after he killed a young girl, due to his DNA, if the police had not kept DNA he would still be a free man enjoying his human rights to the full! I suppose Rob Ross wouldn't earn so much money if he worried less about his clients human rights and more about justice for victims, I dont know how he sleeps at night.

Nansview - I assume you will be running to the police station to give a sample of your DNA to be stored then?

You have nothing to hide right?

You will not mind me coming and putting a cctv camera in your living room either - you have nothing to hide right?

You obviously know nothing about Human rights or civil liberties.

An Example:
If you had were driving at 10 miles and hour down the road and a drunken idiot fell into the road and on top of your car, you would most likely be arrested and questioned. In the process you would be subjected to your DNA being taken and stored. You did nothing wrong, right? You are released without charge. You DNA is now forever stored through no fault of your own.

Are you okay with this?
If so, surrender your civil rights and go and get on the database with immediate effect or do not comment on something you know little about.

Thanks New Labour and Thanks Tony Blair.

I agree with little UKIP stand for but they pledge to abolish the database if they got in power and power to them.

As you say Nansview - with DNA proof he doesn't have much of a case so therfore his pay cheque suffers. I think this is a case of protecting his income at the expense of victims of crime.

I do not understand why taking DNA is a breach of Human Rights.
It could help identifying peoples remains.
It could help tracing offenders within the same DNA linkage
Taking people address, tel, email, etc... details aren't against Human Rights, so why is taking people DNA so controversial?

I've seen Mr Ross acting on behalf of his clients in court and I have overheard his ante/post hearing discussions with his clients in the public waiting areas.
I'm not sure the adver would print my opinion of him or his cohorts like Mr Wiggens.

Mr Ross discusses Human Rights and abiding by the letter of the law. May I respectfully request he take the plank of wood out of his own eye so he can see to remove the splinter from others.

Defence lawyers have no qualms at all in ignore the rights and dignity of victims and witnesses in the name of their clients right to defence.
Nor do they have any qualms in trying to achieve an aqcuital or 'mitigating' sentence for their clients even when their clients have told them they are guilty.
I nearly choked one day when, after a client of his admitted his guilt to him in the Swindon Crown Court waiting area Mr Ross replied "I'll see if your guilty after I've seen what evidence they've got and if their witnesses turn up!"

Nansview, you don'y know how he sleeps at night, I do, on a very expensive bed, in a very nice house paid for by legal aid...paid for by us!

Elfie - this has little to do with civil rights more about protecting the scum bags who commit crime and the fat cat lawyers who make a packet gettin them off on technicalities.

It is a breach, for example if you are arrested and charged, that does not mean you are guilty until proven in court, yet the police still take your DNA, by force if they want to. If you are found not guilty, and were completely innocent of any wrong doing, it is a complete breach of your human rights in that your dna was taken, and will be kept on database even though you did nothing wrong. They still treat you as if you are a criminal. Its a police state, and is sickening to think i am living in it.

Rubbish example elfie. I would have no problem in that scenario, most people would only want to assist in that situation. I wouldn't have a problem with DNA being stored - I don't commit crimes, and if I did then I would deserve what I got.

Hell, it may even be a proactive approach that stops folk considering commiting a crime in the first place.

As an aside, the advantage to having a DNA detection and database is that it can prove your innocence of a crime.

As a furter aside, I find it rather amusing that those who scream invasion of privacy are quite happy to have store cards and loyalty cards allowing anonymous individuals to know what you buy, when and how often.
I'm happy for the police to have my DNA. I dont have a tescos' loyalty card as they don't need to know how often I buy toilet rolls and what brand I use!

elfie wrote:
Nansview - I assume you will be running to the police station to give a sample of your DNA to be stored then? You have nothing to hide right? You will not mind me coming and putting a cctv camera in your living room either - you have nothing to hide right? You obviously know nothing about Human rights or civil liberties. An Example: If you had were driving at 10 miles and hour down the road and a drunken idiot fell into the road and on top of your car, you would most likely be arrested and questioned. In the process you would be subjected to your DNA being taken and stored. You did nothing wrong, right? You are released without charge. You DNA is now forever stored through no fault of your own. Are you okay with this? If so, surrender your civil rights and go and get on the database with immediate effect or do not comment on something you know little about. Thanks New Labour and Thanks Tony Blair. I agree with little UKIP stand for but they pledge to abolish the database if they got in power and power to them.

Elfie, as you can see most of us would have no problem with it and can see the invaluable assistance it can be to assist the police in many circumstances and to hopefully stop human rights letting criminals walk our streets, if you have nothing to hide and it helps with the conviction of criminals, finding missing people, identifying remains and proving your innocence, then why on earth would I have a problem and if UKIP want to abolish the register then I pray they never get in, I always understood they wanted to abolish the human rights act, glad you enlightened me on that one.

Think about it this way if every child had there DNA taken at birth and stored what an impact that would have on crime rates. Would you consider commiting a crime knowing what information was held by the police NO YOU WOULD NOT. And before anyone starts I was arrested a few years ago after a drunken row I was taken to the police station had my finger print, dna and picture taken. I was then released later without charge and I dont mind them having my DNA a some on says it can also prove you innocent..?

Chowmai wrote:
As an aside, the advantage to having a DNA detection and database is that it can prove your innocence of a crime.

As a furter aside, I find it rather amusing that those who scream invasion of privacy are quite happy to have store cards and loyalty cards allowing anonymous individuals to know what you buy, when and how often.
I'm happy for the police to have my DNA. I dont have a tescos' loyalty card as they don't need to know how often I buy toilet rolls and what brand I use!

"Prove your innocence" - Intereting idea.

With respect to store cards they are a voluntary "opt-in" only scheme. I know many people who refuse to have them for exactly that reason. Information collected and stored by shops using store cards is regulated by the Data Protection Act, from which the police are exempt. Do we really believe that the police are responsible enough with this sort of data to not be covered by the same laws that cover all private organisations and private individuals? Look at the problems the banks, MoD and MP's have had with storing our personal data.

Why don't we electronically tag everyone instead? They're pretty much already doing that with ANPR cameras and "the database" when it comes to car jouneys.

Time to dig out a copy of 1984 I think!

I have no objection to the police having my finger prints / DNA on file, as an ex serviceman they could get mine from the MOD if needed anyway.

Well said nansview - I totally agree and if you have nothing to hide, why worry about the police having your DNA on file.

Just think of all the nasty crims out there who have been caught up with years after their crime only due to the advances of DNA!
There's too much of this PC rubbish in this country and I wish the majority of sensible people would speak out more.

Why Not store everyones DNA you never know it might just save the life of a member of your family in years to come.

And computers and computer operators never make mistakes and errors, oh no.

The naivety shown in this thread is staggering.

The more information that is held on the polices' computers, the more likely it is that you will be convicted, _even though you're innocent_, just because the computer says that you're guilty.

It's already happening, people have been stopped by the police and had their vehicles confiscated, in the middle of nowhere, simply because the police computer said that they didn't have any insurance. OK, so they got their cars back, but only after making their way several hundred miles home, producing their documents at the local police station, and then having to pay the police's storage fees.

> IRofE, Swindon says...
> I do not understand why taking DNA is a breach of Human Rights.
Taking people address, tel, email, etc... details aren't against Human Rights

No, but they need a court order or warrant to do it, which must be authorised by a judge or magistrate. DNA, they just take.

> Prove your innocence
>
One of the tenets of British law is that you do not have to prove your innocence, the police must prove you guilty, as it's impossible to prove a negative (although you might be able to prove an alibi). A contrived example: Your brother robs a shop, your DNA is on record, but not your brother's, you were home alone, in bed, asleep at the time. The police will arrest you, and you cannot prove that you didn't commit the crime. Being full brothers, your two DNA samples are too similar to differentiate. OK, a good lawyer _might_ get you off on the technicality that the police cannot prove which of you it was, therefore they must acquit both of you, but you'd still be arrested and spend time in a remand prison. Are you willing to be imprisoned just because of a police/computer/proc
ess error?

The way to stop crime is by police on the streets stopping crime being committed, detectives finding criminals, and courts issuing effective sentences, not by buying more computers.

Worz, your post is imply the Worzt (worst).

Court order to take people's addresses??

You sound like a paranoid little crim.

As for all this "nothing to fear" stuff, you might think you have nothing to fear right now, but by the time the govt has the DNA database on everyone, and all the other stuff, and there's a cctv cam on EVERY street, you bloody well will have something to fear by then. have you not read "1984" ??

Psychotic Sid wrote:
Worz, your post is imply the Worzt (worst).

Court order to take people's addresses??

You sound like a paranoid little crim.

Clearly you are unaware of (a) the right to remain silent and (b) being innocent until proven guily
and I'll also add in (c) ad hominem indicates debate ability failure

Psychotic Sid wrote:
Worz, your post is imply the Worzt (worst).

Court order to take people's addresses??

You sound like a paranoid little crim.

Not sure what you mean by "take people's addresses". If they want to enter your house, then they need a warrant. If they want to listen to your phone calls, or read your email, then they need a warrant. Even if they just want to see who you've been emailing or phoning, then they need a warrant. If they want your fingerprints, then they need a warrant or to arrest you. If they want your DNA, then they just take it, by force if they want to. There are checks and balances about all information gathered like this, why is DNA exempt from all of these?

I'm not a little crim, I'm a computer engineer, and I know how unreliable and error prone computers are, or rather, I know how unreliable and error prone human computer operators are. The computers do exactly what the humans tell them to do, but there's nothing to stop the humans being dangerously broken.

You however, sound terribly naive, unfortunately, like an awful lot of people.

John Pope, 60, tied Karen Skipper's hands behind her back and threw her into the River Ely in Cardiff.

The judge, Mr Justice Davis said: "Putting Karen in the river to drown - that was not simply callous but almost sadistic."

Pope was caught in 2007 after advances in DNA and forensic techniques.

It took 13 years to catch this killer and OH LOOK it happened because of DNA he got away with it for so long. All you Human Rights to55 pots give ask this girls parents what they think of a DNA Database, how would you feek if it was your child..

Please excuse the spelling mistakes..?

There's a very simple reason why this man is complaining, it's because his job is being made a little bit more difficult.

Rob Ross has spent 12 out of 22 years of his career in Swindon under a Labour government. A government which gifted him the Human Rights Act in 1998 and has since used the Sentencing Guidelines Council to ensure that as few people are sent to prison as possible and always for the shortest time possible.

For the defence laywer, the past 10 to 12 years must have seemed like a dream come true. Without even trying, they could keep all but their most hardcore criminal clients out of prison - and even some of those have, somehow, gotten away with it. ASBOs, Community Sentences, Suspended Sentences... you name it, anything other than convict criminals and punish them appropriately.

This latest whinge is because, all of a sudden, the police might have the upper hand over his clients - most of whom are undoubtedly guilty.

Still, it won't matter, because he'll still be able to rely on his judge pals to 'do the right thing' and let criminals off whenever they possibly can.

When the Conservatives win the next election, I reckon we might see certain judges and defence lawyers around the town take early retirement.

The introduction of minimum sentences (which the Tories promise) and a tougher approach to criminals and their friends the judges will also make life much more difficult for these people.

And about time too. I have absolutely no idea how the likes of Mr Ross and Judge Douglas Field manage to sleep at night.

One can only assume it's because their criminal friends promise not to inflict the kind of misery on them that they spend most of their time inflicting on decent people.

The Mancunian Way wrote:
John Pope, 60, tied Karen Skipper's hands behind her back and threw her into the River Ely in Cardiff. The judge, Mr Justice Davis said: "Putting Karen in the river to drown - that was not simply callous but almost sadistic." Pope was caught in 2007 after advances in DNA and forensic techniques. It took 13 years to catch this killer and OH LOOK it happened because of DNA he got away with it for so long. All you Human Rights to55 pots give ask this girls parents what they think of a DNA Database, how would you feek if it was your child..

Spot on, thanks Mancunian, thats the case I was referring to earlier, but the name had escaped me, exactly what I thought, if only so many human rights obstacles were not in the way then maybe the girls poor husband would never have died still being the only suspect and never knowing justice was eventually done and many more cases like it solved.

The Mancunian Way wrote:
John Pope, 60, tied Karen Skipper's hands behind her back and threw her into the River Ely in Cardiff.

The judge, Mr Justice Davis said: And why did the police have JP's DNA? Because he was a suspect? Nothing wrong with that, just the same they'd have taken his fingerprints.

What did they match it to? Evidence from KS's body kept for 13 years. Again, nothing wrong with keeping evidence like this.

You've posted no other evidence. I would hope that there was more evidence that it could only have been JP, and that it was properly presented to a jury, who ended up being "beyond reasonable doubt". Or did the police simply jump on him in the street one day, take a sample and insert it into the evidence folder, because they were being pressured to clear this one up by the CC, and hope that the jury were naive enough to believe just the DNA?

And will you all stop that perennial bleating of "Oh, won't someone think of the children". A miscarriage of justice is still a miscarriage of justice, irrespective of the crime or the victim.

Still no one has answered my question: Why should DNA be exempt from all the checks and balances to which other evidence and personal data is subject?

Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about.

The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person.

It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

Home Boy wrote:
Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers.
We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote:
Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers.
We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then?
How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"?
Which side are you on?

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then?
How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"?
Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

Home Boy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then? How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"? Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

there is a side unfortunately:
because we never hear about the human rights of the victims! all we hear about are the human rights of the offenders, criminal, terrorists of all sort making a mockery of our legal system and Democracy.
I know where I stand on this issue, do you?

I didn't realise there were sides either.
Those of us who need 'sides' know who they are and wjat 'side' they are on.
How nice.
Meanwhile the question raised here is surely one of the individual's right to his own property/identity, and not about us/them confrontation.

Purlieu wrote:
I didn't realise there were sides either. Those of us who need 'sides' know who they are and wjat 'side' they are on. How nice. Meanwhile the question raised here is surely one of the individual's right to his own property/identity, and not about us/them confrontation.

when you give blood, does it breach your human rights?
When you have sex with someone and body fluids are exchanged, does it breach your human rights?
when you give your tel number or address details to Police, colleagues, companies etc... does it breach your human rights
I think you guys are just a bunch a Leftists pretending to defend liberty when in fact you are set to cause chaos by destroying Social Order.

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then? How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"? Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

there is a side unfortunately:
because we never hear about the human rights of the victims! all we hear about are the human rights of the offenders, criminal, terrorists of all sort making a mockery of our legal system and Democracy.
I know where I stand on this issue, do you?

IRofE, you've forgotten another group of people who deserve their human rights, that is,
people who are innocent of any crime, yet who are arrested, perhaps tried and perhaps imprisoned.

I believe (and I get the feeling that you'll, agree with me) that there are certain sorts of crimes that deserve the death penalty (kiddie fiddling, multiple murder in the name of religion, for example). However, before we start issuing the death sentence, we _must_ have effective and accurate crime detection i.e. as few false positives as possible. As time goes on, I am getting less confident in the ability of the police to detect crimes and to accurately detect and catch the guilty, and to ignore the innocent. DNA and computers are _not_ the magic, 100% accurate technological marvels that we would like them to be. If DNA accuracy is 1 in 10,000, then a sample would match 6600 people in the UK in a fully populated national register. That's atrociously, irresponsibly inaccurate. I can see that it may help a little, but it's not at all conclusive.

Worz wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then? How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"? Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

there is a side unfortunately: because we never hear about the human rights of the victims! all we hear about are the human rights of the offenders, criminal, terrorists of all sort making a mockery of our legal system and Democracy. I know where I stand on this issue, do you?

IRofE, you've forgotten another group of people who deserve their human rights, that is, people who are innocent of any crime, yet who are arrested, perhaps tried and perhaps imprisoned. I believe (and I get the feeling that you'll, agree with me) that there are certain sorts of crimes that deserve the death penalty (kiddie fiddling, multiple murder in the name of religion, for example). However, before we start issuing the death sentence, we _must_ have effective and accurate crime detection i.e. as few false positives as possible. As time goes on, I am getting less confident in the ability of the police to detect crimes and to accurately detect and catch the guilty, and to ignore the innocent. DNA and computers are _not_ the magic, 100% accurate technological marvels that we would like them to be. If DNA accuracy is 1 in 10,000, then a sample would match 6600 people in the UK in a fully populated national register. That's atrociously, irresponsibly inaccurate. I can see that it may help a little, but it's not at all conclusive.

I agree with you that we shouldn't base a decision on DNA only. But then again the courts do not generally issue a penalty unless the DNA evidence is indeniably incriminating. I think we should consider DNA as 1 evidence and part of a criminal case and only that. There is a lot of fears surrounding DNA but to be honest who is complaining about CCTV footage being recorded and stored?
As science progresses DNA testing is becoming incredibly accurate and cheaper.

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:
I didn't realise there were sides either. Those of us who need 'sides' know who they are and wjat 'side' they are on. How nice. Meanwhile the question raised here is surely one of the individual's right to his own property/identity, and not about us/them confrontation.

when you give blood, does it breach your human rights?
When you have sex with someone and body fluids are exchanged, does it breach your human rights?
when you give your tel number or address details to Police, colleagues, companies etc... does it breach your human rights
I think you guys are just a bunch a Leftists pretending to defend liberty when in fact you are set to cause chaos by destroying Social Order.

You've answered your own question:
"when YOU GIVE blood"
"when YOU GIVE your tel number"
That is YOUR choice.

When THEY TAKE a dna sample, when THEY TAKE your phone conversations, that is _not_ your choice.

Worz wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote: I didn't realise there were sides either. Those of us who need 'sides' know who they are and wjat 'side' they are on. How nice. Meanwhile the question raised here is surely one of the individual's right to his own property/identity, and not about us/them confrontation.

when you give blood, does it breach your human rights? When you have sex with someone and body fluids are exchanged, does it breach your human rights? when you give your tel number or address details to Police, colleagues, companies etc... does it breach your human rights I think you guys are just a bunch a Leftists pretending to defend liberty when in fact you are set to cause chaos by destroying Social Order.

You've answered your own question: "when YOU GIVE blood" "when YOU GIVE your tel number" That is YOUR choice. When THEY TAKE a dna sample, when THEY TAKE your phone conversations, that is _not_ your choice.

I have a better answer, lets listen to you and make DNA testing illegal.
Let criminals roaming the streets.
I am not really that bothered, I can fight my corner if need be.
Lets live in a Human right Society where taking is "illegal".

Some of the 'views' expressed on this site can cause a real sharp intake of breath, even to an experienced surfer of Jeremy Kyle style culture. Why are people so quick to sign over fundamental rights to the same institutions that you'll find them then slagging off as 'fascists', 'jobsworths' or 'faceless servants of the state' on just about any other topic??! It just goes to show what a successful tool tabloid promoted fear can be when it comes to manipulating people... Come back Goebels... Fear of crime has transcended basic common sense or even ethics - and it's with a sense of complete disbelief that I see hypocracy, double standards and trite ignorance trotted out.

First - the concept that people who are apposed to mandatory, invasive state control are either 'PC' or 'leftie'!!! Good god, they have to be two of the most obviously contradictory and stupid views I've ever seen expressed. How depressing and yet unsurprising. Its plain to see for anyone capable of being bothered to read even a little bit of 20th century history that leftwing governments have regularly shown themselves to have been the very best proponents of central state control. The key to their despotic power lay in the control they were able to extert using state mandated ID cards, state mandated databases and lists, and god knows how enviously they would have eyed the potential of a DNA database. (How ironic that the far right would have drooled with equal excitement. )

The next piece of monumental stupidity is the (deliberate?) misconception that people opposed to the OPEN ENDED STORAGE OF DNA OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME ARE - DE FACTO - ALSO OPPOSED TO THE TAKING OF DNA EVIDENCE!! The two issues are obviously entirely different. Being pro basic freedoms IS NOT the same as being 'soft on criminals' or 'pro' crime - **** far from it: and to anyone who's going to claim otherwise, I hope you wear an absorbant bib, because I presume you might dribble quite a lot when you're not clattering a keyboard. Rude? Well, you're being **** rude to presume that because I don't wish to indefinately surrender my genetic code to a database maintained by commercial third parties (who have something of an established habit of losing that sort of data), that I'm somehow an appologist for criminality.

I don't have any objection to giving DNA for the purposes of any SINGLE given investigation - however, AS AN INNOCENT PERSON who lives in a country which *used* to uphold the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', there's no need to leave my genetic identity indefinately in the hands of the state. Governments change, economies change. Laws change. Technology changes: Giving and simply trusting to fortune ANY institution with a tool for potential abuse of that magnitude is gullible and niave beyond belief. Personally, I'm of the opinion that as a law abiding tax payer, the institutions the state should serve me, NOT the other way round. It seems thats a view which is becoming unfashionable. Giving a mechanism like a national DNA database to the current government (or their likely successors) is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Silvergran summed it up well "There's too much of this PC rubbish in this country and I wish the majority of sensible people would speak out more."

If we don't break the law there's no problem. If we do, then we should take the consequences. Never mind the 'innocent till proven guilty' nonsense - a DNA database would prove the innocent to be innocent and the guilty to be guilty. What's wrong with that, for pity's sake? It protects the innocent and convicts the guilty. Fine by me.

IRofE wrote:

Worz wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then? How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"? Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

there is a side unfortunately: because we never hear about the human rights of the victims! all we hear about are the human rights of the offenders, criminal, terrorists of all sort making a mockery of our legal system and Democracy. I know where I stand on this issue, do you?

IRofE, you've forgotten another group of people who deserve their human rights, that is, people who are innocent of any crime, yet who are arrested, perhaps tried and perhaps imprisoned. I believe (and I get the feeling that you'll, agree with me) that there are certain sorts of crimes that deserve the death penalty (kiddie fiddling, multiple murder in the name of religion, for example). However, before we start issuing the death sentence, we _must_ have effective and accurate crime detection i.e. as few false positives as possible. As time goes on, I am getting less confident in the ability of the police to detect crimes and to accurately detect and catch the guilty, and to ignore the innocent. DNA and computers are _not_ the magic, 100% accurate technological marvels that we would like them to be. If DNA accuracy is 1 in 10,000, then a sample would match 6600 people in the UK in a fully populated national register. That's atrociously, irresponsibly inaccurate. I can see that it may help a little, but it's not at all conclusive.

I agree with you that we shouldn't base a decision on DNA only. But then again the courts do not generally issue a penalty unless the DNA evidence is indeniably incriminating. I think we should consider DNA as 1 evidence and part of a criminal case and only that. There is a lot of fears surrounding DNA but to be honest who is complaining about CCTV footage being recorded and stored?
As science progresses DNA testing is becoming incredibly accurate and cheaper.

Im wondering how high this pyramid of posts can get hehe

NoseyNeighbour wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Worz wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Purlieu wrote:

IRofE wrote:

Home Boy wrote: Yes and there are also cases of administrative errors, or errors in laboratories, leading to people being incorrectly convicted due to DNA testing, and they're just the cases we know about. The question isn't over whether DNA fingerprinting is useful, clearly it is. The question is over the presumption of innocence and who should be allowed access to what is the most personal piece of information you can hold against a person. It is a common misconception that DNA is unique. The methods of testing used can, at best, limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 37 million (i.e. a national database would usually register 2 matches). However the actual methods used in law enforcement only limit the possibility of a false positive to around 1 in 10,000.

How about we try to have and use a Database for 5 years to see if there is a real impact on crime numbers and catching murderers. We could at least give it a shot and see if it works.....then we can say for sure if it is an abuse of human rights or making our society safer.

Erm, IRofE, we already have been using a database for a lot longer than 5 years (e.g. the KS case mentioned above) and, have the murder detection/conviction figures improved ? You look it up.

Ok well, lets dig this up then? How many of us have had their "human rights" breached? and lets being clear here, who are the ones complaining about the breach of their "human rights"? Are you talking about Abu Qatada "human rights"? or are you talking about the 7/7 victimes "human rights"? Which side are you on?

I didn't realise there were sides.

there is a side unfortunately: because we never hear about the human rights of the victims! all we hear about are the human rights of the offenders, criminal, terrorists of all sort making a mockery of our legal system and Democracy. I know where I stand on this issue, do you?

IRofE, you've forgotten another group of people who deserve their human rights, that is, people who are innocent of any crime, yet who are arrested, perhaps tried and perhaps imprisoned. I believe (and I get the feeling that you'll, agree with me) that there are certain sorts of crimes that deserve the death penalty (kiddie fiddling, multiple murder in the name of religion, for example). However, before we start issuing the death sentence, we _must_ have effective and accurate crime detection i.e. as few false positives as possible. As time goes on, I am getting less confident in the ability of the police to detect crimes and to accurately detect and catch the guilty, and to ignore the innocent. DNA and computers are _not_ the magic, 100% accurate technological marvels that we would like them to be. If DNA accuracy is 1 in 10,000, then a sample would match 6600 people in the UK in a fully populated national register. That's atrociously, irresponsibly inaccurate. I can see that it may help a little, but it's not at all conclusive.

I agree with you that we shouldn't base a decision on DNA only. But then again the courts do not generally issue a penalty unless the DNA evidence is indeniably incriminating. I think we should consider DNA as 1 evidence and part of a criminal case and only that. There is a lot of fears surrounding DNA but to be honest who is complaining about CCTV footage being recorded and stored?
As science progresses DNA testing is becoming incredibly accurate and cheaper.

Im wondering how high this pyramid of posts can get hehe

Much higher!

Well this has certainly opened up a can of worms!! I still don't object to DNA being kept on a database and I think it's a wonderful tool for the police to use to catch and prosecute criminals.

There's too much emphasis placed on the 'rights' of the offender, not enough is done to alleviate the suffering of the victims. No matter how small the crime - whether it's burglary, rape or whatever - the victim has to live with the consequences of the crime for ever, and some people just never get over it. To see the perpetrator brought to justice must at least give them some closure.

Absolutely and I'l be first in the queue with you to provide my DNA.

Don't the government already keep a record of the DNA of all new born babies in any case? This means that, in time, they'll have everyone's DNA on record in any case.

Also, I do hope that all those against the DNA database do not at the same time support the government's ID Card scheme?

BadProspects wrote:
Some of the 'views' expressed on this site can cause a real sharp intake of breath, even to an experienced surfer of Jeremy Kyle style culture. Why are people so quick to sign over fundamental rights to the same institutions that you'll find them then slagging off as 'fascists', 'jobsworths' or 'faceless servants of the state' on just about any other topic??! It just goes to show what a successful tool tabloid promoted fear can be when it comes to manipulating people... Come back Goebels... Fear of crime has transcended basic common sense or even ethics - and it's with a sense of complete disbelief that I see hypocracy, double standards and trite ignorance trotted out.

First - the concept that people who are apposed to mandatory, invasive state control are either 'PC' or 'leftie'!!! Good god, they have to be two of the most obviously contradictory and stupid views I've ever seen expressed. How depressing and yet unsurprising. Its plain to see for anyone capable of being bothered to read even a little bit of 20th century history that leftwing governments have regularly shown themselves to have been the very best proponents of central state control. The key to their despotic power lay in the control they were able to extert using state mandated ID cards, state mandated databases and lists, and god knows how enviously they would have eyed the potential of a DNA database. (How ironic that the far right would have drooled with equal excitement. )

The next piece of monumental stupidity is the (deliberate?) misconception that people opposed to the OPEN ENDED STORAGE OF DNA OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME ARE - DE FACTO - ALSO OPPOSED TO THE TAKING OF DNA EVIDENCE!! The two issues are obviously entirely different. Being pro basic freedoms IS NOT the same as being 'soft on criminals' or 'pro' crime - **** far from it: and to anyone who's going to claim otherwise, I hope you wear an absorbant bib, because I presume you might dribble quite a lot when you're not clattering a keyboard. Rude? Well, you're being **** rude to presume that because I don't wish to indefinately surrender my genetic code to a database maintained by commercial third parties (who have something of an established habit of losing that sort of data), that I'm somehow an appologist for criminality.

I don't have any objection to giving DNA for the purposes of any SINGLE given investigation - however, AS AN INNOCENT PERSON who lives in a country which *used* to uphold the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', there's no need to leave my genetic identity indefinately in the hands of the state. Governments change, economies change. Laws change. Technology changes: Giving and simply trusting to fortune ANY institution with a tool for potential abuse of that magnitude is gullible and niave beyond belief. Personally, I'm of the opinion that as a law abiding tax payer, the institutions the state should serve me, NOT the other way round. It seems thats a view which is becoming unfashionable. Giving a mechanism like a national DNA database to the current government (or their likely successors) is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Alas, someone else wo can articulatley express my views.

Did you see the post about terrorists? They actually believe the governement hype where everything is the fault of the terrorist?

Nansview, silverran - did you have a good day surrendering your DNA at Gablecross yesterday?

No, you didnt do it di you?

May we all look forward to the day when an idiot official leaves a disk full of this information on a tube train.

Oh and when they sell it to other countries and commercial agencies.

Nansview, my offer to install CCTV into your front room still stands - you have nothing to hide right?

BadProspects wrote:
Some of the 'views' expressed on this site can cause a real sharp intake of breath, even to an experienced surfer of Jeremy Kyle style culture. Why are people so quick to sign over fundamental rights to the same institutions that you'll find them then slagging off as 'fascists', 'jobsworths' or 'faceless servants of the state' on just about any other topic??! It just goes to show what a successful tool tabloid promoted fear can be when it comes to manipulating people... Come back Goebels... Fear of crime has transcended basic common sense or even ethics - and it's with a sense of complete disbelief that I see hypocracy, double standards and trite ignorance trotted out.

First - the concept that people who are apposed to mandatory, invasive state control are either 'PC' or 'leftie'!!! Good god, they have to be two of the most obviously contradictory and stupid views I've ever seen expressed. How depressing and yet unsurprising. Its plain to see for anyone capable of being bothered to read even a little bit of 20th century history that leftwing governments have regularly shown themselves to have been the very best proponents of central state control. The key to their despotic power lay in the control they were able to extert using state mandated ID cards, state mandated databases and lists, and god knows how enviously they would have eyed the potential of a DNA database. (How ironic that the far right would have drooled with equal excitement. )

The next piece of monumental stupidity is the (deliberate?) misconception that people opposed to the OPEN ENDED STORAGE OF DNA OF THOSE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME ARE - DE FACTO - ALSO OPPOSED TO THE TAKING OF DNA EVIDENCE!! The two issues are obviously entirely different. Being pro basic freedoms IS NOT the same as being 'soft on criminals' or 'pro' crime - **** far from it: and to anyone who's going to claim otherwise, I hope you wear an absorbant bib, because I presume you might dribble quite a lot when you're not clattering a keyboard. Rude? Well, you're being **** rude to presume that because I don't wish to indefinately surrender my genetic code to a database maintained by commercial third parties (who have something of an established habit of losing that sort of data), that I'm somehow an appologist for criminality.

I don't have any objection to giving DNA for the purposes of any SINGLE given investigation - however, AS AN INNOCENT PERSON who lives in a country which *used* to uphold the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', there's no need to leave my genetic identity indefinately in the hands of the state. Governments change, economies change. Laws change. Technology changes: Giving and simply trusting to fortune ANY institution with a tool for potential abuse of that magnitude is gullible and niave beyond belief. Personally, I'm of the opinion that as a law abiding tax payer, the institutions the state should serve me, NOT the other way round. It seems thats a view which is becoming unfashionable. Giving a mechanism like a national DNA database to the current government (or their likely successors) is like putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

Alas, someone else wo can articulatley express my views.

Did you see the post about terrorists? They actually believe the governement hype where everything is the fault of the terrorist?

Nansview, silverran - did you have a good day surrendering your DNA at Gablecross yesterday?

No, you didnt do it di you?

May we all look forward to the day when an idiot official leaves a disk full of this information on a tube train.

Oh and when they sell it to other countries and commercial agencies.

Nansview, my offer to install CCTV into your front room still stands - you have nothing to hide right?

Slightly redacted copy of letter I sent to a Brian Moore, Wilts CC

As a result of the recent ECHR judgement concerning the illegal retention of innocent person's DNA samples and data , I formally request that my DNA samples and data be destroyed. Also my friction ridge dermal fingerprint and mugshot records destroyed and the deletion or updating of any other database records linking to this information.
ECHR judgement
S and Marper v United Kingdom (Application Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04)
in the European Court of Human Rights, unanimous judgement December 4, 2008
http://business.time
sonline.co.uk/tol/bu
siness/law/reports/a
rticle5303455.ece

I do not see why, as an innocent person, I should have the Damoclesean sword hanging over me of being the next Raymond Easton, Peter Hamkin or Mark Minick or for that matter Brandon Mayfield , Shirley McKie or Stephan Cowans. Just because of the perjury of psychotic/corrupt Wiltshire social workers ....... and their complicit police/CPS ......
I am fully aware of the scientific corruption within the so-called Forensic 'Science' Service. A proper science discloses to the public its error rates. Not so forensic 'science'.
Error rate for DNA profiling of reference samples about 0.9 percent (single kit false homozygosity)
Error rate for crime-scene sample DNA profiles somewhere between 1 and 7 percent (GEDNAP results).
That there is about a 1 in 2,000 chance, greater than evens, that anyone in the UK has a 10 loci DNA profile match with an unrelated someone else in the UK. Determination as a consequence of the Kathryn Troyer of Arizona disclosure that the FBI wanted suppressed - that started with disclosure of an unrelated 10.5 loci match between a black guy and a white guy in a database of only 65,493 samples. Highlighting the "billion to 1" perjurous unscientific codswallop statements regularly made in UK courts.

My involuntary DNA and fingerprint samples and mugshot taken at Salisbury police station on .......
CPS discontinuance and no court case and no criminal record because the CPS dare not expose the corruption within Wilts Social Services to the glare of a public court.

paul nutteing wrote:
Slightly redacted copy of letter I sent to a Brian Moore, Wilts CC As a result of the recent ECHR judgement concerning the illegal retention of innocent person's DNA samples and data , I formally request that my DNA samples and data be destroyed. Also my friction ridge dermal fingerprint and mugshot records destroyed and the deletion or updating of any other database records linking to this information. ECHR judgement S and Marper v United Kingdom (Application Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04) in the European Court of Human Rights, unanimous judgement December 4, 2008 http://business.time sonline.co.uk/tol/bu siness/law/reports/a rticle5303455.ece I do not see why, as an innocent person, I should have the Damoclesean sword hanging over me of being the next Raymond Easton, Peter Hamkin or Mark Minick or for that matter Brandon Mayfield , Shirley McKie or Stephan Cowans. Just because of the perjury of psychotic/corrupt Wiltshire social workers ....... and their complicit police/CPS ...... I am fully aware of the scientific corruption within the so-called Forensic 'Science' Service. A proper science discloses to the public its error rates. Not so forensic 'science'. Error rate for DNA profiling of reference samples about 0.9 percent (single kit false homozygosity) Error rate for crime-scene sample DNA profiles somewhere between 1 and 7 percent (GEDNAP results). That there is about a 1 in 2,000 chance, greater than evens, that anyone in the UK has a 10 loci DNA profile match with an unrelated someone else in the UK. Determination as a consequence of the Kathryn Troyer of Arizona disclosure that the FBI wanted suppressed - that started with disclosure of an unrelated 10.5 loci match between a black guy and a white guy in a database of only 65,493 samples. Highlighting the "billion to 1" perjurous unscientific codswallop statements regularly made in UK courts. My involuntary DNA and fingerprint samples and mugshot taken at Salisbury police station on ....... CPS discontinuance and no court case and no criminal record because the CPS dare not expose the corruption within Wilts Social Services to the glare of a public court.

I compare your sort to Neo-luddists.
You cannot stop progress

Nansview, my offer to install CCTV into your front room still stands - you have nothing to hide right?

Elfie, if you had nothing better to do than watch me watching Corrie, then fine by me, no I have nothing to hide, nothing whatsoever, why you seem obsessed with the fact that I might have is strange and if and when it is possible for me to go to Gable Cross Station and give my DNA, I will go willingly, as I will still have nothing to hide.

SpeakUp wrote:
Silvergran summed it up well "There's too much of this PC rubbish in this country and I wish the majority of sensible people would speak out more."

If we don't break the law there's no problem. If we do, then we should take the consequences. Never mind the 'innocent till proven guilty' nonsense - a DNA database would prove the innocent to be innocent and the guilty to be guilty. What's wrong with that, for pity's sake? It protects the innocent and convicts the guilty. Fine by me.

Wrong in so many different ways.

> If we don't break the law there's no problem.
>
So you believe that no miscarriages of justice have ever occurred? Just plain wrong.

> Never mind the 'innocent till proven guilty' nonsense
>
So you'd be happy to get arrested and jailed, at any time, and then have to prove yourself innocent?

> a DNA database would prove the innocent to be innocent
>
You're deluded, you believe the government's/police'
s BS that DNA evidence is never ever wrong.

> It protects the innocent and convicts the guilty.
>
Previous miscarriages of justice prove you to be wrong.

IRofE wrote:
paul nutteing wrote:
Slightly redacted copy of letter I sent to a Brian Moore, Wilts CC As a result of the recent ECHR judgement concerning the illegal retention of innocent person's DNA samples and data , I formally request that my DNA samples and data be destroyed. Also my friction ridge dermal fingerprint and mugshot records destroyed and the deletion or updating of any other database records linking to this information. ECHR judgement S and Marper v United Kingdom (Application Nos 30562/04 and 30566/04) in the European Court of Human Rights, unanimous judgement December 4, 2008 http://business.time sonline.co.uk/tol/bu siness/law/reports/a rticle5303455.ece I do not see why, as an innocent person, I should have the Damoclesean sword hanging over me of being the next Raymond Easton, Peter Hamkin or Mark Minick or for that matter Brandon Mayfield , Shirley McKie or Stephan Cowans. Just because of the perjury of psychotic/corrupt Wiltshire social workers ....... and their complicit police/CPS ...... I am fully aware of the scientific corruption within the so-called Forensic 'Science' Service. A proper science discloses to the public its error rates. Not so forensic 'science'. Error rate for DNA profiling of reference samples about 0.9 percent (single kit false homozygosity) Error rate for crime-scene sample DNA profiles somewhere between 1 and 7 percent (GEDNAP results). That there is about a 1 in 2,000 chance, greater than evens, that anyone in the UK has a 10 loci DNA profile match with an unrelated someone else in the UK. Determination as a consequence of the Kathryn Troyer of Arizona disclosure that the FBI wanted suppressed - that started with disclosure of an unrelated 10.5 loci match between a black guy and a white guy in a database of only 65,493 samples. Highlighting the IRofE, you've not understood a single word of that post, have you?

Progress is often good, but I don't see any here.

BTW, please can you post the timestamp of my post in which I said that I wanted DNA testing made illegal?

IRofE said "I compare your sort to Neo-luddists. You cannot stop progress"

1. Luddites, mate
2. There is good progress and there is bad progress.
Good progress means breakthroughs that actually advance the state of human understanding and medical health etc.
Bad progress happens when advances are not fully validated and are spin-sold to the public via tabloids as being Truth.
You decide.

nansview wrote:
Nansview, my offer to install CCTV into your front room still stands - you have nothing to hide right?

Elfie, if you had nothing better to do than watch me watching Corrie, then fine by me, no I have nothing to hide, nothing whatsoever, why you seem obsessed with the fact that I might have is strange and if and when it is possible for me to go to Gable Cross Station and give my DNA, I will go willingly, as I will still have nothing to hide.

You can walk into Gable Cross anytime and surrender your DNA.

Corrie has a lot to answer for - brain rotting garbage serves no purpose other than to nub the brain of people in this country and to stop them thinking about the real issues we face. Perhaps if the script writers played out a scenario where Jack Duckworth had his DNA stored for no reason you might understand the issue.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair on you Nansview when there are so many who share your ignorance. My addressing you is merely because you were the first to comment on serious story. If storing our DNA was right then The European court of human rights in Strasbourg would not have made a ruling against it. They said that keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.

Do you even know how hard people fought through the years for us to have the right to say the things we are able to say? Next you people will be telling us that it is wrong for women to vote.

You don't know me but have already decided I am a brain dead, ignorant member of society, but you assume a great deal. I am entitled to my view on this important issue and you have said nothing to change my view, I remain strongly in favour of a DNA database, and after everything that has been said on here, I still cant comprehend how Rob Ross and the like sleep at night!

Purlieu wrote:
IRofE said "I compare your sort to Neo-luddists. You cannot stop progress" 1. Luddites, mate 2. There is good progress and there is bad progress. Good progress means breakthroughs that actually advance the state of human understanding and medical health etc. Bad progress happens when advances are not fully validated and are spin-sold to the public via tabloids as being Truth. You decide.

Progress isn't bad or wrong, it is us humans that always made a new idea, technology something more lethal.

Indeed, and I didn't say progress was bad, I said that the way it is handled determines its eventual use to society, the way it is promoted, described, sold.

Perhaps this might help
http://www.theregist
er.co.uk/2008/12/17/
david_mery_reclaim_y
our_dna/

Another little law to monitor us and threaten our rights:

http://www.dailymail
.co.uk/news/article-
1151505/Buying-wine-
Spy-cameras-watching
.html

How do you all feel about being monitored by CCTV in shops if you buy wine and have the footage stored for 60 days?

Are we all alcoholics now as well as criminal scum?