UK National DNA Database.

It appears to me that all too often OUR government packages in a nice neat bundle provisions that are good for us.
National DNA database, id cards, longer periods of incarceration without charge.
My point is, just what and when do we as a nation (elections, all parties are culpable?) decide that the thin end of the wedge is met ?

In his inauguration speech Obama said

quote:

Our founding fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

I felt that with this statement perhaps a greater hope that Britain would follow, upholding the freedoms we in the west purport to hold so dear. Instead of slowly eroding them in the name of OUR safety !
NO MORE!
I'm off to lie down.

quote:

Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
It appears to me that all too often OUR government packages in a nice neat bundle provisions that are good for us.
National DNA database, id cards, longer periods of incarceration without charge.
My point is, just what and when do we as a nation (elections, all parties are culpable?) decide that the thin end of the wedge is met ?

Maybe the majority of the nation doesn’t object to the National DNA Database, ID cards or longer periods of incarceration without charge.

I don’t.

The police took a sample of my DNA when I was charged with a motoring offence in the early 80’s. My details may have been added to the NDNA database, which was set up at a later date. If it was I am not worried about it.

However, I am worried about how DNA evidence is presented to a jury.

quote:

Maybe the majority of the nation doesn’t object to the National DNA Database, ID cards or longer periods of incarceration without charge.

Perhaps your correct Fatcat, or perhaps the majority just don't care (i.e. they choose not to vote or can't be bothered).
My point is that following that argument logically from comments earlier on this thread can we then object if the same government decides that it is in our best interest that insurance companies have access to our DNA records?
It is perhaps not illogical to suggest that the current financial crisis has as much to do with government deregulation (at the behest of financial institutions with vested interests)as it has with banking greed (one begets the other).
I may not be making my point clear here, for which I appologise. What I am trying to say is that our freedoms were hard fought for and NO elected officials have the right to give them away.
Similarly, an argument that apathy by the population somehow empowers polititians with these rights is manifestly wrong.

quote:

However, I am worried about how DNA evidence is presented to a jury.

At least as yet we have a jury to present to.

quote:

Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
or perhaps the majority just don't care (i.e. they choose not to vote or can't be bothered).

If the majority don’t care why should the minority dictate to the majority. I personally don’t believe the NDNA database has restricting my freedom, but it has restricted the freedom of a few murderers and rapists.

If the NDNA database causes potential murderers or rapists to have second thoughts about committing a crime, it is surely worthwhile.

Fatcat,
While your points are indeed correct they still put great faith in the political elite to do the right thing.
My point is that even (especially) in recent times Government has been shown to treat the populations (OUR) rights with contempt and the rights of the minority are the very rights that it is imperative to maintain.
Pastor Niemoller comes to mind:

quote:

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

quote:

If the NDNA database causes potential murderers or rapists to have second thoughts about committing a crime, it is surely worthwhile.

As most criminals are intoxicated &/or suffering from some form of mental illness would they use such consideration?
The amount of resources used in serious crime investigations means a high probability of conviction in the UK,
yet increasing numbers of serious crimes are being committed.

Taking Howlinhounddog's last post a little further ...

For those who suggest that a nationwide DNA databse is a good/great idea I ask the following questions:

- if your argument is that criminals, etc. will think twice because there will be a record of their DNA stored against which to match: what about the innocent party? At the scene of a crime there is likely to be several or more - possibly innocent passers by (e.g. retail shop) all of whom will be pulled into the investigation. The police could spend just as long eliminating all of the innocent parties as they do seeking the criminals. And this is just a simple example.

- if it's such a great idea why not make it more logical? As every baby is born why not put a datachip in their neck (like a pet ... a la X-Files' conspiracy) and that way the authorities can identify just who was where.

- or if the cost of the implants is excessive why not go for the cheap option: when a child is born why not stamp a number on his/her wrist. That way whenever you want to prove your identity all you need do is flash your number. Then again, perhaps this isn't a new idea.

I know I'm mixing DNA and Identity registers but there're effectively the same, if used for different purposes.

And just in case anyone still doesn't see what I'm getting at: to use a saying (I've forgotten the exact words) attributed to Groucho Marx:

The secret of life is truth and fairness to all ...

... if you can fake that, you've got it made!

And if you think the government can keep the registry (be it DNA or identity) uncorrupted - despite numerous failures to date - please answer the question: why are there something like 10m more live National Insurance numbers on the government's database than there are citizens (16 and over) in the country?

Both major political parties in this country have proved without any question of doubt that they have no means to keep sensitive information secret and have shown incompetence on the highest scale.

Trust them with my DNA and/or identity? The thought just makes me laugh with contempt.

quote:

As most criminals are intoxicated &/or suffering from some form of mental illness would they use such consideration?

the important work to debate here is 'most'?

Go on then ...

I do not think the usefulness of the database is that it will make criminals think twice before committing a crime although a small minority might, but rather that once they have committed a crime they are less likely to be able to continue inflicting misery on a lot more innocent victims because the police will be able to apprehend them sooner. Or am I being naive? Far too often we hear of these scumbags who blight our lives asking for 63 other offences to be taken into consideration when being sentenced or the police implicating them in a host more crimes.

And finally, correct me if I am wrong but the DNA sample is not analyised in such complete detail (too expensive) and all this detail written down for Joe Public to read. The DNA is assigned a number and a name and very basic details of the provider.

I have no problem with the police keeping my details on file. Yeh, mistakes are made and they can be an absolute nightmare if god forbid you get caught up in one but I would rather that than some murderer or rapist getting away for too long and then coming and raping my daughter and killing my son because some bleeding heart liberal do gooder was more concerned about someones "Right" not to be on a Database because it infringed their Human Rights.

Sorry for the rant.
"Isn't Naim brilliant?"

555,

simply re dna my view is this:

the agencies looking after the dna should look after it properly, including all records and samples. No question of that.

The more interesting debate is to what extreme to we go to to provide a deterrent to would be offenders who actually commit offences knowing that unless they ave provided a dna sample, they won't be traced by this method.

Have you considered dna hits from burglary offences, where the suspect has left hair/blood/other dna at the scene, for example? What about cigarett butts left in vehicles after they'be been pinched?

Also, repeat offenders are identified by this method - as their dna has been obtained, and due to the repeat offending the courts are in a much stronger position to impose custodial sentencing...

A lot of criminals may be intoxicated &/or suffering from some form of mental illness but there must be a significant number of tea total rational criminals. I suspect DNA evidence does not contribute to the conviction of the average tanked up nutter. They are tanked up nutters.

The fact that DNA samples of people who haven’t been convicted are stored on the database must also be a deterrent. The would be perpetrator of a crime would be deterred due to the fact their DNA may end up on the database due to a simple driving error.

Comparing having a cotton wool bud placed on the inner cheek, then having the information stored on a database, with the holocaust, is a little extreme.

Today’s residents of Palestine, Sudan, the Congo and parts of Asia would swap their Human Rights violations for a DNA database.

Steve
Your rant is justified. Spot on.

quote:

Today’s residents of Palestine, Sudan, the Congo and parts of Asia would swap their Human Rights violations for a DNA database.

The 1500 Palastinians bombed out of existance in the last fortnight would no longer be on the database!
Spurious to argue that one set of human right violations can offset another. Or perhaps not so as this is the very argument that government has been using :

Detention without conviction (current rights do not afford police adequate time - unproven),

I.D. cards (Will stop terrorists - how, see Madrid)
DNA database (how will this stop crime - see above examples)
Fatcat, I will say again, because you feel that you are losing nothing by handing over these rights please do not believe you speak for me, because I feel I would be losing a lot (and I have never commited a crime).Similarly the apathy of the majority is not an excuse for ELECTED officials to steal my (or any other citizens)rights.

quote:

Steve
Your rant is justified. Spot on.

Always assuming you have not given up the right to free speech

regards
Charlie.

Civil Liberties are easy to surrender, but very hard to retrieve once given up.

The NDNA database is here to stay. Thank goodness. The conservatives implemented it and labour has been quite happy with it the past 11 years.

One mans human rights violation is another mans rational legislation.

quote:

The 1500 Palastinians bombed out of existance in the last fortnight would no longer be on the database!
Spurious to argue that one set of human right violations can offset another. Or perhaps not so as this is the very argument that government has been using :

I don’t know how you come to the conclusion that is about offsetting anything. The point is, these people are subjected to substantial violations of human rights. How happy they would be if they're only worries where being on a DNA database, carrying an identity card and living in a nice warm cell for 6 weeks.

quote:

Detention without conviction (current rights do not afford police adequate time - unproven),

You can't prove it is necessary, but you can't prove it won't be necessary in the future. There's nothing for you to worry about. Just because the police will have the power to hold suspects for a longer period without charge doesn't mean they will do so.

quote:

I.D. cards (Will stop terrorists - how, see Madrid)

Just because a terrorist attack succeeded in a country that has ID cards doesn’t mean they don’t prevent terrorism. You might as well say seat belts don’t prevent deaths because a thousand or so people are killed each year behind the wheel whilst wearing a seatbelt.

quote:

DNA database (how will this stop crime - see above examples)

Many LIVES have been saved due to the fact the DNA database has put a number of serial killers behind bars.

quote:

Always assuming you have not given up the right to free speech

Be careful how you use your free speech on the net. You know Big Brother may be watching you, and I don’t mean Adam.

Yes, I would bet that there is far more snooping than is admitted.

And those of us who may troublesome to despotic governement of the furure will be rounded up and disappear for sure!

On balance I think this is a bad thing!

ATB from George

George

You must be a very worried man. Your dissatisfaction with XP will have been noted. I wouldn’t mind betting your XP software sends a message to Microsoft Command Centre every time you criticise XP or praise Macintosh.

XP is old hat! It will be when I start on Vista that no doubt the heavy mob will be round to sweeten me up, or something ...

The trouble is that one never knows whether when some furture odious regime arrives it will be left or right wing, so I keep them guessing by seeing both sides of the argument! Sigh!

ATB

Fatcat

It's a shame the Berlin wall era East Germany is no longer available for you to visit;
you would get a good idea of the society you are wishing for.

I really don't have a problem with the idea of a DNA database, but I really have a problem with the management of same. Another data loss does little to inspire confidence.

Why does the UK Govenment want to criminise all citizens?

Ministers 'using fear of terror'

Because then you are the guilty until proven innocent - this will really speed up trials, provide extra work for builders to make more prisons and employ more prison warders and also take people out of work to bang up in jails so providing job vacancies. There will be an increase of unemployed people being put in prison. A win win all round for the government reduced the number of unemployed, reduced opposition, less traffic on the roads etc.

Good points Derek - I'm going to change career & apply for a job as a policeman!

quote:

Originally posted by 555:
Why does the UK Govenment want to criminise all citizens?

Ministers 'using fear of terror'

LOL

Quoting the former head of M15.


I thought M15 was on your list of phobias.

Former being the operative word. How did you get fat cat?