you come across as a petulant kid m8 ... "youre not having my dna so there"...

 

Not petulant at all, I'm just not willing to surrender my rights to privacy to the state unless they can come up with some valid reason for suspecting me of a crime, and even then, after they eliminate me from their enquiries I will insist they destroy the sample, or I'll be taking them to the Euro Court of Human Rights....

 

I'm not petulant at all mate, I just feel very strongly about this issue, and I dont buy the arguments you or the Govt put across for its supposed "necessity", and I just dont trust them to not abuse their power, or else just totally fukk everything up and get people's records mixed up....

 

So now we're "petulant kids" if we resist Govt control and we dont particularly like the idea of being forced against our wills to comply to having our identities tracked, recorded and put on some govt database...?? <_< Christ, you really are beginning to sound like some ruddy Daily Mail editorial, or else, you'd get a good job with Orwell's "Thought Police"..... <_<

 

 

It wasn't, and the police 'knew' who it was as he had a distinctive 'MO' but needed proof. BUT the police failed to do more than say oh dear. It was window replacement man who found the blood (he got there before police)

 

So, in other words, they had a reason to suspect this guy, yeah...? Like I say, if you can come up with a reasonable suspicion and gather evidence, you can get a court order and take someone's DNA that way.....

but by ONLY dna'ing convicted criminals you will be missing all of them who start out, theyll be dna 'invisible' until they are caught by which time they would have caused havok, bringing misery to thousands of people... most of which could have been prevented if the scum had been caught earlier.

 

You're just not getting my point are you...? If the police have a good reason to suspect someone, they've gathered credible evidence against someone, then they can apply for a warrant to take someone's DNA, that's the way the law stands, and that's the way it should stand. I aint gonna just surrender my DNA to the authorities just because it "might" prevent crime, because there's no evidence that it would act as a deterrent anyway.....

 

You're just not getting my point are you...? If the police have a good reason to suspect someone, they've gathered credible evidence against someone, then they can apply for a warrant to take someone's DNA, that's the way the law stands, and that's the way it should stand. I aint gonna just surrender my DNA to the authorities just because it "might" prevent crime, because there's no evidence that it would act as a deterrent anyway.....

 

no YOUR ignoring the point.... every person who starts a life of crime is criminaly invisible until thery are caught... that could take years.

 

lets see.... how long a reign of terror would the yorkshire ripper have had IF his dna was on a national database? as soon as he was visable hed be caught, probably after just 1 crime, yet here you are moaning about the government having your dna when women were getting killed! thats fair innit! youd sooner allow crimes to be committed then freely give a sample of your dna... i wonder if youd still be arguing the same point IF a dna preventable crime happend against one of yours?...

no YOUR ignoring the point.... every person who starts a life of crime is criminaly invisible until thery are caught... that could take years.

 

If it takes years, it takes years (although I doubt it would), no one said that living in a free society was easy and that it doesn't have its drawbacks, but I prefer it to the alternative tbh... And the facts are that mistakes could still be made, because DNA evidence has been held up to be the be all and end all, the holy grail or whatever. If I went on a serial killing spree, I would be clever enough to actually plant other people's DNA at my crime scenes to completely throw the investigation off track....

 

And most serial killers really are that devious actually, they aint stupid, psychotic, yes, stupid, no....

but nobodies saying that dna is a foolproof, be all and end all of evidence, its a bloody good useful tool that could potentially be used to save lives, reduce crime and catch more crims. to ignore this technology would be utterly stupid, backward, and irresponsible as more and more people would have their human rights violated by crims unnecessarily...

 

the free world we live in is only as free as the lower end of society allows it to be. i hate the fact that i had to spend hundereds of pounds on security to try to prevent my equipment being stolen.... is that freedom? id be much happier if when a crime was committed against me the bast*rds were actually caught and if that means giving a dna sample then so be it.

Well they should make it VOLUNTARY so good citizens like you can give your DNA freely while those of us who are dead set against can opt out.

I'd prefer to give my fingerprints than my whole individual genetic code to some keystone cops thanks.

I wouldn't even give this highly personal information to my BEST FRIEND let alone to some agency to do god knows what with it.

Edited October 9, 200717 yr by Naomi Watts

i hate the fact that i had to spend hundereds of pounds on security to try to prevent my equipment being stolen.... is that freedom? id be much happier if when a crime was committed against me the bast*rds were actually caught and if that means giving a dna sample then so be it.

 

Sorry mate, but just because a few items of equipment might get nicked, that's still no reason for us to surrender our rights as a people.... You've got insurance, right...? And anyway, the people who would do the thieving would more than likely repeat offenders anyway, so in my compromise solution, they'd be on a Police database anyway.... :P

 

Sorry mate, but just because a few items of equipment might get nicked, that's still no reason for us to surrender our rights as a people.... You've got insurance, right...? And anyway, the people who would do the thieving would more than likely repeat offenders anyway, so in my compromise solution, they'd be on a Police database anyway.... :P

 

insurance?... they are bigger crims then the scummy chavs wot robbed me...

 

it aint about me, ive already highlighted many areas where dna could have saved many lives and help prevent/prosecute crime... to me thats overwhelming evidence why we should have one, at the moment all ive heard is 'im not giving it because i dont want to'... pityful really when there so many benefits to it.

insurance?... they are bigger crims then the scummy chavs wot robbed me...

 

it aint about me, ive already highlighted many areas where dna could have saved many lives and help prevent/prosecute crime... to me thats overwhelming evidence why we should have one, at the moment all ive heard is 'im not giving it because i dont want to'... pityful really when there so many benefits to it.

 

If the Govt could absolutely assure me that the Police and ONLY the Police would have access to this information and there were very strict legal controls on how this information could be used, I might consider it, but let's face it, they wont offer that guarantee will they, and every two bit fukkin' unnaccountable Quango will probably be let in on it, just like the phone records.... <_<

 

Three 'words' as to why I think a national database is ridiculous.

 

Secondary DNA transfer.

 

Shake someone's hand, pull a gun out, and shoot someone (okay a bit drastic but it's only an example :lol:) that handshake will transfer DNA from the other person onto the gun. Seeming as police seem to love kissing up to DNA so much it would take some great hassle to prove your innocence, without other evidence.

Three 'words' as to why I think a national database is ridiculous.

 

Secondary DNA transfer.

 

Shake someone's hand, pull a gun out, and shoot someone (okay a bit drastic but it's only an example :lol:) that handshake will transfer DNA from the other person onto the gun. Seeming as police seem to love kissing up to DNA so much it would take some great hassle to prove your innocence, without other evidence.

 

tell that to the parents of the 2 murdered girls in the panorama prog, they are highly grateful for dna as it caught the crims that otherwise would still be free to commit more murders...

 

some here are showing scant regard or knowlege of how the legal system works. obviously transfer would be taken into consideration :) does anyone think for 1 second that its a case of "the dna is there so he must be guilty"?... c'mon... its far more complicated then that.

Spot on KG, this is my main objection to the whole idea....

 

CCTV, ID Cards, National DNA databases, and now over 700 various Govt bodies and quangos can now access YOURS and MY landline and mobile phone records without needing a court order.... Add this all up folks.... It all equals POLICE STATE..... -_-

 

On another approach entirely - I'm sure the likes of Hitler and Mengele woud've just LOVED the idea of having a National DNA database - deffo would've speeded up the "rounding-up and killing all the Non-Aryans" process... And who's to say at some point in the future something like that wouldn't happen again..... God fukkin' forbid the BNP ever got into power and had access to something like this.... <_<

 

My opinion on this might surprise some of you, but on this issue I totally agree with Scott over this issue for the reasons given as it is so open to Civil Liberties abuse.

 

If you could trust the Government & authorities 100% of the time to not manipulate or abuse their power for their own benefit then I would not have a problem.

 

But I was not born yesterday.....

tell that to the parents of the 2 murdered girls in the panorama prog, they are highly grateful for dna as it caught the crims that otherwise would still be free to commit more murders...

 

you seem to overlook the case where someone was wrongly convicted because of DNA even though he could barely walk and was supposed to have gone 100 odd miles to break into someone's home. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence now does it :rolleyes: Secondary transfer, possible match of someone else's DNA is possible, and the fact a police officer planted DNA at a scene before.

you seem to overlook the case where someone was wrongly convicted because of DNA even though he could barely walk and was supposed to have gone 100 odd miles to break into someone's home. Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence now does it :rolleyes: Secondary transfer, possible match of someone else's DNA is possible, and the fact a police officer planted DNA at a scene before.

 

wrong!

 

he wasnt convicted, other evidence was used to prove his innocence... therefore the system works!

 

again you are concentrating on the minor faults and are ignoring the overwhelming good that would come from it. its nit picking minor details that could be quite easily sorted out, before it became into being.

My opinion on this might surprise some of you, but on this issue I totally agree with Scott over this issue for the reasons given as it is so open to Civil Liberties abuse.

 

If you could trust the Government & authorities 100% of the time to not manipulate or abuse their power for their own benefit then I would not have a problem.

 

But I was not born yesterday.....

 

i was born before you sonny! :P

 

it aint that bigger step from what we have now... we are all id'd, numbered, registered, could be brethalized, fingerprinted... all information could be open for abuse, it already is, no system is or ever has been foolproof. if we only dealt with 100% perfection in everything, nothing would ever get done!

Three 'words' as to why I think a national database is ridiculous.

 

Secondary DNA transfer.

 

Shake someone's hand, pull a gun out, and shoot someone (okay a bit drastic but it's only an example :lol:) that handshake will transfer DNA from the other person onto the gun. Seeming as police seem to love kissing up to DNA so much it would take some great hassle to prove your innocence, without other evidence.

 

Well put Matt... I think we've all seen enough episodes of CSI and other dramas like it to know that this is a very common occurrence... Same with Gunshot residue evidence, that can be transferred to second, third, even fourth parties.....

 

Until they come up with some totally flawless method of forensics with regards to DNA evidence, then I will NOT be supporting a mandatory DNA database....

 

i was born before you sonny! :P

 

it aint that bigger step from what we have now... we are all id'd, numbered, registered, could be brethalized, fingerprinted... all information could be open for abuse, it already is, no system is or ever has been foolproof. if we only dealt with 100% perfection in everything, nothing would ever get done!

 

No, actually you're wrong, we're dealing with the very building blocks of life itself here, the very essence of a human being... A bit bigger than "blowing into a bag" or having a photograph taken.....

 

And, from what I can gather, fingerprints are a far more foolproof method of detection than DNA evidence is.....

 

My opinion on this might surprise some of you, but on this issue I totally agree with Scott over this issue for the reasons given as it is so open to Civil Liberties abuse.

 

If you could trust the Government & authorities 100% of the time to not manipulate or abuse their power for their own benefit then I would not have a problem.

 

But I was not born yesterday.....

 

Exactly... And frankly given the various c**k-ups that the Home Office and the Health Dept have committed over the years, you cant even trust them to manage the thing effectively....

 

Exactly... And frankly given the various c**k-ups that the Home Office and the Health Dept have committed over the years, you cant even trust them to manage the thing effectively....

 

you have no choice, they are running the country.... following your logic on, nothing could be done unless its 100% flawless, so there would never be a flawless government...there would be no government!!! no structure to society, nothing.

 

yet again you are whipping up a frenzy over trivia.. this technology could easily be employed as an additional tool to help keep crime in check, at the moment logistically it isnt possible, but putting in safeguards, accountability, and a structure to it then theres no reason why it shouldnt be used. put down your pitchforks, put away your crosses and ffs embrace this as a decent step foreward.