DNA

Decimate our DNA Database. Yes or No

  • YES - In a democratic society etc etc.

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • NO - Feck off so called Human Rights monkeys

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Total voters
    14
As a law abiding citizen, why would you feel compelled to let the Government have your DNA?

I'm a law-abiding citizen also, and that is precisely why I see absolutely no reason whatsoever, as to why the Government should have a sample of my DNA.
 
Ah........so we do away with the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" and replace it with "guilty until counted out"?
 
My issue is one of entitlement.

Your DNA is your essence, for want of a better word. Give that up, and you have nothing more to give. You are catalogued. Think 'The Prisoner' or 'Brave New World', and you might get my drift.

I truly believe that humans (and I include clivex in this too :)) have more about them, than to become nothing more than a bar-code in a government file.

I take issue with your assertion that it has saved lives, though this is possibly through ignorance on my part. Please provide me with an example.
 
Grasshopper said:
I take issue with your assertion that it has saved lives, though this is possibly through ignorance on my part. Please provide me with an example.
Click to expand...

Sally Anne Bowman`s killer was caught when he was arrested for another incident. They took his DNA and matched it to her killer. Chances are without taking his sample he`d have killed or at least raped again.
 
When the Berlin Wall came down, one of the first things the liberated East Germans did was to destroy the police store of "sniff rags". These were cloths that had been applied to intimate areas of all offenders, whether criminal or political, and stored in jars to be used, if required, for the police tracker dogs.

Not quite as undignified, but why should the law-abiding be made to supply samples of themselves "in case" they are suspected of a crime?

My only reason for agreement would be if they were to make it available for quick cross-matching in the event of accident or need for rare blood grouping or transplants.
 
Fair enough Euro, but having his DNA on a database wouldn't have prevented him killing Sally Anne Bowman. It's used more as a tool to securing prosecution than preventing crime, isn't it?

Regardless, I still have the issue with entitlement, and the potential for misappropriation.
 
Last edited:
My own personal view has always been against the police/home office on this. I'm a bit of a rebel and hate to think someone has power over me as a citizen, to hold pieces of information on me that they don't lawfully need. With affairs like the Damian Green fiasco, and many many other cases throughout the course of British history (and it gets worse across the Atlantic) we know the police do get it wrong and also try to pin things on people - I remember when I was a teenager they tryed to pin a crime on me (desperately) because I was white, blonde hair etc. Luckily I don't have a criminal record but i'm sure there was a caution somewhere along the line where I had my DNA taken.

I checked my beloved conservative party website and am glad they've taken the approach they have, Dominic Grieve said it “vindicates all that we have been saying about the Government's wrong-headed approach to this issue which has caused so much resentment amongst the law abiding majority”.


And...."We would have a Parliamentary debate about the database and put it on a statutory basis."

http://www.conservatives.com/News/N...atabase_must_be_put_on_a_statutory_basis.aspx
 
I'm loving the Tories new civil liberties tack. Where was it when they came up with the Criminal Justice Bill in '94? And I presume they'll be praising the European courts and the mechanism which allows them to oversee British law for coming to this judgment? :)

On the subject of the DNA database itself, the question is not do you trust the government with it. The question is do you trust every single possible future government with it.
 
The argument that you have nothing to fear if you are law abiding is all very well if you trust the police and the State to understand and respect at all times, now and in the future, the distinction between dissidence and treachery, opposition and criminality.
 
Last edited:
Grey said:
The argument that you have nothing to fear if you are law abiding is all very well if you trust the police and the State to understand and respect at all times, now and in the future, the distinction between dissidence and treachery, opposition and criminality.
Click to expand...

That is the crux of the matter for me, well put.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I'm loving the Tories new civil liberties tack. Where was it when they came up with the Criminal Justice Bill in '94? And I presume they'll be praising the European courts and the mechanism which allows them to oversee British law for coming to this judgment? :)

On the subject of the DNA database itself, the question is not do you trust the government with it. The question is do you trust every single possible future government with it.
Click to expand...

Or anyone that picks up a laptop on a train, or finds a USB key lying in a car park..
 
Posession of marijuana is a criminal offence. Smoking it is not. So my brief Petrocelli says, anyway.

:whistle:
 
Petrocelli is clearly pish then. Cut and paste follows - note the bit in red :p:

As of 29th January 2004, cannabis has been reclassified from a Class B to a Class C drug in the UK. Here's a summary of how the changes may affect you:

If you're 17 or under, you'll be arrested and taken to a police station for a formal warning (your parent or guardian will be asked to attend). If it's not your first offence you may earn a drugs conviction in court.

If you are over 18, the police will confiscate your drugs and will most likely give you a warning - but they still have the power to arrest you if you are:
(a) a repeat offender
(b) smoking in public
(c) a threat to public order
(d) have cannabis near any premises used by children.

Supplying and dealing remains a far more serious offence than possession and the maximum penalty for supplying and dealing Class C is still 14 years plus an unlimited fine.
 
Who said anything about smoking it "in public"?

It should be smoked at home, with some groovy sounds playing in the background (Air's "10,000Hz Legend" usually does the trick for me), with plenty of fizzy-pop and Japanese rice crackers on standby. :D

You have to get up very early in the morning to beat my man Petrocelli. :p

PS. How a stoner can be a "threat to public order" is beyond me. What they going to nail you for; looking vacant in a built-up area??
 
Last edited:
Back
Top