View Full Version : Mandatory DNA Testing
connieb19
05-Jan-06, 18:54
What do people think of the idea of all babies being swabbed for dna samples at birth to detect crime in the future?
I heard this on the radio today and im not sure how I feel about it.
I would quite like to hear some more about it before I make up my mind?
It's a pity we couldn't have a poll to see how many were for it, and how many against!!
Reminds me of a mixture of "Gattaca" and "Minority Report."
Seems a shame that we'd have to go to such lengths.
landmarker
05-Jan-06, 19:50
I heard today that Four million people are on the Police dna database.
Four in every ten of them are from minority ethnic groups -black/brown.
Seems out of kilter. Can anyone venture an opinion?
Why do we need such a database? Why are we, as a society so
constantly under 'surveillance'
Are things becoming a litle sinister here in Britain?
I do not believe in swabbing the mouths of innocent new borns perchance they may transgress later in life.99.99% are born good 90% of people tend to remain good.
Is there a politics thread/section or is 'general' a catch all for such matters?
Might a politics section be a good idea?
Alan
(the original meaning of sinister is left-handed. I'm left handed myself but despite this interest in the word, its new meaning (shady/underhand/slightly evil) seems appropriate.
If you think that Father Christmasses should be screened by the police then you will have no trouble in accepting DNA sampling from a baby.
If you've done nowt wrong then you got nowt to hide eh?
The idea of getting everyones dna on the police database to catch criminals is a good idea in theory but what next will they be wanting use dna for insurance purposes to see whether your a high risk or not or will employers want dna to prodict your health in the future which might effect your chances of getting work.
I would only support it if it was going to be done worldwide and not uk only.
landmarker
05-Jan-06, 20:35
If you think that Father Christmasses should be screened by the police then you will have no trouble in accepting DNA sampling from a baby.
If you've done nowt wrong then you got nowt to hide eh?
Do you know of any other society which will peform such an intrusive test on a new born perchance it make break the law at some stage? What a sorry state of affairs. The more I am posed such questions the more I wonder just when Britain lost its way.
If 'innocent until proved guilty' is to mean anything then surely such a pre-emptive strike on infants should be resisted. If nothing else its absence will make the Police work for a living without simple recourse to dna databases.
If complete reliance is put upon such methods it's only a matter of time before mistakes are made. Nothing in life is infallible.
Alan
[...]intrusive test on a new born[...]
Please explain that, we can get DNA samples without being intrusive.
I can think of several Leaders in the last hundred years who would have been delighted to have access to everybodies DNA.
They would have found the information contained therein most useful.
Some people in the Medical Profession are already suggesting that people with certain life-styles should be refused certain treatments.
How long before some of them start to say, "It isn't worth trying to treat your child because of the information I have from it's DNA."
And before anybody else says it, I am well aware of the "It could never happen here." statement.
landmarker
05-Jan-06, 23:02
Please explain that, we can get DNA samples without being intrusive.
Swabbing the inside of the mouth - the usual method of obtaining dna - is intrusive, isn't it?
alan
Swabbing the inside of the mouth - the usual method of obtaining dna - is intrusive, isn't it?
alan
Usual yes but not the only method, anyway, if it is the only method of getting a sample, is it offensive?
No like you say landmarker make the police work for there money .
connieb19
06-Jan-06, 03:03
No like you say landmarker make the police work for there money .Well im not sure what to think. on one hand I agree make the bobbies work but on the other if almost all rapes, murders or i suppose any crime could be solved then is it a good thing. Maybe people would feel safer. But like I say, im not sure, i'd like to know more fors and againsts first before making up my mind
No like you say landmarker make the police work for there money .
I don't understand the logic of your post.
We are policed by public concession not by a despotic imposition. The police are made up of our own chiels. Therefore it is in our interest to assist the police therefore it is cheaper on a financial basis as taxpayers?:confused:
Why not give every one a DNA test no harm in it so long it was wll regulated and only used for major crimes like murder , rape etc.
Futher more i feel all kids under 16 should have a electronic chip inserted into them so if a child gets abduted or lost thet can be traced within minutes, we have the technolegy to do this now and again as long as it was well regulated then it would deter all those pedo's out there.I would have no hesitation to put a chip in my kid's to keep them safe.
Steely Eyed Tortoise
06-Jan-06, 07:27
The whole point of DNA evidence is that our DNA is unique to us and if tested and a positive match is made it proves beyond doubt that you were involved. But if the Police have a record of everyones DNA wouldnt fitting someone up become so much easier ..
Seems that a lot of people have far more trust in people in authority than I do.
I wouldn't even let them loose with my smile never mind my DNA.
"Want my fingerprints, charge me or get a court order and close the door on the way out."
ummm both of my boys when born were given spot tests things.. they took 5 drops of blood and put them on a card.. they then sent it to a data base so that it will be on file.. it also to study infant blood and disease.. cant remember what it was all for.. but i do remember them going over it with me and me signing the release forms .. but it was for medicine and if a few drops of blood and dna can help another baby then im all for it.. and if God forbid one day they needed the dna to identify one of them then im glad its there..
just like everything else it can swing too far in either direction.. we just have to make sure it dosent do that..
ever wonder why world leaders are heartless fiends who say they cant afford to feel because its not in the "best intrest" of the people they are serving?
I agree with brandy. It's not just about identifying criminals. Personally I would have no objection to giving a sample of my DNA. If you're not going to do anything wrong, what have you to worry about?
Is DNA collected from known criminals, especially sex offenders? If not it should be!
landmarker
06-Jan-06, 20:19
I agree with brandy. It's not just about identifying criminals. Personally I would have no objection to giving a sample of my DNA. If you're not going to do anything wrong, what have you to worry about?
Is DNA collected from known criminals, especially sex offenders? If not it should be!
This is fine if it's voluntary.
Babies would not have a choice. I just think it wrong and a DEFINITE intrusion to take a sample/swab almost assuming this new little life
will one day fall foul of the law. It is unfair and unneccessary.
I'm not sure if the poster suggesting underskin implants of micro-chips in our children was serious. Where is all this leading us for God's sake?
This kind of suggestion makes the Orwellian vision of 1984 Britain look like a relative tea-party!
The Government have never had an I.T. system which worked properly. There would be mistakes. If complete reliance were placed on dna samples then ask yourself - - would there be any mistakes? I'm afraid it is inevitable.
A newborn baby does not have a sense of self awareness, basically they are functioning on instinct. So they don't make choices because they can't. Therefore it is not an intrusion to take a DNA sample from a baby.
How many people have died in jail because of wrongful conviction due to incorrect evidence.DNA testing would not guarantee a fair legal system but it would go a long way towards more foolproof convictions. Criminals who have been charged now have a swab taken at the same time as their fingerprints.
DNA samples taken at birth would have no effect on the infants and it would not harm if everyone in the world were on a data base. With the ever rising crime rate worldwide,something must be done .
If you`ve nothing to hide it shouldn`t be a problem.Only thing all these poxy do gooders will girn it`s infringing human rights,wot about the poor s that have been wrongly convicted.If they treated criminals like criminals in this country it would be a far better place-bring back public hanging i say.
Ye will end up suspended so I will answer ye. Until we have developed a foolproof lie detecter we cannot risk hanging anyone. Universal DNA testing will help, but not cure a legal system which is collapsing and completely unfair.
This is fine if it's voluntary.
So you wouldn't volunteer? Makes me wonder what you're hiding....
Alice in Blunderland
07-Jan-06, 00:20
Upon arrival the newborn baby has lots to endure the needle in the thigh (VitaminK) next the hip test then hearing test, by five days old we then have the blood from the heal not to mention the round of innocculations against various diseases so another test added on at that time wouldnt realy be too much. I am not sure how I feel about this although I can see the thought behind why they would like to do it.
So you wouldn't volunteer? Makes me wonder what you're hiding....
Now then Katarina, don't provoke him. Just because he is a long distance lorry driver...:rolleyes:
Guilty until you prove yourself innocent, that's a new concept for a legal system in Britain.
Of course, fingerprint evidence is beyond argument as well and mistakes are never made.
If mistakes can be made with fingerprints and a Police Officer charged with perjury for saying, quite truthfully, that she had never attended the scene of a murder investigation because her "supposed" fingerprints were found at the scene then what price me?
No system which involves humans is perfect and no system is beyond being misused for whatever reason.
No system which involves humans is perfect and no system is beyond being misused for whatever reason.
If we took that view to the umpteenth degree then we would find ourselves in a position where we are unable to convict anyone, no matter how obvious the crime is. That is why we have the ambiguous term 'reasonable doubt'.
The whole point of DNA evidence is that our DNA is unique to us and if tested and a positive match is made it proves beyond doubt that you were involved. But if the Police have a record of everyones DNA wouldnt fitting someone up become so much easier .."Fitting up" could be difficult for the police if everyone was able to obtain a copy of their own DNA profile, which would presumably be available under the Freedom of Information Act, as things stand today.
landmarker
07-Jan-06, 16:37
Now then Katarina, don't provoke him. Just because he is a long distance lorry driver...:rolleyes:
I'm no longer a long distance lorry driver.Though I used to be.
Do you have a low opinion of the ilk? given your eye rolling gesture?
Perhaps, due to a few notorious examples you tar all with the same
prejudiced brush.
landmarker
07-Jan-06, 16:41
So you wouldn't volunteer? Makes me wonder what you're hiding....
Well, I see you are plainly NOT hiding the fact that you lack an eye for detail.
Did I say I would not volunteer?
Please read my posts properly if you are going to make impudent, and
slightly sinister remarks.
If a nasty crime had been committed in my area and a dna sample might
aid the Police by process of elimination I would definitely volunteer.
Otherwise no ! Make of that what you will.
Had I committed a crime then I would not object to dna being taken and stored. I DO NOT AGREE WITH SAMPLING NEW BORN INFANTS.
Is that clear enough?
I suppose that mass testing would solve any discrimination problems - we would ALL be suspects!
Below is taken from the 'http://www.spy.org.uk/wtwu.htm' web site - watching them- watching us.
"The Independent newspaper (Tuesday 12th January 2004) has devoted its headline and leading articles to CCTV Surveillance, claiming that over 4,285,000 i.e. about 20% of the world's CCTV cameras are used in the UK.
CCTV does not have a deterrent effect on violent alcohol influenced street brawls according to research conducted by University Hospital of Cardiff, published in Injury Prevention journal which compares actual emergency hospital admissions with unreliable police violence statistics."
So, why should we submit to even more monitoring than we already have.
Universal testing would remove us from suspicion.You say that CCTV is no deterrent to violent drunken brawlers. This is probably true but it does deter the criminal who is not drunk and knows what he is doing. Universal DNA testing would harm no-one who is not a criminal and would ensure that more criminals would be arrested.
The testing would remove us from nothing.
If we lived in the area where a crime was committed then we are all suspects until proved otherwise by the comparison of the DNA.
Let's imagine that there is, somewhere, a friendly neighbourhood psycopathic hairdresser, (not Ray Winstone :rolleyes: ). You always go there for a short back and sides.
They want to murder their husband / wife whatever.
You know the partner but for some reason you have never hit it off with them. One day, you have a blazing row with the man/woman; next day they are found dead and it just so happens that some of your hair is found in their hand.
Then you remember that at your last visit to the hairdresser she accidently tugged out some of you hair which got caught in the scissors............
yadayadayada......
landmarker
07-Jan-06, 17:33
Good scenario DW. Powerful argument.
Incidentally , Sweeney Todd as portrayed by
Ray Winstone was one of the t.v. highlights
of the recent past imho.
It seems that there are more paranoid people than me arroundLOL.
He was good wasn't he?
Not many lines to learn though, maybe just as well!;)
landmarker
07-Jan-06, 18:49
He was good wasn't he?
Not many lines to learn though, maybe just as well!;)
LOL. I was in a stage production of this when I was about fourteen. I played a court 'usher' who had to call him as a witness. My line was 'Sweeney Todd, Sweeney Todd' Not much to remember and an undemanding role.
Enjoyable all the same. I foresook a stage career for the sales office of an asbestos-cement pipe manufacturer. Such is life.
connieb19
08-Jan-06, 11:30
The testing would remove us from nothing.
If we lived in the area where a crime was committed then we are all suspects until proved otherwise by the comparison of the DNA.
Let's imagine that there is, somewhere, a friendly neighbourhood psycopathic hairdresser, (not Ray Winstone :rolleyes: ). You always go there for a short back and sides.
They want to murder their husband / wife whatever.
You know the partner but for some reason you have never hit it off with them. One day, you have a blazing row with the man/woman; next day they are found dead and it just so happens that some of your hair is found in their hand.
Then you remember that at your last visit to the hairdresser she accidently tugged out some of you hair which got caught in the scissors............
yadayadayada......So are you for it or against it then...
The testing would remove us from nothing.
If we lived in the area where a crime was committed then we are all suspects until proved otherwise by the comparison of the DNA.
Let's imagine that there is, somewhere, a friendly neighbourhood psycopathic hairdresser, (not Ray Winstone :rolleyes: ). You always go there for a short back and sides.
They want to murder their husband / wife whatever.
You know the partner but for some reason you have never hit it off with them. One day, you have a blazing row with the man/woman; next day they are found dead and it just so happens that some of your hair is found in their hand.
Then you remember that at your last visit to the hairdresser she accidently tugged out some of you hair which got caught in the scissors............
yadayadayada......
Write a book about it - what an amazing plot - it would be a best seller.
next day they are found dead and it just so happens that some of your hair is found in their hand.
So what? What has that got to do with DNA?
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 17:43
..perchance the hair in the corpses hand would be tested and found to contain ones dna. Therefore one might incorrectly be placed at the scene of this hypothetical crime.
Although hair might be high on the list of dodgy bit of evidence given that the victims spouse is a Barber. This last sentence assumes that the coppers investigating are brighter than the average.
If dna were so readily available, and so trusted by the completely gullible - you for instance - then some officers of the law might not be tempted to look beyond the obvious.
..perchance the hair in the corpses hand would be tested and found to contain ones dna. Therefore one might incorrectly be placed at the scene of this hypothetical crime.
Although hair might be high on the list of dodgy bit of evidence given that the victims spouse is a Barber. This last sentence assumes that the coppers investigating are brighter than the average.
If dna were so readily available, and so trusted by the completely gullible - you for instance - then some officers of the law might not be tempted to look beyond the obvious.
Hair can be identified via good old forensics without the need for DNA testing, so DW's scaremongering is just meaningless.
However, I can see the pitfalls of a National DNA database and how it can be misused. There are the odds of having an identicle DNA match to, say, a spot of blood etc. These do vary but I can remember in one case being 1 in 50,000,000 against and that secured the conviction. However, if the policed just did a search based just on DNA then the odds of finding a match are very large indeed. That is why the police need other evidence to secure a conviction. This is where the real power of DNA testing kicks in.
This doesn't mean that we should not have a database though, whereby the police just test suspects. Take the case of a series of rapes and suspicion falls on all males on a given housing estate. By virtue of the data base, specific suspicion will quickly fall onto one individual. The odds of someone having a match will still be long enough to secure a conviction. This will quicken arrests and thus prevent future crimes which is the secondary oath of all police officers.
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 19:00
This doesn't mean that we should not have a database though, whereby the police just test suspects. Take the case of a series of rapes and suspicion falls on all males on a given housing estate. By virtue of the data base, specific suspicion will quickly fall onto one individual. The odds of someone having a match will still be long enough to secure a conviction. This will quicken arrests and thus prevent future crimes which is the secondary oath of all police officers.
As I've said databases on an ad.hoc basis, localised as you suggest in response to a particular crime are a good idea. However, what happens to the sample once given,. It is destroyed once one is rendered above suspicion?
I might be considered paranoid, but we have already been asked to give away too many of our freedoms in the name of security. Primarily because some alien culture has spawned misguided zealots who want to destroy us, but also because criminals are gaining the upper hand due to poor governance (lenient sentences etc.)
I'm reluctant to give away more of these freedoms - all of which have been hard won by our ancestors over the centuries. Our rulers and masters did not legislate freedoms through any sense of largesse. The peoples will prevailed.
Anyway
The basic thrust of this thread was should babies be sampled at birth. My response is still unequivocally 'no'. Though I might be persuaded a dna test the children of foreigners born here, and their parents (ie.non-British citizens) could be useful.
Though I might be persuaded a dna test the children of foreigners born here, and their parents (ie.non-British citizens) could be useful.
Oh dear, I was alnost convinced...:(
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 19:12
Oh dear, I was alnost convinced...
Well, you can't please all the people all the time.
If our government were to start handing out long sentences and began to lock up more and more people,we would end up with a prison population of Mamoth proportions. In the light of the rulings of the Court of Human Rights we cannot make prisons the horrible places that people would like to see. Our present prisons give many prisoners a better life style than they have outside and a prison sentence these days is no deterrent to the average criminal.Criminals are gaining the upperhand because of the greatly increased numbers of them in the light of increased poverty,the Government's archaic attitude towards the illness of drug addiction and the absolute inneficiency of our police and our legal system. If the foundation of the tower is weak,then there is no point trying to improve the upper stories. Perhaps we do need to start from the beginning again. Roll on anarchy.(before I get half a dozen people jumping on me for being an anarchist I am not.I was only joking,honest.)
rich62_uk
08-Jan-06, 20:33
CCTV has reduced a large percent of crime in our area. Shop lifting, pick pockets, mugging, fights, asbo breaking, gangs congregating etc it hasnt stopped them but it has reduced them. And in Romford I think we have about 15% of that 20% you was talking about ;)
As for DNA, every time someone is arrested they are swabbed and told that if they are released without charge then the DNA sample is destroyed. I know for a fact this is a lie, it is not destroyed it is stored, no one will admit this officialy, makes you wonder just how large their data base really is ....Trish.
:D
(havent got my own id yet trouble with the email bit have to say its me as Rich and I often disagree)
If you think that Father Christmasses should be screened by the police then you will have no trouble in accepting DNA sampling from a baby.
If you've done nowt wrong then you got nowt to hide eh?
The operative being having done nothing wrong. If all babies are swabbed for DNA, not only would it be costly, but you're starting point is that everyone is a potencial criminal untill proven contrary by a clean slate at death. It's wrong, wrong, wrong even to consider such a data base. It is dangerous too, because information is money and information on ones genetic makeup will be worth something. It is, infact worth something right now, to health insurance companies, for example.
Your DNA is unique to you and unless you are a criminal should not be of the public domain ( I am considering a computer data base used by enforcement officials to be of public domain, though I know several people won't agree with me on that).
As for DNA, every time someone is arrested they are swabbed and told that if they are released without charge then the DNA sample is destroyed. I know for a fact this is a lie, it is not destroyed it is stored
Can you expand on that? For it to be fact you have to have proof yes?
The basic thrust of this thread was should babies be sampled at birth. My response is still unequivocally 'no'. Though I might be persuaded a dna test the children of foreigners born here, and their parents (ie.non-British citizens) could be useful.
ooooohhhhhh...I get the rational: crime is not commited by British Nationals?!?!? Sigh.....the British Islands...... Paradise Lost.......
rich62_uk
08-Jan-06, 20:59
Can you expand on that? For it to be fact you have to have proof yes?
Official Proof NO.. Two friends plus a family member who are currently police officers plus a husband who is an ex-police officer. Does a police station have the slipperyest steps in the in world .........YES. Trish
melted_wellie
08-Jan-06, 21:02
What do people think of the idea of all babies being swabbed for dna samples at birth to detect crime in the future?
I heard this on the radio today and im not sure how I feel about it.
I would quite like to hear some more about it before I make up my mind?
It's a pity we couldn't have a poll to see how many were for it, and how many against!!Not all babies no,just the ones from e glebe and murchie.
Official Proof NO.. Two friends plus a family member who are currently police officers plus a husband who is an ex-police officer. Does a police station have the slipperyest steps in the in world .........YES. Trish
That is nice for you to have two family members to be currently serving police officers and your husband to be an ex. He is in good company.
But it is my belief (And without proof that is all it can be) to store the DNA details of every Tom Dick and Harry to be questioned and for it to be catalogued, made accessible and to be of use would be a major operation. I think the whistle would have been blown on it by now and be verified as true. Also, if the DNA is stored illegally it is of absolutely no use as a prosecution item. Therefore it would be extremely folly to store DNA details in the first place.
DNA is taken from everyone who has been cautioned or charged,not those that have been questioned.
weeboyagee
08-Jan-06, 21:22
So the babies born hereafter become part of the database. The millions born before now are therefore not part of the database - two class system starts to develop until the latter die off!
If we are part of the database we are immediately in a list of suspects that are being looked at to find the culprate! Big Brother is already watching us too much.
Those of you who say "if you have nothing to hide then whats the problem?" - there is no problem - I have nothing to hide but I will NOT become part of yet another Big Brother action to "control the masses" while I value my liberty.
They can already get my DNA if they want it, I am a blood donor so I choose for them to have the DNA, but bring in this database of millions of crime suspects - absolutely NOT. Innocent until proven guilty if suspected, but not innocent until deselected from the database!
The only people that should be tested for DNA are Rangers supporters - to see if they are true blue!:D
rich62_uk
08-Jan-06, 21:27
That is nice for you to have two family members to be currently serving police officers and your husband to be an ex. He is in good company.
But it is my belief (And without proof that is all it can be) to store the DNA details of every Tom Dick and Harry to be questioned and for it to be catalogued, made accessible and to be of use would be a major operation. I think the whistle would have been blown on it by now and be verified as true. Also, if the DNA is stored illegally it is of absolutely no use as a prosecution item. Therefore it would be extremely folly to store DNA details in the first place.
Hearsy is not admissable in court however it really does help to know which room to look in when you play hide and seek. The DNA profile is not hard to store being as its much like morse code and as for cost well cheap enough to get the dog done http://www.vetgen.com/pricing.html......
The real Rich......
connieb19
08-Jan-06, 21:29
So the babies born hereafter become part of the database. The millions born before now are therefore not part of the database - two class system starts to develop until the latter die off!
If we are part of the database we are immediately in a list of suspects that are being looked at to find the culprate! Big Brother is already watching us too much.
Those of you who say "if you have nothing to hide then whats the problem?" - there is no problem - I have nothing to hide but I will NOT become part of yet another Big Brother action to "control the masses" while I value my liberty.
They can already get my DNA if they want it, I am a blood donor so I choose for them to have the DNA, but bring in this database of millions of crime suspects - absolutely NOT. Innocent until proven guilty if suspected, but not innocent until deselected from the database!
The only people that should be tested for DNA are Rangers supporters - to see if they are true blue!:DWhy dosn't a trusted member start a poll to see what people think? I started this thread after hearing a discussion on radio about it. They did a poll and 61% were for it. That was out of 28000 people. You woud have to have a don't know options for people like me though!!
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 21:31
ooooohhhhhh...I get the rational: crime is not commited by British Nationals?!?!? Sigh.....the British Islands...... Paradise Lost.......
I dont know what 'rational' you got but it certainly wasn't mine.
You think I meant British Nationals do not commit crime?
What nonsense is this? Do you often add 2 + 2 and make 5?
Hearsy is not admissable in court however it really does help to know which room to look in when you play hide and seek.
The real Rich......
Hi Rich I assume you are the ex-police officer? Well then, you will be fully aware that when anyone is arrested, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act requires the detainee to be told 2 things.
a, The reason or offence for which he is being arrested.
b, The grounds for suspicion for his arrest.
If that procedure is not carried out to the letter then he will walk. Also if the grounds for suspicion ends up being illegally obtained then he will walk and the police Chief Constable will find that he is in the detainees place ie in the Dock with the Home Secretary as company.
I dont know what 'rational' you got but it certainly wasn't mine.
You think I meant British Nationals do not commit crime?
What nonsense is this? Do you often add 2 + 2 and make 5?
Then why is it that you have a disparity between the treatment of British Nationals and Foreign Citizens?:rolleyes:
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 21:57
Then why is it that you have a disparity between the treatment of British Nationals and Foreign Citizens?:rolleyes:
Well, certainly not because I believe British nationals do not commit crime.
Too many foreign women are arriving on these shores just for the purposes of giving birth. Any move which might curb this practice should be welcomed.
NHS resources are stretched enough already as it is.
Also, foreign women who settle here after entry, often as 'arranged brides' often do not speak the language or know little of the culture (such as it is)and therefore do not help in the process of integration into mainstream society. They often live in what amount to ghettos. It has already been shown that such places can produce attitudes hostile to the host country,and such hostility can ferment into terrorist activity.
I didn't say I supported a blanket dna test of foreign mothers & babies, just that I 'might be persuaded' it was a good idea. It would take brains more powerful than mine, or even yours Rheghed to construct an argument that would convince me.
Some people in here seem to skim the posts, and not digest the actual words which are written. Then, they fall over themselves to put words into the posters mouth.
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 22:01
Then why is it that you have a disparity between the treatment of British Nationals and Foreign Citizens?:rolleyes:
Further to my last post though I do believe that in many areas British citizens, in Britain should be given differential treatment to foreign
citizens. If being 'British' is too count for anything at all then it should be here at home in matters such as housing and health care.
One of those 'freedoms' I was talking about earlier is the right to express such a view, even in the strange p.c. infected nation we live in today.
It would take brains more powerful than mine, or even yours Rheghed to construct an argument that would convince me.
How nice of you to have me as your yardstick for reasoned debate.:p
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 22:08
How nice of you to have me as your yardstick for reasoned debate.:p
Yes, I can be nice, when provoked.
Yes, I can be nice, when provoked.
I haven't started provoking yet and I probably won't. There is nothing provoking about asking someone to explain theirself on a message board, you did and I duly understand what your attitude is towards foreign citizens now.
cullbucket
08-Jan-06, 22:14
Landmarker,
Are you referring to all foreigners, i.e. Irish / American / or only the dark skinned variety to apply your discrimination against?
Are we to return to the belief of St. Augustine, and much preached by the "Hell Fire and Eternal Damnation" Preachers of the Victoria Era, that we are all born with original sin?
Do we really want to treat ever single person in the Country as if they are going to become major Criminals.
And if the next step is to "Chip" everybody with a Tracker Device and install cameras in everybody’s house that we should accept that because if You don't you must have "Something to hide!"
Once you start with the concept that everybody needs to be under surveillance because they might do something wrong you have started on a very slippery slope.
Such are the methods of the worst form of "Police State" and I certainly do not want to live under those conditions and I hope my Children and Grandchildren never have to either.
If some form of control can be misused then eventually it will be misused, and the "It could never happen here" belief is naive in the extreme.
If you think the "Tracker Chip" and your house resembling the "Big Brother House" are an exaggeration, why not, after all "If You Have Nothing To Hide" you should be insisting on it so the Police can eliminate you from suspicion and concentrate on the Real Criminals!
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 22:28
Landmarker,
Are you referring to all foreigners, i.e. Irish / American / or only the dark skinned variety to apply your discrimination against?
All of them with E.U. citizens included. Especially when it comes to social housing.
As you will have no doubt read and realised I am not advocating DNA compulsion for anyone.
landmarker
08-Jan-06, 22:29
I haven't started provoking yet and I probably won't. There is nothing provoking about asking someone to explain theirself on a message board, you did and I duly understand what your attitude is towards foreign citizens now.
Amongst other things Rheghed, you clearly lack a sense of humour.
Lighten up.
Landmarker,
Are you referring to all foreigners, i.e. Irish / American / or only the dark skinned variety to apply your discrimination against?
If you are suggesting that landmarker is a "racist" why not have the guts to say so outright?
In view of the fact that everybody knows that the suggestion that a reference to "all foreigners" might only mean the "dark skinned variety" means an accusation of "Racism" there seems little point in skirting round the fact.
If you wish to suggest that any reference to "foreigners" automatically shows somebody is a racist then why try and be polite about it.
An insult is still an insult no matter how nicely it is put.
Jaws, your reasoning is a tad fallacious.
You are making out that a DNA database will inevitably lead to the chipping of individuals.
Here is the reasoning
Y is wrong
X will lead to Y
Therefore X is wrong.
Jaws, your reasoning is a tad fallacious.
You are making out that a DNA database will inevitably lead to the chipping of individuals.
Here is the reasoning
Y is wrong
X will lead to Y
Therefore X is wrong.
No, the reasoning is that once you accept X, then why should you object to Y and even Z when the same reasons are used as for implimenting X.
If the argument that "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" applies to X then it can also apply for Y and Z.
At what point do you say "thus far and no further"?
The more authority the Organs of State get, the more they demand.
cullbucket
08-Jan-06, 22:46
If you are suggesting that landmarker is a "racist" why not have the guts to say so outright?
In view of the fact that everybody knows that the suggestion that a reference to "all foreigners" might only mean the "dark skinned variety" means an accusation of "Racism" there seems little point in skirting round the fact.
If you wish to suggest that any reference to "foreigners" automatically shows somebody is a racist then why try and be polite about it.
An insult is still an insult no matter how nicely it is put.
I was trying to discern whether or not landmarker was a racist - I think the reply shows that he is not racist. Discrimination against all non british is nothing to do with racism but is based on nationality.
No, the reasoning is that once you accept X, then why should you object to Y and even Z when the same reasons are used as for implimenting X.
The reasons for accepting X are not the same for accepting Y. Therefore the reasoning for accepting Y on the basis of X is fallacious.
If the argument that "You have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide" applies to X then it can also apply for Y and Z.
At what point do you say "thus far and no further"?
That may apply for all XYZ but that is not the reason for all XYZ it is a criteria for accepting XYZ. Therefore the arguement still fallacious.:)
cullbucket
08-Jan-06, 22:57
Guys, the XYZ argument reminds me of a joke I was emailed - pls have a look here - I googled the 1st line and found this site - doesn't mean I'm a Par tho....
http://forum.dafc.net/read.php?f=13&i=1689&t=1689
I was trying to discern whether or not landmarker was a racist - I think the reply shows that he is not racist. Discrimination against all non british is nothing to do with racism but is based on nationality.
Point taken, just testing. No offence meant, the mischief in me just couldn't be held back! :o
Cullbucket,I take your point and I haven't stopped laughing yet. I hope Jjc has read it.
I hope Jjc has read it.
Why the big obsession with jjc? So far you have mentioned him in two threads unprompted
The reasons for accepting X are not the same for accepting Y. Therefore the reasoning for accepting Y on the basis of X is fallacious.
That may apply for all XYZ but that is not the reason for all XYZ. Therefore the arguement still fallacious.:)
What do people think of the idea of all babies being swabbed for dna samples at birth to detect crime in the future?
I heard this on the radio today and im not sure how I feel about it.
I would quite like to hear some more about it before I make up my mind?
It's a pity we couldn't have a poll to see how many were for it, and how many against!!
connie19's original post was answered at one point with the statement "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear".
If that is accepted as a reason for DNA testing all newborns in case of future criminality (X) then why is it fallacious to use the same "Nothing to fear" argument for people having "Tracking Chips" inserted (Y) so that their movements can be checked against Crime Locations.
Why not have "Big Brother House Cameras" in everybodies homes (Z) in case they are conspiring to commit Crime or Acts of Terrorism. After all, "Those with nothing to hide have nothing to fear!"
And, just in case that sounds a little far fetched, some parents in America are already having their children injected with a "Tracker Chip" on the off chance they go missing or get kidnapped, so the ability to constantly track people is already here.
As everybody knows, what happens in America very soon arrives here.
If parents can track their children so can anybody else with the right technology.
connie19's original post was answered at one point with the statement "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear".
.
No Connie was not answered correctly with the "If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to fear" statement as you can only answer a query with reason not with a criteria set.
That still doesn't alter the concept that if you accept that you should automatically be traced by your DNA then why should the rest not be accepted.
All the others are just a variation on the same theme.
You may commit a crime so we can trace you by your DNA.
You may commit a crime so we can trace you by your Tracking Chip.
You may commit a crime so we can trace you by watching what you are up to in your house.
After all, it's all needed so we can track the nasty Criminals.
As one person commented quite recently, "My fear is that we are sleep-walking into a 'Police State' and by the time we wake up it will be too late to do anything about it."
It is far easier to get a bad law onto the Statute Books than it is to get it repealed later.
The reasons for accepting X are not the same for accepting Y. Therefore the reasoning for accepting Y on the basis of X is fallacious. I see where you’re coming from and you are correct… but so is Jaws.
Compared to tracking chips and 24/7 surveillance in your home, a DNA database could be seen as a fairly light infringement upon our privacy and could easily be accepted by the majority on the grounds that they don’t really see where the harm is and it’s not worth worrying too much about.
But if we roll over without a fight and allow it on the grounds that “if we’ve done nothing wrong then we should have nothing to hide” then we have accepted the legitimacy of that argument so when the same argument is used to support tracking chips it is suddenly far harder for us to object to it.
Personally, if the police are investigating a crime and for some reason my name comes up as a suspect then I will gladly give them a sample of my DNA so that they can eliminate me from their enquiries. However, until they have a reasonable suspicion that requires my DNA then it contains information about me which I consider to be private.
Others have suggested that such a database could be used by insurance firms to evaluate prospective customers. That might seem far-fetched, but the government already sells the electoral roll and banks are to be able to verify account-holders’ details against the new ID-Card database when it comes in.
I see another problem with this idea (and the ID Card scheme for that matter). I work all day every day – and a good few of my weekends and evenings – making sure that my employer's databases are up and running. It’s hard keeping track of users who will do things with my databases that you wouldn’t believe, but by far the hardest part of my job is mopping up after developers who have fixed one bug in their application only to cause six more. I’ve been doing this for more than a decade and have managed databases in private companies and databases in government departments. If there is one thing that experience has taught me above all else it is that data corruption is inevitable. There will always be a user doing something stupid, a developer who has forgotten something in their logic, a hardware fault or a glaring bug in the code. It’s a fact of life for every database administrator that at some point they will need to deal with corruption – it’s why we take backups.
So, after that long ramble the point is this: if you think that the only question mark hanging over the validity of a DNA database for solving crimes is the accuracy of DNA identification then you are having a laugh. Mistakes will be made and the chances are that they will go unnoticed until after somebody has been charged because of them.
Difficult to disagree with you.
GIGO, jjc. Garbage in, Garbage out.
Not only that, but first you throw an idea out to test the temperature,
Then you keep raising the stakes to see what you can get away with.
When you get screams of anguish you take a few steps back, wait a while, and then present the lower option under a new disguise.
Then you sit back and wait for an opportunity to say, "See how well that works, wouldn't it be safer if we......." and add whatever you can get away with.
Even better if you can sneak it in by the back door so nobody notices.
Was anybody asked if there should be cameras so numerous and so accurate that the proud boast could be made that "If you drive in urbanised areas we will have you on camera at least three times every day and not only that we can even tell who is in the car!"
That was said quite openly after the Police Women was shot in South Yorkshire. Yes it did a good job in that case and that was the reason it was mentioned.
Prior to that it was up and running and nothing had been said.
The system is apparently so advanced that it will search for certain number plates and flag their location. It could be you who is being checked on! All it takes is one slight error and you are in the system and not some criminal.
It's not that long ago that the suggestion was put forward, "to catch drug dealers, career criminals and terrorists", that anybody employed by National or Local Government could trawl through anybodies emails.
How would you feel about anybody from the local council office checking through your emails without you knowing?
There were to be no checks or restraints on who's emails were checked or what criteria should be used. Nothing had to be obtained in order to do it, it could be just on somebody's whim. "I wonder what so and so is upto, lets have a look."
I must be ill.I'm agreeing with everyone tonight.
It might have helped if I had made myself a little clearer in the first place. :o
When I read the first post in this thread I was sure that I had no objection to universal DNA testing. However,the salient points in the arguements of Jjc,Jaws and others have made me reverse my opinion and I must say that I am now pretty much in the anti camp.
The wise man knows when to admit his mistakes. The fool argues!!!
landmarker
09-Jan-06, 18:45
I was trying to discern whether or not landmarker was a racist - I think the reply shows that he is not racist. Discrimination against all non british is nothing to do with racism but is based on nationality.
I merely said the interests of British citizens whould be put before foreign nationals -regardless of colour - when it comes to the area of social housing.
Whether I am 'racist' or not cannot be gleaned from such a stance.
Some who over use the 'R' word as a knee jerk response would no doubt class me as racist on some other issues. These may arise on this board at some later date and you'll have to judge me then, if that's what you want to do.
All I will say is dont believe any race to be superior to any other.
I dont know what 'rational' you got but it certainly wasn't mine.
You think I meant British Nationals do not commit crime?
What nonsense is this? Do you often add 2 + 2 and make 5?
Please read your own post: you suggest that only foreigners and decendents should be compulsory DNA tested. This debate is about compulsory DNA testing to facilitate identification of criminals. Therefore the logical conclusion is that foreigners and decendents are responsible for crime.
If you want to use a kind of mathematical/logical connotation:
a=b=c <=> a=c
PS: you are right and I beg your pardon for having mis-spelled "rationale"
landmarker
10-Jan-06, 20:48
Please read your own post: you suggest that only foreigners and decendents should be compulsory DNA tested. This debate is about compulsory DNA testing to facilitate identification of criminals. Therefore the logical conclusion is that foreigners and decendents are responsible for crime.
NO, YOU READ IT AGAIN I SAID 'I MIGHT BE PERSUADED THAT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA'
If you want to use a kind of mathematical/logical connotation:
a=b=c <=> a=c
If you say so.
PS: you are right and I beg your pardon for having mis-spelled "rationale"
I did not correct you for any mis-spelling so why give the impression that I did. I am no pedant. I dunno if you are trying to wind me up by 'begging my pardon' but I have to say at this point you are succeeding Ju.
Whitewater
10-Jan-06, 22:51
I'm open minded about the DNA sampling, I see nothing wrong with it, it can help society in many ways. I recall not too long ago I read an article regarding the Scottish clans and the idea of a DNA sample bank came up. The thinking behind it was to help to pick out organ/bone marrow donars etc. that perhaps the were outwith the obvious family group. The theory being that all people of the clan were related through being decended from the same small gene pool.
I recall not too long ago I read an article regarding the Scottish clans and the idea of a DNA sample bank came up. The thinking behind it was to help to pick out organ/bone marrow donars etc.
Wonderful, and that could well just leave you open to being morally blackmailed to be a donor when it is against your inclinations to do so.
"Well, if you don't you do realise that this persons death will be your fault. Now if you would only donate....."
"Sign here to say you wish to condemn this person to death" - No thank you.
And how many families break-ups would it cause when somebody's DNA turns out to be quite what it should be?
And who is going to tidy that little mess up afterwards?
Whitewater
10-Jan-06, 23:14
And how many families break-ups would it cause when somebody's DNA turns out to be quite what it should be?
And who is going to tidy that little mess up afterwards?
You are quite right Jaw but I guess thats going to be the risk we have to take.
rich62_uk
10-Jan-06, 23:20
.
And how many families break-ups would it cause when somebody's DNA turns out to be quite what it should be?
And who is going to tidy that little mess up afterwards?
Thats it I was FOR DNA testing I have now changed my mind not that I have anything to hide !!!! .....Trish. ;)
It's a risk I might take, but seeing I can't give birth then I've never had to worry about a violent husband beating me within an inch of my life.
This is just another example of the cure doing more damage than the disease.
The reasons given for this being "necessary" are just an attempt to chip away at people's rights and freedoms by provoking an emotional response.
The response they are looking for is, "It doesn't affect me so why not!"
Which is fine until at some future date the rules change and you suddenly find the knock comes to your door.
Such things have happened before and there is nothing to stop them from happening again.
I guess thats going to be the risk we have to take.
Erm, why? :confused:
Thats it I was FOR DNA testing I have now changed my mind not that I have anything to hide !!!! .....Trish. ;)
You don't have to have anything to hide. DNA can tell you all sorts of things.
How many parents would like to be told that their gorgeous, new born baby is genes which show it will an a few decades develop some painful incurable disease.
And don't think that parents won't have to be told. That might last a short while until somebody goes to the Court of Human Rights and gets an order saying that there is a Duty of Care to inform parents of the DNA findings.
And the Medical Profession will, quite rightly, cover themselves in case of future litigation.
I'm not sure just how much information can be gleaned from DNA but it's a lot more than people are aware of and increasing all the time by leaps and bounds.
Somebody will know, but I seem to remember a film where people were locked up for crimes they would commit in the future.
I just took it as pure science fiction, but now I'm not too sure.
Can anybody else remember when the idea of going to the moon was just for science fiction films? Flash Gordon anybody?
Stargazer
10-Jan-06, 23:59
" I have nothing to hide" seems to be the main reason for giving away your most personal details. So everyone is as innocent as the pure driven snow? Innocent and anonymous is the best policy.
landmarker
11-Jan-06, 00:06
Jaws - my own comparatively pitiful arguments against this idea have been put to shame by your eloquent lambast of the whole ridiculous plan.
I am more convinced than ever.
Well said.
connieb19
11-Jan-06, 00:12
Jaws - my own comparatively pitiful arguments against this idea have been put to shame by your eloquent lambast of the whole ridiculous plan.
I am more convinced than ever.
Well said.Me too. When I started this thread I wasn't very sure how I felt about it, but, after listening to everyones opinions, which have been very interesting, I think I would also have to say "no", just to be on the safe side, which I have found surprising because I thought I would be all for it!!
Goodness me
Mandatory DNA testing
Microchipped Tracking Devices
Security tagging "foreigners" who come here to give birth
Identity cards
IM starting to beleive that "they" are watching me through this webcam thing sitting on my desk.
Sorry, it's just my cynical nature.
Whenever anybody who has a great deal of power, and especially politicians with a great deal of power, tells me it's for my own good my first inclination is to look quickly over my shoulder.
My second inclination is to head for the hills.
My third inclination is to keep checking over my shoulder whilst covering my back and still keep heading for the hills.
Nine times out of ten I have found that when somebody like that says, "It's for your own good." what they really mean is, "This is going to give me more power over you!"
When you hear what lengths the Tax Man will go to you begin to wonder.
A small business man was accused of tax fraud because they said, "He was spending far too much on his family shopping at the local Supermarket."
When he queried what they meant it appears that they had obtained details of his spending habits from his LOYALTY CARD!
When they had finished leaning on him, a period lasting many months and costing heaven only know how much, they finally accepted that he only owed them the sort of money you would carry round in your pocket.
The reason for the huge shopping bill? He also did the shopping for both his parents and his wife's parents who payed for their own shopping.
And they want me to trust them with my DNA?
If you want, I will tell you about an attempt to stitch up an Assistant Chief Constable because he would not roll over and play dead on a politically sensitive enquiry. You will probably see him advertising roller shutters and garage doors on the TV.
If they play that high in the full public gaze, what price me?
Whitewater
11-Jan-06, 12:37
Hi Jaws, I can't help saying you are correct in many ways and I have even even made comment on another thread regarding the power that the Government and Local councils are trying gain over us. It is slowly getting closer to George Orwells scenario in his book "1984", which is a great pity as the DNA information could be so good in many ways, but unfortunately this sort of information is always open to abuse/missuse.
I was intigued by your example of the small business man and the tax mans access to the information on his loyalty card. It is a great example of invasion of privacy by a government body in the hope of grabing a pound or two from some innocent person, but if they can do this the whole thing is becoming rather sinister and perhaps in some cases even dangerous.
Me too. When I started this thread I wasn't very sure how I felt about it, but, after listening to everyones opinions, which have been very interesting, I think I would also have to say "no", just to be on the safe side, which I have found surprising because I thought I would be all for it!!
Even after reading everyone's views, I still say it is a good thing. It well may be open to misuse, but on weighing up the negative versus the positive, sorry the against brigade have failed to convince me.
Goodness me
Mandatory DNA testing
Microchipped Tracking Devices
Security tagging "foreigners" who come here to give birth
Identity cards
IM starting to beleive that "they" are watching me through this webcam thing sitting on my desk.
Actually I prefer identity cards to having 1 cctv camera per 15 people. In Portugal your ID card is yours only. Even the police cannot take it from your hand without a court order. If for any reason you have to identify yourself ( ie: suspicious behaviour), you show your id card. You aren't filmed from the minute you leave the house till when you return. Your life is not monitored by a series of obscure unknown and unofficial people watching cctv footage for criminal behaviour. I would prefer to be challenged for my identity when my behaviour was dubious rather than be monitored.
Sorry for getting away from the topic of the thread.
landmarker
11-Jan-06, 20:17
Recently I paid for some wild bird feeding products with my credit card at a local garden centre. Five days later I received what amounted to a begging letter from the 'Royal Society for the Protection of Birds' A coincidence?
I think not. But I digress....
I would prefer to be challenged for my identity when my behaviour was dubious rather than be monitored.
Sorry for getting away from the topic of the thread.
I dont think you did Ju.
I am concerned that once identity cards appear the police will be able to stop us simply to check our identity card and not even cos we are doing something suspicious. time will tell i guess
weeboyagee
12-Jan-06, 11:09
Thoroughly disagree with them.
They are infringement of my own liberty to be who I am without having to exist on a database to be who I am. Those who want to hold identity cards - fine, but we who don't will end up being in the "suspicious" league because if we have "nothing to hide" we should be OK about carrying them.
Anyway, can you imagine the look on their face when they inspect the card and say "What does weeboyagee mean?" :D
Thoroughly disagree with them.
They are infringement of my own liberty to be who I am without having to exist on a database to be who I am. Those who want to hold identity cards - fine, but we who don't will end up being in the "suspicious" league because if we have "nothing to hide" we should be OK about carrying them.
Anyway, can you imagine the look on their face when they inspect the card and say "What does weeboyagee mean?" :D
Totally disagree with you here WBG, I have carried some form of ID on me most of my working life i.e. Merchant Navy ID, Royal Navy Reserve ID, HMC&E ID, with no problem and when asked by any of the "Authorities" I produced them on demand. I would say the those who do not wish to have an ID are a bit suspect, especially if they are wearing yon maroon colours, I would arrest them right away :evil
I was intrigued by your example of the small business man and the tax mans access to the information on his loyalty card. It is a great example of invasion of privacy by a government body in the hope of grabbing a pound or two from some innocent person, but if they can do this the whole thing is becoming rather sinister and perhaps in some cases even dangerous.
It was a programme on Radio Four some time ago. There were three or four different people who they dealt with and had obviously made sure they weren't just moaners with a chip on their shoulder.
The point being made was that the Tax people were only too willing to spend months of time and at any cost going after the small fry but were steering well clear of companies with the clout to fight them on their own terms.
Golach, I to carried an ID card for all my working life and certainly do not wish to carry one in my private life. I know how "The Prisoner" felt, "I am not a Number!" (An old TV programme for those too young to remember. Ask your grand-parents)
I certainly do not want to carry on which carries my whole life history and which can allow access to things like my Medical Records, Bank Records and all sorts of other things.
Despite the assurances given in the past, Government Computers can and do talk to one another.
And if you think it's OK if you are a decent honest person, forget it.
A couple of years ago there was a major train crash. I can't just remember which one but I think it was the one where a train missed a red signal and was hit by an express, but which one isn't of particular relevance.
The mother of one of the dead refused point blank to be fobbed off with platitudes and excuses. She kept asking questions to get a the truth and was quite forceful with it. The media took a lot of interest in what she was saying and also started asking questions.
The Government found her to be rather a pain because she was asking too many questions which they didn't want answered for political expediency.
Eventually it came to light that they had used various Government Departments for what amounted to party political reasons to try to dig some dirt up on her.
They wished to know if she had any political affiliations or if she belonged to any sort of pressure group so that they could portray her as a trouble maker with a political agenda.
They found absolutely nothing, but they were willing to turn the dogs on her to get rid of her and her awkward questions.
They were willing to go to almost any lengths to discredit an ordinary member of the public.
I am not making a point here about one particular party because I have no reason to believe that any one party is any different to the others in this respect.
Of course, having access to all her details on computer would have made things so much easier for them.
Just look at the number of adverts put out by Government saying that if they think you are being naughty then they can get you and fix you.
"If your car tax is out of date the computer will send you an automatic fine!"
What other things apart from motorists will they find to send "automatic fines" for once they have everything about you computerised?
Squidge, I think you will find that once ID Cards are introduced it will automatically become an offence not to carry it at all times.
I would imaging, that being the case that it will automatically carry a power of arrest otherwise there would be no point in having one in the first place.
Ju, I don't think that ID Cards will make the slightest difference to the number of CCTVs in use.
In fact, I would think they would be used even more.
"Thre's a chap on the High Street IU don't like the look of, check his ID will you!"
I know, "This is Britain, don't be stupid, that sort of thing would never happen here"
It was a programme on Radio Four some time ago. There were three or four different people who they dealt with and had obviously made sure they weren't just moaners with a chip on their shoulder.
The point being made was that the Tax people were only too willing to spend months of time and at any cost going after the small fry but were steering well clear of companies with the clout to fight them on their own terms.
You are absolutely right there! I could get on my high horse about that one. But that's diversing a bit.
However, to get back to the thread. I think identity cards are a good thing. It would make it a lot more difficult for imigrants to stay illegally for instance. I also support the arguement regarding DNA. If you've nothing to hide, why object? If one life can be saved by the speedy capture of a murderer, possibly a child, maybe many children, surely the risks are worth it?
Ted Bundy could have been stopped after his first to name but one. Is your privacy really more important?
That is the reason why the suggestion was made in such a emotive way.
Would it have stopped the London Bombers? No.
Would it have stopped the Soham murders? No.
Would it have stopped the murder of the police woman who was buried yesterday? No.
Would it have stopped the Moors Murders? No.
If having DNA samples and IDs are so necessary why have we not all been fingerprinted and had our photographs taken. It didn't take new technology to do that, we could have been doing that for decades.
That way any fingerprint left at the scene of a crime would have been traceable.
All the same arguments could be used for doing that. Nothing has changed during the last 40 years apart from a few more illegal immigrants.
There are no more murderers escaping justice than before, no more children being molested than before and if anything, less terrorist attacks than before.
Oh yes, and I have no doubt no real massive increase in "freebies" on the NHS than before.
First create a panic, then offer a solution and hopefully people will not look too closely.
"If the lie is big enough and told often enough, it will be believed".
Somebody, I can't just remember who, once said that.
The same hold true today.
weeboyagee
12-Jan-06, 14:03
I would say the those who do not wish to have an ID are a bit suspect, especially if they are wearing yon maroon colours, I would arrest them right away
Don't mind ID cards in connection with work golach, fine by me. But just to be a member of society, nope, not fine by me.....and how true - the next you'll know - you'll be asked for your ID for singing a song going down the street, wearing the RIGHT colours going down the street (:lol:) or kicking the ball into the RIGHT end at Easter Road. The cubby-holes in Saughton would be a cosy place indeed with all of us lot in it!!! :)
I dont think you did Ju.
I am concerned that once identity cards appear the police will be able to stop us simply to check our identity card and not even cos we are doing something suspicious. time will tell i guess
Squidge, I have never been stopped and asked to identify myself, except on routine traffic checks. Here ( and in other countries of Europe....I am not picking on the UK), I have been filmed every single day.
If you wanted to be Orwellian or paranoid, you might imagine someone sitting in a huge room full of screens and following your every move and intruding into your life. Maybe I am oversensitive to them, but even though we had to be able to prove our id's through card carrying, I still felt like my life was more my own without cctv. But I am sure that the way the world is going, all European countries will have to opt for this kind of security.
Thoroughly disagree with them.
They are infringement of my own liberty to be who I am without having to exist on a database to be who I am. " :D
Even if you don't have an id card you are on the data base, weeboyagee. You became bytes of data the day you were born. Everytime you use your bank card, walk down the high street in Wick, pay a bill, do your taxes, go to the doctor, travel, complain about public services, go to the library, drive past a camera or send a registered letter you add onto the huge ammount of data being stored up about you. In fact, the one thing you can (probably) say that is only yours and not on data is your genetic code.
It would make it a lot more difficult for imigrants to stay illegally That’s one of the many (and seemingly ever-changing) arguments that the government has used to justify ID cards… but if you think about it, it doesn’t really make much sense.
There are already people in this country illegally. The immigration system is not a free-for-all where anybody who chooses can simply walk across our borders. We have laws and we have checks and measures to ensure that people comply with those laws, yet there are still people in this country who have found ways to circumvent those checks and measures and are here illegally. How is a piece of plastic supposed to suddenly put a stop to that?
Oh, I know that the government would have us believe that ID cards would be harder to forge, helping to combat fraud. I have two concerns with this.
Firstly, do they really think that this system will be 100% secure? Has anybody ever seen a 100%, guaranteed-secure database? The closest I have ever seen was on a server in a building guarded by armed police. To get through the front door you had to identify yourself to a security guard and swipe through a security door and know the code to the door. You then needed to know the login for the server and the login for the database. None of these made the database terribly secure. What made it almost secure was that it was not connected to any network: the ID-Card database will be connected to every police station, every benefits office, every hospital and GP’s office and to the companies involved in its development and support. What prevented the database I saw from being 100% secure was that it would still only take one disgruntled employee to switch a few records for the data to be wrong: the ID-Card database will have thousands of users.
Secondly, how am I going to get an ID card? I imagine that I’m going to wander down to the Post Office and present my passport, driving license and birth certificate. I see an opening here for people who already have forgeries of these documents to get themselves ‘legitimate’ ID cards.
If you've nothing to hide, why object? Precisely because I have nothing to hide. I don’t consider myself to be a terrorist threat, a fraudster or any other kind of lawbreaker. That being the case, why should the government hold my biometric data? It’s never going to help the police to solve a crime, and if it would then I would freely give it to them at the time.
Further, we still have no idea (other than more than £90 per person) how much this system is going to cost. Experts in biometrics have stated that the technology is not currently good enough to meet the requirements of the government’s plan. Experts in terrorism (including an Ex-MI5 Chief) have said that ID cards will not prevent terrorism. Experts in fraud have said that ID cards will not prevent fraud. Experts in constitutional affairs say that ID cards will “fundamentally alter the relationship between citizens and state”.
I have nothing to hide – but these all seem to me like they are very good reasons to object.
How many times have the Government had brand spanking new, ultra efficient, time saving, money saving, all singing, all dancing, state of the art computer systems to solve all problems and Bingo - they don't work!
It's not all that long ago that they were demanding money back off I think it was single parents. Anyway it was a group who could ill afford it. The vast majority had provided all the correct information as and when required, it had all been processed and the Department concerned had over paid them for quite some time.
One woman, who had queried the amount she was being paid on more than one occasion because she thought it was too much and even had a letter from them saying she was wrong and they were definitely right.
When they eventually discovered their error and set about correcting it she got another letter stating that, despite the fact she had queried her payments and despite the fact that they had written to her advising her that her payments were correct she was still at fault and, like everybody else would have to pay the money back.
Basically it was all her fault that they had got it wrong.
And there were heaven only knows how many tens of thousands who had just accepted that the payments were correct.
They muttered mysteriously about fraudulent claims as if that was the main problem but finally had to admit that fraud was only a miniscule part of the problem which was almost irrelevant.
There was a lot of fuss in Parliament about it at the time, and that was in the last twelve months.
They messed the change over for the Passport Computer good style. The only way to be sure of getting your passport in time was to go and join the queue and wait for it, no matter how far away you lived.
Have they managed to sort the Child Support Agency out yet? And how long has that been going.
The Benefits Agency are still having problems with their computer system.
And those are just the ones which spring readily to mind.
And wasn't there a panic a few weeks ago because a Department, I can't recall which, had discovered there were thousands of false claims in the names of Civil Servants working in that department because somebody had managed to get hold of the payroll details and were using names from that to make the claims.
I dread to think how many more there are which are not known about.
Personally I wouldn't trust a single one of them to organise a party in a distillery without it running dry within the hour!
Your life in their hands?
I’d feel safer wrestling with a tiger. At least it would know what it was doing!
Chings,ah think ah've caught Gollach's illness!!!! I find myself agreeing with Jjc and Jaws.I'd better consult e' good Doctor.
Don't worry, Gleber2, it's similar to a cold. It troubles you for a while but it soon wears off. Oh, yes, and there are no long lasting after effects. :lol:
Chings,ah think ah've caught Gollach's illness!!!! I find myself agreeing with Jjc and Jaws.I'd better consult e' good Doctor.If you're talking about consulting me, then I widna bother. I've a bad dose o' it too.
Would it have stopped the London Bombers? No..
No it wouldn't.
Would it have stopped the Soham murders? No. ..
Undecided on this one. The guy had raped before, or at least been accused, so his DNA should have been on file. If before employing him, it was manditory that his DNA was run through computers to see his suitability, he would never have been in this job.(I'm sure this would be classed as an infringement of his civil liberties) Failing that, he would have been caught much sooner than he was saving a llot of expensive police time.
Would it have stopped the murder of the police woman who was buried yesterday? No. ..
No it wouldn't.
Would it have stopped the Moors Murders? No. ..
It woulnd't have saved the first child, but after the first child was murdered, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady would have been caught via their DNA. So all the others would have been saved.
weeboyagee
13-Jan-06, 14:55
If you're talking about consulting me, then I widna bother. I've a bad dose o' it too.
Is there a cure - I think a few of us are catching it - as per my PM to Jaws recently! There's a first time for everything, eh Jaws? Well, jjc - I've had reason to agree with him more times than Jaws so I guess I was coming down with it back then, eh? :)
Is there a cure - I think a few of us are catching it - as per my PM to Jaws recently! There's a first time for everything, eh Jaws? Well, jjc - I've had reason to agree with him more times than Jaws so I guess I was coming down with it back then, eh? :)
Never mind, I'm sure there'll be a cure for it soon. Lets just hope they come up with something before it becomes an epidemic! I had a wee touch of it myself a few threads ago, but a swift walk in the fresh air and a few glasses of wine soon put me right.
Are you encouraging me to take dangerous drugs like fresh air and alcohol? Shame on ye.LOL:grin:
The guy had raped before, or at least been accused, so his DNA should have been on file. If before employing him, it was manditory that his DNA was run through computers to see his suitability, he would never have been in this job.(I'm sure this would be classed as an infringement of his civil liberties) Now that we know what Huntly is, it is easy to look back at his history and wonder why he was ever allowed to work in a school, but the simple truth is that when he applied for the position he had not been convicted. That being the case, what you are suggesting is a system where people are guilty until proven innocent. Is that really a scenario you would be comfortable with, because I know I wouldn’t be.
Failing that, he would have been caught much sooner than he was saving a llot of expensive police time. It wasn’t a lack of a DNA database which allowed Huntly to murder two girls, it was a catalogue of failures by a number of police forces. Such a database might (I don’t know if there was any DNA evidence found on the girls’ bodies – after all, Huntly set alight to them in an attempt to destroy evidence) have allowed the police to wrap the case up sooner, thus saving money… but considering the astronomical (£billions) of setting up such a system – not to mention the additional training that the police would require to make proper use of it – would that money not be better spent in addressing the failings in the various investigations which allowed Huntley to be employed by a school in the first place?
It woulnd't have saved the first child, but after the first child was murdered, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady would have been caught via their DNA. So all the others would have been saved. Brady and Hindley murdered five children:
Pauline Reade was murdered on July 12th, 1963 and her body was buried on Saddleworth Moors.
John Kilbride was killed on November 23rd, 1963. His body was was buried in a shallow grave.
Keith Bennett was strangled on June 16th, 1964.
Lesley Ann Downey was killed on Boxing Day of 1964 and her body was buried in a shallow grave.
Edward Evans was killed with an axe on October 6th, 1965. Brady then forced Hindley’s brother-in-law, David Smith, to help him drag the body upstairs and tie it up. Smith ran home and called the police. That was the first that the police knew of any of the murders and Brady was arrested within hours.
By the end of the month they had discovered the bodies of Lesley Ann Downey and John Kilbride. Pauline Reade’s body lay undiscovered for twenty years. Keith Bennett’s body remains undiscovered.
Could you please explain just how it is that a DNA database would have saved the lives of any of these children? :confused:
It wasn’t a lack of a DNA database which allowed Huntly to murder two girls, it was a catalogue of failures by a number of police forces.
I quoted the above because I am a little unsure about the inquiry results on the aftermath of the Soham case. The post murder inquiry led to an inquiry into the screening process of Huntley. Its findings made it clear that there were serious short comings. But at the time I wondered if there were any failures really or if it was just paying lip service to National outrage. Forgive me but I am going from memory so I could be way out on the details, however, when Huntley was screened to work at the Sohom school, the results came back as a green light, as the screening process makes no inference of a non guilty acquittal from previous failed police attempts to jail him.
The aforementioned inquiry ruled that this is a failure in police communications. My thoughts were, Why was it a failure? He was innocent of the charges.
If it was deemed to be a failure then it ruled that he was guilty when he wasn't. Which leads us back to jjc's take on Katarina's opinion on DNA testing and why I thought the above quote and the police inquiry was ambiguous.
I think that most of the failures were academic as they would not, in themselves, have prevented him from getting the job – but they were still failures and, given a different candidate, could have been as awful as the press made them out to be… what’s more, they weren’t all police failings: the head of the school didn’t check a single one of the five references Huntley provided; the director of the firm that the LEA had contracted to do the background checks completed a form to say that she had verified Huntley’s personal details when she had not done so; Huntley’s date of birth was entered incorrectly into the Child Access database; only Huntley’s alias, Ian Nixon, was checked on the national database; Cambridgeshire Police never requested information on Huntley from Humberside Police; even if they had, staff at Humberside Police had no access to a database with information about sex offences and children.
There were also failings which, it could be argued, had a direct impact upon this case: Huntley confessed to having sex with an underage girl. Although the girl did not want to press charges he could still have been cautioned, which would have meant that his name would have been on the national database; had Huntley’s real name (rather than Nixon) been checked on the national computer, a burglary charge from 1995 would have shown up and he would not have been given the caretaker’s job; a social worker failed to connect three separate allegations of underage sex made against Huntley in a single month and no connection was made to Huntley’s previous admission of underage sex; one allegation of underage sex went practically un-investigated and the case was closed without the girl in question having been interviewed or even located.
A catalogue of errors which, had they been handled differently, could have prevented Huntley from getting the job as a caretaker. None of these needed a national DNA-database, they just needed better procedures.
[...] None of these needed a national DNA-database, they just needed better procedures.
Don't you think that a DNA style biometric ID system could have verified that Nixon and Huntley were the same person? So could a DNA database have played a part in preventing the Soham case?
Don't you think that a DNA style biometric ID system could have verified that Nixon and Huntley were the same person? So could a DNA database have played a part in preventing the Soham case? That depends.
As things stand, I can start to call myself Armadillo McAnteater tomorrow morning and that will be a valid name for me. I don’t need to go and change it by deed poll, I just need to adopt it and, like Huntly/Nixon, I am now the proud owner of two names. Now, if I take my (legal) documentation for my birth name and apply for an ID and then I take my (legal) documentation for my adopted name and apply for an ID I will have two IDs with two entries in the database. Unless you are suggesting that the DNA of every applicant will be checked against the DNA of every other entry in the database then it is entirely possible that an entry against one ID would go unseen when the other ID gets checked.
Of course, it’s also conceivable (in fact likely) that a DNA database would take aliases into account and in that case I’d have to say that yes, it could have prevented Huntley from being able to use his alias to get the caretaker’s job. Of course, had the proper checks been made on his personal information (as they should have been) then the process already in place would have stopped him from getting the caretaker’s job. It seems to me that when given the choice of implementing a DNA database costing £billions or improving the existing procedures to ensure that checks are done properly, the latter is cheaper, quicker and less constitutionally-troubling.
Conceivably if DNA was taken from us as a baby (non intrusively of course) or later in life on application for a biometric DNA passport then the police could search the DNA database for a match 25 years on for any other matches, just like we do when we put words into a Google search?
But only if it is set up correctly I guess...
Under those circumstances then Huntley could have been identified as Nixon if we had to carry a ID card when we apply for jobs, mortgage, get interviewed by the police etc?
I bow to your superior knowledge concerning the moors murders.
However, there are may cases of mass murderers where DNA would have saved others. I don't have the time to do the research so that I can argue knowlegably, but I'm sure if I had to I could come up with several cases.
There is no system that is going to be fair to everyone, But I still vote yes.
Conceivably if DNA was taken from us as a baby (non intrusively of course) or later in life on application for a biometric DNA passport then the police could search the DNA database for a match 25 years on for any other matches, just like we do when we put words into a Google search? Conceivably, but the same check can be done simply by making sure that the procedures in place already are actually followed. This doesn’t really justify the spending of £billions on a database that ‘fundamentally alters the relationship between citizen and state’, does it?
If we are to separate the possibilities of error as a different issue then if DNA testing is the next step forward in linking bodies with IDs then surely it won't change the nature of the state/citizen relationship, rather, it will merely strengthen it?
It woulnd't have saved the first child, but after the first child was murdered, Myra Hindley and Ian Brady would have been caught via their DNA. So all the others would have been saved.
It wouldn't have saved the second, the third, the fourth, it would not have saved a single one of them.
If we are to separate the possibilities of error as a different issue then if DNA testing is the next step forward in linking bodies with IDs then surely it won't change the nature of the state/citizen relationship, rather, it will merely strengthen it?
We don’t have a national database of fingerprints to match against crime scenes. We don’t have a database of photographs that the police can call up to search against CCTV footage. In fact we don’t have a national database of identities at all, which is why we need to use our driving licenses, passports and bank statements to prove our identities.
A database containing the biometric data of every citizen, avoidance of which would be a criminal offence, is a fundamental change in the information that the government holds about us.
We don’t have a national database of fingerprints to match against crime scenes. We don’t have a database of photographs that the police can call up to search against CCTV footage. In fact we don’t have a national database of identities at all, which is why we need to use our driving licenses, passports and bank statements to prove our identities.
A database containing the biometric data of every citizen, avoidance of which would be a criminal offence, is a fundamental change in the information that the government holds about us.
In South Africa they had what was known as "The Book of Life" which contained all your details from birth onwards.
All the various things you required for living your life were in it.
The authorities seemed to think it was absolutely essential.
They were, after all, rigorously enforcing Apartheid at the time!
rich62_uk
21-Jan-06, 08:40
But it is my belief (And without proof that is all it can be) to store the DNA details of every Tom Dick and Harry to be questioned and for it to be catalogued, made accessible and to be of use would be a major operation. I think the whistle would have been blown on it by now and be verified as true. Also, if the DNA is stored illegally it is of absolutely no use as a prosecution item. Therefore it would be extremely folly to store DNA details in the first place.
If you take a look at todays news some one else believes the same as me.....
If you take a look at todays news some one else believes the same as me.....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4633918.stm
But does the fact that the Home Office have already built the world's largest DNA Database without most of us knowing about it mean that we should be more comfortable or less comfortable about this?
DNA profiles of 24,000 juveniles who have never been cautioned, charged or convicted of an offence are stored on the UK database.
An MP obtained the Home Office figures when a constituent's son was the victim of mistaken identity, wrongly arrested and his DNA taken and placed on the UK database.
The MP said it was understandable that a 14-year-old who was completely innocent would not want his details stored for life.
His details were removed but the MP then discovered profiles of 24,000 youngsters aged from the age of 10 to 18 are stored.
The above is a Precis of - http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21012006/344/dna-database-built-stealth.html
The DNA of three million people, which is five per cent of all British Citizens, are now held on the Government's DNA Database.
This is five times more than the next largest Database which is held by Austria with a mere one per cent.
Even the Countries in the old Soviet Block, who were notorious for keeping Secret Files on their Citizens have not gone down the obsessive route of collecting every piece of information possible on their Citizens.
Is there some gene which we have not been informed of which makes the citizens of Britain far more prone to crime and terrorism than anywhere else in the whole World? It would seem our Authorities are transfixed by that view!
The excuses they make are well known. We are assured that the obsession with collecting as much information as possible about every single British Citizen is absolutely necessary for our safety and well being as a Nation.
If that is the case, then why is no other Country in the World, even the ones at far more risk from both Crime and Terrorism, not frantically going down the same route?
If it is so absolutely necessary for us, then why not for them?
rich62_uk
21-Jan-06, 18:55
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4633918.stm
But does the fact that the Home Office have already built the world's largest DNA Database without most of us knowing about it mean that we should be more comfortable or less comfortable about this?
It makes me feel less comfortable, this is the one we have found out about and I must say they were not trying too hard to hide.
What about the information they may have on all of us that they really want to keep a secret, because it would outrage too many people????
For my part I really don't have a problem with the police having information about me that can be cross referenced for the purposes of crime detection. It would be great to think that for each crime committed DNA or other clues to the the identity of the person committing it were freely available to the police, I believe that it would make this country a safer place.
The problem with this is that we all know it would only be so long before the paper work turned up on the local rubbish dump, or some 13 year old in his lunch time managed to break into the computer system. Or even slightly more sinister that one of the Governmental "In the interests of National Security" departments had access to it.
The least of my worries would be that of me being " Fitted Up" for a crime, the more worrying is persons in authority being able to hide their identity (let us all think about the questions surrounding Diana's death), employers being able to check out your profile to see if you would still be suitable for the job due to our genetic type, or ultimately rather than just finding a way to produce the best wool maybe the right man to run an Army, the possibilities are endless, and a storage method that is flawless, still yet to be found.
Except one.
Don't collect the information.....
The real Rich :D
Please look only at the essence of this rather than as a body to perform an Autopsy upon. :eyes
Intrusion or not - DNA testing at birth should be mandatory. If you've done nothing wrong what is there to fear??
Intrusion or not - DNA testing at birth should be mandatory. If you've done nothing wrong what is there to fear??
Kenimac is a very lucky man/woman. He meets the love of his life, marries him/her and has lotsa lil' babies and lives happily everafter. His/her son/daughter one day also has a child that is DNA tested at birth as all children are at this time. Unfotunately Kenimac's child has a recessive alele for a disease (ie: cancer) and so does his/her partner. The DNA data base ends up being used, for a fee offcourse, by many credentialed enteties and some uncredentialled ones as well ( no system is foolproof and safe forever). One of the authorised entities are insurance companies. Kenimacs grandchild inherits recessive aleles from both parents and is therefore at a higher risk for said disease. This child will therefore be inelegible for health insurance or life insurance. Because of this, unless he/she has the money right out they will not be able to have a mortgage. This child, like so many others with "defective genetic codes", end up costing the government more in terms of health costs and benefits. The government is studying ways to discourage couples possesing "imperfect genetic codes" from reproducing. The insurance companies go a step futher, and just the way car insurance is cheaper for woman drivers, people with "perfect" genes find the have more beneficial prices compared to people carrying potencial disease inducing genes.
And this is a genetic data base used by legitimate users. Wonder what uses the illegitimate ones would get up to? Finding perfect organ donors matches and enforcing donation in some unregulated South American country after a kidnapping, for example?
PS: These scenarios are purposefully exagerated, thank you.
If you've done nothing wrong what is there to fear??
Because, throughout History there have been many people with exactly that view, who found out to their cost, that not having done anything wrong did not save them from persecution and death.
The same thing is still happening today and in the last few years has occurred on a large scale in parts of Europe.
Of course, they behave like that in the Balkans.
This is Britain and we British are far above that sort of behaviour, it could never happen here.
Anyway, they must have done something wrong or it would never have happened to them.
I am not an expert in Genetics and would never claim to be, that sore of expertise I am quite happy to leave to far more knowledgeable people.
When one of those very knowledgeable experts says that a check of my genetic code can tract my origins as far back as four of the original female humans which originally left Africa I think I can safely assume that even a moderate one can go back half a dozen or so generations.
I dread to think what certain regimes in Europe, never mind else where in the World, could have done with that sort of information.
But people had nothing to fear, after all, they had done nothing wrong!
Yes, I know, I still remember, "But this is Britain, those things will never happen here!"
If it's happened once then it can happen again. If it has happened anywhere, then it can happen here.
Can anybody give me a complete guarantee that, however unlikely it may seem, in fifty yours time it will not be my grand-children who discover that having "done nothing wrong" provides no security from persecution.
Just think what it would be like if people like the BNP could utilise that sort of information, would you really feel safe?
I would not like the knock on the door because I was considered to have "defective genes" which needed removing from the "gene pool" and I certainly don't want to be one of those responsible for inflicting that possibility on future generations.
Boy, talk about meeting trouble half way! All the 'maybes' and 'what ifs' I just think you're diving into the realms of science fiction. All possible undoubtedly, but probable? Hmmm.
You could disect any progress and point out the downfalls and the why's and wherefores and give just reasons why we should stay exactly where we are. If aeroplanes were never allowed to take to the air, think of the disasters that could have been avoided! I could go on.
Were I envisaging something from a long gone period, say the age of the Viking Longship, then yes, even I would see that as a virtual imposibility but I'm not.
I'm just saying that in view of what has already occurred within recent living memory could possibly occur again.
Unlikely I admit, and one I do not foresee, but not one I can rule out as being absolutely impossible.
I have very little faith, I am afraid to say, in the Human Race being able to completely refrain for one of it's bouts of Periodic Madness.
I have very little faith, I am afraid to say, in the Human Race being able to completely refrain for one of it's bouts of Periodic Madness.
Boy, are you a pessimist or what?
Pessimist is the name given by an optimist to describe a realist. :D
I have come across so many things in human nature that I am shocked by very little and surprised by absolutely nothing.
I did not want to have to be in that state of mind and I wish it were not so.
Humanity has unfortunately forced that view on me and not through the Media o the Press.
The proportion of humanity that applies to is only a very small proportion but, none the less, they do damage out of all proportion to their numbers and most of the time little is done to prevent them doing it until it's too late.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.