Judge says: ALL UK people Must be on DNA Database

They are supposed to be but remember who pays their wages.

Err it is the taxpayer who pays their wages not the Gov. They just give them thier wages on our behalf.

British Judges say stupid things all the time.

Exactly more Judges are like most of the poloticians nowadays out off touch with reality more than anything. Here is another example of someone talking out off their butthole. Most judges need a reality check. And so do most politicians.

This is just getting silly now.

How is it silly, The Gov has thousands on childrens DNA on database without the consent or the knowledge of thier parents. So no it is not getting silly now is it.

Having your DNA stored makes you guilty of nothing. And whilst we're all bleating about human rights can anyone explain why my basic right to be protected from criminals should be compromised by someone's irrational desire for genetic privacy when good high technology policing could remove murderers and rapists from the streets if used responsibly and effectively?

And how criminal is it having your DNA shared with foreign countries without your knowledge or consent? That is what I find criminal. It is against our basic human rights to even trie and make it compulsory for everyone having to give over thier DNA, in the first place. Voluntry maybe, if they do make it complusary how are they going to enforce this, if people refuse.

Originally posted by spencerjohnstone
How is it silly, The Gov has thousands on childrens DNA on database without the consent or the knowledge of thier parents. So no it is not getting silly now is it.

What was getting particularly silly was the post which presented scaremongering fantasy as fact and then proceeded to complain about "control and manipulation". I think using the word silly demonstrated admirable restraint on my part.

Consent is not required to take a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested by the police and why should it be? - are you required to give consent for a policeman to run a check on your driving licence if you are involved in an accident? If any parents are so lacking in interest as to be unaware of their children's arrest, (which automatically leads to the taking of a DNA sample), they should probably have the children taken away and given to someone who may actually care about them a little more.

It is against our basic human rights to even trie and make it compulsory for everyone having to give over thier DNA, in the first place.

Human rights are necessarily a compromise. I would find it equally "criminal" if one of my family were to suffer a serious assault if the perpetrator could have been in prison had the police had access to a DNA database before the event.

[edit on 5-9-2007 by timeless test]

Has anyone mentioned that our whitehall computers were recently being hacked by the Chinese?

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Imagine what military scientists could do with say,the DNA database of a whole country...
Race specific bio weapons anyone?

If anyone thinks our precious DNA is safe and unhackable in the hands of the government-think again.
If this database is NOT hacked,it would be the first time in the history of UK government IT projects.
I am not against serious criminals having there DNA taken btw-just the blanket sampling being talked about bt the judge.

So, would this system only be searchable when a there is unidentified DNA found at a crime scene, like the CODIS system, or could the police show up at the door and run your DNA to see, for example, if you are an immigrant?

hmm very interesting, do you think they are after a catalouge of DNA so they can find someone who has strange DNA? like in Heroes

I'd like to see them try and take my DNA!

Well, that's if they haven't got it already of course. I've had teeth out at a hospital, so they could have got it from there I guess. Or even needles after a vaccination.

Scary stuff, but there's really nothing we can do about it, if the government want our DNA on file, their sure as hell gonna get it.

I would suggest, and it only a wild guess, that if they decided to go ahead with it, it would simply be to start taking DNA samples from all newborn babies at birth, given time, everyone would then be on it.

Im curious as to how they would do it for Tourists though.

reply to post by ShadeWolf


Assuming it ran as the current system does, (and let's remember that this is little more than a senior judge thinking aloud), then it could only be used to check stray DNA from a crime scene to see if a match existed on the existing database.

A DNA sample can only be taken if it is volunteered, (in order to eliminate people from an enquiry, typically (but very rarely) used in something like a rape investigation), or if an individual is arrested for a "reportable offence"). So police could not come to your door and demand a sample to see if it happened to match with something they already have on file unless they were arresting you.

Sounds similar to your CODIS system.

Are the general public being primed for the topic to be debated by this public statement?

The problem is that to inform the public in greater detail about how such a system could be a benefit to the wider populace to enable a national debate, you'd need to make sure that the subject of 'DNA Database For All' was the media flavour-of-the-month.

And this is where any sinister/true aspects of the DNA agenda could be pushed, by use of sensationalism and spin. The high-media-profile murder cases for instance that are still fresh in public memory could be given a fresh twist to include a comment of "...and had we a national DNA database at the time...." to feed the idea that we'd all be safer and live happier lives.

On a positive note, such a database could make the UK the world-leader in public healthcare. By having access to everyone's information, DNA demographics would allow the NHS to target research funding far more efficiently, to accurately screen and medically plan for possible future illnesses from birth to death with accuracy.

Regardless of the outcome of a public debate, the database is unlikely to ever go away, whats needed is intensive directed lobbying for new legislation to protect and afford litigation rights to the individual under articles such as 'Anti Genetic Discrimination' laws or a new version of the Data Protection Act to include a 'Genetic Data Act'

Timless test wrote
This is just getting silly now. None of the links you provide say or even suggest that - it's pure fantasy.

You obviously didn't read all the links I posted. I was also talking about potential future scenarios in regards to dna profiling. If you think it wont happen. You are naive. Technology is involving at such a fast rate. Nobody knows what tomorrow may bring. Some of the things that happened in minority report will probably come true and that's not a society I wish to be apart of.

Downing Street also suggested health visitors could intervene before the birth of children judged at risk of falling into a life of crime.

Nearly all problematic children today are mass medicated with antidepressants. It should be criminal to give children drugs when there brains are still developing. Having taken antidepressants myself, my own personal opinion is that they do more harm than good.

After I took them for about 1 year I literally felt that I was turning into the incredible hulk. The smallest most trivial thing would upset me and send me into a uncontrollable rage. The amount of rage and anger being caused by these drugs was unbearable, hence the reason I came off them. I've seen plenty of other people mainly adults take antidepressants and their personalities have literally changed over night and they have turned into complete basket cases. God only knows what antidepressants are doing to our children.

Timless test wrote
Having your DNA stored makes you guilty of nothing. And whilst we're all bleating about human rights can anyone explain why my basic right to be protected from criminals should be compromised by someone's irrational desire for genetic privacy when good high technology policing could remove murderers and rapists from the streets if used responsibly and effectively?

Reality check - We dont have a responsible government. Removing criminals from the streets. Sorry it wouldn't make any difference because those stupid corrupt judges & governments I talked about would just find another way to put them back on the streets.

It's your prerogative. If you trust the government then have your dna put on a national database. But I certainly dont and therefore I will never hand over a sample of my dna.

Genius. Psychologists, sociologists, criminologists and God knows how many others struggle for years to try to properly understand the enormously complex issues which affect how our society evolves and operates with limited success and actually it was all so simple.

I never said running a society was simple, but it helps if your government isnt corrupt or a bunch of control freaks and actually has the best interests of its people at heart. There all a bunch of lying, thieving, incompentent whores. God only knows what their real agenda is in regards to dna profiling and national databases.

Plus having a national database where all your details are stored is stupid because there's no way you could make it 100% secure and all the important information would be easy pickings for hackers and criminals. This would only help to increase crimes such as fraud. The government itself would probably even sell off your information even though they promised not to. There's been countless cases where this has already happened. Yet more proof just how corrupt our governments are and if you place your trust in these wankers, then you do so at your own peril.

Why does the government need to know my bank account, value of my house my earnings etc. It's none of their business, unless of course they are planning to profit from this information.





[edit on 5-9-2007 by kindred]

Originally posted by citizen smith
On a positive note, such a database could make the UK the world-leader in public healthcare. By having access to everyone's information, DNA demographics would allow the NHS to target research funding far more efficiently, to accurately screen and medically plan for possible future illnesses from birth to death with accuracy.

That is about the only real positive I see besides catching criminals quicker. I'm just not sure that the benefits would outweigh the negatives though. DNA demographics would make it easier to use targeted biological weapons against a certain population. And it would be naive of anyone to honestly think that a DNA database would only be used for catching criminals or for developing treatments for diseases.

The government can't even keep our financial information safe from hackers, or from people who just outright buy the information. Why would anyone trust them to keep your DNA information safe? You can rebuild your life if someone screws up your credit. Can you rebuild it if you happen to be part of a group of people that someone decides they don't like and kills off with a genetic specific disease?

Not to mention the fact that DNA work is still a relatively new field of science. We're still discovering new things about DNA all the time, and it still can't be analyzed with 100% certainty. There are plenty of mistakes that happen. Would you want to be falsely accused and convicted of a crime simply because your DNA happened to be at the scene or because the person who actually did commit it has DNA similar to yours?

*NOTE* When I say "you", I'm not necessarily meaning you Citizen Smith. It's a generic you, not a specific one.

reply to post by kindred


I read all of your links and saw absolutely nothing about DNA profiling unborn babies or forced medication. If I missed anything I will apologise but otherwise it is nothing short of hypocrisy to complain about manipulation after posting false and misleading information yourself.

If you have suffered as a result of inappropriate medication than you have my sympathy but that does not mean that our entire Government and judiciary is either irresponsible or corrupt. If you really believe this is the case then please provide some evidence to support what otherwise reads as a baseless rant.

I think we are all agreed that the security of such a database would be a major concern and the judge agreed with this himself in an interview this morning.

Supposing a hypothetical 'DNA Act' is passed and everyone is required to provide a sample at a registered test-centre within 12 months, would it be possible to 'spoof' your sample?

My line of thinking is that the most likely and least-invasive way to quickly and efficiently gather samples from a large group would be orally...would it be possible to 'swap spit' with another person and evade the database???

reply to post by citizen smith


Blimey Smithy that is some seriously lateral thinking.

I would imagine that if you were required to drink a glass of water and rinse your mouth before sampling there should be no problem or the sample may show signs of more than one person's DNA anyway.

However, seeing as the whole process will presumably be managed by some crazed New World Order appointed jackboot wearing medical staff I imagine each subject will be held in solitary confinement in a damp cell for at least 24 hours before DNA is extracted by pulling out at least one toenail which should solve this little difficulty.

Sedley is an opponent of the DNA database to begin with. Nearly everyone (most media outlets included) has missed the point. He made the comments to stir up exactly the kinds of reactions we're seeing here.

What he said, in essence, was this "Anyone who has come into contact with the police, whether they were cleared of a crime or found guilty, may well have their DNA stored in our database. This is unfair. The only way to solve the problem is to EITHER force every single citizen of the UK and anyone who might visit the UK even for just a weekend submit to having their DNA catalogued OR stop the whole damned mess altogether and do away with the database, or at least stop collecting new samples". His comments were taken out of context. Far from being a statement of policy, they were intended to be a reductio ad absurdum indictment of the entire DNA database policy.

Originally posted by Chorlton
I suspect it is because the Government wants to open a debate on it but dont want to be seen as the ones doing it. They get a Judge to say it then they can just say "Well the Judge said what he thought..........but while were on the subject hows about......................................

Well if thats the case its a break from New Labours method of doing things, which is usually to create small focused groups across a "wide range of the populace" (that happen to agree with what they want) and then present a consultation document based on the findings of the focus group as a consultation document for minor amendments prior to it becoming law. (I have some experience of them doing this)

An actual debate, officially or unofficially, is kind of unheard of.

But he is also quoted in the Independant as saying:

Sir Stephen, one of England's most experienced Appeal Court judges, said expanding the database to cover the whole population had "very serious but manageable implications".

He said everybody's DNA should be on file "for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention

So it would seem he does support the idea.

Originally posted by peabody
Sedley is an opponent of the DNA database to begin with. Nearly everyone (most media outlets included) has missed the point. He made the comments to stir up exactly the kinds of reactions we're seeing here.

Really?

That's like saying you are against Nazism then dressing up as Hitler and reacting his speeches to prove how evil he is.

His comments were made in order to allow the government to come out, agree and start a debate in parliament.

reply to post by peabody


I don't know about his previous opinions peabody but that's not what he said this morning. In an interview on "Today" he made it clear, as you say, that the current situation was untenable and that we could either go forwards to 100% coverage or go backwards and only hold records of convicted criminals.

However, it was also clear that he felt that to go backwards from where we are now would be "ridiculous" and lead to dangerous criminals continuing at liberty.

He may, of course, be particularly devious and be talking it up specifically to arouse public disquiet but I didn't take it that way.

reply to post by neformore



Unheard of in the Blair led Government, might it be Gordon doing things differently?