Police 'arrest Innocent Youths For Their Dna', Officer Claims

[warpig]

This man is worth listening to. If you like this read his economic forecasts, they're even better.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/16088937/Is-Demo...Leviathan-52209

[MOP]

People must start resisting this. Taking your DNA to put on a database presided over a totalitarian government like NewLabour is the fast track to total tyranny.

Any innocent person is justified in using what ever force necessary to resist this kind of attack.

****** the mammoth, dreary BNP threads - those thugs are cub scouts compared to the Nazis that are in charge RIGHT NOW.

Hard to argue. Adolf would've loved this shit.

[Justice]

i would happily give my DNA!!! I havn't left any at any crime scenes so what would i have to worry about?

I get really frustrated at people that call police state at stupid thins like surveilence and dna and eaves dropping?

it makes me feel much safer i can tell you.

You are taking the pi$$ i hope or are you unable to see into the future !

When they give the implants out i bet you will be at the front of the queue so long as it comes with free sat nav right

[twatmangle]

Personally I think everyone should have it taken at birth as it would solve so many future crimes and thus prevent other people being raped and murdered by the same suspects.

Blood is already taken at birth in the form of a heel *****, to look for certain diseases etc. The blood spot is stored on FTA paper which is designed for long term storage of biological samples at room temperature. You don't need vials of blood in freezers, you can just put the paper it in an envelope in a filing cabinet and store it for decades.

If these blood samples are not disposed of immediately, then there's nothing to stop someone at a later date going back to them for the purpose of DNA profiling.

All it would need is an act of parliament to say that DNA samples can be collected at birth, and that this can be applied retrospectively.

EDIT: Language police wouldn't let me use the phrase heel '*****'.

Edited June 5, 2009 by twatmangle

[Peter Hun]

Ten years ago when I was practicing as a criminal defence lawyer the police were empowered to take your DNA after they had charged you. They had the power to use reasonable force and in London where I worked they had all been told/trained to pull out some hair by the roots if a detainee genuinely refused.

I think the authority for this is in the amended codes to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but I can’t remember for sure and my books are in storage.

The officers may have decided discretion was the better part of valour in the example given by the earlier poster because he had not been charged with anything.

Interestingly, taking finger prints is far more difficult because you need the co-operation of the person you are printing. You can’t get a legible print from someone that is struggling and although the law again says the police can use reasonable force you cannot get a print from a determined resistor by the use of reasonable force, if you see what I mean.

All a resistor needs to do in practical terms is mover his finger laterally as it is being rolled on the print pad and you get a smudge that is useless.

I remember chatting to a detective all those years ago on this point and he said if someone seriously refused to give his prints he would just let it go because he wasn’t prepared to punch someone just to get their prints.

If the case was serious enough, child murder or what have you and if that officer really wanted someone’s prints, there is always the possibility that officer would change his mind.

Anyway, the police can take DNA by force relatively easily and I am sure they do but “dabs†as we used to call them are much trickier.

On the point of keeping the DNA of people who have not been convicted, this is probably a breach of our right to privacy as per the European Convention of Human Rights and any decent lawyer should be able to argue that compellingly. Perhaps the best people to use for this would be the ones who helped out Max Mosely.

This confirms my thinking, the police arn't going to use extreem violence unles its a serious case.

Even then, using violence on innocent people would be tantamount to using torture, if the UK didn't agree the ECHR probably would.

[Rare Bear]

Well, its a very bad direction for Britain to head IMO.

Once the DNA of the nation has been locked into some database, who says that it won't be used to profile people by their genetic traits? How secure with that data be? What if marketers get ahold of the data? What if insurers get ahold of that data? What if the military gets the data? What if your enemy's military gets the data?

Yes, there have been many great scientific advances in desconstructing and understanding DNA, but this is one area of science which I fully hold in contempt. I am not a religious man by nature, but I am in agreement with mainstream religion in condemning this. My main reason is that I hold no hope for mankind to use this most intrinsic and personal identity for only good purposes. We are already witnessing the very evil manipulation of our food supply by Monsanta and others.

It's just plain scary and wrong.

Think DNA database and opt out for organ donation then you get scarey.

[Rare Bear]

they can have my DNA, but taking a single cell more and thats it....court case and damages.

Inspired by Portia?