Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Injin

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

Recommended Posts

56.5% of house hold dust is skin, which will be full of your dna.

You have probably contaminated over 1000 people with a small amount of your DNA this year, walking through town centres and busy areas. Every time you flush a toilet or wash in a sink you are contaminating the water with your DNA that has the potential to be identifiable almost indefinitely. (oldest DNA identified so far: 450,000 years).

On this basis, I do not believe that your DNA is not at any crime scenes!

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so what if anyone gets hold of it? What can it tell you that a plain old mug shot wont? What about the driving licence data base? Enough information there to make alot of decisions, you only need so much.

Really, what would the Iranian army do with a database of British peoples DNA? Laugh? Send us personalised chemical bombs? Select all hayfever suffers and send them flowers?

who is Monsanta?

Oh you silly, silly man

Why would you allow a police force and a government, who have at various times fitted up criminals for crimes they never committed, used anti-terror laws to check school catchment areas and who regularly indulge in stirring up fear to keep you under control, have access to a part of you that you shed all day every day everywhere you go with no control?

Even here, when they are shown up for abusing their power in regards to DNA, we get the old "nothing to hide nothing to fear" nonsense

You're as dangerous as they are

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Monsanto's other contribution to the world was Agent Orange

Oh yes, almost forgot that charming little product. No doubt their 'revolving door' relationship with the F.D.A. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) did no harm in helping sell this to the U.S. administration too. What a world, eh ...

OK - I'm straying off-topic, so I'll shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...cer-claims.html

Can we leave this for an hour or two on the main forum please mods?

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...p;#entry1931706

The classic quote ""It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database". - yes it's the databases fault the police are racists!

The DNA database is evil - didn't the EU just tell them to remove the innocent from it, and the UK agreed, but only after 6 years of something. Scum, total scum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not saying they don't have discretion on whether to take DNA or not, or that if you make enough hassle they won't decide it's not worth it but if they really want it and you refuse they will not risk their pinkies in your mouth to get it.

Yanking a small clump of hair from your head yields plenty of DNA from the roots.

My brother is a police custody sgt. I'd love to get him on the phone for you but I feel it might be difficult.

Ok, ask him what would happen when he goes to court for arresting and assaulting a teenager in order to obtain DNA. Jail? Lose his job? National scandal? Hung out to dry by his employers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, ask him what would happen when he goes to court for arresting and assaulting a teenager in order to obtain DNA. Jail? Lose his job? National scandal? Hung out to dry by his employers?

Perhaps the law is different for children as for adults? I'll ask him and let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1, evil.

Before you even arrive at differing opinions on economics, this is the issue. No idea how anyone could consider voting for a party so intent on the management and instrumentalisation of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The classic quote ""It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database". - yes it's the databases fault the police are racists!

Not that minorities are more likely to be criminals then? :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56.5% of house hold dust is skin, which will be full of your dna.

You have probably contaminated over 1000 people with a small amount of your DNA this year, walking through town centres and busy areas. Every time you flush a toilet or wash in a sink you are contaminating the water with your DNA that has the potential to be identifiable almost indefinitely. (oldest DNA identified so far: 450,000 years).

On this basis, I do not believe that your DNA is not at any crime scenes!

He may not have left any there, but it could still be there. A few hairs dropped on someones jacket in the pub or on the bus, picked up on a random shoe with a bit of gum on it, a fag butt you'd discarded, or a knife wielding youths staffy stuck his nose in your rubbish bin and came out covered with the contents of your vacuum cleaner bag all over it, just 2 minutes before it's owner killed someone.

Apart from all that, these people make mistakes.

They also have a tendency to let your data leak all over the place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Steve Cook
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics...cer-claims.html

Can we leave this for an hour or two on the main forum please mods?

We disagree on many things injin. But, on the issue that that the state is, on balance, our enemy more than it is anything else, we are in complete agreement. The DNA database that is being compiled is the boot that is being slowly pressed into our faces.

Orwell was right.

We need to fight this, at all costs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Police can use force to take DNA, Photo, and finger prints if someone has been arrested for a recordable crime. It very rally happens.

I personally have no problem with my DNA being taken, I have done nothing wrong. 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.

What I have a problem with is if it is used for other reasons and it has to be protected for crime purposes only and not stray into the realms of insurance comanpy dna profiling for cover.

As for the story, its b@ll@cks. Police don't just arrest people to get a dna sweep they have enough on their plate. I know this for a fact. The police federation would b up in arms if this was true. It is sloppy and misleading reporting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once they've got your DNA they can more easily frame you for crimes you didn't commit. Don't think they wouldn't do it? Look at the Birmingham 6 to see how the police are happy to frame and blame when under public scrutiny or media pressure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once they've got your DNA they can more easily frame you for crimes you didn't commit. Don't think they wouldn't do it? Look at the Birmingham 6 to see how the police are happy to frame and blame when under public scrutiny or media pressure.

Rember the Birmingham 6 got off on a techicality. They claimed the explosive residue was similar to that found on certain playing cards back then. They were heavily involved in the republican movement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rember the Birmingham 6 got off on a techicality. They claimed the explosive residue was similar to that found on certain playing cards back then. They were heavily involved in the republican movement.

I'm a republican but it doesn't mean I also believe in violence. DNA evidence can and will be used to pervert the course of justice. Fit-ups will become common place because DNA "evidence" was found at the crime scene.

edit: spelling

Edited by Sir Jack Daw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm a republican but it doesn't mean I also believe in violence. DNA evidence can and will be used to pervert the coarse of justice. Fit-ups will become common place because DNA "evidence" was found at the crime scene.

There is a difference in republicans and republicans involved in terroist actions though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The DNA database is evil - didn't the EU just tell them to remove the innocent from it, and the UK agreed, but only after 6 years of something. Scum, total scum.

The EU didn't. It was the European Court of Human Rights.

'European Convention on Human Rights':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Conv...on_Human_Rights

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, also known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), was adopted under the auspices of the Council of Europe[1] in 1950 to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

[...snip...]

1. The Council of Europe should not be confused with the Council of the European Union. The European Union is not a party to the Convention and has no role in the administration of the European Court of Human Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not that minorities are more likely to be criminals then? :ph34r:

Most people on the database aren't criminals - they are witnesses, people found innocent etc.

Take your BNP f*ckwittery to another thread please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 356 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.