Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Dave Beans

Police 'must Purge Innocent Dna'

Recommended Posts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8257104.stm

Farkin ACPO..do they realise that they should actually be serving us, not the other way round?

not a chance.

All through western europe,and the US,and australia etc.

we now have homogenised poitburo's that think the people are there to serve the state.

I would expect such behaviour from soviet russia,east germany or communist china,but this is happening HERE!!

on the flipside,these morre repressive regimes are actually becoming quite a bit more free.

One has to wonder if this wasn't all an "energy shuffle"

whatever the politicans have done,they have managed to combine the worst aspects of ALL of the previous systems.

Uncle sam still has lots of guns,and it's obvious that the "masters" don't like people that can hit back.So maybe the messiah lives across the pond :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone working in this field claimed to me that the DNA held on file is just a scan of "junk" DNA that doesn't code for anything, and that a full test is too expensive... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone working in this field claimed to me that the DNA held on file is just a scan of "junk" DNA that doesn't code for anything, and that a full test is too expensive... :ph34r:

No-one is innocent citizen. We're just here to determine the level of your guilt.

Judge%20Dredd%20Megazine%20281%20PJ%20Holden.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uncle sam still has lots of guns,and it's obvious that the "masters" don't like people that can hit back.So maybe the messiah lives across the pond :P

The Americans are being led to conflict and to sin. They have been fed hundreds of years of defending freedom propaganda, so they will be blind to the trap.

Matthew 5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let your "mate" know he's talking BS :ph34r:

Well, his job depends on DNA collection and testing so obviously he's a vested interest. Still, I haven't actually seen what the police do when taking a sample past the swabbing of blood so I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, his job depends on DNA collection and testing so obviously he's a vested interest. Still, I haven't actually seen what the police do when taking a sample past the swabbing of blood so I don't know.

Samples are taken via cheek swab, not blood sample.

Only 'crime scene' samples arrive as blood, hair or semen.

Your mate is correct, the section of dna that gets analysed is 'junk dna' a section of short tandem repeats that aren't known to code for anything in particular.

The reason why the UK changed the law on retention of samples is that a few years ago a person who had been identified as a murderer was found not guilty because his profile should have been removed from the database a month earlier.

The law was changed as it closed this loophole. Despite being a liberal, if the law as it stands was changed to remove dna profiles from the database then today there would be over a dozen murderers and hundreds more rapists walking the streets.

Something that gets ignored a lot is that the presence of a dna match is, by law, insufficent to convict someone of a crime. However in the overwhelming majority of cases it allows the police to narrow down 60 million suspects to a single person of interest in a matter of hours, thus saving you large amounts of money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samples are taken via cheek swab, not blood sample.

Only 'crime scene' samples arrive as blood, hair or semen.

Your mate is correct, the section of dna that gets analysed is 'junk dna' a section of short tandem repeats that aren't known to code for anything in particular.

The reason why the UK changed the law on retention of samples is that a few years ago a person who had been identified as a murderer was found not guilty because his profile should have been removed from the database a month earlier.

The law was changed as it closed this loophole. Despite being a liberal, if the law as it stands was changed to remove dna profiles from the database then today there would be over a dozen murderers and hundreds more rapists walking the streets.

Something that gets ignored a lot is that the presence of a dna match is, by law, insufficent to convict someone of a crime. However in the overwhelming majority of cases it allows the police to narrow down 60 million suspects to a single person of interest in a matter of hours, thus saving you large amounts of money.

The case you quoted appears on the face of it to rely solely on the DNA evidence. Would you like to explain this?

I also haven't suggested that we get rid of convicted criminals from the database. Nor have you given a reason why innocents and children have records on the database. Where is the law that stated a DNA database was necessary when it was first started?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNA database should only store data of those people who have been charged AND convicted of a crime. If they wanted to store everyones DNA on it, then they might as well take it at birth (I wouldn't be surprised if they do that now) or order doctors to take it when they see patients. The addage of innocent until proven guilty is obviously lost of Labour..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The case you quoted appears on the face of it to rely solely on the DNA evidence. Would you like to explain this?

I also haven't suggested that we get rid of convicted criminals from the database. Nor have you given a reason why innocents and children have records on the database. Where is the law that stated a DNA database was necessary when it was first started?

There was plenty of other evidence in the case, but because the police had effectively broken the law (by matching against his sample that should have been deleted) the judge had no choice but to find not guilty.

It's called getting off on a technicality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It won't be long before it is realised that planting someone else's DNA at the scene would be a piece of piss.

Some poor individual would then have the impossible task of trying to prove their innocence.

Result: more innocent people languishing in jails :(

(Tip of the day......Don't stick your used jonnies in the bin :unsure: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
The Americans are being led to conflict and to sin. They have been fed hundreds of years of defending freedom propaganda, so they will be blind to the trap.

Matthew 5:21: Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.

Spare us the Christian hypocrisy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Someone working in this field claimed to me that the DNA held on file is just a scan of "junk" DNA that doesn't code for anything, and that a full test is too expensive... :ph34r:

Essentially correct, it's junk DNA in the fact that it's non-coding ie it doesn't get directly translated into proteins, hence it can be highly variable. But researchers now think classical 'junk DNA' may have other purposes.

The test is based around, interestingly, STRs (Short Tandem Repeats).

Only a certain number of highly variable regions are looked at - depending upon the test, perhaps about 20. Each region has a bit from the mother and the father, so 2 numbers are generated for each region (locus) depending upon the number of repeating subunits there are present- the STR.

So for locus 1 you might get 11 and 15 repeats, the next you might get 22 and 31 repeats etc.

Multiply this, by say 20 different locations and you're soon in the region of billions to one of someone having the same number of repeating units for each of the locations.

So there is no need to sequence the entire genome to get a 'unique' dna profile.

BTW the data is stored as a series of these numbers, so it's unlikely to be able to yield any significant information for eg insurance companies etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   287 members have voted

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


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

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.