It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Judge says: ALL UK people Must be on DNA Database

page: 2
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:16 AM
link   
In the UK another thing they do a lot, is say for instance there is a rape, they will take samples from all the men in the area, I assume they all get stored indefinatly too, even though none of the men tested may be the culprit. I'm still very unsure about this idea, on one hand it would be great to beat criminals, but we don't know what else they would end up doing with it. In the past I've heard of Insurance companies wanting to get hold of it, and also it being used based on currently dubious science, like "the violence gene", where they use to to predetermine people who are more likely to commit violence, and then using resources to target those people.




posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Flyer
 


I posted it as I saw it as headlining on most Newspapers and the BBC
As I stated, I think this Judge has been set up to state this, as if a Government minister had said anything like this there would have been outrage.
He has been set up to state what he said to provide a 'soft' entry into the debate by the Government.

Strange though that on the BBC 10 O clock news a 'Government minister' denied that the DNA Database would be implemented. If that is so then why is a top UK Judge being allowed to promote the idea if the Government werent actually seeking such a thing?

Im not against it, but, as I stated previously, I am worried about the security and the details getting into the wrong hands.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:26 AM
link   
Well I can say I wouldnt want to be on it, Id refuse if they were doing a sweep of the area for any reason. Just like Id refuse to let the police look in my bag if they asked.

This is a bit too much like the X-files where they kept a dna database of the Americans.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton
Strange though that on the BBC 10 O clock news a 'Government minister' denied that the DNA Database would be implemented. If that is so then why is a top UK Judge being allowed to promote the idea if the Government werent actually seeking such a thing?


...because the judiciary are independent of our Government - thankfully.

However, if you want a more sinister interpretation then as a "Government Minister" I too would take the freedom loving privacy upholding stance and allow the judge to take the flak unless and until public opinion supported him thereby allowing me to fall in line with the will of the public in best traditions of our democratic heritage.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chorlton


I think this judge has been set up by the Government to break the story and make it public so the Government can then continue the debate

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)


I agree with you there-its obviously a ploy to gauge public opinion..
The reasons the judge gave have left my exasperated-"too many innocent people and ethnic minorities have had their DNA stored"he said.
What a fantastic justification for us all to have to give our DNA samples in to the government.Too many innocents and ethnic minorities...solution Store EVERYBODY'S DNA...
I wish I could say I was surprised to hear this being over hyped and rammed on to the 1st slot on both Sky and BBC news all day/week.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Silcone Synapse
What a fantastic justification for us all to have to give our DNA samples in to the government.Too many innocents and ethnic minorities...solution Store EVERYBODY'S DNA...


I think you're taking that quote slightly out of context to be honest.

The judge's point was that it was unfair that some innocents ended up on the database whilst others did not. He was not criticising the fact that there are too many stored records but rather that there are too many stored records of innocents whose inclusion is essentially random. His point was that if you are going to store the DNA of innocent people it would be much fairer to store everybody's rather than an arbitrary selection.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test

...because the judiciary are independent of our Government - thankfully.

However, if you want a more sinister interpretation then as a "Government Minister" I too would take the freedom loving privacy upholding stance and allow the judge to take the flak unless and until public opinion supported him thereby allowing me to fall in line with the will of the public in best traditions of our democratic heritage.



And there you have my thoughts exactly
The Government holding its hands up in shock and saying "Oh we didnt suggest that.............but as we are discussing it........."



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


...and as I asked earlier, is it such a bad thing that we have the discussion? It has been discussed here for a long time so why should the general public be denied the opportunity to have their two penn'th? Perhaps they may like the idea.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by timeless test
 


And as I stated earlier I have no problems with a DNA Database, its the whole security thing that worries me. But other than that it doesnt make me lose any sleep. If I were worried I wouldnt be a blood donor.

Its simply the way it has been done, via a Judge rather than the government themselves that annoys me, but thats NuLabour

Bring back Socialism I say, I might even be tempted to go and vote if that happened. Something I havent done for over 15 years.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by KhieuSamphan
As you say, they have done it before. How would the creation of a DNA database make facilitate a new 'cull'?
It might help do it in a more selective way. I know it sounds like sci-fi but anything's possible and fact is usually stranger than fiction.On a more basic level, in the future you might not get life insurance if there's something in your DNA that gives away the fact you're more likely to get an inherited disease some time in the future.Isn't it true you have to get a blood test in some places in the US before you're allowed to marry? Take that a few steps further using DNA. Or, maybe your DNA has some signs of you developing a mental illness? Should they put you away BEFORE you show the signs? The applications can be huge. There's no use saying "oh, it's okay, the police will be the only ones to get to use it." There'll be many more folk wanting a piece of that big pie. It'll come.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Chorlton
 


OK, we have no disagreement on the database then as it is the security, and proper use considerations and cost of the judge's proposal that are the real concern.

I think you are in some danger of being a bit precious about the way it's been done to be honest. It wouldn't surprise me at all if a minister or two had given a quiet nod to the judge to let him float this idea and see the reaction but if you believe that this sort of process is the preserve of new Labour then I fear that you are seriously misguided. Every Government and political party uses think tanks, research organisations or just friendly public figures to float their ideas for them when they may want the opportunity to distance themselves from the issue if necessary and have done so for decades or longer.

Let's just be happy that we have the opportunity for the public discussion.


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



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wigit
in the future you might not get life insurance if there's something in your DNA that gives away the fact you're more likely to get an inherited disease some time in the future


This has been brought up time and time again and it's a complete red herring.

Currently insurance companies cannot, (with a very few unusual exceptions), use predictive DNA evidence to assist them in setting insurance premia or issuing policies in the UK. For the avoidance of doubt this practice is not allowed; forbidden.

If that situation changes then no insurance company worth a light is going to rely on a police database for its information, they will simply say that if you want a policy you will need to provide us with a DNA sample for predictive testing. The existence of the police database is utterly irrelevant to this argument.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 05:42 AM
link   
My main objection is the population being turned into the 21st century equivalent of branded cattle.


Of itself, having everyone on a DNA database for crime-solving purposes is not a bad idea.... but

Add it all up.

* DNA database for crime-solving purposes
* Passport with info on your DNA, Iris, Fingerprint... and god knows what else
* ID Card with info on your DNA, Iris, Fingerprint... and god knows what else
* CCTV camera EVERYWHERE!... Millions of them
* A (soon to be introduced) Road pricing system involving having a satellite tracking device in your car, so all your journeys can be monitored and costed.

All individually can be justified for crime, terrorism, identity and/or social security fraud, keeping tabs on illegal immigrants, etc

All well and good while the government, army, and police are benign... but what if in future these institutions are NOT so benign. Imagine, for example, how easy it would be to fit up a political trouble-maker, or any undesirable, for a crime when you have that sort of information to hand.

... and, when it comes down to it, as I said earlier, why the hell shoulld anyone have the right to turn human beings into branded cattle, all in the name of security and freedom. I suspect that when all this is over, and we've all been duly branded, we'll have neither security or freedom.

Very sad



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by timeless test
...because the judiciary are independent of our Government - thankfully.


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

I also seem to remember a report a few weeks ago stating that up to 500,000 DNA records on the current database contained incorrect information, hardly confidence inspiring.
Another aspect to remember is that these days the onus is put on the suspect to prove innocence more than the state to prove guilt. Imagine visiting a crime scene prior to a crime being committed, and subsequently your DNA being found there. If you cannot prove you had nothing to do with the crime you are immediately a suspect, especially in these times of targets and quotas governing policing. As a single guy, living alone, if I can't produce a witness or 2 to confirm I was at home when the crime was committed I'm screwed.

There is then the cost of setting up and maintaining a national database, something the government has historically thrown money at with little or no oversight. Massive overspending and late roll-out with seemingly no penalties applied to the provider (I won't name the favoured provider but it's always the same one - Inland Revenue, Passport Agency, MoD Logistics, CSA etc).
Once again, this will do little for security as anyone with the intent to do harm will always stay off the radar and evade giving a sample. Anyone wishing to come to the UK for criminal purposes will just do so illegally, not via the official ports of entry, thus bypassing the control measures.

The people who spout the line about not being worried if they are doing nothing wrong scare me. They don't seem to be able to see that they are already being treated as suspects by being requested to provide DNA and fingerprint data and very likely before too long, the ability to be tracked in their vehicles 24x7.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:25 AM
link   

bobafett wrote
I've heard of Insurance companies wanting to get hold of it, and also it being used based on currently dubious science, like "the violence gene", where they use to to predetermine people who are more likely to commit violence, and then using resources to target those people


Exactly Bobafett. Where will it end. You will have employers etc refusing people jobs simply because they have been diagnosed as having a violent gene or even a dishonest gene. New labour have already talked about using dna to profile babies even before they've left the womb and if those babies lets just say have a violent gene, then they will be forcefully medicated with drugs and god knows what else. It's absolutely ridiculous. We are not the sum of our genes, but the sum of our minds. This will simply divide people and create all sorts of problems for our society.

news.independent.co.uk...

urbansemiotic.com... Criminals in the womb

sandersresearch.com...

www.lewrockwell.com...

It's about control and manipulation. Where will it end.

If people are innocent then their DNA shouldn't be stored on a database. It's as simple as that. Innocent until proven guilty. I dont know whether to laugh or cry when I read articles like this one, especially considering it's the judges and politicians who are responsible for the increase in crime due their ignorance and stupidity, as well as their thirst for power and control.

I wouldn't trust any of these morons as far as I could spit and there'll be war before I give up my DNA.


sty

posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:37 AM
link   
The reason for wishing to collect the DNA info is of course not security. The database would be managed by private entities and for the private benefits. Another reason to make the step is for them to make sure they know exacly who you are - if you are smart, or spiritual or susceptible for a certain virus. This is as evil as evil could be and I am sure that a lot of christians or foreners like me would leave the UK (Eastern Europe ) as soon as this ideea is implemented. From my side I would reject the ideea simply by religious grounds (and some 0.5 million working-taxed under 30s polish people in the UK could do the same )



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Can the article title be edited to factually cover whats reported please? - which is that a judge has said he thinks something should happen, rather than it being established fact that it will.

British Judges say stupid things all the time.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
New labour have already talked about using dna to profile babies even before they've left the womb and if those babies lets just say have a violent gene, then they will be forcefully medicated with drugs and god knows what else.


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


If people are innocent then their DNA shouldn't be stored on a database. It's as simple as that. Innocent until proven guilty.


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?


it's the judges and politicians who are responsible for the increase in crime due their ignorance and stupidity, as well as their thirst for power and control.


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.



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:18 AM
link   
i think a lot of people seem to be unaware or skipping the fact that the UK already has the largest DNA database in the world.
"The DNA database - which is 12 years old - grows by 30,000 samples a month taken from suspects or recovered from crime scenes."

Link news.bbc.co.uk...

this may only be a proposal at the moment, but there is no way it can cover the entire populace of this country when we have up to 870k illegal immigrants.

What next? Maybe a plan to introduce biometric ID cards………….


[edit on 5-9-2007 by island_race]



posted on Sep, 5 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Can the article title be edited to factually cover whats reported please? - which is that a judge has said he thinks something should happen, rather than it being established fact that it will.

Done, sorry


British Judges say stupid things all the time.


Yes and I normally would have accepted that, BUT what made me sit up and look was a Government minister on the BBC Breakfast programme talking about it.
Why would the Government drag out their top minister at that time and bung him on TV when usually they would just make a statement saying exactly what you said?

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......................................



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join