Judge says: ALL UK people Must be on DNA Database

I fail to see the issue with a public DNA database. I have a small databank of DNA samples in my lab right now, and I certainly can't do anything malicious with it, and neither can the less tech-saavy government labs. People who are afraid of fthe government being able to do something with DNA need to realise that very rarely does the government perform it's own research and procedures. Working in a government lab for a stint taught me that, and that government labs are horribly underfunded.

What would concern me more is if the government took these samples and agreed to give some to private insurers. That opens a whole can of worms in the realm of detecting pre-existing conditions you didn't know you had, etc. However, the amount of DNA obtained from a swab or blood sample really wouldn't allow for very much sharing between labs. Depending o nthe individuals, you really only get a good 500 reactions out of a swab, if you're lucky. You'd need much more than that if you're using it for criminal investigations as well as doling it out to insurers for genotypiing.

Got a car in your name and address, got road tax on the car, congrats they know who you are.

Vote on elections, congrats again, got a bank account, job, credit card,council tax bill.............congrats you are part of the big database.

Every single thing we do is virtually documented, registered, even if you have digital tv, it is known what channels you subscribe to or watch.

Personally I have no problem with having a I.D. card or a DNA sample been taken, afterall electronically they know everything about me as it is.

The one thing I don't like is the idea of chipping your dustbin (garbage bin) for non UK'ers, chip your bin to calculate what you should pay by the weight of your dustbin.

If that happens I will gladly make mine a wonderous plastic bonfire and expand my carbon footprint.

You don't think you should pay more for disposal if you produce, say, twice as much garbage as the folks in the flat above you?

I think that's an excellent idea, and could help reduce landfill mass. Definitely motivates one to recycle, hehe.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
People who are afraid of fthe government being able to do something with DNA need to realise that very rarely does the government perform it's own research and procedures. Working in a government lab for a stint taught me that, and that government labs are horribly underfunded.

You've just highlighted a very real and worrying point regarding an enforced national database...the contract for DNA sequencing to obtain each individual's profile will go to the cheapest-bidding private contractor

Originally posted by citizen smith

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
People who are afraid of fthe government being able to do something with DNA need to realise that very rarely does the government perform it's own research and procedures. Working in a government lab for a stint taught me that, and that government labs are horribly underfunded.

You've just highlighted a very real and worrying point regarding an enforced national database...the contract for DNA sequencing to obtain each individual's profile will go to the cheapest-bidding private contractor

Very possible, however, all that will do is reduce the quality of the genotyping process, as well as place tighter regulations on when samples can be transferred. DNA isn't very concentrated in a buccal swab. Like I said before, you'll only get a few hundred reactions out of it, and you could easily use 100x that just testing for genetic disorders (in the case of an insurance company wanting it). Unless the government starts asking for a pint of blood from every individual every month (which I find very unlikely due to how cumbersome and labor intensive that would be), I doubt there is anything to worry about.

[edit on 9/5/2007 by VneZonyDostupa]

all that will do is reduce the quality of the genotyping process

...meaning two similar DNA profiles could look (or be made to look) identical?

It has happened in the past where DNA samples have been mixed up - and those were due to lo-tech labeling errors!!

[edit on 5-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

Ever notice that the nations that are disarmed by the governments always have intrusive survelliance measures in place soon after the disarming? In Britain now and in Australia the people have effectively been disarmed and they have seen the most incredible jump in privacy rights disappearing and draconian laws being passed, cameras all over, and all of course to fight crime!!

It is either drugs, or crime, or some other straw man argument they use to get the guns that a person could use to repel a home invader, whether a cop or a crook.When you cannot defend your own home you are property of the government. Why do you think during Katrina the local cops and the FEDS took weapons from law abiding gun owners? It was to get the idea across that as soon as they declare an ' emergency ' we should expect to give up our guns and rely on the cops and troops for protection.

Those same troops and cops will be the ones disarfming and abusing us when it all goes down soon. It is all part of a wide ranging plan for control and population management. Britain is gone as well as a few others, guns gone and people left with bladed weapons as they protection, and how many people can really use one well? Haedly any. So they will be of no use. No, when guns are gone the next step is rights are gone and then liberty. We are almost there.

Originally posted by mirageofdeceit

all that will do is reduce the quality of the genotyping process

...meaning two similar DNA profiles could look (or be made to look) identical?

It has happened in the past where DNA samples have been mixed up - and those were due to lo-tech labeling errors!!

[edit on 5-9-2007 by mirageofdeceit]

No, I doubt that would occur very often, if at all. If they use the CODIS system that the FBI, and I believe the UK and other law enforcement groups use, there is almost a nil chance that two people's DNA would look similar unless contaminated, and even then it would have to be contaminated with the same sample repeatedly, as the DNA would be run several times in a criminal case, not just once. That, again, is almost nil chance. I think the most likely source of error would be in the use of DNA evidence in court, but there's nothing you can do about that as long as we have 80 year old judges and idiots on the jury, unfortunately

[edit on 9/5/2007 by VneZonyDostupa]

reply to post by eyewitness86


I'm not sure where you live so forgive me if I appear condescending, that is not the intention, but you do not appear to understand British culture at all.

Britain has not been disarmed, it was never armed in the first place. Gun ownership here has always been the province of a tiny minority and believe me that is the way the vast majority have always wanted it.

More importantly, if the scenarios you paint ever come to pass, which I have to say is extraordinarily unlikely, the idea of a band of armed civilians taking on a professional army for whatever reason, is simply laughable. they wouldn't have the training, the fitness or, most importantly the support, to put up anything other than a token resistance, and for that we should be grateful. If there is any prospect more frightening than the official forces of a democratic Government imposing order through strength of arms it is a bunch of misguided hotheads trying it who think they speak for the people when in fact they are simply demonstrating their own arrogance.

Britain hasn't "gone" anywhere, it's just that as a nation we don't believe in the wild west mentality.

Originally posted by Chorlton
And I wonder how that will be done?

Placing that requirement on DNA would be virtually impossible to obtain. Suppose an individual says no, what then? They would need a warrant if the individual is not British right? Under what grounds are they going to get the warrant unless they have a possible crime?


How are they going to get all the DNA from illegal imminrants who were smuggled in?

As I see it they can only enforce British Citizens to comply

just another step toward nwo control. if you are from the UK PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE resist to this because this is a test.

Think about it, if this works in the UK test bed and people allow it then we in the US are in trouble.

Originally posted by shots
Placing that requirement on DNA would be virtually impossible to obtain. Suppose an individual says no, what then?

The short and simple answer would be that if a British individual turns down the request for a DNA sample, all access to day-to-day public services (banking/healthcare/insurance/employment etc) will be denied...

Similarly, if a foriegn national waives the request, they will only able to obtain a limited visa barring all access to any UK public facilities for the duration of the stay

I have read with interest some of the posts on this subject and i have one or two concerns myself.Firstly let me say that am not agood european.I dont trust unelected bodies to look after my best interests ! So it goes without saying that i would not trust any of their forces,police or any other with access to anything as sensitive as DNA.I wouldnt trust my own elected government to care about my best interests over and above their own interests.We,like it or not,have a lot of new laws governing the way this country is run, made in BRUSSELS.I dont want to give them any more scope for interfering.While it may be true to say that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear,it is not based in fact.Look at the mistakes our legal system has made in the past,and i have no doubt will make in the future.Our system of democracy is changing almost daily,with freedoms being removed just a little at a time,security they say!This thing about DNA is just another chip off the block of freedom.They will not push it to far this time but they will keep trying!While we can still change govts we can have a say ,GOD help us if the day comes when we cant.

The UK has given up almost all their privacy and means of self defense for exactly what??? Really do you feel safer in London now than say 20 years ago? All those cameras for what? Where do you draw the line......Next time it will be cameras in your homes....Damn, thank God I live in the USA. Oh and for DNA database..........No way it hell. If I break the law fine...short of that I will fight for my freedom. I follow the rules and am not a criminal, I wont give up my privacy to help anybody. They want to convict me of a crime...PROVE IT. Get a warrant or kiss my ass.

Reading this article made me think of an old X-Files episode where the Lone Gunmen claimed that the governments stored DNA data from every country born citizen, by collecting the small skin tissue sample from the immunization shots they received as a baby.

Until what this judge says becomes law, I don't think anyone should worry. Many people think the UK is soon to become a police state, but even measures like these are likely to have very strong opposition if enacted into law. How will the government be able to force people into giving their blood, if the populace were to react in force to stop the government from collecting their information? The government would not be able to handle a revolution.

thats stupid.
next thing they will want is to implant chips in everyone.

reply to post by DJMessiah



How will the Government do it?
Quite easily, as I said earlier.
They will simply put a requirement on all Hospitals/Midwives/Doctors to take a blood sample of every newborn baby.
They arent going to turn around one day and say "Everyone has to give a Blood Sample" as they know it just wouldnt work.
However to start doing it to all newborns, means that sooner or later everyone (or nearly everyone) will be on a DNA Database.

Can I just point something out?

The Prime Minister did come out and say he's not introducing the database to the whole population.

Originally posted by timeless test
...and is that a bad thing? Surely the open discussion of significant topics such as this is a hallmark of a free democracy and to be applauded, after all we've been discussing the issue here for a long time.

What you say is true. The open discussion of this topic is a hallmark of democracy. In a totalitarian state something like this would be implemented without any debate or consent of the governed. At least in a democracy a vote is required to take away the citizens' rights.

What Lord Sedley has said is that the present situation where anyone arrested for a reportable offence will have a DNA sample taken, whether or not they are charged of convicted, is unacceptable due to its inconsistency, which is an opinion I would agree with

Consider this: it is my right to be free from imprisonment as long as I commit no crimes. Once I have transgressed against the law I loose that right.

Violent criminals when released from prison often have a tracking device imposed upon them to allow law enforcement to more easily follow their movements.

Is this inconsistent? Perhaps. The government (here in America) doesn't track every citizen, only the ones who have committed crimes grave enough to warrant being monitored twenty four hours a day.

Is it unfair or unnacceptable for only criminals to be treated this way? Should everyone get a tracking device for the sake of consistency? What about our right against unjustified imprisonment? Surely many lives would be saved if we incarcerated even suspected criminals along with the ones who have been convicted of a crime.

and so the question becomes should we move towards 100% coverage of the population with all the benefits that would bring in terms of the ability to identify criminals or should we revert to a situation where only those found guilty of offences have DNA samples retained at the risk of losing the ability to identify criminals who will go free as a result.

Where do you draw the line? What is more important; safety from your fellow man, or safety from tyranny? I can defend myself from one person, I can protect my family from twenty. Here in America, I can even defend myself from the government. It is a right inherent in our system of governance. From it our country was formed. It is the basis of our constitution and our democracy. That right, the right of revolution has already been taken from you.

Non-Americans, especially those of other first world nations, often wonder why we cling so strongly to our right to bear arms; why we would rather die than be disarmed. It is because our armaments are our protection against the government. They ensure that we will be able to speak our minds, to worship (or blaspheme against) whatever god we choose, to peaceably assemble, to be secure in our persons and possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures, and to be tried fairly by our peers. Most importantly they prevent the usurpation of power by an overambitious dictator. America has no king and never will.

Without an armed and free citizenry a democracy is just a few scraps of paper. There is nothing to stop your government from enslaving you. You have knives and rocks with which to fight soldiers wielding rifles. What could you do if they came to take you away right now? Run? There are cameras on every street corner. They would soon find you.

You know I really do not grasp the reason for such resistance to this proposal if proper use and security can be guaranteed, (and yes, that is an awfully big "if").

There is no way to guarantee that such a system would not be abused. And given human nature, it is almost a sure thing that it would. The ones running your government are not holy men, they are human beings equally as fallible as you and I. Since the beginning of history power has corrupted men who seek it. One only has to look at the past century to see the danger in conceding our freedoms to our rulers. Less than seventy years ago the world was overshadowed by the growing threat of totalitarianism. Germany adopted a fascist political system and attempted to conquer and subjugate the rest of the globe. In Russia the same thing happened only they called it by a different name.

And the same justification was used then as it is now (security). It seems we still haven't learned from history.

[EDIT]

More importantly, if the scenarios you paint ever come to pass, which I have to say is extraordinarily unlikely, the idea of a band of armed civilians taking on a professional army for whatever reason, is simply laughable. they wouldn't have the training, the fitness or, most importantly the support, to put up anything other than a token resistance, and for that we should be grateful.

That's funny. Wasn't the British army the best in the world when a "band of armed civilians" overthrew England's rule and founded The United States of America?

[edit on 6-9-2007 by Rahul Buttar]