MP backs DNA testing an entire CITY to find murderer

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Maybe you should give some actual professional investigators like Scotland Yard or the FBI a ring on the old telly first before you go and waste a million taxpayer dollars on a boondoggle like this.

We all know that the guys behind this own stock in the company doing the testing. (Im Joking, or am I?)

If the DNA test is voluntary, the killer will volunteer to not give up his DNA, durr.

At best lets say 50% of the men come in to give a drop of blood. Now you narrowed the suspect list down to 250,000 roughly.

This is a joke I'm telling you. This isn't how you solve a case. It's not a legitimate investigation method, because it just does not work for practical reasons...




posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
well.. If they talk about DNA tests ,it means they do have some DNA. Having this in mind,u could trace the etnical group, why would they DNA everyone? Anyays, this would exceed Orwells nightmare..



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Hopefully, this is just a knee-jerk reaction that will be tempered by common sense.

It's interesting how they're only calling for males to be tested. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing to indicate at this point that a woman couldn't have been involved. Therefore, by following this course of action, they could be eliminating 50% of potential suspects on nothing more than a whim.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Hey, Stu, the article quite plainly states "all males" which would imply a compulsory blanket testing of Bristol.

Obviously the capture of the wretched "person" who killed this tragic young woman is paramount. However I feel the setting of a precedent like this is extremely dangerous.

The next time there's a terrible crime or rape in London you'll hear "well it worked in Bristol with Jo Yeates".

This is the first step on the pathway to compulsory DNA testing and a wider larger database.

Also this is such a time consuming and inefficient method that it shouldn't be allowed.

What if the murderer (in this case or in future ones) is from out of town?

These are my concerns mate, valid I feel.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


It does, actually. I can think of quite a few cases over the years where such an exercise has either flushed out the killer they are chasing, or netted them another one they couldn't find from a previous case. Oh, I am pretty sure they do this sort of thing in the US too and elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Just the men?

There are no woman murderers? Seems true about pedophiles at any rate. Just for men.

What the cops will do is watch for anyone leaving town in a hurry. Or anyone just leaving town. With the cellular stasei snitch networks in place, they'll get plenty of tips.

Those who would give up their freedom for security deserve neither.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
As far as I am concerned this is a step to far..

and personally don't think the idea will fly.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


The article says the "MP supports the testing of all males". That is the same as me saying "I support young ladies going naked for the day". It's an opinion, but there is no law in place that would allow compulsory testing! It is worth being aware of the difference between someone's opinion about what should happen and what can actually happen.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Ah right, although it seems that the European Court of Human Rights isn't going to stop them...



Ministers keep innocent on DNA database

Government accused of flouting court ruling over retention of data

The genetic profiles of hundreds of ­thousands of innocent people are to be kept on the national DNA database for up to 12 years in a decision critics claim is designed to sidestep a European human rights ruling that the "blanket" retention of suspects' data is unlawful.

The proposed new rules for the national DNA databaseto be put forward tomorrow by the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, include plans to keep the DNA profiles of innocent people who are arrested but not convicted of minor offences for six years.

source


I thought I had read that somewhere. What's silly is that the practice of taking DNA profiles upon arrest is not affected by the decision, so innocent people are still bound to be found on the database.

I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy, I'm just saying that I wouldn't trust the government to delete my DNA once it was lawful to do so. Basically, they are breaking human rights laws and getting away with it.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I think it's slightly different.

The MP supports "calls" for the testing of all males in Bristol.

Calls, plural, there are multiple calls for this.

IMO it's a slippery slope.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


Dude, that article is from a year before the EU Court ruling and also by the previous Government which as nanny-State as you like. The Government MUST abide by the EU Courts ruling. I laugh, actually, because they sail us into the EU under false pretences and without our permission, but it does work sometimes in our favour.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


So an MP calls for something, they call for things all the time! It means nothing. There is no legal foundation for mass, compulsory testing of males.

Oh, quick grammar lesson too, if an MP calls for something, it doesn't mean it is plural and there are more calls. For example, Stuart Mason calls for all women under 30 to be naked! Doesn't mean I have a facebook page with 5,000 signed up, it's still just me calling for it!



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


The European Court of Human Rights case was in 2008.

That article is from 2009.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


So it is... The hyperlink said May 2007...Sorry chap!

Either way, we have a different Government now and this sort of thing is on their crosshairs.
edit on 9/1/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


So an MP calls for something, they call for things all the time! It means nothing. There is no legal foundation for mass, compulsory testing of males.

Oh, quick grammar lesson too, if an MP calls for something, it doesn't mean it is plural and there are more calls. For example, Stuart Mason calls for all women under 30 to be naked! Doesn't mean I have a facebook page with 5,000 signed up, it's still just me calling for it!


Thanks for the clarification. Just to clarify in turn, my comments were made in response to the suggestion, as quoted in the OP, which was clearly only made by one MP. My reading skills are more than adequate to be aware of whether one MP is calling for something, or in fact several are - but you seem not to have considered that, which is a reflection of your own misinterpretation, not my having mis-read the OP.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Well I wish I had your confidence in our current government.

Alas, I do not, and doubt I ever will. I stand by the most basic of definitions of the word 'Politics', that is: Politics, n: Poly "many" + tics "blood-sucking parasites.

Cynical, I know



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


So an MP calls for something, they call for things all the time! It means nothing. There is no legal foundation for mass, compulsory testing of males.

Oh, quick grammar lesson too, if an MP calls for something, it doesn't mean it is plural and there are more calls. For example, Stuart Mason calls for all women under 30 to be naked! Doesn't mean I have a facebook page with 5,000 signed up, it's still just me calling for it!


Why are you being rude???

"An MP has backed calls for the DNA screening of all men"

Calls, plural, if it was one person it would be "MP backs the call for the ......."

Some people just can't debate nicely.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LiveForever8
 


My only confidence this won't fly is people like my MP would be out of a job, simple as that.

Part me hopes they'll try and push for this, since I feel the push they'll get in return will be interesting to say the least.

edit on 9/1/11 by thoughtsfull because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kiwifoot
 


Sorry if you think I am being rude, but after 6 years of people claiming the UK is a Police state, fascist Empire or a hive of reptilian villainy, it's get fudging annoying. If only people could rationally examine something for what it is and not knee-jerk into the whole Orwellian nightmare scenario.

lets just make it clear. There will be NO COMPULSORY TESTING, OF ANY NATURE, BECAUSE IT IS UNLAWFUL. If they did go ahead with this, it would be on a voluntary basis.



posted on Jan, 9 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by wcitizen
 


Noen of that applies to this, so your trying to compare apples and space monkies. All that probable cause stuff only applies to a compulsiry taking of samples such as fingerprints, DNA or breath. This would be a voluntary exercise and I even said in my first post that the Police are more interested in those that DON't show up. It narrows the field and infringes no-one's rights.


No, actually it does apply. You keep making innacurate statements, then wriggling out of them by making more innacurate statements.

I did acknowledge the fact that if it was voluntary, the comments would not apply. Why are you talking as though I hadn't responded to that? I also said that even if it was voluntary, I wouldn't participate, and I gave my reason why. So, once again, you've mis-read my posts. .

I've no wish to continue this conversation with you, so I'm signing out now.
edit on 9-1-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join