anyone know where they keep this thing? Knowing the government the backups are probably naff and it's central, bar of course a few dozen exports on random peoples desktops and private contractors for research.

According to another article in the Reg, in the UK we are NOT innocent until proven guilty, therefore children should be considered guilty from birth, after all how many of them will grow up to be the proud possessors of ASBOs or worse? I say let's stop messing around , don't just take their DNA,fire a chip into their necks the moment they are born so we can keep track of them from day one.

We could train Midwife/policemen then we could chip the little sods the moment there is enough of the neck showing.

Meg Hillier? Jacqui Smith is obviously aware that taking DNA samples from innocent kids looks bad so she sends her deputy to explain it. Gee, do you think the parents will vote Labour???? Well Labour MPs, do you?

Just like she put out a report last month saying how the Home office is doing well and everyone is happy with their performance, i.e. 'don't sack me because they won't vote Labour, blame others'. Even though her department is the problem area and she is the cause of those problems.

The Met's 'crime is down' map likewise, the Met is criticised for it's heavy handed policing and scaremongering. Chief scarer Blair is threatened with the sack by Mayor Boris, and out comes this map showing how wonderful London is and crime is down from May to June.....

Although we know property crimes drop as summer approaches, so does vehicle crime, and the stats show Robbery peaks in May....so they chose the Burglary/Vehicle/Robbery crimes from May to June to show the drop:

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/rdsolr0207.pdf

Again it's a 'don't sack me, it's someone elses fault' mentality, comparing two months uncorrected for seasonal trends, then sticking a big down arrow on them has little to do with crime statistics. It's ass covering.

It always used to be a key principle that policing in this country is done by the community with consent, not by the government. That is why we pay for it on our council tax rather than through the exchequer, and that is why we have Police Authorities - to set the parameters for policing within the relevant force.

This is why it was a big deal when Blunkett moved on the Chief Constable of Humberside after the Soham murders - he was seeking as the executive branch of central government to overrule the police authority, who "represent" the community being policed.

This national DNA register is so significant because it drives another great big nail into the principle of "consent" in policing.

The EU won't help you. If they find against keeping innocent people's DNA then the UK will just ignore them and refuse to comply. The EU really doesn't have much power and it certainly wouldn't be the first time the UK govt has completely ignored them.

> and her voting record is so far up Gordy Brown's arse

I hope I'm not the only person who read that as "Gordy's brown arse"...

Don't vote Tory - make a point, make your vote invalid by scrawling "None of the self-serving, incompetant, lying corrupt bastards" all over it... or vote Lib Dem, it amounts to much the same thing.

We should continue this logic to it's obvious conclusion, and that pure wisdom given form in Judge Death.

All crime is commited by the living, therefore the crime is life, the punishment? Death.

The only solution to crime is extinction.

It would be better for us all if the government just chipped us at birth, monitoring our behaviour, location and lifestyle through every stage of development. With CCTV in school classrooms providing a rich source for character appraisal, the government, based on the data gleaned during the citizens formative years and classroom footage would give the citizen a job. Salaries would be payed directly into a government controlled bank account which the citizen could not access. Every month a credit allowance could be paid into a citizens personal spending account, not real money of course. We would be allowed to spend these credits on products and services which were wholly government sponsored and approved.

The government could then determine if we need to drive or just want to, and permit or deny appropriately, therefore no need for road pricing. There would be no overweight citizens, no drunks on the street, no taxes, no one with a self inflicted higher rate for suffering heart disease or cancer. Criminals could be caught almost instantly. And these are just a few of the advantages that come to mind. There must be many more advantages I haven't realised yet that our far seeing, caring, benevolent and benign government surely have.

I can see it now, the government are really trying to create a utopia for it's citizens, all you naysayers who are trying to resist our wonderful caring governments plans just make me sick. Subversives, insurgents and terrorists the lot of you.

I'll get my coat, the transparent one showing I have got nothing to hide.

especially not at...

(Named by the FSS... after Professor Sir Alec Jeffreys the inventor of DNA profiling...)

Oldbury Facility, Jeffreys House, 1 Wharfside, Rounds Green Road, Oldbury, West Midlands, B69 2BU: a purpose built industrial building used partly as a store and partly fitted as office and laboratory space. Occupied from 1997 on a 20-year lease until 2017; 1012 square metres.

Chepstow Laboratory, Usk Road, Chepstow, Gwent NP6 6YE

Chorley Laboratory, Washington Hall, Euxton, Chorley, Lancashire PR7 6HJ

Huntingdon Laboratory, Hinchinbrooke Park, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire PE18 8NP

Wetherby Laboratory, Sandbeck Way, Audby Lane, Wetherby, West Yorkshire LS22 7DN

Birmingham Laboratory, Priory House, Gooch Street North, Birmingham B5 6QQ

Birmingham Headquarters, Norfolk House, 3rd Floor, Smallbrook Queensway, Birmingham, B5 4LJ

Trident Court, Building 2920/2040/2060, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, Birmingham B37 7YN

West Bromwich Storage Facility, National Archive, Unit C, Doranda Way Industrial Park, West Bromwich, West Midlands, B71 4LE

and a little MetPol Lab

from www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/5/4/214.pdf Home Office national asset register

(to the tune Annie's song. near enough)

You've fucked up my census

You've got my DNA

You've sold off my data

Come jail me today!

It would be far nicer if 60% of the population joined a political movement set on building a new democracy, banning politicos and lobbys and quangos and other such things.

Course the problem with such uprisings the CIA would sponcer a pro-US coup.

Other problem is, sad to say it but most people like the way the "government" works, as the tories are still part of the government - kind of (they all debate together and they have votes and such like.) Also the Tories will continue down the same "fight the terrorists" "think of the children" "there's a peado in your closet!" "Porn is bad" lines, I mean, remember, these are the Tories.

Nope, not much will change, of course I'm going to vote Tory, as it's more natural to dislike tories then labour for me.

I'd of voted Lib Dem if they hadn't got rid of Charles Kennedy, sadly I have no idea who is in charge of the party now, they had some dull old guy then some dull copper, have they got another new one now? Dunno.

1/When we are all on the database what excuse will the police use for the low detection rate?

2/The concept is good, "if we know where you were and can show your DNA is at the location defacto you are guilty". Problem is it assumes that the police are angels and are never tempted to plant evidence i.e they only present the facts.

If you want the EU to "help" - well, then you will first have to vote the BNP into power at which point the EU - unwilling to pay for the hardware - will get NATO or the Yanks to teach you lot that Democracy is best spread from the bomb racks of F111 and F16's!!

By that time the only numbers we'll see are the ones provided by the Ministry of justice.

The internet no longer being the internet of today but instead a ring of proxies that all national ISPs must go through.

The proxies of course being maintained by the Ministry of Justice and the military intelligence sorts.

All media of course shall be vetted by the Ministry of Justice.

After the database is imposed, crime will go down, becouse that is what we will be told.

Distopian Britain, oo yeah, now that's a thing. I remember once writing a game world where Britain was run by the "Administration" they had a Ministry of Justice. They also had a Department of Urban Pacification.

It doesn't matter that it's fallible, this isn't a replacement for a court system.

The current situation is the worst possible, there are many, but not all people on the DB. Because of the mysticism surrounding DNA, when they do get a match, it's assumed to be correct. If the police regularly got 2 or 3 obviously invalid matches then the courts would understand the fallibility of the match.

It's still useful in that it gives you a small group of people to look at more closely. Evidence is always just a pointer to the guilty party, even a pristine chunk of CCTV footage could still be someone's evil twin.

I really don't see how the DNA DB will be abused.

Most of the comments here are just a random squeal about civil liberties with no actual content. Just say what you're afraid of. George's Song By Mark being a prime example.

Why don't you want them to have your DNA? They've got your name, address, date of birth, tax receipts (thus how much you earn and where you earn it), what you drive and your fingerprints - if you've ever been arrested.

@pica : I live in scotland where the rules are diffrent.

A national DNA database would have to either include everyone in Scotland, or impose a border control for taking samples as you come into England. If you skip all the visitors then the database becomes a bit daft.

"If the police regularly got 2 or 3 obviously invalid matches then the courts would understand the fallibility of the match."

This would suppose that the police tell anybody how many matches they get.

Why is it that if they have my address, etc that I should give them everything else they have? I really can't see it.

I leave my DNA and fingerprints EVERYWHERE. I leave them on people and things that move and leave it somewhere else.

DNA should ONLY be used to reject suspects. AFTER you've got your suspect.

And that doesn't require that you keep their DNA.

And what about procedures? One of the reasons why OJ got off was because procedures were sloppy. Another story on el reg had someone who had PROOF that the DNA evidence was matched because they didn't clean the testing equipment.

Using DNA to FIND criminals cannot work safely. And finding them is the only reason to have a database of them.

Is that enough for you as a reason why I shouldn't allow a DNA database?

Since the Govt is supposedly releasing its National Records Office scans of births, marriages and deaths, why don't they go the whole hog and let us know who all our long-lost relatives are as well, since they have all the DNA matches ?

When are you people going to rise up and stop your government from violating your rights? Wasn't your government created by your ancestors to PROTECT your rights? Oh wait, I forgot--only your government is allowed to be armed--so you already GAVE UP your ability to stop those devils from violating your rights. Just sit in front of your master-sponsored entertainment and wait for your full enslavement to be complete.

Make it on the end of a stick... and then poke your MP with it. Doing that will carry much more weight than a spoiled vote, in the British voting system a spoiled vote has no democratic value and even less political value. Short of say 50% of all the people that vote in an election spoiling their votes after announcing publicly beforehand that that was going to happen no one would take any notice. Legally though it would count for nothing as the decision would still go to whom ever got the majority of the unspoiled votes. In reality you should vote, the hard bit is , as always finding some one to vote for .

As far as DNA is concerned, it can only be used effectively to exclude people from a crime scene,or to indicate that their DNA was present( hair on a pillow, saliva on a cup both of which could have been introduced to the scene from elsewhere) unless for example in the case of rape there is positive physical evidence such as semen, tissue or saliva actually on the or in the victim or blood splattered around. DNA evidence at the scene of a crime is purely circumstantial and can only be considered part of a prosecution's case along with other evidence that may be circumstantial or otherwise. Enough circumstantial evidence linked to a suspect will make a jury consider it unlikely that he wasn't at the scene of a crime but it is still not proof positive There is something like a 2 billion in one chance of somebody elses DNA matching yours but only if the entire of the sample is read , which is not the case. The cops probably don't really understand what DNA samples signify to them it is a hi-tech means for catching perps. Give ti a couple of years and they will begin to see that the only way to catch crims is by good policing, there are no quick fixes , but because they don't understand it they hope the public don't either and with a strongly put case it doesn't necessarily have to make sense only sound likely to a jury to a conviction.

Even if the government can keep the data secure, ie; Not loose it in the post, leave it in a taxi, have it stolen with a laptop etc. etc. People are greedy and open to bribery. And even if all those with access to this data are above compromise and value honesty and integrity above money, well the government will sell the data anyway.

>This would suppose that the police tell anybody how many matches they get.

Actually if the police fail to disclose evidence to the defence then they are fitting up the subject anyway.

>Why is it that if they have my address, etc that I should give them everything

>else they have? I really can't see it.

It was an observation that they already have lots of info on you that you don't appear bothered about.

>I leave my DNA and fingerprints EVERYWHERE. I leave them on people and

>things that move and leave it somewhere else.

Well, if you're dumping it all over the place then you're not exactly protecting it are you?

>DNA should ONLY be used to reject suspects. AFTER you've got your suspect.

That's just an assertion. Fingerprints have been used in that way for a very long time.

>And what about procedures? One of the reasons why OJ got off was because

>procedures were sloppy. Another story on el reg had someone who had PROOF that

>the DNA evidence was matched because they didn't clean the testing equipment.

More frequent use of DNA will remove the mysticism associated with it and highlight the failings. The sloppy testing when applied to a database of millions would fairly often produce matches of hundreds, maybe thousands. Such statistics could then be used in court to reflect on the validity of the DNA evidence.

>Using DNA to FIND criminals cannot work safely. And finding them is the only

>reason to have a database of them.

Just an assertion again, just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

>Is that enough for you as a reason why I shouldn't allow a DNA database?

No. Don't get me wrong, I'm not keen on the idea, the testing infrastructure for everyone coming into the country would be a right pain and expensive.

@AC

>What I'm afraid about is an expert witness ...

The expert witness is more dangerous now, where DNA is rarely used and there's limited understanding of it and its limitations. Broader use actually devalues its value as evidence.

>a couple of hundred people match a DNA sample from a crime scene, and you are one of them

A cocked up fingerprint match could do the same, in rape cases the police will often ask all the men in the locality for a dna match and refusal makes you suspect there.

Besides, what value will a DNA match that hit 100 people have in court?

What if they do a search for a rapist vetting everyone in your neighbourhood and you match? A single false positive (assuming you're not a rapist ;) ) is a bigger problem for a defence than a hundred.

@ChrisG

>As far as DNA is concerned, it can only be used effectively to exclude people

>from a crime scene

It can't do that at all. DNA can't say who wasn't there.

">As far as DNA is concerned, it can only be used effectively to exclude people from a crime scene

It can't do that at all. DNA can't say who wasn't there."

Yes it can.

If there is no DNA there, you weren't there.

Or are you going to say not being seen at the scene of a crime doesn't say you're not there? After all, you could have had an invisibility cloak on!

There are plenty of people who have been convicted of crimes where no-one saw them and they left no DNA.

>After all, you could have had an invisibility cloak on!

Yes, that's surely the only way someone could commit a crime without being seen.

So if there are plenty of people who didn't leave DNA, how will DNA repository help find these people next time they strike?

Plant the DNA?

It won't, it's not fucking magic is it.

So we shouldn't have it.

Which is what I'm saying.

As they say, when arguing with an idiot, first make sure they aren't doing the same.