The Home Office has rejected European Court of Human Rights demands that innocent people should not have their DNA stored on the national database. Instead samples from people arrested for, but not convicted of serious violent or sexual crimes, will be removed after 12 years. The DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted …
It has finally arrived in UK
1984 that is.
I expect it will arrive down here in New Zealand shortly.
Remember , don't talk in your sleep, you never know who might be listening.
In Ontario, radar controlled cameras for speeding tickets are banned for exactly that reason. "Innocent unless proven guilty": no proof of who was actually driving = no conviction. Only when the police actually have contact with the driver can a ticket be given.
I live in France now, where not only do you get a fine from an automatic radar, but also points taken off for even one or two km/h over the limit. Apparently there are tens of thousands of drivers with suspended licences that don't even know, having never spoken to a police officer. The standard practice is, upon receiving the notification, to claim that is was Grandma driving, so that she loses the points(being blind and shut up in a home, she doesn't care)!
*looking for my papers, monsieur le poulet!
One problem with databases.
Is often user's have a very poor understanding of set theory, and eventually will believe that "SELECT * FROM GuiltyUntilProvenInnocent" is an accurate and acceptable subsitute for actual investigation and evidence - why bother looking for suspects not in the database when you can just expand your WHERE clause till you get a shifty looking supsect match.
There is a prevailing "CSI on telly" attitude that you can get a 100% accurate database record in seconds, including their name, picture and what they had for breakfast, in seconds from a magical system, the GUI of which would actually display the records its searching in real time for your users delectation!!! In reality I am sure the databases are not that clean, the algorithms to match are not that infaliable, the GUI's not that ridiculous and the operatives not that smart (or attractive).
*** If i spend a night in a cell due to a cock-up i'll obviously be annoyed, but if my inconvenience means a more reliable system I'm happy to accept that. ***
Obviously you are either ignorant or extremely selective in your argument. There are many issues with your propositions and even though they have been thoroughly discussed by other commentators above you quite happily ignore them.
One more thing however is the idea of a "night in a cell" - you have apparantly also conveniently missed out on the discussions related to how many days a suspect can be held in this country without charge... If you would be unfortunate to get (wrongly) arrested in a serious crime case I can only wish you good luck with your vain hope of staying one night... perhaps people higher up in the political hierarchy would really only stay one night in this type of case - but for most of us it is likely to be MUCH more than one night only... never mind all the other stuff with innocent until proven guilty - which you happily ignore anyway..
I got as far as....
...'All Your Base Pairs Are Belong To Us.'
And I figured nothing else in these comments is going to beat that. Thanks MnM
If he copies out "Innocent unless proven guilty" that is the Police view of the quote. Anyone they arrest is clearly Guilty, *because* they arrested them. Those dumb Juror hoes are there to agree with us. Because (naturally) we *never* make mistakes.
The expression for the presumption of innocence is "Innocent until proven guilty."
Your not alone in what it does your behaviour.
I do the same, along with covert recording/video if I am near my accuser (ex wife !), live real time vehicle and mobile tracking etc etc the list goes on.
Its a great way to lead your life and is only needed thanks to the incompetence of the Police and CPS.
If you are arrested for something you are guilty, they just need to find a way to prove it. That includes getting other plod to write corroborating statements that would need time travel to be accurate.
Find your own evidence your innocent and its deemed "inadmissable", ask the plod/CPS to look at it and your told "its not relevant to your case" which actually means its not relevant to them prosecuting you.
Get the evidence anyway and let them know you have it and the fur really flies and they get really hacked off. I still laugh at one letter the CPS sent when they thought we had obtained what they didnt want us to have, they really were not happy to have there case undermined by the truth.
Paris, at least she is honest
The Crown Prosecution Service
Is so called because it *prosecutes*. It has *no* interest in finding evidence that will acquit you. Finding evidence is the job of the Police. Finding evidence to clear your is the job of the lawyer for the defence.
However it astonishes me that either the Police or CPS don't perform even *basic* sanity checks on the people and evidence they are relying to get a conviction. It seems the assume the witnesses (that agree with them) are *always* telling the truth and the ones who don't are lying (Barry George comes to mind as a sample of eyewitness testimony).
And I'm sure Reg readers know what happens when you assume things.
Still if your normal looking, reasonably articulate and have a half way competent lawyer you should be acquitted. No harm done, right? Yes I am being sarcastic.
Of course if you're quite large and sinister looking with learning difficulties you'll need a damm good lawyer to get you off first time round.
Mine is the one with the freshly vacuumed out pockets, which hasn't been hung up in a ballistics testing lab for 18 months and a copy of Joe Orton's Loot in it. Richard Attenborough shows how an old school policeman gets a result.
You'll be clutching yourself with mirth.
Missing the Obvious
A) What if someone hacks the database and changes the DNA
b) Do any on you really understand DNA? Take DNA samples from family members and get back to me on a "definite"criminal
Look here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/gcuvxrmqpn94cpcp/