Minister deploys 'dodgy' DNA case study

The title is required, and will be retained for six years.

I thought the ECHR ruling concerned retention of DNA from the innocent. This Dutchman is claimed to have committed a crime in 2006.

Ensign Hanson

Ever heard of David Hanson? Me neither, you know in Star trek when an Ensign you never heard of beams down with Capt Kirk and you just know he will die, because he is a no name person sent down to crash and burn....

Ensign David Hanson reporting for duty Capt!

If the first and fifths are dupes then likely the other 3 are dodgy in some other way, perhaps the details are lies, or the detection attributed to DNA that would have been / were detected another way.

But still, Government lying to Parliament? Who would have thunk it.

If 5 cases were needed

The Home Office which represents one extreme side of the DNA argument thought that 5 cases were needed to show why DNA of innocent people should be retained.

Yet they could only show 4.

Ergo they failed, even by their own extremely minimalist criteria, to show the case for retention of DNA of innocent people.

I'd remind you that the Home Office thought there was no downside, and DNA experts warned it would be used for profiling and denying peoples rights without scientific basis.... then the Home Office started using DNA to deny people claiming asylum from being considered... and experts explained that it was to deny people their rights without scientific basis.

Admin errors

never occur so it is quite acceptable to retain DNA data for ever since it will only ever be used correctly and no mistakes in handling will ever occur.

Obviously

It's ALL dodgy...

DNA science is valuable in all sorts of ways. Used forensically, it's dodgy by definition. Especially when the whole scene is dominated by politicians and police officers whose scientific credentials scarcely exceed primary school level. To say nothing of the kind of mind-boggling, unbelievable incompetence that produced this situation.

Arthur C. Clarke said the any advanced technology may be indistinguishable from magic - and this is certainly the case when DNA science meets politics and Mr Plod.

You'd hope, wouldn't you?

That the Shadow Home Sec would already know that the Home Office argument was feeble. But perhaps that is like the way they're not allowed to call each other liars in the Commons, which has always seemed to me clear proof our Government has it''s priorities wrong, thinking what is important is cosmetics rather than principles. But Black Rod etc and the way they dress in High Court (and STILL being a monarchy) already showed that beyond question.

The thing - what is wrong with British Government (NOT just this one, or indeed _British_Government) - is thinking the ends justify the means.

That is the real, public, argument we should be having. The US too. And Australia. I mean, before we get to the issue of whether the various policies actually work. You might say this is the question that gets to the very root of Western Civilisation.

Endemic ineptitude

Either inept for doing it or inept for not making a better job of it; either way it hardly puts a sparkle on the well tarnished reputation of uk.gov for competence.

At every opportunity some minister or another will bang on about how 'vital' it is that we're all added to this and the data retained till the year 11 million, yet when pressed to find five reasons why this is absolutely necessary, they can only scrape four and have to fudge the last. I've heard better excuses from students. They could only top this by admitting the other four were entirely fabricated, or perhaps lifted verbatim from an episode or two of CSI.

administrative error?

My arse, as Jim would say

Planting evidence

What I am wondering is, how long before someone makes a glove that collects DNA samples just by shaking someone else's hand and then leaving the trace DNA on a crime scene? Or maybe leaving the DNA of dozens of people at the crime scene? Surely that would be basis for reasonable doubt in a trial?