UK - Beware: Minor offences could land you on the

[amor]

My opinion is that this is totally unacceptable, but if it were to happen, then they might as well just make it compulsory for everybody in the UK to give a sample for this DNA database and then we could really say that

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU!

I think they are making it compulsory for everybody, by stealth. Soon, the only people who won't have their DNA on the database will be the little old couple who only leave their council flat to go to the grocers once a week, or those who are disabled or housebound, or living in hospitals or assylums. They will find a way to get DNA from the disabled "on medical grounds" and they don't care about the elderly because, as Adolf Hitler said in "Mein Kampft": "........................What are you? You will pass on. Your decendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing but this new community"

Who, amongst us, can genuinely say that they have never broken a law? Even a really silly one like "not wearing a seat belt"?

Guess I'm going to be public enemy number one in some future time, then.

Well.....at least it would be 'fame' in one sense of the word. I always said I'd be famous one day, by 'hook or by crook'

Seriously, though, I have just been reading about this in the Daily Mail (my regular paper).

Although I can't argue with the fact that being able to catch criminals by 'matching' them to the scene of a crime is undoubtedly a good thing, my worry is that in the not too distant future, such an all-encompassing technological ability could quite easily fall into the hands of the wrong people. Imagine if Robert Mugabe had such power at his disposal, for example.....

This response should not fall under the 'conspiracy theory' umbrella

What difference do you imagine that DNA technology would make to Mugabe or any other tyrant? He's quite capable of identifying and dealing with those he sees as enemies as it is.

[amor]

On the other side of all this, remember the Colin Stagg controversy, an example of a man long suspected by the public at large of a crime, cleared of suspision by DNA

[buckthesystem]

On the other side of all this, remember the Colin Stagg controversy, an example of a man long suspected by the public at large of a crime, cleared of suspision by DNA

That "Colin Stagg" story just goes to show how strange and dishonest the police were in that case. There was no real evidence at all to convict Stagg of anything, so they made it up.

And yet you seem to be saying that you believe EVERYBODY'S DNA should be trusted to the honesty and competence of people like this. When the absolute honesty and intergrity and total competence of all police and forensic staff can be guaranteed and there would be no "mistakes" made (deliberately or otherwise), I just MIGHT change my views on this. However, "it is human to err" and we are all basically flawed, therefore, NOBODY can be trusted with something as important as human DNA.

Also did you miss the fact that giving up your DNA is really the same as giving up your entire family's DNA? So you should really get the consent of your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, children and any children who haven't been born or conceived yet. Because it affects them all.

DNA is not only a "forensic crime tool" but your entire genetic pattern - including what illnesses you "might" get in the future - can be gleaned from your DNA sample. So it is valuable to insurance companies, employers etc.

Personally I would rather that 1000 murders (and non-seatbelt wearers and litterbugs) go free than live in "gattica" world.

Did you miss my question about Ronald Regan too? Do you suppose he would have been nominated to stand for president if it had been known that he had a propensity towards Alzheimers disease?

[amor]

Did you miss my question about Ronald Regan too? Do you suppose he would have been nominated to stand for president if it had been known that he had a propensity towards Alzheimers disease?

Rambling Ron was pretty much a genial bumbler when they elected him so probably, and the fact that GWB never came over as the sharpest stick in the bunch (not to mention his boozy, albeit repented past) didn't seem to stand in his way either . If your folksy enough or bear the name of a well established political brand (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy) you seem to stand a pretty good chance of making it whatever your brainpower.

[buckthesystem]

Did you miss my question about Ronald Regan too? Do you suppose he would have been nominated to stand for president if it had been known that he had a propensity towards Alzheimers disease?

Rambling Ron was pretty much a genial bumbler when they elected him so probably, and the fact that GWB never came over as the sharpest stick in the bunch (not to mention his boozy, albeit repented past) didn't seem to stand in his way either . If your folksy enough or bear the name of a well established political brand (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy) you seem to stand a pretty good chance of making it whatever your brainpower.

OK, that's your opinion on Ronald Regan. I suppose everybody is entitled to their opinion.

However, may I take the fact that you haven't commented on my other points, as an affirmation of everything I said?

[amor]

Did you miss my question about Ronald Regan too? Do you suppose he would have been nominated to stand for president if it had been known that he had a propensity towards Alzheimers disease?

Rambling Ron was pretty much a genial bumbler when they elected him so probably, and the fact that GWB never came over as the sharpest stick in the bunch (not to mention his boozy, albeit repented past) didn't seem to stand in his way either . If your folksy enough or bear the name of a well established political brand (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy) you seem to stand a pretty good chance of making it whatever your brainpower.

OK, that's your opinion on Ronald Regan. I suppose everybody is entitled to their opinion.

However, may I take the fact that you haven't commented on my other points, as an affirmation of everything I said?

I think you would be wrong to go that far. Firstly whilst not perfect, for example the presence of your DNA at a crime scene, doesn't make you a criminal, just someone who might have been at that place at some time, the increased use of forensic evidence does offer a better guarantee of justice than, at times falllible eye witness evidence . It lessens the possibility of the potentially corrupt police behaviour you refer too. As someone who has not commited a major crime, I therefore have no worries about giving a DNA sample for any minor offence I might commit at some time in the future.

As to your coments about insurance companies etc, well, as the technology already exists whether the police keep files or notthey would prsumably have the right to do DNA checks alongside the other normal medical checks they do before offering you insurance companies, I realise that this is a bigger problem in the sort of backward countries that don't offer universal health provison to its citizens, but as the UK does, this should not be such a big issue here. On the flip side DNA testing does offer the opportunity of being able to take preventitive measures at an earlier stage, and of the production of more spcific and therefore effective treatments of genetically derived illneses. As to employers, strong and enforcable equal opportunity laws should help prevent such discrimination.

[buckthesystem]

Did you miss my question about Ronald Regan too? Do you suppose he would have been nominated to stand for president if it had been known that he had a propensity towards Alzheimers disease?

Rambling Ron was pretty much a genial bumbler when they elected him so probably, and the fact that GWB never came over as the sharpest stick in the bunch (not to mention his boozy, albeit repented past) didn't seem to stand in his way either . If your folksy enough or bear the name of a well established political brand (Bush, Clinton, Kennedy) you seem to stand a pretty good chance of making it whatever your brainpower.

OK, that's your opinion on Ronald Regan. I suppose everybody is entitled to their opinion.

However, may I take the fact that you haven't commented on my other points, as an affirmation of everything I said?

I think you would be wrong to go that far. Firstly whilst not perfect, for example the presence of your DNA at a crime scene, doesn't make you a criminal, just someone who might have been at that place at some time, the increased use of forensic evidence does offer a better guarantee of justice than, at times falllible eye witness evidence . It lessens the possibility of the potentially corrupt police behaviour you refer too. As someone who has not commited a major crime, I therefore have no worries about giving a DNA sample for any minor offence I might commit at some time in the future.

As to your coments about insurance companies etc, well, as the technology already exists whether the police keep files or notthey would prsumably have the right to do DNA checks alongside the other normal medical checks they do before offering you insurance companies, I realise that this is a bigger problem in the sort of backward countries that don't offer universal health provison to its citizens, but as the UK does, this should not be such a big issue here. On the flip side DNA testing does offer the opportunity of being able to take preventitive measures at an earlier stage, and of the production of more spcific and therefore effective treatments of genetically derived illneses. As to employers, strong and enforcable equal opportunity laws should help prevent such discrimination.

DNA "evidence" is the easiest thing in the world to plant! The ONLY way to ensure 100% that you will never be wrongly accused of a crime or wrongly convicted is to make absolutely sure that your (and that of any member of your family's) DNA is NOT on any database in the first place. After all finding someone's DNA anywhere is totally useless to anyone without another sample to compare it to. I am not so much saying that the police and any civilian staff handling forensic evidence may be corrupt as I am saying that they may be bumbling and incompetent.

At the present time ABSOLUTELY NO insurance company or medical practitioner carrying out "pre-insurance medical checks" has the right to analyse human DNA without the express consent of the person applying for insurance. If it ever came to insurance companies insisting on that, or no insurance would be given, I would like to think that most insurance companies would go bankrupt overnight. I doubt that that would be the case, unfortunately, as people don't usually bother to find out facts and some seem to have a childlike trust in government agencies and insurance companies

And as for: "As to employers, strong and enforcable equal opportunity laws should help prevent such discrimination". Yeah, right! s-u-r-e they would.

Exactly the same can be said of employers. I really hope law never allows employers to have compulsory access to the results of DNA analysis. I think a lot of companies would have a hard time getting staff if they tried to make them give up DNA samples.