King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

Enter code here

Topic History of: New Labour still refuse to get rid of DNA of innocents
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
BR	No they ruled it was illegal to keep the records of people who were innocent. This is the media trying to blur the picture. The ruling was taken by some people who opposed any retention of DNA of innocent people. Innocent people have RIGHTS and one of those RIGHTS is not to have a criminal record of any sort. There are thousands of people having given DNA to the POLICE for various reasons who wish to have their DNA removed immediately. Not after 6 years. Does the 6 years start now ? is the 6 years AFTER the taking of DNA ? The Government is intentionally being vague - hence the public is as usual being misled about the law and what it means. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7765484.stm "The European Court of Human Rights has spoken with a strong and clear voice - retaining indefinitely the DNA and fingerprint records of unconvicted suspects is unlawful." That is the LAW and NEW LABOUR are breaking it.
The Cat	I think the European Court ruled it illegal to keep the records indefinitely, in which case the government have now complied with the ruling by limiting the DNA of innocent people to six years. I personally think that all DNA and fingerprint records should be destroyed as soon as charges are dropped or the person has been found not guilty.
BR	Until they follow the ruling by the EU court our country is breaking the rules of the EU. There should be sanctions against the UK. This is a NAZI type database of innocent people - the SS and STASI would have been proud of this lawless retention of people's personal data. Far more personal than even a PC entry or fingerprints. Our DNA is our very blueprint. It is the basis of our life. For a STATE to retain that is not only ORWELLIAN it is very very very scary. With our DNA the STATE POLICE can do many things. The science of DNA is very far advanced. It was first looked into by the NAZI SCIENTISTS who wanted to use it for GENETIC ENGINEERING purposes and eventually through the PAPERCLIP project of ex NAZIS who the USA embraced post Second World War and also at CAMBRIDGE UNI through the GENOME project. Anyone who thinks that the retention of DNA is a good thing should look into the science of DNA and realise that the STATE holding so many samples is quite simply a way in which a HITER-ESQUE type of rule is only a small step away. This along with the WARS is the most important thing to fight for in the next election. Every day more innocent people are being added - the POLICE are not even chasing criminals anymore - they are trying to add "pin-pointed" people to this database. The people who are being identified are not even aware that they are likely to be arrested and have their DNA taken......... Truly shocking.
JC	Very funny on Radio 4 this morning. Government spokesman agrees that DNA of innocent people should not be kept and that is why people cleared of minor offences will have their DNA deleted from record (although I bet it isn't). When asked if that means people cleared of serious offences are no longer classed as innocent he responded that of course they are but we now have double jeopardy and so we need to retain their DNA to further pursue the case. He skirts around the fact that if their DNA cleared them of the crime the first time round, it will do the same the second time, so double jeopardy doesn't come into it. He further went on to say that DNA is only involved in a fraction of cases. He was asked if the retention of DNA undermines the principle of innocent until proven guilty. He somehow seemed to believe that it enhances it. "It can also help to prove innocence," he said. Yes, but, once proven innocent, why keep hold of the DNA? I'm still waiting for an answer to that last question.
Locked Out	The Home Offices internet connection is only via a 56K modem and it's taking forever to upload the database to Rapidshare. They'll delete them eventually. But only once they've made a few backups.