Sorry for copying this from my post on yesterday's thread, but it needs saying.

Everybody in favour of this seems to think it will solve crime, if not overnight, at least in the long term. Think on this - do you actually know what your DNA reveals about you - your propensity for various illnesses or conditions; people you might be related to that you don't even know, and THEIR propensity for same; their (or your) criminal, anti-social tendencies or mental health issues - and do you really think once this is on computer that it won't be a) hacked into and b) eventually made available to 'permitted' third parties, like, for example, insurance companies, universities, employers or landlords?

If we let this happen, your children or grandchildren will end up in a two- or three- tier society.

And i can only imagine what this database would be worth to insurance companies. this is frightening, It must be stopped.

Don't know what you did, but can't get through to that link.

#1 Don't we already live in a multi-tiered society??

As for the DNS collection idea, I used to think it was the the right thing to do with all newborns sampled at birth. It is just a harmless swab after all. But the more I look at the people who run the governments, civil service, big companies and police ... the less I like it. I'm a NO then!

It would be a good idea if a greater percentage of us were criminals and a lower percentage of public employees saw the chance to make a turn on the information. Either to raise public funds, or for their own ends.

What's to think about-no bloody chance.

I've no dogs in this race, but i'd vote NO WAY!

Like New Labour's ID card proposal, such things as DNA databases of the whole population are another step towards a total police state.

The New Labour numpties are totalitarian control freaks, and obvious admires of Joe Stalin. If they had their way, we'd all end up being micro-chipped; with chip readers in every lamp post so that they could monitor our every move.

In a police state you would, of course, expect quite a number of police to be all in favour of controlling every aspect of the lives of the people (like the ACPO spokesman, and, of course, quite a few judges).

In any event, how long would it be before such a database was abused? How long till some corrupt politician, policeman or civil servant saw the money making opportunites in such a database?

As it is, the government can and do monitor our whereabouts from our mobile phones; they can monitor all our phone calls, internet usage, e-mails; cars (with number plate recognition technology), and soon people through facial recognition technology with all the CCTV cameras. Remember the totalitarian powers they already have through the RIPA Act, and the activities of the GCHQ.

1984 is already with us, we must not agree to the control freaks and totalitarians getting more control over our everyday lives.

The judge should be put in a hornets nest!!

A good idea - it will prove that many judges
(& politicians) are not in fact human.

Norman Brennan: "Take the tragic case of young Rhys Jones... A comprehensive DNA database would eradicate the need to rely entirely on eyewitness accounts"

Eh? How's that then? Notwithstanding that fact that its very difficult to do anything without leaving some trace (flakes of skin, hair, ...) it would be pretty much judicially impossible to bring a conviction based on a random gathering of dna traces around the scene of the crime. Anyone suggesting otherwise is pulling our legs. How do you eliminate from suspicion the dna from passer's by or, for that matter, someone that might have been with the perpetrator?

It might be technically possible to identify every person that had ever been near the scene of a crime, but that doesn't make them guilty. DNA traces contain no temporal element, therefore rendering them useless in the construction of 'timelines'.

A recipe for future miscarriages of justice, without doubt.

#12...Nah, there would be exemptions for those in high office !
I'm a resounding NO on this. I don't have anything to hide I simply do not trust those who would have use of the database nor the security of the database.

One only needs to note how many screw-ups we have with Govt departments, errors within Govt. IT systems and the lack of redress when Govt do screw-up.
So NO. Whether it is a good idea or a bad one is not in it for me. But the sytem is open to abuse and will be abused.
The same can be said for ID cards.
The only people I trust with detailed information about me is myself...and the wife ;-)

No

I have thought for sometime that the law of the land has lost the ability to distinguish between good and evil, now I have proof, from the mouth of a judge. They are slowly but surely trying to turn this country into a police state.

Sounds like an excellent idea and long overdue.

This judge should be sacked immediately,our parents fought a war against fascism and for democracy,George Orwell must be wearing a smile in his grave.

“Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley, one of Britain's most experienced Appeal Court judges”
Britain does not have the “Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley” as an appeal court Judge, in-fact the Noble Judge is an English Appeal Court Judge.
When will the scribes that are employed by this paper get Educated, as for the Editor and his subs the quality of their work does require a considerable amount of disbelief at their respective incompetence.

The technology is here........the need is here......and it has a real captivating appeal to each of us Joe Average citizens.
However, there would have to be VERY thorough safeguards that precluded insurance companies and the like merely subverting this for their own purposes.
The jury is still out, but it needs to be looked at thoroughly ....let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater here !!

I approve of this idea, but then I don't see anything wrong with a gattaca like future.

It is inevitable, insurance companies are already pushing for it.

Plus an immediate regiustration would allow us doctors to highlight conditions and treat if not cure before they become a problem.

Oh brave new world......

"Sir Stephen Sedley practised at the Bar of England and Wales for 28 years, specialising in public law and discrimination law, before being appointed a judge of the High Court in 1992. He became a Lord Justice of Appeal in 1998, and has sat as an ad hoc judge of the European Court of Human Rights.

He is an honorary professor of law at Warwick and Cardiff Universities and has since 2000 been president of the British Institute of Human Rights. He lectures occasionally and writes in legal periodicals and for the London Review of Books"

A note to the editor!
A quick Google was all it required.

If the data were only needed to tackle "crime"
then it may be a good thing.

The problem lies in the fact that any system set up by our Government ends up infected by mission creep, where the original purpose is subverted over time to something the system wasn't designed for.

Everybody and anybody will get access to your DNA records.

Commercial, Medical & Insurance Companies will pay the Government to get access (a nice little earner)

Remember they are cracking the Human Genome, once they work out what all the DNA genes and markers are they can then set a computer to scan the DNA database for matches.

Sorry sir we wont be giving you insurance or medical cover as teh computer says you are a bad risk.

Foreign Security agencies will hack into the system to steal our records (Would the US, Chinese or Russians like to have the DNA records of all UK citizens?)

The far reaching consequences of how we collect and store our data and who gets access to it needs legislative protection and military style encryption.
The person that runs this system should be put in jail if there is a data breach or compromise (this approach would certainly focus their efforts on protecting our information)

To leave this up to Civil Servants and politicians who have a woeful record on successful delivery of complex IT projects is a recipe for an unmitigated disaster.

Not on your nelly, my dna is mine and mine alone. I bet all those that think this is a good idea are the ones salivating over the thought of ID cards.

#19 It still doesn't stop him being one of the most experienced judges in Britian - you're trying awfully hard to be offended.

"Lord Justice Sir Stephen Sedley, one of Britain's most experienced Appeal Court judges"

Stupid , inaccurate and ignorant reporting from the Hootsmon. He is NOT a British judge, a category which has never existed. He is an English judge, as the two legal systems have always been separate. I would expect even the "North Briton" to know the difference!
For your information, the law on DNA retention is different in Scotland and England. Perhaps Geri Peeve should be told that English Law does not apply here, as he seems totally unaware of the fact.

Governments create problems, and then offer us the solutions to solve them.

It could be argued that governments want this information for more sinister reasons than fighting crime, but the truth is, it can assist in fighting illness and it will assist in fighting crime.

I say its unavoidable, its a sign of the times and its going to happen.

I hate the idea of a compulsory DNA data base belonging to the government - any government. But I would quite like to have and own my own DNA profile. If a means could be found whereby everyone did hold their own DNA records, then you could be called upon to submit it for matching or elimination in specific cases where you might be either a suspect or a victim. Of course, you would have the right to decline, as you do to give any kind of evidence.
It's complex, I agree, and would have to be very carefully thought through, but the present system is iniquitous, and not nearly as effective as it could be.

The majority of posters on this site whine about the police not doing enough to tackle crime, but when an opportunity that will help them comes up it gets shot down in flames.
If the DNA database manages to get just 5% of convictions on violent crime is it not worth it?
Obviously not to the morons that complain about everything but don't want anything to get done.

How can a Judge - presumably a man of learning, come out with such a ridiculous idea to operate in this wonderful Democracy of ours - or have I got that bit wrong? It seems he would be better ‘employed’ giving great concern to getting the current crazy ‘Justice’ system back on track, and if, as it seems, it’s all due to Government lack of attention and incompetence - that’s surely what he should be shouting about - and at them directly!

Oops! Nearly forgot he has a fantastic salary and perks to worry about as real first priority - Sorry!

How, in the first instance, could ‘they’ ever be sure that 'everyone' is on the base, when this crazy political set we have running the Country, and those in opposition, don't even know, for sure, who everyone is, or where and even if they are, in the Country?

How could registering be enforced, and what about those groups which seems to be able to twist this 'Government' around its little finger, by getting away with non-participation - on religious grounds, or whatever, for almost anything that they do not wish to do - or ‘may’ upset their way of life, regardless?

Then there's the Governments display of 'total cock-ups' in almost everything that needs great organisation, and where they and the Civil service seem to fail / failing / failed miserably and the trouble and cost that has incurred, notwithstanding the time factor to get it all up and running - something, it would seem, completely beyond their capabilities and comprehension!

And, of course, there will be the 'exemptions' to be arranged for those amongst us (no doubt Judges, Politicians - and the like!) who place themselves on a higher plain than others, and who already seem to have the Law on their side - no matter what! A 'Perk' I feel sure they will not want to relinquish or have interfered with - ever!

With all the crime, chaos and utter failure currently existing in the Country, which must all be placed on the doorstep of the G

#30 Further to complete......

With the obvious ‘control freakishness’ it desires / needs, as we see today, (the Blair Legacy!) a DNA database can only be the answer for a Governing body 'floundering at its task' or perhaps, playing for time because of its own self-righteously installed incompetence, and practices - and probably in the death throes of its final hours!

This idea by the ‘Learned’ judge seems to ring a bell with another story I once heard about ‘Closing the Stable door’ - seemingly a common occurrence in Government!

#29

The Police, overall seem to do a marvellous job in catching criminals, but sadly let down shamelessly by the Justice system which is much controlled by Government incompetence and failure and the overall 'sell out' to the EU which now sems to dictate everything we can and cannot do!

#23

Your final paragraph is correct. I work in the Civil Service and their record in the delivery of any IT project is woeful. The basic truth is that Senior Civil Servants who have control over these things are totally ignorant on IT issues, and so are sold pups from any IT specialist company that comes along. I wont name names, but if you look at who supplies the Civil Service IT services the same old names crop up.

Apart from the fact that information overload would make the cops' job harder, not easier, this would just lead to many wrong convictions and more jobs for lawyers.
Supposing we had the full-on DNA database, and the full CSI infrastructure to use it (this is an imaginary story after all.) There's a murder in a holiday resort, in the middle of the high season. The CSIs do their job and find thousands of DNA specimens at the scene that they can maybe identify, and thousands more they can't. Now tell me this is a workable idea? Why is the DNA on the database more likely to contain the murderer? I don't argue this from a civil liberties viewpoint, although there is an argument to be made. It's just overkill that will not make anything easier. Oh, and the government having any more detail about us than it already does would just be bad news, but I've let my civil liberties mask slip, haven't I? That, and my cynical mask if I were to believe that the Government and its outstandingly able and committed and technically literate civil service could actually deliver and operate a workable system in the first place...

Leaving aside the principle of the thing it is completely impractical. The logistics of it would be immensely difficult, indeed impossible in my view. Only someone completely barmy would suggest that it is feasible to take DNA samples from every single person in the UK to be stored on a single database and imagine that this would actually happen without massive expense and a whole raft of logistical problems. So I am not the least bit surprised that it is a senior judge who has suggested it.

#30 "How, in the first instance, could ‘they’ ever be sure that 'everyone' is on the base, when this crazy political set we have running the Country, and those in opposition, don't even know, for sure, who everyone is, or where and even if they are, in the Country?"

Obviously it couldn't immediately cover the whole population - at first they could appeal for a voluntary register and then make it compulsory for all new births and those entering the country to be registered. Eventually everyone would be registered

"there will be the 'exemptions' to be arranged for those amongst us (no doubt Judges, Politicians - and the like!) who place themselves on a higher plain than others"

If done from birth this won't be a problem.

The system could work and it would address society's number one fear - crime.

36

I am sorry that is nonsense. Even with unique identifiers like NI number you will never be able to track everyone throughout the course of their lives, even if you do get their DNA at birth. To even attempt it would cost billions of pounds. I would rather see that money spent on more police.

All you would end up with going down this road is a database of law abiding people who have given their DNA and other details voluntarily. The criminals will obviously find a way round attempts to track them, as they do already, so you would see identity theft on an even bigger scale than we have now.

You would create more problems than you would solve.

i dont care what this man may have achieved in the past nor what his qualifications may be he shoould be removed from his job and barred from any public office. no one who would approve of this idea should be trusted by the public. i would rather be the victim of crime than allow this disguting breach of human rights

Just think of the implications. You visit an elderly relative on a harmless social visit. Some months later her house is burgled and she is murdered. Forensic tests are done on the house, your DNA is found and lazy, stupid or corrupt police argue that that "proves" you are the murderer. Far fetched? Just look at the Birmingham Six, how they were "fitted up" by the police misusing forensic evidence.

A police state obsessed with intrusion into the life of the individual. The Highest number of CCTV per capita in the world, each individual being captured an average of 100 times a day on CCTV!, the plans to introduce the most intrusive ID card system, containing personal bio-identifiers, without even the faintest notion of the required security to safeguard such a database (when every government database and computer had been hacked, including those of the MoD!), a programme to install GPS location detectors in every vehicle (allegedly to help tax people on road usage), and now this nighmarish plan to create the all icnlusive DNA database... as it is millions of people have been DNA "tagged" and their privacy invaded without any assurance that the government and police can safeguard their privacy. All this in the name of "crime fighting". What measures have been introduced to make the UK Police better trained, harder working and more effective? Would you give the DNA database to the Keystone cops? George Orwell, also a brit, could not have dreamed a bleaker future...

No doubt the "if you have nothing to hide" crowd will be out in support of this. I personally find it to be an insidious infringement of civil liberties. As with ID cards it is completely unnecessary and will not help combat crime.

Live by example. Let politicians, judges and senior police chiefs be the first "innocent" citizens to lodge their DNA in a data base: after all if they are not guilty of a crime they have nothing to fear

#33 I had not though about the implications regards IT - you are of course correct - one can see somebody being falsly accuse because of a cock-up on the database. As someone said to me once "It's not the stupid computer's fault, it's the stupid person operating the computer's fault".

I have been advocating this sentiment for years. Every single person should be profiled - DNA, fingerprints, footprints, etc, as a potent form of crime prevention and detection. The only people frightened and objecting to this idea are those who are already criminals or possess a proclivity towards a life of crime because of an unbalanced personality trait still to manifest itself.

#39

ssssshhhhh. Behave yourself now.

#45 Utter rubbish - I have never ever been in trouble with the police (bar a speeding ticket) and I have concerns based on past miscarriages of justice and pish-poor implementation of previous public sector IT projects.

DNA testing has been reported as being accurate to one part per billion. This of course is nonsense. It's limitation is the probability of f dishonesty or incompetence of the testers. That's what makes the idea so dangerous. What were the odds quoted about fingerprint evidence being correct in the Shirley McKie case? It did not take into account the dishonesty of the testers, and a miscarriage of justice resulted.

Hey, dude, the Shirley McKie case has never, nor will it ever, be resolved, therefore it cannot be classed as a miscarriage of justice. So, put that in your pipe. Even speeding motorists should be DNA'd, whatever you are. Probably a foreigner. That's to the gentleman in Dundee, for clarification.

In fighting the crime that prevails today, and catching criminals, as, in many cases the Police do, and with the apparent only options for punishment being, seemingly, no matter the seriousness, is a 'gentle leg smacking' - 'being let free to further wander in the community with a 'Community’ order to ignore' - 'a paltry fine' - or always, apparently, a chance to be entirely free if they admit their guilt to save Court time and money - a sort of bartering BOGOF situation!

This is, apparently, good old British Justice, now diluted by 'New Labour', the controlling 'EU', and with most Politicals all in favour of it, showing a complete lacking of Common Sense - even to the point in many situations, of brilliantly displaying not being able to differentiate between simple 'Right and Wrong!'

Now, is that what you would call 'Democracy?'

Given the chance (and you may not be!) Vote now while / if you can, as I understand the eventual aim is to make voting obsolete and not necessary - after all you may come up with the wrong required EU answer - as we have seen happen in the past, and it upsets them!

Yes, great idea, why don't they go even further and microchip us all and then stick a barcode on our backsides. Then they could monitor our every single move and we could become successful drones.

Idiot. If the justice system wasn't the weakest link in society then perhaps we wouldn't be in such a mess with rising crime rates etc.

We have the biggest DNA database already in the world, we have more CCTV than anywhere else. Is the crime going down? Are we the safest country in the world? No, and why, because when the wrongdoers get caught they are given lenient sentences in prisons that offer no punishment or true rehabilitation.

Who is responsible for the law truly becoming an ass - the good old UK justice system.

45 says the only people who will fear this will be criminals. No they won't fear it - because they won't be on it. How would you feel if someone stole your identity and yoi ended up being accused of the crime they committed?

It won't be so simple then will it?

First we had drawings and descriptions to help identify people.

Then Photographs (which were said to steal your soul)

Then Fingerprints.

Possibly voice recognition.

Biometrics?

All these thing are taken as a matter of course in identifying possible criminals. If having DNA samples saves lives then it's a good thing - with the necessary safeguards of course.

I think it could be a major deterrent.

hi #44 - how many people have been falsely accused by 'normal' forms of identification? I suspects hundreds and thousands over the years. So we'd better stop using visual identification too then!!!!

I hope this never happens. It would be open to all sorts of misuse. I for one would fight any attempts to make this a reality. I am a law abiding citizen. I believe that democracy should mean that the authorities do NOT have the right to access certain information. We can't even trust them to get an election right. There's no way we could trust that this information would be used only to detect crime. NO... NO.... NO!!!!!!

#43. Mike S
'Live by example. Let politicians, judges and senior police chiefs be the first "innocent" citizens to lodge their DNA in a data base: after all if they are not guilty of a crime they have nothing to fear'

Hear hear. Let they who cast the first stone and all that ... The glib "you have nothing to fear if you have done nothing" (cf the ID cards "solution") is just smug stupidity and fails to address a catalogue of underlying problems.

There are just too many variables in any compulsory scheme of this kind where notoriously unsafe computerised data can be accessed and externally dispensed by a unsavoury civil servant with a grudge, for example.

This could only have been dreamt up by a holier-than-the-rest-of-us senior judge. Let him be the first to submit then we can all applaud when he is charged with a sleazy crime committed by his brother, father, uncle, cousin or whoever.

DNA should be taken at birth ........ end of arguement

#59. The Fly Fifer
Well, that really is some "arguement" [sic]. Impressive "should be" logic.

Interesting but largely academic debate. There is no way this will get to the starting gate in Scotland. No harm in watching the antics of our friends down south though!

the new english penal code was on its shabby civilization though sounds like an ancient imperial tide of which colonial police deals with perfidail crimes ...,..,the penal judge put it hornest nest .,,,,,very lengthy changes in the english judicial body ,.,.,,.,though new method of crime curb .,,,,,,was very approving but the colonial tide policy was very legitimate