And that one in 3 million DNA samples match when compared. Put everyone on the database and you instantly have 19 innocents who will be hassled by the police when a crime is commited where DNA is left behind.
DNA Database
- Thread starter do_ron_ron
- Start date
- Status
And that one in 3 million DNA samples match when compared. Put everyone on the database and you instantly have 19 innocents who will be hassled by the police when a crime is commited where DNA is left behind.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 11,742
- Location
- Northern Ireland
I'm only playing devils advocate here, someone has to.
And it can be a lot lower, especially when you look at some of the more obscure DNA techniques, or when there are family involvements.
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 16,376
- Location
- 38.744281°N 104.846806°W
Indeed.
As always about matters of 'internal security', I'm in two minds. Nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind... But, wht? where are our civil liberties?
:-/
Why does someone have to? If you agree with the database, fine, argue the position of the for side. If you don't agree with it say so. Dont just sit on the fence spitting out hyperbole.
Police have always been able to "hassle" you :/ and you can still take photos without fear unless you have some morbid fear of the police.
And out of curiosity when did you last exercise your right to protest outside parliament?
And haven't police always been able to detain people without trial, or did they just arrest people on their court date?
Great newsI'm fundamentally disappointed that the law lords didn't throw it out first (just shows yet more need for a written constitution to protect us), but at least the ECHR did something useful
Ewwww, written constitution, less of that Dolph!
If the case was taken to the House of Lords in 2002 after the Human Righs Act was effective, they would have ruled exactly the same as Strasbourg. We don't know when the case was in the House of Lords...
Like I said above.
Just because I havent had cause to want to protest outside parliament, doesnt mean that I shouldnt hold an opinion regarding their limiting of it.
Dont be so obtuse. You know perfectly well what that is pertaining to.
In cases other than terrorism you will likely be placed on bail, or if you pose a proven risk to the public safety based on the strong evidence already held, held on remand. Both of which will be decided by a Judge.
Last edited:
The law was only changed to allow retention of those not charged or convicted in 2003, came into effect in 2004. However, this case is about those charged and then aquitted, which is even better.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
Why does someone have to? If you agree with the database, fine, argue the position of the for side. If you don't agree with it say so. Dont just sit on the fence spitting out hyperbole.
It's still quite a good technique for evaluating legislation (or indeed any contentious subject) as it forces you to consider the merits and you are then able to provide the easy counters to the obvious points. If you can't counter the points or on balance it doesn't seem like such a bad idea then you should be willing to re-evaluate your position rather than sticking with the gut reaction of "it's a bad thing".
But would they legally hassle you for simply taking photographs in a public place? Suppose you were at a historical landmark and took a picture, would they move you on if all you were doing was quietly taking that picture (no breach of the peace etc)? If your answer is no then you've lost a right.
I've never exercised my previously allowed right to demonstrate near Parliament but that's a rubbish argument, past behaviour does not indicate future want.
You're now arguing about something completely different, detention under anti-terror legislation is very different to being held on remand because you've got very specific (and much shorter) timescales to follow before being charged with a crime.
You had a right not to be spoken to by the police ? Confused: :/
Isn't an argument, was curiosity.
Just wondered how many people actually excersise these rights they keep harping on about.
they still have to provide a fair whack of evidence and get it approved before they can hold you for the extended time.
What I meant was that the House of Lords might of not have had the power to allow an appeal on the grounds that Strasbourg decided the decision was unjust.
Also, I'm sure the House of Lords did have a perfectly valid reason for throwing the case out with the powers they were perscribed with at the time - they are independant of Government after all.
Its called having principles dear boy, and not just rolling over into the well of apathy that most people do because they feel it doesnt affect them.
That "fair whack" of evidence is far less than in most criminal cases.
You really would have thought a non-apathetic person would have gone and protested the change wouldn't you...
Or are your principals to heavy to carry ?
Hence why I want to see a written constitution guaranteeing us freedom from unnecessary and unjust government interference, of which DNA collection and retention of innocent people would certainly qualify
We can all protest in our own way, I support organisations who stand against this kind of thing, Liberty for instance.
so basically you where to apathetic to do anything about your loss of rights?
How did you protest and support?
give them some money so you can feel you've done something?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
You're being obtuse rather than confused but it's an easy mistake to make I appreciate.
Hassled is not the same as being spoken to although they are obviously on a sliding scale.Does it really matter how many people exercise these rights? The fact that anyone wants to and is denied for no pertinent reason is issue enough. If the Government wants to remove a right then it should provide a reason for it and while I'm at it I'll posit the counter to your query of how many people actually exercise these rights - if no one wants to use said rights then why legislate against it? There is no point in creating legislation that applies to something no one wants to do.
It is still undermining our judicial systems integrity, I do not think the threshhold of evidence required is commensurate with the additional length of time that you can be held for. Even if it was then it is a dangerous road to head down because even if you trust this particular lot of politicians do you trust the next lot?
Does if you're arguing the apathy route.
So how ar do these new powers go in terms of hassling exactly what can they do?
Take the film, the camera, stand in front of the lens?
or can they just ask you what you're doing?
Donating money, attending talks yes. Just because I havent actually gone to parliament and protested on the issue doesnt make my contribution to them worth any less.
And I believe the word you are looking for is were, not where.
- Status