Britain: Blair orders DNA samples from all criminal suspects

Glock-A-Roo

New member
How long will it be before every citizen is required to submit a DNA sample? Where do we go from there?
http://www.the-times.co.uk/news/pages/tim/2000/09/01/timnwsws01037.html

September 1 2000
BRITAIN

Blair orders DNA register of criminals
BY MELISSA KITE AND RICHARD FORD

BRITAIN'S entire criminal population would be registered on the national DNA base within three years, under a drive launched by Tony Blair yesterday. The Prime Minister announced that an extra £109 million would be provided so that police can take samples from three million people suspected of anything from car theft to murder. He brushed aside civil liberties concerns about the idea as "misplaced". Police already have power to take DNA samples from anyone suspected of, charged with or reported for a recordable crime, but with each swab costing £40, chief constables have advised officers to take them only for the most serious offences. The extra money should allow them to extend testing to minor cases. But the idea was immediately opposed by civil liberties groups, which are already alarmed that police are illegally holding thousands of samples that should have been destroyed from people who have been freed without charge or cleared by the courts. The police have also been accused of failing to make full use of the information they are already getting from DNA samples, so that key suspects remain at large. At least 30 per cent of potential samples are not taken from suspects and those that are correctly matched are not used properly: the Home Office found that up to 10 per cent are not followed up, while chief constables who checked 900 matches could not trace how a third of them had been used. At the moment 940,000 samples from criminals and 83,000 samples from scenes of crime are being held. Such material may be stored permanently only if a suspect is subsequently convicted - a rule that would remain under Mr Blair's plan for more extensive testing. But a team of Home Office inspectors has found that the database is holding profiles of thousand of cleared suspects. The failing was uncovered when Michael Weir was freed by the Court of Appeal after being convicted of murder on the strength of DNA evidence. There were no eye-witnesses or fingerprints to link Mr Weir to the crime, but blood found on a glove near the scene of the crime matched a DNA sample taken a year earlier when Mr Weir was suspected of drug offences. He was never charged with the drug offences and the murder conviction was quashed on the ground that the samples should have been destroyed. John Wadham, director of Liberty, said last night that the illegally held samples were one of two concerns he had about Mr Blair's plans. The other was that police would undertake enforced DNA testing on a blanket basis, even where the evidence had no relevance to the offence. "We have always accepted that DNA testing is a powerful tool for use in investigating offences were the suspect might have left a sample such as sexual offences, burglary or violent offences. "But the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1994 allows police officers forcibly to hold a suspect down, forcibly to open their mouth and to take a swab - even where the sample would be of no use to the investigation such as fraud or shoplifting." But addressing police in Kent yesterday Mr Blair insisted: "I really do think the civil liberties argument is misplaced on this issue." The Prime Minister, who was accompanied by Jack Straw, also told officers that he was determined to overhaul the entire criminal justice system and bring it into the 21st century. Britain's "archaic" system meant that it was too hard to bring criminals to justice, he said. "This has built up over a long time. The court system is run far too much for the convenience of the individual court. I think we have effectively got a 19th-century justice system in a 21st-century world. The Police Service must have the latest technology." Mr Blair also hinted that the Auld criminal justice review might contain measures to tighten the bail system and introduce tougher penalties for suspects who abscond. Increased measures to protect witnesses were also being considered. Mr Blair signalled zero tolerance for criminals, no matter how petty their crimes. "On the probation side we will no longer tolerate repeat excuses. We expect law-abiding conduct; decent civil behaviour to each other. This goes right from the serious crime at the top down to the graffiti on the street wall."
 
How long will it be before every citizen is required to submit a DNA sample?

There is a tleast one town in Britain that is ALREADY doing just that. Supposedly an effort to catch a rapist, so EVERY "subject" (not CITIZEN) was required to submit a DNA sample.

The Brit sheeple were only TOO happy to comply. Many said: "I've done nothing wrong; why should *I* care?"

Gawd I hate people like that...
 
How long until this great idea comes here?

Not long if we keep doing nothing but complain.

How long has it been since you've written your reps? How long has it been since you've donated to an RKBA org? How long has it been since you've helped the campaign of a pro RKBA candidate?
 
You can count on seeing this idea in the USofA sooner than later. Imagine the savings in law enforcement costs if you can just go to a database and select your suspects. Subsequent procedures will require the suspects to demonstrate their innocence.

Imagine the savings. Its neat, clean, and definitive. It is also unconstitutional and an attack on our rights. But that seems ok because we've been enacting unconstitutional legislation for years now.

Not to worry! Congress will stand up the executive branch and protect us. . . . .NOT!



------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
What makes anyone think that's not already being done...

A child is born, and what information is gotten from the infant?

Blood type, foot print, eye color, hair color. Hell there's enough tissue left over form the birth to supply every agency on the planet. (umbilical cord) What if this were to be taken, as tissue sample material.
The baby doesn't need it.
It's the by-product of the introduction of this little human. And it should be the baby's DNA right, since it was attached to the baby?

How many people have had surgery, and had something removed from their body?
I've had several "cuts", but I don't have the removed parts.
Any of that tissue matter could provide the DNA necessary to "tag" you.
Your insurance company, and the medical community might be under government restriction to provide certain information without your knowledge.

Another reason we shouldn't be under a government provided Health Care program...

They give you coverage, but you have to provide some information first.
And I don't mean your mailing address either.


------------------
"To control people you control the food, to control a nation you control the FUEL."

H. Kissenger
 
Back
Top