Dougie

OK so as the title says ^^^^

Whats your opinion ?? at the moment there seems to be a big hoo harr about this in England at the moment...

Some say 3 Years

Some say 6 Years

Some say 12 Years

Some say indefinitely

Some say serious crime

Some say petty crime



I personally think that we should have our DNA taken @ birth and it should be logged and stored for LIFE !!!


I do not belive this to be a issue for anyone??

This data profile could only ever be used against you if you committed a crime surly ??


They aint gonna track you down and stone you for helping a old lady across the road are they?


I say bring it on.. I have nothing to hide


Think how much this would reduce crime on all levels ?????????????????

And in turn the insurance policies etc etc


Dougie

seang

I agree. Dont see any reason not to. May even be a deterant to future crime. Could also be helpful in proving innocence.
Also ,I presume, medically it could be helpful in highlighting any illness down the line.

MartinLuther

Stabbing babies when their born for no good reason. What are you guys like?

renth

Why not microchip everyone so you can track their movements too?

You lot are bonkers Stalinists, have you ever read 1984 by George Orwell?

scottishcelts

I was thinking along the same lines renth - i've read the book!

What about human rights , freedom etc etc

Christ, turn us all into robots why not!

asprilla

They've been doing this already since the late 50s.

Which is why I always, always, wear a boiler suit lined with lead and tinfoil when I go outdoors. Because I haven't been able to locate the chip. Yet.

soapy©

Every baby has blood obtained already via the Guthrie/ Newborn screening test. The blood samples are stored for 25yrs at present but they are NOT used for DNA testing.
I'm not sure how parents would feel about DNA testing their baby.
Pauline

anawanahuanana

Unbelieveable. I watched a show I downloaded from the U.K not too long ago, on this very subject. I may not have the details exactly correct, but this is pretty much as it happened. They interviewed an old man who had the police come into his house and arrest him for breaking and entering a property hundereds of miles away. He had been confined to a wheelchair for some time and regardless of that, it was alleged that he had climbed up the outside of the house and broken through a window. He was taken away and questioned for hours on end, even though he clearly could not have been responsible. The police argument was that he had been a match for the crime on the wonderful DNA database, I think from a spent conviction years before. The program also interviewed people who deal with DNA in the careers, and they said that reading a DNA fingerprint is like reading a standard fingerprint. In other words, it is down to the person examining it to decide if it is a match or not. It is NOT an exact science, as the media may have you believe. Eventually this poor bloke was cleared, but imagine if he had been you or me, and our DNA was in the database because of being arrested for pissing up a tree in the street 20 years before.

DNA from unsolved crimes should be stored indefinately. If you are arrested for anything, then you should have to provide a sample, which is then compared to the database. If nothing turns up, your sample should then be destroyed. Still not perfect, for the reason given above, but maybe the best of a bad choice (if the people in the U.K were ever given a choice, which clearly they won't be).

The old "I've nothing to hide" argument is paper thin, and is a green light for ID cards, DNA databases, the eventual selling of you details to health insurance companies, who will not give you life cover as you may be genetically prone to some disease or other, which will make getting a mortgage harder. Besides which, do you really trust the governement to not leave the entire details of you on a train or in a cab somewhere?

Burbage

There is a significant difference between storing DNA and storing a DNA fingerprint data. If it is done right then there should be no issue with storing DNA fingerprint data, since the fingerprints will be of no use to anyone other than someone who has generate a fingerprint from a crime. They are no use for assessing vulnerability to disease or anything else beyond familial relationships, which can be obtained more easily and for free from the register of births (though paternity might come up as an issue).

Take DNA, perform the fingerprint test and destroy the DNA. Keep the test results.

I think it would be an exceptionally good thing to do. After all, punishments don't deter criminals (if indeed they actually are punishments in this namby pamby society). This is because criminals only commit a crime because they believe they aren't going to get caught, the punishment is therefore of no consideration. But if you can increase the chance of them getting caught you reduce criminals to only the very stupid or the very clever. But you never catch the very clever ones anyway and you pretty much always catch the very stupid ones.

Dougie

Cotton bud >> mouth swab ???

They would not even know

Sorry know nothing about this book





Dougie

Wol

We have to be careful what we mean by DNA "fingerprinting". In the past, court evidence has been used with the prosecutors saying that the chances of a similar DNA profile are billions to one against - most people on the Clapham Omnibus would accept that as pretty conclusive. But in the small print you see that the actual analysis is only of a few dozen sequences, the chances of two people sharing the same analysed sequences are then only in the hundreds or thousands to one against. And when you see that quite a number of the sequences relate to race, hair colour and the like the odds drop even further - DNA as used at the moment is very far from being knockout evidence.

Having said that, I agree that DNA profiling at birth would be a very useful process for all sorts of reasons. After all, the doomsday, 1984 scenarios would happen anyway if government decided to act like Stalinists, regardless of what techniques were available. It's the motive that dictates, not the technology.

MartinLuther

I was only messing with ya. But now you've said it do you seriously think you'll get a decent DNA sample that can be stored for decades, on a cotton bud? (Genuine question )

Toe Dipper

If it is the govt that decides, then it doesn't matter what we all think, as they will do whatever they want anyway.

Unless of course the public can recruit Joanna Lumley to their cause, then Govt watch out!!!!

For those in Aus, check out the BBC webpage reporting of Joanna Lumley meets Govt minister re the Gurkhas. Spectacular example of minister being humiliated in public. She looks like a school head teacher getting a small boy to apologize in public. Excellent!

TD

renth

Didn't you have to read it at school? I thought everyone read this book at school.

I recommend you read it. It will make you realise how insane your opinions are.

seang

Yeah I read it. I also read animal farm. Should I be worried about our new animal overlords?

DNA to microchip is ahuge leap and not what was suggested. Your movements are pretty much trackable as it is with the technology available