National Criminal Dna Database

[ans]

Can you make a post without name calling?

 

If you take offence to being accused of 'whining', then perhaps Internet Forums aren't for you. If you respond to these accusations by calling people a 'nasty shite', then you're somewhat hypocritical.

 

As to opportunity given, i have given my opinion in what was a interesting post, then in you come with the rubbishing tactics, and you a moderater, for shame.

 

Oddly enough, being a moderator doesn't preclude me from having my own opinion. If you feel that I have in some way used this position to gain an advantage, then you're quite mistaken and it's a completely irrelevant point. You're still sidestepping the repeated request to clarify exactly what you mean by loss of freedom, but I guess I can take that as meaning you can't. You're still more than welcome to elaborate exactly what you mean, but we both know you wont.

 

Do you intend or have you ever offered your own personal data for record.

 

My fingerprints are already on file. I wasn't exactly asked for them, but I wouldn't have a problem if they did. Likewise, as I said in my very first post in this thread, they're more than welcome to my DNA profile. Anything I can do to help them catch or deter criminals is good in my book.

 

Oh wait, I guess I forgot to call you names in this one, spackchimp.

[tameelf]

http://www.rense.com/general14/britonsengraged.htm

[mollag]

OK Ans, first--- my inference to you being a nasty shite refers to your schoolboy like attitude to people who you disagree with, NOT your position in the discussion. Petty name calling of other posters to bully a position forward is a poor discussion tool.

 

 

Please dont suggest for me in future, your opinion on whether i use a forum or not is not required and is of no interest to me.

 

Once again with the, im entitled to an opinion, and once again i say your opinion is valid and respected,

Your attitude though seems at odds with a moderators role.

 

I accept now that you wont reply to the compulsory fingerprint query so in conclussion i would say that repect is what is absent in your posts, respect for others point of view and respect for them personally

[ans]

Petty name calling of other posters to bully a position forward is a poor discussion tool.

 

Avoiding questions generally doesn't aid discussion either. If you're not prepared to actually, you know, discuss your point of view, why bother contributing at all?

 

Once again with the, im entitled to an opinion

 

Sure, I'd just like to know the reasons behind it. And you keep utterly failing to provide them in that regard.

 

I accept now that you wont reply to the compulsory fingerprint query

 

Are you blind? Trolling? I answered it quite clearly above when I stated that I would have no problem in submitting my fingerprints to a compulsory request if they didn't already have them. Which part of that is unclear to you?

 

Your attitude though seems at odds with a moderators role.

 

I'm tempted to ask in what way but I rather suspect you wouldn't bother to provide any sort of answer.

[ans]

Petty name calling of other posters to bully a position forward is a poor discussion tool.

 

Do you know, I actually went back and re-read the thread and from what I can see, all I actually did was say you were whining, and then substantiated why I thought that. In return, you called me a 'nasty shite'. Now I'm sorry, but I think you need to look a little closer to home if you want to travel down the petty name calling route.

[James Anderton]

No disrespect intended but how will your dna on file prevent a murder or rape?

 

I'm talking more broadly than just me. If a rape/murder took place in a group of 40,000 people, 39,000 of which had either voluntarily or by statute supplied their DNA it will make the Law enforcement agencies job of tracking down the killer more focused and hopfully quicker. Thus possibly preventing a further crime.

Imight not have worded that great but it seems truely obvious to me.

 

So once more , why is it we have never had to supply our fingerprints on the same basis.

Do you intend or have you ever offered your own personal data for record.

 

As a general rule DNA is probably best known for its use in tracking sex offenders who leave it in one form or another at most incidents. I dont believe fingerprints are often left at sex crimes at all. DNA is probably far more important in solving serious crime.

 

Your DNA 'profile' is esentially a string of numbers which is stored on a computer somewhere. It is there for the protection of us all and in particular vulnerable women and children. How anyone can heartfully believe that its an infringement of rights that they never see or feel (unless they commit crime) is beyond me.

 

You can kick it about, twist what i say, come up with conspiracy theories to your hearts content but there is no doubt in my mind that if a fully national database was already in effect rapes and maybe murders would already of been prevented.

 

I'm definitely with ans on this.

[cheesemonster2005]

OK Ans, first--- my inference to you being a nasty shite refers to your schoolboy like attitude to people who you disagree with, NOT your position in the discussion. Petty name calling of other posters to bully a position forward is a poor discussion tool.

 

Please dont suggest for me in future, your opinion on whether i use a forum or not is not required and is of no interest to me.

 

Once again with the, im entitled to an opinion, and once again i say your opinion is valid and respected,

Your attitude though seems at odds with a moderators role.

 

Countdown for this post to be deleted....

 

I agree with Mollag that Ans is the biggest troll of them all and turns every thread into a slanging match. If you dare to disagree then god help you - you may get a warning

 

He won't substansiate many arguements and petty name calling is his best defence. And of course he warned me for swearing at another member in a post (jokingly mind you) even though I suspect the member made no complaint...

 

Who ever made Ans a mod?

[TheTool]

haha they must have been drunk at the time i reckon lol.

 

The whole DNA databank is ok if you are wanting to detect a crime but its the criminals DNA that needs to be stored not joe public.

[LoneWolf]

What a pity this thread has turned out the way it has.

Maybe if Mollag had responded to questions put by Ans it would have kept on topic. Pity

[Chinahand]

DNA it will make the Law enforcement agencies job of tracking down the killer more focused and hopfully quicker.

 

Your DNA 'profile' is esentially a string of numbers which is stored on a computer somewhere. It is there for the protection of us all and in particular vulnerable women and children. How anyone can heartfully believe that its an infringement of rights that they never see or feel (unless they commit crime) is beyond me.

 

The main issue I have on this is the fact that it is highly likely that the search will be less focused, and will rely on the database rather than good detective rate. Errors in the data base and in the collection of DNA from the crime scene will make it highly likely that a reasonable large number of people [definitely in the thousands, maybe in the 100’s of thousands] will be drawn into police enquiries incorrectly due to using the data base.

 

The figures I posted earlier are based on probabilities but the actual results won’t be thousands false-positives on every investigation; in reality away from the maths it will be one false result in this case, another one in that one. In the UK with over 1.37 million recorded crimes in 2005 the 1 in a thousand cock ups would result in 1370 people being drawn in to an investigation incorrectly.

 

I'm sure you'd reply that you'd be more than willing to help investigate a murder, rape etc. But in this case you'll be a suspect: you’d almost definitely be taken down to the station, you could well be cautioned, you’d be asked to provide an alibi etc etc. Almost certainly you’ll be told the match between your DNA and the suspects makes it highly likely you’d committed the crime; statistics like 1 in 5 million will probably be used.

 

This disturbs me and I am certain it will happen; and I believe that miscarriages of justice will occur due to this; with the vulnerable: the young, the mad and the alcoholic most at risk.

 

I don’t think this is whining, I believe I’ve used reason and logic to point out my worries and show this isn’t a cut and dried issue. A debate is needed as well as new safeguards.

 

The DNA database isn’t a passive list of numbers that will never worry a law abiding citizen.

 

Police work is messy and the idea that you can easily identify a suspects DNA at a crime scene is like pretending policing is just like the Bill.

[James Anderton]

As someone else has already stated a DNA match on its own is not enough to charge someone, it requires further substantive evidence.

 

Yes I'm sure that someones DNA will be mixed up somewhere thats why a further sample from you can be taken and that tested against the crime scene DNA. Just like fingerprints really. They store criminal fingerprints, when they get a match at a crime scene and someone is arrested another set is taken to compare. Not only does this ensure mix ups are not made but also at any later court proceedings no inference can then be made to the offenders previous convictions.

 

besides which i think your guesstimates on mistake rates are exactly that.

 

Go on, pop up to police headquarters make a dna donation, you know it makes sense YOUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU

[mollag]

What a pity this thread has turned out the way it has.

Maybe if Mollag had responded to questions put by Ans it would have kept on topic. Pity

 

Sorry for the delay in response, busy , busy!

 

Anyhoo, looking back at the posts I can only find the one question put by Ans, " how does this romove your freedom", this was in response to The Tool, i hadnt even posted then and as it happens the only time i mentioned freedom was to quote ANS response, my position in the debate did not include anything about freedom so i would leave that one to tne tool to respond, i dont automatically agree with him.

 

The only other half question was with regard to his moderator role, in response i regard the role of a moderator was to moderate the input on the forum, to be a moderating influence and to head off the trolls and slaggers that regularly appear. In this thread alone we have had posters called tin foil hat wearers, whiners, precious little flowers, spack chimps and oh! lets not forget the old, if you dont like it you should get off the forum, that with the general beligerance of his posts makes me think he is a poor moderator, and at no time did i say that he abused his position, dont know where he pulled that from.

 

My stance on the issue has been thus

 

1 Trust, i dont trust the Govt or the Police. When the Govt say " its to help the war on terror" i no longer believe them. They have abused this reasoning so badly even the Lords throw the bills out on a regular basis.

Lord Carlile has today stated that ID cards would be of little use in fighting terrorism, now this man has Govt oversight on terrorism bills.

I undertand the patriotic point of view and the willingness to help but i genuinley believe that ID cards cross the line of need. I belive though that the ID exercise is merely to build up a database of comercial value, and to get Joe public to pay { see post by tameelf prior} This is why we wont have compulsory fingerprints as an option, no commercial value.

 

2 Intrusion, privacy is subjective and we all draw the line at different places but would anyone accept, say that all householders should give an access key for their home to the police and allow them to visit and search said home as and when they feel like it cos it will make their job easier and help the war on terror, i suspect not.

Nor would we accept a nightime curfew because it would make their job easier either.

Both these examples cross the line of privacy and need and i consider ID cards and DNA compulsory tests the same way.

Why not for example, as someone said, snatch them at birth, and tatoo id numbers on the forearms, cheap, effective and pretty well unforgable, or how about the method they use for beasts, the chip under the skin, couldnt lose that one or ruin it in the wash.

Its all a bit Eric Blair for me and i do believe that both these compulsory schemes are big line crossers.

[LoneWolf]

I think we can all agree there are strong feelings about the issue !!