Tag Archives: DnA database

What the British State DNA database is for


Michael Winning

(Not too many tupos I hope,)

This article may disappear. No really. Apparently it’s done so once already* and may do again. Legiron who Ive just found has posted thispiece here, which tells of a woman, a lawyer in fact, who now can’t get a job as she’s “on the DNA database”. Just that it seems. She lost an employment opportunity (with the State no less, but wait till tesco and others get on the roller) because of a wrong accuastion, and even about something trivial.

So what’s in store then for those accused – also wrongly – of worse things like British-State-thoughtcrimes? They wont’t even get shelf-fillers’ jobs in Asda or Kwiksave – let alone Waitrose!

So this is what it’s for – and there are 6 million people on it nearly, the Police sure have not been idle, all those swabs to take by force, eh? Need personpower for that, you do!

*Someone called Longrider has got a link to the piece too.

Might as well quote this from Longriderer:-

Update: The Economic Voice has more.

This effectively creates a new class of criminal, the ‘guilty innocents’. We used to have a system where you were either guilty or you were innocent. Now you can be left in limbo for 6 years. Remember also that the government’s original plans, but for the intervention of the EU, was for indefinite holding of DNA! Food for thought.

Had she not been going for a job that requires police background clearances she may well never have realised the repercussions of these new rules. Most people will just dismiss this as an isolated case to be ignored, but it could easily happen to anyone by just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just because it may happen infrequently doesn’t make it right.

Quite. Remember, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

But to cheer yous all up I’ve found this:-



Advertisements

Libertarian Alliance quote of the day, no-24,689B/42z3 … 0550-ABFF-09CC-042E


And before you even think of reading on, this is scary.

David Davis

From Legiron:-

“….Therefore you must be on the database on the off-chance you commit a crime in future. You cannot be trusted to behave yourself. The State must watch over you in case you step out of line. All the time. With coercion and threats….”

I don’t normally allow swearing and 4-letter words on the blog: it is a family blog for women and children as well as all us thugs. That’s why we feature people like Keeley Hazell in their pretty knickers and smalls, and why we discuss the finer points of the Holocaust, and the problems of human cruelty by GFNs.

There are quite sufficient classical liberal bolgs out there to satisfy anybody’s apetite for that sort of four-letter-**** thing, and you all know which they are. But this State-DNA crap makes you want to utter them too.

WE are not their effing farm-animals: they don’t pay to keep us – we pay to keep THEM.

Shame on the buggers


The Recording-Angel

Five million now on the DNA database….and we bet you 50 Solidi a disproportionately high number of them are black or asian young men…Shame on the Home Office buggers, for their racism, in taking these minorities, which they have created in corrupt imitation of real ones: then setting them up as policing-groups of interest, and then using them as pawns to create the world’s biggest State DNA Database by sleight of hand.

Bad stuff. Our boss is very angry. And look at the money that the buggers claim for, whether “within the guidelines” or not. We owuld get better value from 600 old ladies – who used to run post offices, but can’t now because there aren’t any. The worst are the socialist-democrasts, which surprises us somewhat: we were almost sure it would be the Nazis in ZanuLieBorg.

we here can see that it is humiliation enough, to be part of a nation whose Political Class has been allowed, by us the electors and suppsedly the masters of these fell people, to get away with such a scam. For such a nation to be the actual birthplace and home of modern Classical liberalism is a further self-inflicted  humiliation: it is indeed comparable to that which the German people must have felt and suffered, and suffered for later – when they found they had inadvertently elected a Stalinist Gramsco-Marxian, together with his private army of thugs.

We were forced to admit about 50 million Souls who were not due for housing until some time later, it put a strain on the finances I can tell you. And all because a highly-educated and civilised people was not awake.

Dogshit street horror watch shocking photos report; now for a EUDOG DNA database … humans can’t be far behind.


David Davis

Germany leads the way: I’m not joking. More bureaucrats for more impositions, on more people, and more dogs. yes, I know it’s disgusting and nasty. What we should ask is what’s the point of a dog any more, in an urban environment?

YOU KNOW the joke! Capitalism, in Singapore – “You have two cows – the government takes them both away and fines you for keeping unlicensed animals in an apartment.”

Dogs are for hunting foxes, and killing ALL badgers for ever so we shan’t have TB, and stuff like that. They will live in hutches or kennels or houses full of animal-shit anyway. If they shit in the forest or the fields, who cares?

This is what they should do. Here’s the pic we did earlier:-

One we did earlier

One we did earlier

Rachel Nickell: Colin Stagg: Robert Napper: DNA database….now, the weather is really going to get stormy.


David Davis

We learn today that the real murderer of this poor young woman, tragically witnessed by her toddler son, who vainly tried to stauch his mother’s wounds witht e contents of her handbag (google it) has now been identified and sentenced. or, at least, the person who pleads guilty has been sentenced.

But this will now be used as justification for extending the British State’s DNA database. Watch. It will.

Of course murderers and hoodlums, socialists and all other similar types of destructive scumbag, should be caught and punished. But the whole population (starting with men in ths case, as will be the case) should not be made “pre-suspects” by the State, in its bid to look like the benevolent protector of all.

UPDATE: Obnoxio’s musings on this very very sad and badly-handled case are perhaps more considered than mine. I am concerned for the (probable) future attenuations  – by “Jacqui” “Smith” or whatever alternative-State-cybotron succeeds her in her “post” – of everyone’s liberty and privacy. By contrast, Obnoxio concentrates, also rightly, on the deliberately-designed-in unaccountability of an increasingly fascisticated Police Force.

On another tack, the majority of today’s murderers in Britain are men, because socialism in schools deliberately leaves young boys unsocialised and functionally*** illiterate (so as to have a clientariat later.) Discuss.

***”Floppy, Chip and Biff…I can’t guess what sex even they are.

Sean Gabb on the DNA Database


file:///C:/user/Sean/Writings/Sean%20Gabb%20Website/flcomm/flc155.htm

Free Life Commentary,
A Personal View from
The Director of the
Libertarian Alliance
Issue Number 155
26th October 2006
14th June 2006
|

On Opposing the DNA Database
by Sean Gabb

(Update by blogmeister: this subject is topical and we spoke on this blog about it earlier today, at this link. )

Last Monday evening—the 23rd October 2006—I was called into the London studio of Sky News to put a case against constructing a database of DNA samples from the whole British population. Tony Blair had been on his hind legs again, braying for the final abolition of freedom in this country. Watched by about a million people, I am told I did rather well in opposing him and his kind. So now, revising an article I wrote back in 2000, I will put my case in writing.

The main problem whenever this sort of proposal is made, is that debate is constructed in terms of either consenting to exactly whatever is proposed, or doing nothing at all about crime. Within this structure of argument, opponents can be presented as indifferent to crime, or even as more interested in the rights of criminals than of their victims.

The secret of winning such debates lies in persuading enough people to reject the assumptions that underlie the structure of debate.

Let us briefly examine these assumptions.

First, it is assumed that a DNA database is essential if crime is to be reduced. This is not so. It would be better to legalise drugs. Millions of consenting acts that are presently illegal would then drop out of the crime figures. At the same time, competition from legitimate suppliers would bankrupt the criminal gangs that have turned parts of London and Manchester into low-intensity war zones; and lowered prices would reduce the vast number of burglaries and street crimes now committed by drug users.

For those acts still criminal we could have much stronger punishments. The notion that serious threats to lock criminals away for very long periods, or to flog or mutilate them, or to hang them, will have no deterrent effect is so laughable, that only someone with a Sociology degree could propose it; and only a fool could really believe it.

Then the laws regarding self-defence could be changed. It is a scandal that respectable people in this country are not allowed to use whatever force they think necessary to defend their lives and property. Tony Martin was put in prison for the bizarre crime of “murdering” a burglar. If he was to blame for anything, it was for his moderation in not going after the other two thieves who broke into his house, and executing them as well.

Each by itself, these reforms would take us back to the crime figures of about 1970. Combined, we might find ourselves back in the 1950s. Of course, the authorities affect horror and even incredulity at the thought of doing these things. They would rather have their DNA database.

Second, it is assumed that a DNA database would reduce crime. Undoubtedly, it would have some effect, but this would be mostly against those criminals likely to be caught and punished in any event. There might at best be a small drop in the cost of policing.  But anyone aware of the optimistic claims made when finger printing was first introduced must know that the more intelligent criminals will simply take more care to hide their identity. That will need more this time than wearing gloves. But I doubt if it will need anything very hard or expensive.

It is, of course, true that some crimes would be solved by having a DNA database. In his comments the other day, Mr Blair mentioned various rapes and murders that were only solved decades afterwards by accidental matches of DNA samples. But something still more effective in the fight against crime would be making everyone in the country go about with a bar code tattooed on his forehead. This would reduce any number of petty frauds. Given the right sort of scanning machines in public, it would allow lost children to be found in minutes, and allow the authorities to keep an eye on known criminals. I can easily multiply the number of alleged benefits a salesman for the big computer companies might make to the Home Office. But I ask instead—would you willingly present your face for the tattooist’s needle?

This brings us to the third assumption of the debate—that a DNA database would be used only for crime control. Even granting that our present rulers are entirely to be trusted—at the very least a dubious assumption—we cannot be sure what they will be like a generation from now. But we can be sure that a database set up now to cover those who are arrested will, without any positive extension, soon cover most of the population. It would a useful tool for any government wanting to exercise the tyrannical powers it now has only in theory.

As Albert J. Nock once observed, every time we give a government power to do things for us, we also give it the power to do things to us. I cannot think of a better illustration of this truth than a DNA database.

You may huff and puff and insist you have nothing to fear from a database of your DNA. After all, the authorities keep promising how much safer it will make you. But do you want your children to go on that database? Can you be sure that some demented government scientist two decades from now will not decide that the surest way to heaven on earth is to stop certain people from breeding? Can you be sure that your children will not show up negative on a DNA database that will have enabled an old authoritarian fantasy to be made into bureaucratic reality?

Are there no criminal tendencies somewhere in your family background? No racial or sexual characteristics that may one day be again be as unfashionable as they have been in other times and places? No bad eyes or flat feet? No predisposition to obesity or illnesses that it will for the foreseeable future be expensive to treat on the National Health Service?

Bear in mind that, with a certainty not known since the 1940s, the relevant scientists are proclaiming that your destiny is in your genes. This may be true. Whatever the case, it is and will remain the consensus. Can you believe it will never be attractive to politicians ignorant of the science, but struggling with the problems of crime control and ballooning health budgets?

Do you want grandchildren? Or do you want to risk seeing your genes scientifically combed from the general pool?

Or do you want your DNA samples handed over to foreign governments? I imagine data will soon be shared between the various governments of the European Union, which will certainly include Rumania and Bulgaria and possibly Turkey as well.

Or do you want your DNA samples at risk of theft from thieves? I cannot imagine what use it might be to them. But who can say what things will be useful in the future?

Or do you want the police to use your DNA samples to get you falsely convicted of a criminal offence? This has been happening with fingerprinting as long as it has been around. With finger prints, it is a matter of using sellotape to copy prints from one object to another. I imagine the police will soon find ways to do this with DNA samples. And the courts will be just as willing as with finger prints to take DNA evidence as effectively conclusive proof of guilt.

If your answer is what it ought to be, let us turn back to an investigation of what other measures may be available for the fight against crime.

This is the framework within which debate on the DNA database should proceed So long as the present framework of assumptions continues unchallenged, there can be no effective opposition.

I am pleased with how well I put my case last Monday evening. But I am sure that others can and will do better.

« Older Entries