DNA profiles

[TopGun]

The Tories are saying that DNA profiles taken by the police are not being wiped from the records quickly enough if people are innocent or are new model citizens.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8434713.stm

 

Always a good one for debate.

 

IMO everyone should be DNA stamped, then there are no issues.

 

Please discuss.

[Ponty]

Yep, DNA stamps, chips to locate us by and, possibly, behaviour modulating devices are the way forward.

 

I'm sure we've done this debate before, with the usual mantra of "You're ok unless you've got something to hide" being trotted out by one camp, over and over.

 

Well, I'm sorry, but I disagree vehemently. Until we can trust the government not to screw up the security of the data then it's a bloody dangerous and stupid idea. And even then, if the data was 100% secure, I'd still feel it was an infringement of my personal liberty. I'm a person and not something to be catalogued.

[Saint in Paradise]

"Chips" in animals greatly increase the risk of that animal developing a cancer.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Beware the power of the all-powerful state .

 

History teaches us that it's a dangerous thing when governments know too much about their people , it is to be fortunate indeed to live in a country where the Government of the day labours under strict limits on both its powers and its knowledge - for knowledge is power and absolute power will surely corrupt absolutely .

The thought of innocent citizens including children (the age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10) having a DNA sample forcibly extracted from them without consent by the state so that they can be efficiently classified and monitored throughout their life's sends a shiver down my spine , you may see that egregious violation of the individuals liberties as desirable for some reason but this is not the kind of country I want to live in .

 

What happens in this 'brave new world' when someone refuses to give a DNA sample or commits some similar 'crime' such as failing to carry their identity card or inform on their neighbours when instructed to by the Police for instance ? Presumably such a person would be seen as a danger to society and severely punished and/or denounced - it's all rather too 'Big Brother' for my liking .

[badgerx16]

 

IMO everyone should be DNA stamped, then there are no issues.

 

 

But you forget, there is always the 'small print'; "We reserve the right to share your information with other selected interested organisations and companies".

 

It will be far too tempting for the Government to raise a little additional cash on the side by allowing health insurance companies to "research" certain aspects of risk, and mysteriously we end up with 'personalised' premiums, tailored by genetic risk factors you never even knew you had.

Or maybe we will have some other research institutions looking at genetic pre-disposition for certain behavioural traits, and people being labelled as 'future offenders' from birth. Then again, we could always go the whole hog and run the country eugenically, only permitting the most desirable attributes to be carried forward to the next generation, with every new-born labelled at birth as to how 'society' requires them to develope.

 

I do not trust the Government to keep what it has secure, let alone to use this data solely for the publicly stated intent.

[warsash saint]

If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide.

[ART]

The Tories are saying that DNA profiles taken by the police are not being wiped from the records quickly enough if people are innocent or are new model citizens.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8434713.stm

 

Always a good one for debate.

 

IMO everyone should be DNA stamped, then there are no issues.

 

Please discuss.

 

Too true Topgun, everyone should be DNA stamped, starting at junior schools. Doubt the Tories themselves would be any lighter on the matter as they will try to impose a police state if elected. As pointed out, if you're innocent you've got nothing to fear.

[Sheaf Saint]

If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide.

 

As Benjamin Franklin said...

'He who trades liberty for security deserves neither'

[SO16_Saint]

If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide.

 

exactly!

 

I believe that when babies are born DNA should be taken then - then the little scrotes will know that if they do anything illegal, they will be found out.

[Sheaf Saint]

Too true Topgun, everyone should be DNA stamped, starting at junior schools. Doubt the Tories themselves would be any lighter on the matter as they will try to impose a police state if elected. As pointed out, if you're innocent you've got nothing to fear.

 

So do you apply this logic to the idea of the identity card then as well?

[Sheaf Saint]

exactly!

 

I believe that when babies are born DNA should be taken then - then the little scrotes will know that if they do anything illegal, they will be found out.

 

What gives any government the right to implement such draconian measures though? When last I checked, our supposedly 'free' country is supposed to be run by a democratically elected body who were voted in to represent the interests of the people, not to control every aspect of our lives from the moment we are born.

 

If what you suggest were to be introduced, I guarantee you that the system would be abused by those in power. As Chapel end Charlie rightly pointed out earlier in the thread, the data gathered would end up being sold off to any and all organisations who could benefit from holding such information.

 

As far as I can see, the benefits of such an idea would be far outweighed by the potential dangers of it. By all means take a DNA sample from somebody who is 'suspected' of any crime to 'eliminate them from police enquirires', but for the police or any other government body to have access to the DNA records of every citizen of this country is one step too far towards a totalitarian state, and something I will never support.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

exactly!

 

I believe that when babies are born DNA should be taken then - then the little scrotes will know that if they do anything illegal, they will be found out.

 

A sentiment any tyrant would surely concur with - take a care of the company you keep .

[Red Alert]

I wouldn't like the gov holding my DNA data for any medical companies or anything like that. But I would like it even less where I a rapist or murderer. Thus I think that as long as the information were only used in the most serious of crimes, (I am not talking about running away from a stolen car you have crashed) then go for it. It could well cut down on a lot of violent crimes committed and I can hardly see that as a bad thing. All imo of course.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Let's go one further.

 

All babies have DNA taken. The details then quickly go to a research centre. Those that are defined as being 'pre-disposed to criminal tendencies' are watched until they do wrong. Then the state kills them, without trial, by shooting them in the back of the head so that body parts can be harvested for the healing and life saving of 'good' people. meanwhile those details of babies who are 'predisposed to life threatening illnesses' can be immediatley culled to save those 'good babies' who may need a transplant through an accident.

 

BNP in charge? Those babies who's DNA show that they might have a baby later in life, who doesn't fit their 'skin colour demograph' can be 'dealt with'.

 

Histrionic? Far fetched?

 

Maybe, but we are at the top of a slippery slope, who knows where it could lead.

[sadoldgit]

I don't like the Big Brother thing but if people think they have more chance of being caught and found gulity if they commit a crime then I think it is a good thing. Lots of old serious crimes are being dealt with better now due to the use of DNA leading to the conviction of murders and rapists. Like anything though, good if in the right hands, wrong if in the wrong hands!

[Ponty]

Wow, this really didn't go the way that I expected...

 

Oh wait. It went exactly the way I expected.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Too true Topgun, everyone should be DNA stamped, starting at junior schools. Doubt the Tories themselves would be any lighter on the matter as they will try to impose a police state if elected. As pointed out, if you're innocent you've got nothing to fear.

 

Wow, this really didn't go the way that I expected...

 

Oh wait. It went exactly the way I expected.

 

With the usual suspects contributing?

 

 

Oh! where's Stanley (or whatever nom de plume ha has now adopted).

 

********Edit. MODS!********** Something wrong with the code. I did not quote Art!

[ART]

Thank you ESB, for common decency. A very Happy New Year to you.

 

Elsewhere, having had personal ID cards for the best part of the past 40 years in Germany,France, Africa and China I have always found them more useful and of help than a hindrance. Of course maybe the attitudes of the likes of the police in the UK are more behind why so many of the public are against having them brought in.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Of course maybe the attitudes of the likes of the police in the UK are more behind why so many of the public are against having them brought in.

 

Hmm, ya think??

 

The Tories are saying that DNA profiles taken by the police are not being wiped from the records quickly enough.

 

Conservative MPs are only saying this because all the semen dripping down the legs of murdered rent-boys on Clapham Common all belong to Conservative MPs.

[TopGun]

Hmm, ya think??

 

 

 

Conservative MPs are only saying this because all the semen dripping down the legs of murdered rent-boys on Clapham Common all belong to Conservative MPs.

 

Which of course entirely ignores the fact that the MP caught on Clapham Common, Ron Brown, belonged to the Labour Party.

[revolution saint]

Leaving aside the moral side of this for a second, it would be completely impossible to achieve. Large government projects invariably fail, run over budget and over time. We'd probably get some private sector company to come in, throw money at them, sign up to giving them more money when the project screws up and then a bit more money when we inevitably pull out because it's unworkable. The country doesn't really have any money and if it did surely it should spend it on a better joined up patient administration system for the NHS or better communication between police authorities?

 

A DNA database would have lots of benefits but they're far outweighed by the potential harm. Also, and I'm no scientist, how accurate is DNA? Is it open to interpretation? I honestly don't know but there have been a lot of miscarriages of justice based on forensic evidence and a reliance on experts that would make me think it might be wrong to have a reliance on any system.

[Atticus Finch of Maycomb]

Which of course entirely ignores the fact that the MP caught on Clapham Common, Ron Brown, belonged to the Labour Party.

 

Which of course entirely ignores the fact that their never has been an MP called Ron Brown who belonged to the Labour Party.

 

You have confused MP's Ron Davies and Nick Brown, who are both Labour and both gay. But I guess all gay MP's are the same to you.

 

The tories all talk about family values and are all anti-gay, whilst subsequently engaging in debauchery that the rest of us can only dream of.

 

I am not saying that all gay men are murderers. I am, however saying that all conservative MP's are murderers. And all the ones that went to Eton are gay. Which is all of them.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Which of course entirely ignores the fact that their never has been an MP called Ron Brown who belonged to the Labour Party.

 

You have confused MP's Ron Davies and Nick Brown, who are both Labour and both gay. But I guess all gay MP's are the same to you.

 

The tories all talk about family values and are all anti-gay, whilst subsequently engaging in debauchery that the rest of us can only dream of.

 

I am not saying that all gay men are murderers. I am, however saying that all conservative MP's are murderers. And all the ones that went to Eton are gay. Which is all of them.

 

I think that you really should be more careful with what you say. Even though I am an anti conservative myself!

[Whitey Grandad]

If you have done nothing wrong then you have nothing to hide.

Oh, you naive youth..

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I don't want some **** in Whitehall/Scotland Yard knowing what I am up too. I don't break the law, but I don't want my 'freedom' taken away. Why should they know what I am up too 24/7, it takes the ****.

[rocknrollman no2]

I don't want some **** in Whitehall/Scotland Yard knowing what I am up too. I don't break the law, but I don't want my 'freedom' taken away. Why should they know what I am up too 24/7, it takes the ****.

 

Totally agree.

The goverment dont need to have my DNA or anyone elses who dont break the law.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

DNA by its very nature means that if you provide a sample for analysis it's not just your DNA profile that is 'on file' as it were - your blood relatives are also included - and not necessarily with their knowledge or agreement it must be said . I understand this is not just a theoretical possibility but that it has actually happened in practice . Even a partial DNA Database could make suspects of us all .

 

DNA analysis is a wonderful scientific crime fighting tool , it can convict the guilty and even more importantly free the innocent . No reasonable person should object to specific crime suspects being examined in this way (providing a warrant has been obtained) but the rights of the individual must hold sway over the power of the state in a free society . The police practice of routinely obtaining DNA samples from everyone they arrest for however minor a matter (many of whom will never be charged let alone convicted of any crime) and then unilaterally keeping said 'profiles' (indefinitely in some forces) strikes me as a fundamental violation of Human rights .

 

I return to the dangers of the all powerful state , each little erosion of the citizens rights (such as keeping innocent peoples DNA profiles or arrest without charge) can be justified on crime fighting or terrorism grounds , but as this remorseless step process continues our country must eventually become to resemble the totalitarian state that much of English history has been the long struggle against .

[Block 5]

DNA evidence is far from being the infallible crime fighting tool that we all think it is.

 

I have heard of instances where criminals have taken DNA material from others and left it at crime scenes.

Drug addicts have been known to take another addicts used syringe (which contains blood - DNA material) and deposit this DNA material at the scene of a burglary.

 

Now I'm sure most of you wouldn't give a stuff about drug addicts leaving each others DNA at crime scenes, but what if criminals collect DNA material from other sources?

Do you have any idea how much of your own DNA you leave lying around during an average day?

On the train. On the bus. In the pub. At work.

It just needs a criminal to pick up a few of your hairs after you've left the pub and deposit them at a crime scene and you're nicked! And if you don't have an alibi, what are a potential jury going to think? Your DNA is at the scene of the crime, you have no alibi = GUILTY?!?!

 

All of the above is happening right now - FACT.

[Special K]

Points to remember. 1. Convictions are rarely, if ever, based upon DNA evidence alone. Other evidence is needed to support a case and establish a conviction. 2. DNA evidence has also been used to exonerate those convicted of crimes they did not commit.

 

IMHO i don't buy into either the "if you aint done nothing wrong you shouldn't worry" camp or the OMG i'm living in a police state hysteria trotted out during these discussions, but i do think that DNA samples taken in the course of enquiries should be used for that enquiry alone and destroyed at the end of whatever outcome is achieved.

[sadoldgit]

Points to remember. 1. Convictions are rarely, if ever, based upon DNA evidence alone. Other evidence is needed to support a case and establish a conviction. 2. DNA evidence has also been used to exonerate those convicted of crimes they did not commit.

 

IMHO i don't buy into either the "if you aint done nothing wrong you shouldn't worry" camp or the OMG i'm living in a police state hysteria trotted out during these discussions, but i do think that DNA samples taken in the course of enquiries should be used for that enquiry alone and destroyed at the end of whatever outcome is achieved.

 

Sadly crime exists. Many crimes are solved when DNA tests are taken and checked against the database. If records were constantly destroyed there would be no sizable database. My details are on file even though I was not found guilty in the case I was involved with. Not great but I would rather that the police's job was made easier than worry to the nth degreee about my own civil rights.

 

You are right about convictions but half the battle is finding the correct suspect and building the case from there. DNA identification helps to pinpoint suspects.

 

If people didn't rob, murder, rape, fight etc etc we wouldn't need to give the police such measures. People can moan all they like about their civil rights but once you are the victim of crime you cab bet your life that you want the people that did it caught and convicted as quickly and efficiently as possible.

[sadoldgit]

Oh, you naive youth..

 

You are right, many people have plenty to hide but probably have done nothing wrong. The point is that if you have not committed a crime you should not be worried about your details being on a database.

 

Supermarket chains and marketing companies probably know more about any of us and our habits than the police!

[sadoldgit]

The more evidence the police/CPS can compile against the defendent(s) the more likely a guilty plea before the case goes to trial, which is better for the tax payers (trials, even magistrates trials, are very expensive) better for the victims, better for the witnesses, better for everybody.

 

We all want justice, we all want to live in a safer world surely? The use of DNA evidence goes a long way to make these things possisble. Have there been any cases where a conviction based on the use of DNA evidence has been found to be unsafe?

 

We should also remember that a DNA database can rule people out of having committed a crime.

[Special K]

Sadly crime exists. Many crimes are solved when DNA tests are taken and checked against the database. If records were constantly destroyed there would be no sizable database. My details are on file even though I was not found guilty in the case I was involved with. Not great but I would rather that the police's job was made easier than worry to the nth degreee about my own civil rights.

You are right about convictions but half the battle is finding the correct suspect and building the case from there. DNA identification helps to pinpoint suspects.

 

If people didn't rob, murder, rape, fight etc etc we wouldn't need to give the police such measures. People can moan all they like about their civil rights but once you are the victim of crime you cab bet your life that you want the people that did it caught and convicted as quickly and efficiently as possible.

 

Presumably you are planning some heinous crime in the near future then!

 

I don't doubt the effectiveness of DNA evidence in crime detection, but i don't see the justification of a DNA database of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are very unlikely to cause any form of major crime in the future. What is the point? No-one has managed to convince me of the need for it yet. If anything, an unwieldy database of innocent DNA samples would add more time and bureaucracy to the detection process.

[Whitey Grandad]

My basic concern is that it makes everybody a suspect who then has to prove their innicence. If you are not guilty of any crime then no information should be stored anywhere. Keeping data about innocent people on record is accusing them of committing a future crime that have have not yet committed and is open to all sorts of misuses.

[TopGun]

There was an interesting piece on R5 Live this morning just after 7am that focused on the potential DNS abuses that might be committed by healthcare & insurance companies who might categorise health risks via DNA sequences. That's a far more compelling argument than the crime argument to me to not have a universal database.

[CB Saint]

There was an interesting piece on R5 Live this morning just after 7am that focused on the potential DNS abuses that might be committed by healthcare & insurance companies who might categorise health risks via DNA sequences. That's a far more compelling argument than the crime argument to me to not have a universal database.

 

Why shouldn't health companies charge a higher premium to those people who have a greater risk of developing a certain illness.

 

It would be fairer than increasing premiums on a blanket basis on the criteria of age.

[badgerx16]

My basic concern is that it makes everybody a suspect who then has to prove their innicence. If you are not guilty of any crime then no information should be stored anywhere. Keeping data about innocent people on record is accusing them of committing a future crime that have have not yet committed and is open to all sorts of misuses.

Minority Report ?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Why shouldn't health companies charge a higher premium to those people who have a greater risk of developing a certain illness.

 

It would be fairer than increasing premiums on a blanket basis on the criteria of age.

 

There's no such thing as society eh ? The principle is that the fortunate healthly help cover the costs of the unfortunate sick - what's wrong with that exactly ?

 

Are you arguing only people will little or no real need for insurance should be able to afford it , or does increasing the already generous profit margins of the insurance industry hold some particular interest to you ? Any car driver on here will confirm that the main principle of the insurance industry is to never pay out on any claim if they can avoid it - but making insurance a virtuly risk free activity seems to miss the point rather .

 

If you DNA tested a baby and could predict that said child ran a high risk of developing a serious condition (say MS for instance) then the person concerned might never be able to afford health insurance or have MS specifically excluded from their policy - I can't for the life of me see any social good in that development .

 

If your DNA Profile is not your own private business then God alone knows what is .

[sadoldgit]

Presumably you are planning some heinous crime in the near future then!

 

I don't doubt the effectiveness of DNA evidence in crime detection, but i don't see the justification of a DNA database of hundreds of thousands of innocent people who are very unlikely to cause any form of major crime in the future. What is the point? No-one has managed to convince me of the need for it yet. If anything, an unwieldy database of innocent DNA samples would add more time and bureaucracy to the detection process.

 

I could tell you, but I would have to kill you!

 

I know wht you are saying, but !innocent" people would benefit too by being ruled out of having committed a crime. Not only has DNA already been used to find perpetrators of old crimes, but it has also been used to clear people of old crimes too. The adage that if you have done nothing you have nothing to fear rings true. But as with anything like this, it can be used for good things as well as misused.

 

Unfortunelty we live in a world where people do bad things. Anything that can bring them to speedy justice (in my book) has to be a good thing for the more people realise that they ae very likely to get caught, charged, found gulity and sentenced maybe fewer would commit the crime in the first place?

 

I am an "innnocent person" whose DNA is on the database. I am not overly happy about it but if I don't do anything wrong there will be no need for the police to use it.

 

AS with all databases, the bigger it is, the more effective. Currently the only people on there are those who have committed a crime or those suspected of having committed a crime. Just what you want really. Of course there are those who have done nothing so far but will do in the future, so currently "innocent" - but if they were on the database it could make their detection and conviction easier.

 

(I should add that I work for the CPS and the use of DNA in cases is relatively small but it does have a more important role to play in some of the more serious crimes)

Edited 9 January, 2010 by sadoldgit
added something

[Saint George]

Benjamin Franklin said it best......Has served the people of the US well for several hundred years

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

 

Britons would do well to take note, IMO

[Ponty]

So would Americans, neighbour.

[saintfully]

I think we should just remember that at the end of the day its just some underpaid spod putting data into a computer - so the potential for error is considerable.

 

Add the fact that Low-copy number DNA profiling is far from proven technology and you have a recipe for any one of us having our lives ruined by having to spend ages trying to clear our name. Imagine getting 'fingered' incorrectly by DNA profiling as a peado and your family, work, neighbours finding out about it ? Clearing you name from a spurious DNA match would be an absolute nightmare. You drop skin cells every minute of every day, so the potential for incorrect DNA retrieval using low-copy number techniques is enormous. Basically there will be a potential DNA sample from you anywhere you've been.

 

Im out!

[sadoldgit]

A bigger issue is the use of CCTV cameras. WE are caught on camera hundreds of times a day but not a peep about that? The chances of being "fingered" incorrectly are very small indeed. Can anyone here recall a case where someone has been convicted on incorrect DNA sampling? There are pelnty of cases where people have been wrongly identified though. As I said, DNA can be helped to prove innocence as well as guilt.

 

As for liberty, yep, we all have the liberty to get murdered, beaten up, raped, mugged, burgled and we all want to see those people caught and convicted. No easy job, the use of DNA makes it a little easier.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

A bigger issue is the use of CCTV cameras. WE are caught on camera hundreds of times a day but not a peep about that? The chances of being "fingered" incorrectly are very small indeed. Can anyone here recall a case where someone has been convicted on incorrect DNA sampling? There are pelnty of cases where people have been wrongly identified though. As I said, DNA can be helped to prove innocence as well as guilt.

 

As for liberty, yep, we all have the liberty to get murdered, beaten up, raped, mugged, burgled and we all want to see those people caught and convicted. No easy job, the use of DNA makes it a little easier.

 

The basic objection is that the more private information a government has about individuals, the more it is able to control and manipulate them - I just don't trust government not to abuse this power . The basic idea of democracy is that the people are in charge, and that governments are merely their tool.

 

As for the infallibility of DNA evidence what happens if you just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time with no alibi ? How many places do you visit or items do you touch per day that can leave a DNA footprint ? We have seen far too many people wrongly imprisoned based on "irrefutable" evidence from experts and their systems. The first time this system saw an innocent person imprisoned would throw the whole idea into total disarray .

 

I repeat I have no objection to specific crime suspects being DNA tested - as much to prove innocence as well as guilt , but as for anything beyond that ... well lets just say I vote no .

[Verbal]

Benjamin Franklin said it best......Has served the people of the US well for several hundred years

 

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

 

 

Britons would do well to take note, IMO

 

Several hundred?! I thought he died barely two hundred years ago. Didn't they teach you American history before they lined you up with the other immigrants to stick your hand on your heart and pledge blinding allegiance?

 

Franklin was dead right though.

[saintfully]

A bigger issue is the use of CCTV cameras. WE are caught on camera hundreds of times a day but not a peep about that? The chances of being "fingered" incorrectly are very small indeed. Can anyone here recall a case where someone has been convicted on incorrect DNA sampling? There are pelnty of cases where people have been wrongly identified though. As I said, DNA can be helped to prove innocence as well as guilt.

 

As for liberty, yep, we all have the liberty to get murdered, beaten up, raped, mugged, burgled and we all want to see those people caught and convicted. No easy job, the use of DNA makes it a little easier.

 

I don't think anyone is saying that DNA evidence shouldn't be used per se, just that a DNA database is unwanted. The chances of being 'fingered' incorrectly may be small, but you'd be absolutely ****ed if it happened to you... also, the chances of it happening increase as the size of the database increases.

 

Finally, how do you know how many people are inside based on the flawed use of DNA evidence ?

[sadoldgit]

I don't think anyone is saying that DNA evidence shouldn't be used per se, just that a DNA database is unwanted. The chances of being 'fingered' incorrectly may be small, but you'd be absolutely ****ed if it happened to you... also, the chances of it happening increase as the size of the database increases.

 

Finally, how do you know how many people are inside based on the flawed use of DNA evidence ?

 

We have a fingerprint database. There are photographic records. At the moment we can say with some certainty that DNA records are the most accurate in that the chances of it being someone elses is very small.

 

You would be amazed at what sort of information is held about you. The DNA database is just one part of the story.

Edited 9 January, 2010 by sadoldgit

[saintfully]

We have a fingerprint database. There are photographic records. At the moment we can say with some certainty that DNA records are the most accurate in that the chances of it being someone elses is very small.

 

You would be amazed at what sort of information is held about you. The DNA database is just one part of the story.

 

My fingerprints have never been taken, and I've never had a mugshot taken.

 

Although we can hope that our DNA records are actually representative of our own DNA (nevermind the inevitable errors that occur when a mass-sampling programme is undergone), the sequences recovered from a crime scene are often generated (when DNA copy numbers are low) using techniques (degenerate primers for example) with a significant 'random' element. Thus, the potential for an innaccurate match with a database sample is greatly increased.

 

Again, I have no problem with DNA evidence used in specific criminal cases, but I do have a problem with a mandatory DNA database.

[Saint George]

Several hundred?! I thought he died barely two hundred years ago. Didn't they teach you American history before they lined you up with the other immigrants to stick your hand on your heart and pledge blinding allegiance?

 

Franklin was dead right though.

 

Hell yeah...I even learnt the words to

[mightysaints]

Welcome to New Labour or should we say the Comunist party of Britain. I have been very worried about the interfearence of this lot for a while.