I think you may not be correct about that.

Currently indefinitely.
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm

Clealy not the case. You can be perfectly innocent too and get put on the same database as convicted murderers and suspected terrorists. And looking at the figures, it would appear that if are black you are significantly more likely to be added to the DNA database, as well as stopped and searched, pulled over when driving, and - I am sure that statistics will prove - get longer sentences for equivalent crimes.

The Night Stalker was arrested as a result of "good old-fashioned policing" not DNA sampling. But perhaps it could have helped, fair enough.

I still worry about the situation where 75% of young black people are on the DNA database, but only 6% of the white population. I don't think this is racism, but I think we have to ask questions of a society where this happens. I don't believe there are simple answers but I don't believe we should ignore these issues. But perhaps I am still being paranoid.

This is the 7th or 8th person they have arrested.
I wonder if they are arresting anyone who refuses to give them a dna sample. As a jehovah witness, he might refuse unless there was a warrant, and the police would get one more easily if he was under arrest.

I do not understand why a specific random check dna sample needs to be kept on a database or even matched against a database - they only need compare the sample against the evidence.
Why dont they just concentrate on solving this crime? They should not be exploiting people's good will.

You would hope that with the man's details being released to the press, the police are very very sure this time. Or will he be quietly released in a few days?

Am I alone in thinking that DNA should be taken from everyone? If we are all treated the same then there would be no concern about 'innocent' people being mixed up with criminals. It could be taken at birth and from everyone entering the country as well as to the existing population. I suppose people could opt out but why?Surely the State holds loads of information about everyone so what's wrong with holding DNA as well? I certainly wouldn't object and would be happy to volunteer to have mine held on a database. This would make it much easier to solve serious crimes (forensic science is very good these days at finding DNA evidence). I really don't understand the concern about this but suspect I am in a very small minority. Mind you I support ID cards as well - and I read the Guardian - definitely something wrong there!

A chilling faith in the states competence and neutrality.

As part of the Operation Minstead investigation, the police also visited all (male) motorcycle licence holders in their target areas.

Now that they have been eliminated from the enquiry, can their details be deleted from the DVLA's database?

Nevermodern
"Neutrality" - what do you mean please? What is it that you fear? I could counter with "paranoia".

They didnt visit all motorcycle riders. I wasnt visited.

Londondrz - you are obviously as honest as the day is long and absolutely above suspicion!

We had two WPCs knock and as soon as they confirmed that the male licence holder in our house was blonde and blue-eyed, they went away again, no further questions asked! They did say they were checking everyone - maybe you were out when they called.

Jane, I suggest you are not from a minority, have never been involved in any serious peaceful protest nor trade union activity and are totally unaware of he extent this government has extended powers of surveillance without judicial oversight.

If you had, you'd be more than aware of the lack of neutrality of the state. And you'd be more than a bit suspicious of it holding the DNA of every person in the entire country.

If I'm wrong, then I find your naivety shocking.

How about we just remove the DNA of innoocent people who've done nothing wrong?

Doesn't really answer my question - the advances in DNA have made it possible to put right miscarriages of justice and this is happening with more and more frequency.
People have been executed in the U.S. where DNA evidence could have saved them.
It is such a valuable resource in investigating crimes. Maybe knowing one's DNA is held on a database might put people off committing certain crimes.
I just think it is such a valuable resource that we should as a society be willing to be recorded.

It does answer your question. The state has proven time and time again to be slapdash with the data it holds on people, and also to have abused its position. Christ knows what a fascist government could do if it ever got into power with that kind of information on its citizens.

Would you like the state and police to have untramelled access to your financial records in order to catch more embezzlers?

He does indeed.

I think you have a point, although I can see where Jane is coming from as well.

What kind of things could the state do with my DNA? The most serious thing I can think of is when dna is found on something which points to you but you actually had nothing to do with the crime.

What else? how is it different to CCTV? Do you disgree with that?

insurance companies and employers would love to have access to our dna.
Seeing what illnesses we are predisposed to would save them millions.

London drz
I belieev we should all give our DNA to the authorities. Sure they would catch a lot of crims. Cannot understand why the minority do not want this.
We could also catch all absent fathers and make sure they maintain their offspring. What a bonus. Taxes will fall.

Sorry to barge in on the DNA discussion...

This is the only update i could find on the net today

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/19...rant-court

Not knowing a lot about the criminal system (due to lack of experience) this doesn't appear to say he has been charged.

What does it mean, not enough evidence, more time required...?

Actually I do disagree with the never-ending rise of CCTV. We're the most watched and most DNA sampled nation on Earth.

If we had tiny tiny crime figures that reflected such intrusion I might have more sympathy.

As to what the state can do with DNA. What can the state 'do' with any information it holds on its citizens?

The answer is, particularly with the lack of serious checks of balances we have in this country, increasingly whatever it likes.

From the article:
Grant was charged with five rapes, six indecent assaults and 11 burglaries when he appeared at the same court on Monday. Prosecutors said further charges "were likely".

ty Michael and apologies for my ignorance. So perhaps there will be more charges next week, hence a second appearance.

Sometimes relying on DNA evidence, especially when a mistake has been made, can lead to dangerous people continuing to go free while thousands of innocent people are forced (I mean 'asked to volunteer') to give DNA samples.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/610...years.html

If any of this is true, and it is from the News of the World, then it is quite shocking.

According to the article the police took DNA from the wrong person, which led to that INNOCENT person being illiminated from the case. This may have been an error on the part of the police but surely shows that taking DNA samples from INNOCENT people eliminates INNOCENT people from being charged with crimes they have not been involved in? Or have I missed something?