I'm on the database, not by choice.
A young police officer moved in nextdoor, I've lived here 14 yrs without a problem. He began to park obstructively and deliberately in front of my home, on one occasion leaving the car while he went on holiday. Always leaving his drive clear and being quite aggressive when approached he started to harrass me and mine. He has breached the code of conduct on other occasions.
I asked the police to mediate and tackle the problem, they left the issue to fester, but up to now 5 police sargeants have become involved.
When I had finally lost all patience and sought to rectify the issue by discussion and tackling the officer about the offence of harrassment he later had me arrested. My DNA taken, the arresting officers explained that they were unhappy to be involved and to have to take samples.This is the second time I have replied to media stories this week regarding the police. The last one being the Panorama feature about wasted police time.
alan, birmingham, uk
This trend of blaming science for the current government's actions is quite puerile. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just trying to grab attention, rather than being intellectually bankrupt.
cyrus, Nottingham, UK
How many members of parliament and how many government ministers have any education at all at university level in the sciences. You cannot wish for rational control of scientific advances if the people who make the decisions for society have no idea what scientists are talking about!
Do you really think any of the great and good who rule us would have been able to stop Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Crick and Watson? Are you really going to go out and stop the eminent scientists at work today? I don't think you even know who they are!
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
I'm on that DNA database. I don't have a problem with everybody being on it, but I with the legality of obtaining it, its validity & sampling technique. As a biochemist I know a sample is only good if it is properly & accurately obtained, & not contaminated.
In my case, I was not advised prior to accepting a caution at Brighton police station that that meant automatic sampling which I could not refuse. In the sampling room there was a large intimidating notice on the wall to say that a forceable DNA sample should not be obtained via pubic hair!
A Group 4 custody person did the sampling. I don't know if he was trained or is legal. At the table where they took the mouth swab, was a 1m x 0.5m exhaust air fan blowing air down on to the sample, which he waved around before bagging!
The electronic fingerprint machine had an error message saying not to use the data if a light was lit. After 3 tries with it lit, the guy said don't worry, it does that all the time. End of scan. Valid data?
Tony Spencer, St Rémy de Provence, France
Science is not the problem but the quality of the people who would use and abuse it. The key difference between political philosophies is that the left think government is good for you so more is better and the right think it might not be but want to be touchy - feely on the subject, so as to match the national mood. Yobs, criminals and terrorists reinforce this conviction of the left so that there is very little that New Labour will not seek to control. Scientists have peer group review and other scientists who ruthlessly check "breakthroughs" to see if they can replicate the results. The check on the pond-life who rule us is the ballot box but since a large minority take no part in this process we certainly get the politicians we deserve.
Graham McKean, Sevenoaks, Kent
As someone who works in this field I have strong personal views about genetic information and who should or should not have access to it.
However I am a Forensic Scientist and as such my personal opinion is not relevant. What is relevant here is the role played by newspapers and television programmes. The general public rely far too heavily on the media to inform their opinion and are quite happy to be spoon fed a diet of half truths and speculation. We should all wake up and educate ourselves. Ask questions, canvas our MP's and instead of just reading the headlines, take the time to digest some of the vast amount of peer reviewed literature that is available on these subjects.
Karen Greenwood, Carlisle, UK
When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.
I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.
We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA dataase? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.
Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK
Thank you for highlighting Justice Sedley as a communist. Other former communist party members include Jack Straw and "Dr" John Reid. David Miliband is the son of and eminent Marxist, if eminence is possible in this field.
These are hard men who seek to restrict individual freedoms and enslave the population to an authoritarian socialist state. For example- ID cards, road pricing / tracking , DNA database, curtailment of jury trials, suspension of habaeus corpus, restrictions on freedom of speech and our right to protest....etc etc.
If the increasingly politicised police have everyone's DNA they could easily silence dissidents and political opposition by quiet threats of a DNA fit-up. Who will risk speaking out against the govt knowing that Labour's police state has total information on them?
David Davis has spoken passionately in favour of our ancient freedoms. It is time the Tories started shouting more loudly in defence of liberty and democracy.
D Rochester, Liverpool, UK
Tolkien had this worked out. Saruman crosses humans with orcs to make a race of warriors, the Uruk-Hai. The good characters shake their heads and say "that was an evil deed".
There is no scientific interest in creating human-animal hybrids. The motive comes from those interested in practical applications, not the pursuit of knowledge.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.
I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.
We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA database? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.
Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK
When the details about everyone in the 'higher' reaches of society - politicians,quango members, members of the Lords, high-earning captains of industry yaddayada ... then it might be considered safe enough for the details of us,the little people.Otherwise,they should respect our individual privacy and rights as solid,uncriminal citizens of a democracy.Perhaps our big mistake was in upping the salaries of all these MPs and giving them too many ideas about how entitled they are too more privileges than the rest of us!
kay, leeds,
I have also been the victim of delibrate targetting by the police to gain DNA and fingerprints on to the Police National Computer. When I wrote to Hazel Blairs through my MP she said it was necessary BUT when asked if she had hers and that of her children/grad chidren there was silence, so did the MP for Bradford West MArsha Singh. I would much rather prefer a compulsary DNA for all that the current back-handed way we now have. Lets hope the case that has gone to the European Court is successfuland the Media give it teh attention it deserves!!!
nandi logan, Croydon, uk
Stalinist tendencies are particularly distasteful when they come from the judiciary.
Simon Marshland, Bath, UK
This proposition may or may not provide a panacea against crime, but sooner or later those in favour of it will have to come to terms with the realities of implementing it.
It’s clearly controversial, and for every person who skips merrily down to the State Processing Centre chanting ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ there will be another who will not want to provide their DNA unless they are compelled to do so. And ultimately who will have to do the compelling? The police of course.
If I were asked to come up with a more efficient way to destroy confidence and trust between the general law-abiding public and the police than this, I’m buggered if I could think of one.
G Taylor, Devon, UK
42% of people polled in the Daily Mail were in favour of EVERYBODY being registered on the DNA database, that speaks volumes about the Sheep like British and their blind obedience to authority.Nearly HALF the population see nothing sinister or wrong in giving their most intimate bodily evidence to the state.
It's enough to make you weep.
edwina rigby, blackburn, england
You are right: it is the abuse of Science that is the central problem, but even Science is not without ideological camps or egotistical individuals. (e.g. Sir Roy Meadows). We should not trust Scientists either.
Shaun Okane, London, London
I'm on the database, not by choice.
A young police officer moved in nextdoor, I've lived here 14 yrs without a problem. He began to park obstructively and deliberately in front of my home, on one occasion leaving the car while he went on holiday. Always leaving his drive clear and being quite aggressive when approached he started to harrass me and mine. He has breached the code of conduct on other occasions.
I asked the police to mediate and tackle the problem, they left the issue to fester, but up to now 5 police sargeants have become involved.
When I had finally lost all patience and sought to rectify the issue by discussion and tackling the officer about the offence of harrassment he later had me arrested. My DNA taken, the arresting officers explained that they were unhappy to be involved and to have to take samples.This is the second time I have replied to media stories this week regarding the police. The last one being the Panorama feature about wasted police time.
alan, birmingham, uk
This trend of blaming science for the current government's actions is quite puerile. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are just trying to grab attention, rather than being intellectually bankrupt.
cyrus, Nottingham, UK
How many members of parliament and how many government ministers have any education at all at university level in the sciences. You cannot wish for rational control of scientific advances if the people who make the decisions for society have no idea what scientists are talking about!
Do you really think any of the great and good who rule us would have been able to stop Newton, Darwin, Einstein, Crick and Watson? Are you really going to go out and stop the eminent scientists at work today? I don't think you even know who they are!
Brian Lewis, Manila, Philippines
I'm on that DNA database. I don't have a problem with everybody being on it, but I with the legality of obtaining it, its validity & sampling technique. As a biochemist I know a sample is only good if it is properly & accurately obtained, & not contaminated.
In my case, I was not advised prior to accepting a caution at Brighton police station that that meant automatic sampling which I could not refuse. In the sampling room there was a large intimidating notice on the wall to say that a forceable DNA sample should not be obtained via pubic hair!
A Group 4 custody person did the sampling. I don't know if he was trained or is legal. At the table where they took the mouth swab, was a 1m x 0.5m exhaust air fan blowing air down on to the sample, which he waved around before bagging!
The electronic fingerprint machine had an error message saying not to use the data if a light was lit. After 3 tries with it lit, the guy said don't worry, it does that all the time. End of scan. Valid data?
Tony Spencer, St Rémy de Provence, France
Science is not the problem but the quality of the people who would use and abuse it. The key difference between political philosophies is that the left think government is good for you so more is better and the right think it might not be but want to be touchy - feely on the subject, so as to match the national mood. Yobs, criminals and terrorists reinforce this conviction of the left so that there is very little that New Labour will not seek to control. Scientists have peer group review and other scientists who ruthlessly check "breakthroughs" to see if they can replicate the results. The check on the pond-life who rule us is the ballot box but since a large minority take no part in this process we certainly get the politicians we deserve.
Graham McKean, Sevenoaks, Kent
As someone who works in this field I have strong personal views about genetic information and who should or should not have access to it.
However I am a Forensic Scientist and as such my personal opinion is not relevant. What is relevant here is the role played by newspapers and television programmes. The general public rely far too heavily on the media to inform their opinion and are quite happy to be spoon fed a diet of half truths and speculation. We should all wake up and educate ourselves. Ask questions, canvas our MP's and instead of just reading the headlines, take the time to digest some of the vast amount of peer reviewed literature that is available on these subjects.
Karen Greenwood, Carlisle, UK
When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.
I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.
We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA dataase? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.
Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK
Thank you for highlighting Justice Sedley as a communist. Other former communist party members include Jack Straw and "Dr" John Reid. David Miliband is the son of and eminent Marxist, if eminence is possible in this field.
These are hard men who seek to restrict individual freedoms and enslave the population to an authoritarian socialist state. For example- ID cards, road pricing / tracking , DNA database, curtailment of jury trials, suspension of habaeus corpus, restrictions on freedom of speech and our right to protest....etc etc.
If the increasingly politicised police have everyone's DNA they could easily silence dissidents and political opposition by quiet threats of a DNA fit-up. Who will risk speaking out against the govt knowing that Labour's police state has total information on them?
David Davis has spoken passionately in favour of our ancient freedoms. It is time the Tories started shouting more loudly in defence of liberty and democracy.
D Rochester, Liverpool, UK
Tolkien had this worked out. Saruman crosses humans with orcs to make a race of warriors, the Uruk-Hai. The good characters shake their heads and say "that was an evil deed".
There is no scientific interest in creating human-animal hybrids. The motive comes from those interested in practical applications, not the pursuit of knowledge.
Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK
When a new scientific discovery like DNA turns up we have a choice about whether to use it or not. For each application that discovery uncovers, we have a choice about whether to use it or not. Increasing science seems to lead to increasing choice.
I have a genetically based disability, and the best hope for curing this completely lies in genetic advances. Science here is leading to freedom.
We should certainly ask about the role of government in our lives, and in the balance we should strike between freedom and responsibility - but it's the application of science and the governance of that application which can affect freedom, not science itself. Would you ban a genetic medication because it shares some techniques with a DNA database? If so, it's you who is restricting freedom.
Kevin Elliott, Oxford, UK
When the details about everyone in the 'higher' reaches of society - politicians,quango members, members of the Lords, high-earning captains of industry yaddayada ... then it might be considered safe enough for the details of us,the little people.Otherwise,they should respect our individual privacy and rights as solid,uncriminal citizens of a democracy.Perhaps our big mistake was in upping the salaries of all these MPs and giving them too many ideas about how entitled they are too more privileges than the rest of us!
kay, leeds,
I have also been the victim of delibrate targetting by the police to gain DNA and fingerprints on to the Police National Computer. When I wrote to Hazel Blairs through my MP she said it was necessary BUT when asked if she had hers and that of her children/grad chidren there was silence, so did the MP for Bradford West MArsha Singh. I would much rather prefer a compulsary DNA for all that the current back-handed way we now have. Lets hope the case that has gone to the European Court is successfuland the Media give it teh attention it deserves!!!
nandi logan, Croydon, uk
Stalinist tendencies are particularly distasteful when they come from the judiciary.
Simon Marshland, Bath, UK
This proposition may or may not provide a panacea against crime, but sooner or later those in favour of it will have to come to terms with the realities of implementing it.
It’s clearly controversial, and for every person who skips merrily down to the State Processing Centre chanting ‘nothing to hide, nothing to fear’ there will be another who will not want to provide their DNA unless they are compelled to do so. And ultimately who will have to do the compelling? The police of course.
If I were asked to come up with a more efficient way to destroy confidence and trust between the general law-abiding public and the police than this, I’m buggered if I could think of one.
G Taylor, Devon, UK
42% of people polled in the Daily Mail were in favour of EVERYBODY being registered on the DNA database, that speaks volumes about the Sheep like British and their blind obedience to authority.Nearly HALF the population see nothing sinister or wrong in giving their most intimate bodily evidence to the state.
It's enough to make you weep.
edwina rigby, blackburn, england
You are right: it is the abuse of Science that is the central problem, but even Science is not without ideological camps or egotistical individuals. (e.g. Sir Roy Meadows). We should not trust Scientists either.
Shaun Okane, London, London
- 1
- 2
Next