Less than a third of 'innocents' get DNA removed. Police in contempt of law.
November 5
noses at an ECHR ruling on the unlawful retention of the DNA of
innocent people.
Furthermore, the police's utter contempt and disregard for the law
they are supposed to uphold is plainly visible by their refusals to
comply with FOI requests.
Haha - I'm glad I've migrated out of the Socialist, police nanny state
shithole that Britain is well on the way to becoming. I'm thinking
about whether or not my family should return to visit extended family
this summer or not either. I wouldn't want to contribute a single
penny towards something so antithetical to true freedom and justice. I
must say I feel some degree of warm smugness watching schadenfreude
unfold.
Who knows, maybe the government will pass a few more laws and create
some kind of DNA complaints body, like the IPCC. More jobs for
government bureaucrats, more taxes taken and an impression they are
doing something. No one has a clue that maybe cutting laws and
government power is the answer to these problems. Instead, with every
serving of injustice, the British people hand over more power to their
masters. LOL!
Entertaining, and most amusing! :) Pass the popcorn please.
N5
http://preview.tinyurl.com/uksux1
Less than a third of 'innocents' get DNA removed
Just three in ten innocent people successfully have their DNA removed
from the national database, new figures disclose.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 7:00AM GMT 31 Dec 2009
he public also face a postcode lottery on having their profiles
deleted with some forces refusing all requests while others grant
almost every one, research by the Conservatives reveals.
It shows chief constables are still rejecting the majority of demands
to remove the DNA of people who have never been charged or convicted
with a crime despite a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights
last year that a blanket retention policy is unlawful.
There are up to one million innocent people on the national database
and the Tories are today launched an online petition calling for the
DNA of people who have committed no offence to be removed.
The removal of DNA is at the discretion of individual chief constables
but a survey of police forces found, on average, only 30 per cent of
requests are granted.
Across the 34 forces that replied to Freedom of Information requests,
some 1,372 requests of deletion were made in 2008/09 but only 411 were
granted.
The study also revealed large difference from one area to another with
six forces refusing all requests. In contrast, South Yorkshire and
Wiltshire granted 80 per cent of more while Cleveland and Cumbria
granted 70 per cent and 79 per cent respectively.
The new campaign is being led by Damian Green, the shadow immigration
minister, who successfully had is profile deleted when no charges were
brought against him after his arrest over Whitehall leaks last year.
The Metropolitan Police granted the request but the figures show the
force only approved 24 per cent of 412 requests last year.
Mr Green said: "These figures show that policy towards DNA is a
shambles. Some forces almost always give it back to innocent people.
Others always refuse. Three forces disgracefully refused the FOI
request, and one other said it didn’t have the figures.
"This is why we need a new policy which is clear and fair."
Under Home Office proposals unveiled last month innocent people will
have their DNA retained for a maximum of six years in response to the
European ruling.
The plans will also see innocent people having to pay a £200 court fee
if they want to challenge a chief constable's refusal to remove their
profile.
However, the move has still faced criticism for being too long as the
Tories have pledged to introduced a model similar to one in Scotland
where profiles of innocent people are only retained if relating to
serious sex of violent offences and only then for a maximum of five
years.
The Human Genetics Commission, a Government watchdog, has warned
police are arresting people just so they can take their DNA and boost
numbers on the national database.
Officers will arrest individuals for "everything" because they then
have the power to take DNA samples, even if they would not have been
detained under other circumstances, according to a report published
last month.
The Tory online petition, entitled 'Return my DNA', aims to raise
awareness and Mr Green added: "I have received many cases of other
innocent people who are trying to recover their DNA. They include
magistrates, grandmothers, a number of former servicemen and women:
precisely those who, like me, are instinctively inclined to help the
police.
“We all want an effective police force, and the support of the public
is one of the most vital tools for the police. For this reason it is
imperative that the police return the DNA of innocent people.”
Alan Campbell, the Home Office minister, said: "Our proposals for DNA
retention would require the police to remove profiles from the
database after six years if the person was not subsequently convicted.
"Under the exceptional case procedure, an individual can apply to
their police force to have their DNA removed. This is decided by chief
constables on a case by case basis.”
Fredxx
> Well, looks like I won a bet that the government will stick their
> noses at an ECHR ruling on the unlawful retention of the DNA of
> innocent people.
>
What's wrong with the police holding DNA records? With the cost of creating
the record, there seems little point in destroying them. If it saves a
single child and all that!!
Why not take DNA from babies when they're born and have a database of the
whole population? Would be great for the CSA in tracing fathers!!
November 5
Ho ho ho! My sarcasm meter is beeping.
Maybe the UK should import all those inclined towards a Socialist
nanny police state into the tiny isle? Let them get on with their
lives while those in favour of minimalist government go build booming
economies elsewhere.
N5
Fredxx
It may sound silly, but why wait for someone to commit a criminal offence to
take their DNA, isn't it a bit late? Stable door and horse come to mind!!
Currently the police find excuses to arrest and take DNA, why bother with
random arrests and do the job properly.
After all, if it saves only a single child, it must be worth it.
Big Les Wade
>November 5 wrote:
>> Well, looks like I won a bet that the government will stick their
>> noses at an ECHR ruling on the unlawful retention of the DNA of
>> innocent people.
>>
>
>What's wrong with the police holding DNA records? With the cost of creating
>the record, there seems little point in destroying them. If it saves a
>single child and all that!!
Castrating every male at puberty would save many children, but I assume
you're not proposing that.
The point is that, when deciding whether we ought to adopt a certain
social policy, we shouldn't look merely at the benefits listed by its
supporters. We should look at the costs too.
>Why not take DNA from babies when they're born and have a database of the
>whole population? Would be great for the CSA in tracing fathers!!
The same applies. Yes, certainly it would have its uses. I'll let others
list the downsides.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
Gary Baldi
wrote:
> Well, looks like I won a bet that the government will stick their
> noses at an ECHR ruling on the unlawful retention of the DNA of
> innocent people.
>
> Furthermore, the police's utter contempt and disregard for the law
> they are supposed to uphold is plainly visible by their refusals to
> comply with FOI requests.
>
I suspect you mean "thumb their noses"?
In any event, it was hardly surprising.
The ECHR, via a Hoverspeed ruling, instructed HMCE (now Border
Control?) to stop harrassing UK citizens via random stops at Dover
upon re-entry to the UK following a "booze-cruise".
The ruling may well have extended to other points of entry into the
UK, I don't know.
The ruling stated, unequivocally, that HMCE must not resort to random
stops and that they should have reasonable suspicion to tug a vehicle.
Random stops, of course, still go on at Dover, indeed I got pulled
myself only a couple of weeks ago. When I asked what suspicions they
had and was this a random pull, the goonie eyed my 20k vehicle and
said pointedly "nice motor, it'd be a shame to lose it, wouldn't it?"
The threat was clear; but what does one man in the street do? HMG
will do what it wants...........I hear today that the CIC who presided
over the de Menezes murder is to recieve an honour?
Go figure.............
broadssailor
Big Les Wade wrote:
> Fredxx <fre...@spam.com> posted
> >November 5 wrote:
> >> Well, looks like I won a bet that the government will stick their
> >> noses at an ECHR ruling on the unlawful retention of the DNA of
> >> innocent people.
> >>
> >
> >What's wrong with the police holding DNA records? With the cost of creating
> >the record, there seems little point in destroying them. If it saves a
> >single child and all that!!
It's been shown to be illegal, that's what. It may or may not be
reasonable, that's another debate, but in this situation conformity
with EXISTING law requires that all records of innocent people be
destroyed. The situation may well be different in the future, but for
now it's an open and shut case!
Ian
"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hhiipi$ilk$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
still, tattoo a barcode, with barcode readers on every lamp post?
Gary Baldi
>
> Why not just tattoo an ID number on everybodies forehead? Or, better
> still, tattoo a barcode, with barcode readers on every lamp post?
Because they dont need to; it would surprise you how many people
wander around with their mobiles switched on and who **dont** think
they're trackable.
broadssailor
My dog's got a chip......
AlanG
They aren't unless their numbers are registered to them. I have 3 PAYG
which are not registered to anyone
William Black
The number of people who do know that and get an untraceable PAYU phone
is considerable.
--
William Black
"Any number under six"
The answer given by Englishman Richard Peeke when asked by the Duke of
Medina Sidonia how many Spanish sword and buckler men he could beat
single handed with a quarterstaff.
Gary Baldi
>
> They aren't unless their numbers are registered to them. I have 3 PAYG
> which are not registered to anyone
So 97% of the time your phone is probably at your home address?
So they have a fair idea of where you live so they've identified you
before you start.
Oh, and none of this "it's only accurate to 500 yards" nonense.
Please.
AlanG
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>On Dec 31, 5:22�pm, AlanG <inva...@invalid.net> wrote:
>>
>> They aren't unless their numbers are registered to them. I have 3 PAYG
>> which are not registered to anyone
>
>So 97% of the time your phone is probably at your home address?
>
>So they have a fair idea of where you live so they've identified you
>before you start.
Only if they know where I live and what phone I use
>
William Black
> Oh, and none of this "it's only accurate to 500 yards" nonense.
> Please.
A commercial company is claiming 50 meters, why should anyone say 500?
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=141405
Fredxx
It was illegal because of the manner DNA testing was introduced. ID cards
and the storage of personal data by EU governments is perfectly legal.
Gary Baldi
>
> A commercial company is claiming 50 meters, why should anyone say 500?
>
It's a lot more accurate than that, more and more phones are equipped
with GPS technology which basically pinpoints you to within a footstep
of your actual location.
With my new toy (Nokia E71) I made an enquiry (cant remember which
site now) which basically asked "where am I?" (just for kicks) and it
told me I was stood outside 63 xxxx Road........and fuck me sideways,
I was indeed.
It's actually frightening.
How long before a murder takes place in, say, GL10 1AA, at 1pm and the
powers-that-be can call on everyone whose mobile has reported that
they were in that location at that time to visit their local nick
ASAP?
MM
Do like I do and only use your phone for emergencies. My phone stays
switched off in a kitchen drawer for most of the year. Only when I go
away for a few days, abroad, do I take the phone. I still leave it
switched off though and only switch it on if I need to make an
emergency call (like if the plane is delayed). Oh, and it's a PAYG and
I've had it for six years and only topped it up twice and it's still
got �10 airtime left on it. That's how much (= little) I use a mobile
phone!
MM
William Black
> On Dec 31, 5:45 pm, William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> A commercial company is claiming 50 meters, why should anyone say 500?
>>
>
> It's a lot more accurate than that, more and more phones are equipped
> with GPS technology which basically pinpoints you to within a footstep
> of your actual location.
>
> With my new toy (Nokia E71) I made an enquiry (cant remember which
> site now) which basically asked "where am I?" (just for kicks) and it
> told me I was stood outside 63 xxxx Road........and fuck me sideways,
> I was indeed.
>
> It's actually frightening.
>
If you buy a ten quid phone from Carphone Warehouse, a SIM from a
street corner wide boy and your calling credit for cash from a corner
shop you're pretty much untraceable if you're careful about when you
switch the thing on...
Gary Baldi
>
> Not really, that phone costs a lot of money because it has GPS.
>
> If you buy a ten quid phone from Carphone Warehouse, a SIM from a
> street corner wide boy and your calling credit for cash from a corner
> shop you're pretty much untraceable if you're careful about when you
> switch the thing on...
>
You're right, I can only thank the Good Lord I live in a free country
where intimate surveillance of its citizens doesn't happen.
Francis Burton
Disfiguring. It would cause a lot of unhappiness.
> Or, better
>still, tattoo a barcode, with barcode readers on every lamp post?
Assuming the technology existed to track everyone's movements,
what is the scope for misuse? Great, I think.
What is the scope for misuse of DNA samples? Finite, but much
less than having access to tracking info.
In terms of impact on people's lives, the two are not in the
same league. That said, I don't think the police should keep
the DNA of people who have not been found guilty of a serious
crime (such as the sort where DNA evidence might be crucial).
Francis
Francis Burton
Gary Baldi <tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>Because they dont need to; it would surprise you how many people
>wander around with their mobiles switched on and who **dont** think
>they're trackable.
At least one has the choice of not carrying a mobile (or switching
it off - which is what I do routinely), and afaik the cost of
tracking someone means it probably won't be done willy-nilly.
Francis
William Black
> 'William Black' wrote thus:
>
>> Gary Baldi wrote:
>>> On Dec 31, 5:08 pm, "Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Why not just tattoo an ID number on everybodies forehead? Or, better
>>>> still, tattoo a barcode, with barcode readers on every lamp post?
>>> Because they dont need to; it would surprise you how many people
>>> wander around with their mobiles switched on and who **dont** think
>>> they're trackable.
>> The number of people who do know that and get an untraceable PAYU phone
>> is considerable.
>
>
You give them a name and address when you buy the thing, they can check
the post code is valid and that's about it.
If you're Mr M Mouse of Broadcasting House, post code W1A 1AA they
don't care.
You can buy a SIM anywhere.
If you buy a Chinese 'twin SIM' phone the ID inside the phone is set to
0000 and they can't tie the handset to the SIM...
http://www.freeyourmobile.com/
Use one SIM as your phone, use the other as your covert one.
November 5
William Black wrote:
> aracari wrote:
> > 'William Black' wrote thus:
> >
> >> Gary Baldi wrote:
> >>> On Dec 31, 5:08 pm, "Ian" <i...@henden.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>> Why not just tattoo an ID number on everybodies forehead? Or, better
> >>>> still, tattoo a barcode, with barcode readers on every lamp post?
> >>> Because they dont need to; it would surprise you how many people
> >>> wander around with their mobiles switched on and who **dont** think
> >>> they're trackable.
> >> The number of people who do know that and get an untraceable PAYU phone
> >> is considerable.
> >
> > Is it not now a requirement for ALL new mobiles to be registered?
> >
>
> You give them a name and address when you buy the thing, they can check
> the post code is valid and that's about it.
>
> If you're Mr M Mouse of Broadcasting House, post code W1A 1AA they
> don't care.
>
> You can buy a SIM anywhere.
>
> If you buy a Chinese 'twin SIM' phone the ID inside the phone is set to
> 0000 and they can't tie the handset to the SIM...
>
> http://www.freeyourmobile.com/
>
> Use one SIM as your phone, use the other as your covert one.
SIM swapping is one thing, but your IMEI number is fixed to a phone.
Ergo, still traceable.
The best way to remain anonymous with mobiles is to pay cash for a
second hand one off a random person.
N5
William Black
No IMEI number in mine, but I picked it up in India...
Mustapha Allah
Alasdair
>Do like I do and only use your phone for emergencies. My phone stays
>switched off in a kitchen drawer for most of the year. Only when I go
>away for a few days, abroad, do I take the phone. I still leave it
>switched off though and only switch it on if I need to make an
>emergency call (like if the plane is delayed). Oh, and it's a PAYG and
>I've had it for six years and only topped it up twice and it's still
>got �10 airtime left on it. That's how much (= little) I use a mobile
>phone!
>
>MM
How do you manage to retain your credit? When I left a mobile phone
unused for several months without using it, I found that the credit
had evaporated.
--
Alasdair.
Alasdair
<tim.ri...@gmx.com> wrote:
>Random stops, of course, still go on at Dover, indeed I got pulled
>myself only a couple of weeks ago. When I asked what suspicions they
>had and was this a random pull, the goonie eyed my 20k vehicle and
>said pointedly "nice motor, it'd be a shame to lose it, wouldn't it?"
The name of the game is if you are doing anything naughty, use a �200
vehicle not a 20K one.
--
Alasdair.
Steve Walker
> After all, if it saves only a single child, it must be worth it.
Castrating all men or banning all motor vehicles would probably save a few
kids too, why stop at DNA?
MM
wrote:
Dunno how it works, but it does. It's a Siemens A50 phone and I'm with
Virgin Mobile on PAYG. It does NOT expire. The last time I topped it
up must have been over three years ago. I only bought the phone at all
while moving house, knowing that I'd have to contact the self-storage
warehouse, my solicitor, the vendor etc while being out of my home
environment and not yet in the new one. Prior to the advent of mobile
phones people in similar situations (moving 150 miles away) would have
had to rely on public phone boxes, but the mobile phone is a better
alternative. That said, I HATE mobile phones, which is why I only use
mine in an emergency.
MM
Dave Muir
I'm with Tesco on PAYG, which, I believe, use O2 as their provider.
I put �10 in about three years ago and still have about �6 left and no
sign of it diminishing or locking me out.
This used to happen when I was with Vodafone unless I topped it once a
year and made at least one call every six months.
They all seem to operate PAYG under different rules.
--
Dave
"Democracy is not Liberty. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on
what to have for supper. Liberty is an armed lamb contesting the vote."
AlanG
wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 18:10:09 +0000, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
Depends on the conditions of use from that supplier.
Orange are particularly bad ISTR. Vodafone OTOH will leave your credit
indefinitely as long as the account is used every few months.
johannes
I once used had to use one of those 118 numbers from London to get a
company number in Epsom. I taken aback when someone from the 118 called
me back and suggested transport possibilities from my present position
in london to Epson. It reminded of the immortal movie line: "Where are
you now Jack? Don't worry about anything al all, just stay there and
someone will ...".
Big Les Wade
>
>Is it not now a requirement for ALL new mobiles to be registered?
Not AFAIK. I bought one from ASDA recently and have not had to identify
myself.
That said, the plods can verify your whereabouts over (say) the last six
months even if your mobile is anonymous. They'd seize the call records
of your most likely contacts (home landline, wife's mobile etc) and use
those to deduce your own mobile number; and then they'd compel your
telco to reveal all the historical location information they hold for
that number.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
nux vomica
<adrianbo...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:
> Everybody should have their DNA put on the database at birth.
Surprise, surprise...!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6968561.ece
''A DUBLIN hospital has built a database containing the DNA of almost
every person born in the country since 1984 without their knowledge in
an apparent breach of data protection laws.
The Children’s University hospital in Temple Street is under
investigation by the Data Protection Commissioner (DPC) since The
Sunday Times discovered it has a policy of indefinitely keeping blood
samples taken to screen newborn babies for diseases.
Unknown to the DPC, the hospital has amassed 1,548,300 blood samples
from “heel prick tests” on newborns which are sent to it for
screening, creating, in effect, a secret national DNA database. The
majority of hospitals act on implied or verbal consent and do not
inform parents what happens to their child’s sample....''
<nux vomica>
James Hammerton
> 'Big Les Wade' wrote thus:
>
>> aracari <spamtrap@?.here.com.invalid> posted
>>> Is it not now a requirement for ALL new mobiles to be registered?
>> Not AFAIK. I bought one from ASDA recently and have not had to identify
>> myself.
>
> insisted on having an address. So I gave them one, but not my own
> because the mobile wasn't for me.
>
> I may have assumed that addresses are required from reading that
> the govt wanted to introduce such a requirement. There are so many
> policy announcements pouring out of this govt, it's hard to keep
> up with those that get implemented and those which die out after
> the headline has achieved its objective.
>
>> That said, the plods can verify your whereabouts over (say) the last six
>> months even if your mobile is anonymous. They'd seize the call records
>> of your most likely contacts (home landline, wife's mobile etc) and use
>> those to deduce your own mobile number; and then they'd compel your
>> telco to reveal all the historical location information they hold for
>> that number.
>
>
ISTR reading about a study that suggested that if you knew where a
person lived and also where they worked, you could identify their mobile
phone out of anonymised records with over 90% accuracy just by finding
out which phone most commonly travels between the two locations...
James
--
James Hammerton,
http://jhammerton.wordpress.org/
http://www.magnacartaplus.org/news/