<No, that's simply an argument for having a proper system of trial by jury.
And a fully funded system of Legal Aid to make sure people can fight bum raps>

and flanneruk's retort was the above

to which i retort:

If there's a DNA mix-up and it points to me there will be no convincing any jury - rather it would cement the false conclusion.

Not sure what it is about U.K. becoming the Big Brother state:

CCTVs everywhere - several hundred times a day the average person is caught on film

OysterCards can track your every movement on Transport for London

Speeding cameras catch speeders like robots would

Now the world's largest DNA base by far.

I guess if you don't have a written Constitution you really have no rights.

Oh God, another sheeple.

I haven't committed any crime, I have no intention of committing a crime therefore WHY should I be on any database

You want a good reason why it's a bad idea - it's expensive for the results it gets. Even today when most of the people on the database are criminals less than 0.5% of prosecutions rely on DNA evidence. Covering everybody - plus visitors to the UK won't raise that %age very much as most crimes are committed by people who will be on the database because they've committed a crime in the past.

You've also got the problem of the bigger the database, the longer it takes to get results - and the greater the chance that such results will not be accurate

Then, like ID cards, you've got the problem of "function creep" where someone decides to use the database for purposes not intended - whether legally or illegally. Imagine if the DNA database had been around at the time of the LEGAL anti-war protests - or the marches by the Countryside Alliance. Think of how a government could use that information.

Then, like the DVLA database, there's the illegal use of the database - pay someone to find out if a child is the "lovechild" of someone famous then blackmail that person

The reason that the use of DNA is so small is we're discouraged from using it as it costs a lot (it's mainly done by private labs which are expensive).

So as well as the civil liberties issues there is the simple fact that it doesn't actually help much.

For example - you'd think it would be used a lot in rape cases - it isn't. There is rarely any dispute that sexual contact took place, so there's no need for DNA testing.

" guess if you don't have a written Constitution you really have no rights."

Wow! The US constitution covers DNA testing? I am seriously impressed!

Oddly; DNA evidence is much more admissable in the USA than here (where it can be a bit of a bugger)

" guess if you don't have a written Constitution you really have no rights."

Wow! The US constitution covers DNA testing? I am seriously impressed!

not specifically of course but any mandatory DNA testing of all citizens would not survive a Constitutional challenge - much like mass drug testing of all high school students has not - they can drug test athletes and those in extra-curricular activities but not a blanket test of all students - because of Constitutional challenges, and thank God for the ACLU - i'm a proud member for many years.

it's called the right to privacy which U.K. obviously lacks in its codification of laws.

All your database are belong to us.

Human rights in the UK are nothing to do with a constitution written or otherwise.
See http://tinyurl.com/3b2vcj

I think that I'll settle for the UK personally.
The US has about 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population.
When it comes to state murder of its citizens, it's in the illustrious club that includes China ans Saudi Arabia,
There are two countries that have not ratified The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Somalia and the United States. That means that they reserve the right to execute juveniles.
The words "mote" and "beam" suggest themselves.

Josser - why do you hate their freedoms?

Josser - i echo everything you say

It's a disgrace that courts have interpretted the Constitution to allow the execution of juveniles

W in a famous pre-first election move refused to block the Texas execution of a mentally ill juvenile (juvenile at time of crime) to buff up his tough on crime rep.

Yet all that has little to do with the privacy issue so is a canard when talking about that.

I believe U.K. can even block a media organization of printing or saying something in advance - whilst U.S. has strong tradition of no prior to printing, etc. censorship.

We actually do have more personal rights i believe guaranteed by a written Constitution, which i believe G Brown wants to U.K. as well.

That the Constitution allows those other tragedies is a result of 'activist' judges re-writing the Consitution - to a right-wing take.

Constitution is only as good as judges who interpret it, of course. But so far U.S. may have the world's strongest personal freedoms.

PBob <The famous in the US Duke Lacrosse gang rape case showed that DNA mix ups and screw ups can and do occur.>

What mix up or screw up occurred? I don't remember that, except that the DNA was not disclosed by Nifong.

alanRow - <or the marches by the Countryside Alliance. Think of how a government could use that information.>

Please tell me. Thank you.

except that the DNA was not disclosed by Nifong

that's the danger - bad cops or prosecutors playing around with it - i would not have trusted him with any DNA

I suspect that the DNA revelation was the pivotal factor in the dismissal. Without the DNA, it would still be a matter of shesaid/theysaid.

There was no mix up or screw up. It was pure deliberate malice. DNA saved the students.

Jed, simple one - lets call him/her in for a REALLY close look at their taxes. Or how about every time they fly they get "SSSSed" because their name appears on a list

Governments have always had means for legally (and not so legally) harassing people and I don't want them to have even more strings to their bows

Jed - of course i believe that too and that was not my point - scurilous prosecutors can't be trusted was my point.

"But so far U.S. may have the world's strongest personal freedoms."

How so?

no prior censorship before publication

complete freedom of speech save the 'fire in a crowded theater' thing

no mandatory DNA testing like i guess is possible in U.K.

man's home is his castle

like U.K. has blocked publication of certain books i believe - not possible here unless national security i believe

i just don't think the civil liberties documented in our Constitution are that iron-clad in U.K.

I could be wrong.

and the internment of British subjects on British soil - IRA, etc. for years without charges

U.S. has managed to do that in Gitmo with foreign nationals - a farce of international law to me

but neever stands up with a U.S. citizen and certainly one in the U.S.

that's a major indicator of personal freedom guarantees. IMO

Hi PB,

>this is exactly the type of authority that i was pointing out not to be trusted and why DNA testing may be manipulated by unscrupolous cops

the lacrosse players suffered so long because of DNA implications that were bogus.<

May I suggest that you pick a better example. The DA in this case withheld more than just DNA evidence. It was the DNA evidence that cleared the accused.

>For example - you'd think it would be used a lot in rape cases - it isn't. There is rarely any dispute that sexual contact took place, so there's no need for DNA testing. <

Ummmmm. Often rape cases involve an unknown perp, or so I am led to believe by the liberal biased media.

There is important new information in the Madeline McCann case. Blood, hair and other evidence from the from which she was abducted show her DNA.

>Wow! The US constitution covers DNA testing? I am seriously impressed!

The Founders weren't that prescient.
The 4th amendment states:
" The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

>...it's called the right to privacy ...

In truth, there is no defined right to privacy, as Judge Borke pointed out. However, see above.

There's nothing in it and maybe the contrary.

Censorship only if it will prejudice a trial or threaten national security.

Mandatory DNA testing will never go through. I believe that currently you aren't even obliged to identify yourself to the police unless arrested.

Total freedom of speach, save incitement to violence. Say what you like about Queenie.

Home being castle predates Magna Carta.

Books? The last one I can think of was Lady Chatterley's Lover on grounds of obscenity. But then again you guys banned beer......

Not sure which civil liberties you are talking about. We never had segregation, which I assume was covered by the same Constitution (?)

HUAC and McCarthy?