So you're all Basques, then? Me too, since my ancestry is Scots+Irish+English in approximately equal chunks, with some German and possibly some (rather fanciful) American Indian thrown in.

I was reading a fascinating book ("Homo Britannicus" by Chris Stringer) which shows archaelogical evidence for separate periods of human habitation in what is now Britain from as far back as 800,000 years (that's not a typo). But of course, several times they must have been wiped out or forced out by climate change, until the final arrival of modern man relatively recently.

800,000 years? Sapiens Sapiens?

I read that modern humans have been around for about 250,000, were nearly driven to extinction by climate, and re-emerged about 100,000 BC with art, implying that there were two strains of Sapiens Sapiens.

(The opinions of any creationists on the above would be interesting)

fnarf, it appears most of Europe are Beaker People.

All I know, after being on the UK news forums this afternoon, and having scanned the Portuguese newspapers, is that it looks like justice for little Madeleine McCann will be forthcoming, and that the McCanns may be charged as early as this next week, with the "new analysis" of the forensic evidence-they will either be charged or possibly put in a "preventive custody" situation. That assumes of course, that they will actually return to Portugal. I, for one, don't believe they will, and would not advise them to, except through an extradition request-not at this stage.

And you can bet that the Portuguese are not going to charge Kate McCann with either murder or manslaughter, and her husband as an accessory (they are now in official "arguido" status, with certain rights) unless they have some pretty dispositive DNA evidence, in addition to other evidence, with which to charge them. DNA evidence-this is something in the world of criminal procedure that has truly brought justice-both to those unjustly accused, as well as those forgotten murder victims for whom justice would never come about but for DNA analysis.

Remember, you can build a very good case on circumstantial evidence, but you have to have a lot of it, and it has to be of good quality. You also don't need a body to go forward in a murder prosecution-it is unusual not to have one, but it's been done several times before. They are searching for the body though, my understanding from the Portuguese newspapers is that the search is somewhere around the area of the church. Kudos to the Portuguese police and their UK forensics counterparts, for calling out the deception of the McCanns, and not allowing this to turn into a Jon Benet Ramsey injustice!

WTF has this to do with the compulsory taking of DNA for everyone in the UK?

The state taking my DNA would be pointless - they would have to do it over my dead body.

Just another example of the whooo gouls in the dark, boogeyman approach to civil liberties in the west.

1. Create all these huge perceived threats that really have little effect on the daily lives of 99% of the population
2. Once those fears are in place use every trick to control that population and erode its liberties.

Yes DNA every convicted criminal - they deserve to lose their civil liberties - not the rest of us.

The state taking my DNA would be pointless - they would have to do it over my dead body.>>>>>

Only if you really really put up a fight.

In fact it's on the say so of a police inspector who can compel you to give a mouth swab, or if you don't cooperate, a harir sample including roots (ie they'll pull it out by force).

Quote from this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6986514.stm

"Allan Scott, a lecturer at the University of Central Lancashire's School of Forensic and Investigative Sciences, said cross-contamination needed to be considered.

He said "secondary transfer" of Madeleine's DNA may have occurred and that DNA is "so sensitive" that if two people met in the street and shook hands and then one committed a crime, they could possibly leave the other person's DNA at the scene."

>..if two people met in the street and shook hands and then one committed a crime, they could possibly leave the other person's DNA at the scene."<

Well I guess if you walked up to someone, spit in your hand and then shook hands, it could work.

Otherwise - bullfeathers.

>The state taking my DNA ... - they would have to do it over my dead body.<

Or from the utensils or napkins at a restaurant.

>>All I know, after being on the UK news forums this afternoon, and having scanned the Portuguese newspapers,<<

Oh dear. Most of us know that the former is highly unlikely to follow from the latter. We know nothing about this case and can't know by speculation; still less can one draw any general conclusions of any value about anything from all the news coverage of it.

I don't think there's any question that DNA analysis has potential to help clear innocent people. In the Duke and McCann cases, it's not a matter of scanning the DNA of entire population for a match. The prosecutors in Duke case didn't need to declare that the accuser had close contact with Joe Blow and John Q. Public, just that they couldn't find anything from the accused.

To go back to OP question, if I were lucky enough to go to UK anytime after such a law went into effect, it wouldn't stop me but I wouldn't like it. It starts to smell totalitarian. Ditto for fingerprinting US visitors. (but did anyone ever answer Jed's question?)

The Duke Lacrosse case gives me pause about relying on DNA - in this case the hint from the now disgraced prosecutor's statements that he had DNA evidence linking some of the lacrosse guys to the alleged rape.

Turns out he was misleading and thus caused the boys (who should not be made into role models at all like many, including Fox Noise, one of whom balther's i be proud to have any as my son) to languish under the debilitating spotlight of a serious criminal crime with very possible guilt if the DNA was actually pointing them out.

turns out was bogus and if DNA had not been involved in the process charges would have been dropped.

and even though DNA turned out to exonerate them - i just am not as trusting in police as Ira and others seem to be - there are 'bad' cops.

>and even though DNA turned out to exonerate them - i just am not as trusting in police as Ira and others seem to be - there are 'bad' cops.<

In the Duke case it was a 'very bad' DA. Had this event been some years earlier, when DNA testing was not available, it is likely that the accused would have been convicted.

There was a great article in the New Yorker a few months ago about the New York City Police Department hair and fiber lab. I was surprised to learn that hair and fiber analysis is mostly a load of crap. There's no such thing as the television "aha, a match". Mostly it's a weak probability that may provide an investigatory lead but not evidence. And there are innumerable cases of wrong convictions based on it.

DNA evidence is putting hair and fiber out of business, it seems.

<Had this event been some years earlier, when DNA testing was not available, it is likely that the accused would have been convicted>

well not too many because not that long ago a Black stripper or any Black who yelled rape at the hands of rich white boys would not even had charges filed and certainly would not have won any case.