Sussex Police 'one of the worst for removing DNA records' (From The Argus)

Why is it only in exceptional circumstances that you can make an appliucation? Surely everyone who has not been charged can apply. In fact the onus should be on them to ask you if they can keep it on record, not the other way around.

I agree with cheezburger,these are DNA records of innocent people.Why should the police keep the details?If they were forced to remove the DNA records it would also stop police arresting people purely to get their DNA not because they believe a crime has been comitted.

This goes on because the police are out of control. They are too big for their boots. They need to be brought down several rungs.

The police today are not about keeping the police and general law enforcement. They are just about control of the population. They fear us, the public. The people who are law abiding.

It will be a sad day, but it is likely to come, when the public just reject the police completely. Stopping hundreds of thousands of people to search them, without suspicion, was the thing that did it for me. They have completely lost my trust. I won't ever help the police after that. Not in any circumstances.

Jonny Knows wrote:
I agree with cheezburger,these are DNA records of innocent people.Why should the police keep the details?If they were forced to remove the DNA records it would also stop police arresting people purely to get their DNA not because they believe a crime has been comitted.

Are you saying that to get a reaction or do you actually believe what you just said?

If the latter I'll warn you it's a bit breezy out so you might want to tie your tin foil hat to your head when you pop out to by the Daily Mail and your paranoia medicine

Not surprising really. Sussex Police is one of the worst forces in the country. I was recently involved in a minor motoring incident, the (Sussex) Police insisted I give my DNA, I pointed out that the offence was not a 'recordable' offence and they said OK ! So either they wanted to 'trick' me into giving them my DNA or they really didn't know basic law !!! I wonder how many others have been tricked in such a way?

D360 wrote:

Jonny Knows wrote: I agree with cheezburger,these are DNA records of innocent people.Why should the police keep the details?If they were forced to remove the DNA records it would also stop police arresting people purely to get their DNA not because they believe a crime has been comitted.

Are you saying that to get a reaction or do you actually believe what you just said? If the latter I'll warn you it's a bit breezy out so you might want to tie your tin foil hat to your head when you pop out to by the Daily Mail and your paranoia medicine

The Daily Mail?!I'm insulted,that 'news'paper is the antithesis of my beliefs.

ACPO guidelines? Since when does the police create the law?
Last week Susses police announced they were prepared to arrest people without any evidence of a crime having been committed (legal highs).
Full confidence of the public? They lost that long ago.

Conor wrote:
ACPO guidelines? Since when does the police create the law? Last week Susses police announced they were prepared to arrest people without any evidence of a crime having been committed (legal highs). Full confidence of the public? They lost that long ago.

I am sorry to say it, but you are right.

I have said before several times that I am not against the police. I am against bad policing. Arresting people in the belief that they are innocent but just possibly guilty goes way too far. These innocent people will end up on the criminal DNA database and won't be removed from it.

The police have simply gone too far. I won't do anything against them, but I certainly will never help them. I don't think I'm alone thinking like that.

The police depend on the public. The more support they lose, the worse it will be for them.

Considering how many old cases of rape and murder (sometimes decades old) are solved thanks to DNA I'm really shocked how against DNA keeping you folks are.
Any terrorist who has even sweated at a crime scene would also be caught?
EVERYONES DNA should be on record after all If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear and far less oppresive than all these cameras all over the place
Maybe it could be taken when a baby is registered?

Tye wrote:
Considering how many old cases of rape and murder (sometimes decades old) are solved thanks to DNA I'm really shocked how against DNA keeping you folks are. Any terrorist who has even sweated at a crime scene would also be caught? EVERYONES DNA should be on record after all If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear and far less oppresive than all these cameras all over the place Maybe it could be taken when a baby is registered?

The cases you refer to are very far and few between. And the police make a very big noise about when there is one, to try and convince us.

The "nothing to hide" argument is total rubbish. It has been proven over and over.

The "terrorist" argument is also full of holes. It just links somebody to a scene, it doesn't mean that they did a crime.

If you want your new born baby to be treated as a potential criminal, that is fine. But speak for yourself. You are the type of person who cooperated so so well in occupied France.

bibbleworld and the land of Jonny Knows paranoia!

Where is the EVIDENCE that police arrest to obtain DNA? Not Argusite's opinion, speculation or belief, or reference to some headline grabbing junior journalist's article - but EVIDENCE.

bibble not anti police, just anti bad policing? Well I never.

What is amazing is, so am I.

But to make the judgement as to what is good or bad policing one has to have judgement and to be willing to understand and reason and most importantly, not have a bigoted view.

So, that explains why bibble is always so wide of the mark.

I will repeat what I have said before on this subject. I have serious concerns about the collection, retention and storage of DNA.

It has and continues to result in significant detections, particularly of serious crimes.

Nevertheless, legislation needs to be introduced to limit when DNA can be taken and when it is retained.

bibble says: "I won't ever help the police after that. Not in any circumstances."

That is the difference between him and the police - if ever he needs help, protection or assistance the police will help him.

nothing to hide............?

bibble wrote:
This goes on because the police are out of control. They are too big for their boots. They need to be brought down several rungs.

The police today are not about keeping the police and general law enforcement. They are just about control of the population. They fear us, the public. The people who are law abiding.

It will be a sad day, but it is likely to come, when the public just reject the police completely. Stopping hundreds of thousands of people to search them, without suspicion, was the thing that did it for me. They have completely lost my trust. I won't ever help the police after that. Not in any circumstances.

Essentially (but not in all cases) helping the police is assisting a victim of crime getting justice and an offender being brought to book for what they've done, so by not helping them, means a victim doesn't see their crime being detected and an offender gets away with it.

I know you feel very strongly anti-police, but I think you're wrong on this one.

ambassador wrote:
bibbleworld and the land of Jonny Knows paranoia! Where is the EVIDENCE that police arrest to obtain DNA? Not Argusite's opinion, speculation or belief, or reference to some headline grabbing junior journalist's article - but EVIDENCE. bibble not anti police, just anti bad policing? Well I never. What is amazing is, so am I. But to make the judgement as to what is good or bad policing one has to have judgement and to be willing to understand and reason and most importantly, not have a bigoted view. So, that explains why bibble is always so wide of the mark. I will repeat what I have said before on this subject. I have serious concerns about the collection, retention and storage of DNA. It has and continues to result in significant detections, particularly of serious crimes. Nevertheless, legislation needs to be introduced to limit when DNA can be taken and when it is retained. bibble says: "I won't ever help the police after that. Not in any circumstances." That is the difference between him and the police - if ever he needs help, protection or assistance the police will help him.

Where is the evidence? Have a look here: http://www.timesonli
ne.co.uk/tol/news/uk
/crime/article692901
7.ece

And the fact that the fascist poolice are unwilling to remove the DNA of INNOCENT people is more proof.

HF 05 wrote:

bibble wrote: This goes on because the police are out of control. They are too big for their boots. They need to be brought down several rungs. The police today are not about keeping the police and general law enforcement. They are just about control of the population. They fear us, the public. The people who are law abiding. It will be a sad day, but it is likely to come, when the public just reject the police completely. Stopping hundreds of thousands of people to search them, without suspicion, was the thing that did it for me. They have completely lost my trust. I won't ever help the police after that. Not in any circumstances.

Essentially (but not in all cases) helping the police is assisting a victim of crime getting justice and an offender being brought to book for what they've done, so by not helping them, means a victim doesn't see their crime being detected and an offender gets away with it. I know you feel very strongly anti-police, but I think you're wrong on this one.

The police have stepped over the line to arrest innocent people, and they boast about it. The only crime victim in this case is the person who has been arrested. So, no, I will not help the police.

There are other circumstances, of course. But that is just too bad. The police have caused this ill-feeling. The ball is in their court. But all they do is keep on piling on with the fascist aspect.

If, for once, they said "yes we are wrong. We should just return the DNA of innocent people. We will not arrest innocent people who then have to prove their innocence", I might change my mind. But not until then. No chance at all.

Why should Bibble help the police, (S)he is not paid to do so.
I wouldn’t help the police either.
.
Beep Beep.

The filth have no time for these office type things because they are all out on the streets busily solving crime .....

Tye wrote:
Considering how many old cases of rape and murder (sometimes decades old) are solved thanks to DNA I'm really shocked how against DNA keeping you folks are.
Any terrorist who has even sweated at a crime scene would also be caught?
EVERYONES DNA should be on record after all If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear and far less oppresive than all these cameras all over the place
Maybe it could be taken when a baby is registered?

Google on "Phantom of Heilbronn" and find out how the German police spent 15 years looking for an imaginary female serial killer. Then ask yourself how many innocent people have been convicted because of the blind faith nearly everyone has in the value of DNA evidence.

I said EVIDENCE bibble, I spelled it out for you and you STILL came back with none!

You quoted a newspaper article! That's NOT EVIDENCE! Do you not understand what evidence is?

In fact, if one believes what one reads in the press, the article you sighted PROVES my point!

It states "a retired senior police officer told the commission: 'It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so'".

Read his lips stupid "if there is a power to do so". So, these are not unlawful arrests.

You should also try to understand that ALL people arrested are innocent bibble, until a court convicts them.

BUT, even if a court finds them 'not guilty' (different from innocent) it does not mean they were arrested unlawfully.

You really do not understand what you are arguing about do you. You don't appear to understand what others are saying.

But, you really should try to understand the meaning of what YOU are saying when you use such terms as 'arresting innocent people'.

And you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole.

Not wishing to further confuse your already confused mind bibble, I agree with much of what was said in the quoted article.

But that is because I understand what was being said, have an open mind and the power to reason.

Psycho Bob wrote:
Why should Bibble help the police, (S)he is not paid to do so.
I wouldn’t help the police either.
.
Beep Beep.

Frankly, I don't think they would ever WANT his help.

Let's hope YOU never need police assistance then...

ambassador wrote:
I said EVIDENCE bibble, I spelled it out for you and you STILL came back with none! You quoted a newspaper article! That's NOT EVIDENCE! Do you not understand what evidence is? In fact, if one believes what one reads in the press, the article you sighted PROVES my point! It states "a retired senior police officer told the commission: 'It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so'". Read his lips stupid "if there is a power to do so". So, these are not unlawful arrests. You should also try to understand that ALL people arrested are innocent bibble, until a court convicts them. BUT, even if a court finds them 'not guilty' (different from innocent) it does not mean they were arrested unlawfully. You really do not understand what you are arguing about do you. You don't appear to understand what others are saying. But, you really should try to understand the meaning of what YOU are saying when you use such terms as 'arresting innocent people'. And you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Not wishing to further confuse your already confused mind bibble, I agree with much of what was said in the quoted article. But that is because I understand what was being said, have an open mind and the power to reason.

Did you read the article? Properly?

It details an INDEPENDENT report, with references, backing up the truth that the police arrest people just to swell the size of the DNA database.

I'm in two minds about you. You are either very stupid, and therefore unable to understand simple reasoning. Or you are a police stooge, here to try to put across a pro-police stance.

Whichever it is, you are failing.

Ambassador likes to mislead people.

The retired pooliceman said "It is apparently understood by serving police officers that one of the reasons . . . is so that DNA can be obtained".

He also said that "the tradition of only arresting someone when dealing with serious offences had collapsed. "

That is the truth. The poolice are fascists.

bibble wrote:

ambassador wrote: I said EVIDENCE bibble, I spelled it out for you and you STILL came back with none! You quoted a newspaper article! That's NOT EVIDENCE! Do you not understand what evidence is? In fact, if one believes what one reads in the press, the article you sighted PROVES my point! It states "a retired senior police officer told the commission: 'It is now the norm to arrest offenders for everything if there is a power to do so'". Read his lips stupid "if there is a power to do so". So, these are not unlawful arrests. You should also try to understand that ALL people arrested are innocent bibble, until a court convicts them. BUT, even if a court finds them 'not guilty' (different from innocent) it does not mean they were arrested unlawfully. You really do not understand what you are arguing about do you. You don't appear to understand what others are saying. But, you really should try to understand the meaning of what YOU are saying when you use such terms as 'arresting innocent people'. And you are digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole. Not wishing to further confuse your already confused mind bibble, I agree with much of what was said in the quoted article. But that is because I understand what was being said, have an open mind and the power to reason.

Did you read the article? Properly? It details an INDEPENDENT report, with references, backing up the truth that the police arrest people just to swell the size of the DNA database. I'm in two minds about you. You are either very stupid, and therefore unable to understand simple reasoning. Or you are a police stooge, here to try to put across a pro-police stance. Whichever it is, you are failing.

Yawn, here we go again in Bibbles black and white world.

Exactly right cheezburger, bibble reads an article, assumes it is accurate and then adopts it as truth if it supports his prejudice.

He also ignores the fact that I have stated that I am in principal against the level of the gathering and retention of DNA.

He repeats himself constantly and ignores any challenge to his argument.

Where is your EVIDENCE bibble? NOT newspaper reporting or opinion - EVIDENCE?

ambassador wrote:
Exactly right cheezburger, bibble reads an article, assumes it is accurate and then adopts it as truth if it supports his prejudice. He also ignores the fact that I have stated that I am in principal against the level of the gathering and retention of DNA. He repeats himself constantly and ignores any challenge to his argument. Where is your EVIDENCE bibble? NOT newspaper reporting or opinion - EVIDENCE?

Oh dear, ambassador still does not get it. Let me tell him again, ever so clearly. It is not the newspaper article per se that I am quoting. The newspaper article refers to an independent report. That report states that people are being arrested to swell the numbers of the DNA database. It is very very clear. Except to ambassador.

I am now going out. I will avoid any poolicemen, so I don't get wrongfully arrested for possessing a headache pill. Or a pack of Smarties - cos they could be drugs.

Happy new year, everyone.

Tye wrote:
Considering how many old cases of rape and murder (sometimes decades old) are solved thanks to DNA I'm really shocked how against DNA keeping you folks are.
Any terrorist who has even sweated at a crime scene would also be caught?
EVERYONES DNA should be on record after all If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear and far less oppresive than all these cameras all over the place
Maybe it could be taken when a baby is registered?

tye, this is the very thing i keep saying. people like bibble, who are very clearly anti-police, just ignore these facts entirely. i do believe, however, that the point that is being made here, is that the police are very slow at destroying the dna they have taken. DNA should ONLY be taken from 'convicted' people, and not as a matter of course. i do, though, agree with the idea that DNA should be taken at birth, and from EVERY immigrant and 'alien' person entering this country. it is the most accurate way of identifying anyone, and will place a person at a crime scene. anyone who disagrees with this may well have something to hide!!

davyboy,

I am not deputising for bibble in his absence - honest! :-) but I disagree, respectfully.

I have ABSOLUTELY nothing to hide, but I simply believe that having a population DNA database is intellectually immoral. I fully understand the principal of your proposition though.

Nor do I believe that DNA should be retained in the way it is at present.

But now that bibble has gone I can say this.

I believe police will arrest someone for a GENUINE minor offence if they believe that person is responsible for another serious crime or serial crime, and in doing so they will obtain his/her DNA which will prove or disprove the persons involvement in the more serious crime/s.

Perhaps they otherwise would not have arrested that person BUT IT IS NOT AN ILLEGAL OR UNLAWFUL ARREST.

I can see that some would see this as questionable, but it is not unlawful and it is well intentioned and I believe that most right minded people would say 'well done' if it takes criminals off the street - or indeed conversely proves peoples' innocence!

When bibble says police are arresting innocent people I think he is trying to say that they are making unlawful arrests - but the concept is clearly a little complicated for him.

His allegation of a conspiracy by police to get as many DNA samples as possible is clearly a paranoia issue or simply muddled thinking.

My guess is he has 'history' (and police have his DNA) and thus he has issues with the police.

Happy New year.

PS: the security word this time is 'knee-able'! Why did that make me think of bibble and smile?

It's more the fact that we allow access to other countries and they can use it in their courts to convict people (sometimes in their absence) in a foreign court. I'm not sure about that being a good thing. At least with the courts over here you can have a chance of finding out what is going on.

I agree.

Ambassador, Google Linda Catt!

Aware of those issues. Your views?

bibble wrote:

Tye wrote: Considering how many old cases of rape and murder (sometimes decades old) are solved thanks to DNA I'm really shocked how against DNA keeping you folks are. Any terrorist who has even sweated at a crime scene would also be caught? EVERYONES DNA should be on record after all If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear and far less oppresive than all these cameras all over the place Maybe it could be taken when a baby is registered?

The cases you refer to are very far and few between. And the police make a very big noise about when there is one, to try and convince us. The "nothing to hide" argument is total rubbish. It has been proven over and over. The "terrorist" argument is also full of holes. It just links somebody to a scene, it doesn't mean that they did a crime. If you want your new born baby to be treated as a potential criminal, that is fine. But speak for yourself. You are the type of person who cooperated so so well in occupied France.

oh come off it - I've always thought of your drivel as black propoganda by the right wing
May I also say that as someone who believes everything in Spooks ( and does the teenager argument - its only terrorism If its people you disagree with - I suggest putting a bomb on a train on a bus is wrong - no its different if you are a jew, muslim yank rubbish you spout)- go to bed dear -its well past your beddy weddy time ;-)
To be honest - its because of our democracy, our police and our army that YOU can spout your **** without being killed or tortured

Well said!

Some of us argue, logically, intelligently and sensibly, for a fairer society.

But at least we can do so freely.

There will always be those innocent people who fall foul of - for example - police attempts to control anarchists and criminals, as there are likewise criminals who escape justice.

Believe me, police at street level do their honest best and have little or no influence over senior officer's or government's policies.

It is not a perfect world. We should always defend the rights of honest people to protest etc., and fight, lobby and argue for a more perfect system.

bibble said:

"The "nothing to hide" argument is total rubbish. It has been proven over and over. The "terrorist" argument is also full of holes. It just links somebody to a scene, it doesn't mean that they did a crime."

'Total rubbish & proven over and over'? Great argument bibble, I'm convinced.

'Terrorist argument is also full of holes'? Good in depth argument bibble, you must be right.

When you grow up and go to college you must join their debating society - it will give them unlimited entertainment!

Links somebody to the scene but doesn't prove they did it?

So Billy Burglar's DNA is found in my house; he's never been a guest in my house; I've never met him or ever come into contact with him; I think he did it!

ambassador wrote:
bibble said:

"The "nothing to hide" argument is total rubbish. It has been proven over and over. The "terrorist" argument is also full of holes. It just links somebody to a scene, it doesn't mean that they did a crime."

'Total rubbish & proven over and over'? Great argument bibble, I'm convinced.

'Terrorist argument is also full of holes'? Good in depth argument bibble, you must be right.

When you grow up and go to college you must join their debating society - it will give them unlimited entertainment!

Links somebody to the scene but doesn't prove they did it?

So Billy Burglar's DNA is found in my house; he's never been a guest in my house; I've never met him or ever come into contact with him; I think he did it!

Gone are the days when the police were there to protect and help the public. We now have a thinly veiled corporate gang, raising revenue at every opportunity. How much are DNA profiles worth?

Another paranoid geek!

Allegations! Allegations!

Where is the EVIDENCE?

I bet you believe in 'area 51'?

So much of our personal data is freely available already. Census data and birth records are publicly available as is a lot of the electoral register, detailed credit reports are kept on us, tesco record exactly what we buy in their stores, Google street view shows anyone what our homes look like....

I don't understand why people get so concerned that the police check DNA samples of arrested people against DNA found at unsolved crimes, how does this infringe anyones rights? I can only assume its down to paranoia

ambassador wrote:
bibble said:

"The "nothing to hide" argument is total rubbish. It has been proven over and over. The "terrorist" argument is also full of holes. It just links somebody to a scene, it doesn't mean that they did a crime."

'Total rubbish & proven over and over'? Great argument bibble, I'm convinced.

'Terrorist argument is also full of holes'? Good in depth argument bibble, you must be right.

When you grow up and go to college you must join their debating society - it will give them unlimited entertainment!

Links somebody to the scene but doesn't prove they did it?

So Billy Burglar's DNA is found in my house; he's never been a guest in my house; I've never met him or ever come into contact with him; I think he did it!

i like your style, and fully understand both sides of this debate. this will run for a long time. bibble, on the other hand, has his anti-police stance, and will continue this decade the same way. no-one will convince him otherwise. DNA is an important bit of evidence in any crime scene, and having a catalogue of known offenders would surely be a useful tool in the investigators box of tricks. that was my point when i said that only convicted criminals should have their DNA kept. i can also see a need for 'immigrants' to have theirs taken on arrival.

Folks,I can commit a crime and plant a couple of head hairs at the scene of the crime that I've gathered from a seat on a bus.The person who belongs to that hair has a lot of explaining to do to the police.In the case of the Birmingham four,the cops would have planted the dna to convict!They planted a fingerprint of the Brighton bomber as they couldn't prove he'd been in the country.I wish people would wke up!

D360,

I do not have a problem with the DNA of suspects CHARGED with a recordable offence being retained, but if they are found not guilty it should be destroyed after say 5 years.

That reasoning is not the result of paranoia but of believing in confidentiality of innocent people.

I also think that the vast amount of available (and hackable) data that you mention, is very undesirable and far from justification for police being able to hold unrestricted DNA data. It is perhaps reason to try and reduce the amount of data on individuals that is in circulation.

In deed, the very fact that the vast majority of people have so much extant ID data already, particularly credit cards, NI cards, driving licences, etc., is justification for arguing against compulsory ID cards.

To turn the argument on its head - I think the government's ill-advised drive to force ID cards on UK citizens demonstrates paranoia on the part of the government.

Compulsory ID cards will do nothing to combat the issues the government claims; may force a few criminals / illegals out of the woodwork; but will inconvenience the entire population and cost us all a £massive amount.

davyboy,

I agree with your comments about DNA except in one respect - there is no justification for recording the DNA of immigrants.

To do so would be to assume they are 'suspects', and if there is any suspicion that they are guilty of any outstanding offences, or doubt about their identity, they should not in any case be allowed into the UK.

If there is no such suspicion, then there is no justification for recording their DNA.

Can I just say how refreshing it is to have a (bibble free) civilised exchange of views, even if we disagree.

jon s wrote:
Folks,I can commit a crime and plant a couple of head hairs at the scene of the crime that I've gathered from a seat on a bus.The person who belongs to that hair has a lot of explaining to do to the police.In the case of the Birmingham four,the cops would have planted the dna to convict!They planted a fingerprint of the Brighton bomber as they couldn't prove he'd been in the country.I wish people would wke up!

Yes, you could contaminate a scene but it is highly unlikely that a prosecution would result.

A new technology should not be rejected just because it could be misused.

What EVIDENCE do you have that police WOULD have planted DNA to convict the 'Birmingham four'?

But be very careful...

Let's not forget they were released because of a miscarriage of justice, not because they were proved innocent, merely because they were not proven guilty.

There IS no EVIDENCE to support your other allegation, only the word/claim of a convicted self-confessed murderer.

Most people ARE wide awake and not deluded by conspiracy theories.

I do believe, however, that one reason that people like yourself think the way you do is because you are still basing your judgement of police and the police service on the way things were 20+ years ago.

Then, there was corruption within the police service and policing was at times carried out in a 'ways & means' manner.

Today, whilst there are some corrupt police officers and some imperfect ones, the police service is highly regulated.

Such things as the planting of evidence would be difficult to do without detection. If you do not believe that then you do not understand how the police service or the criminal justice process works.

Are you related to bibble?

With reference to this issue I will draw attention to the following points .
1) The European court has ruled the retention of DNA from innocent people indefinitely to be unlawful,this judgement is I suggest absolute and not subject to any "watering down".
2) The response of the British Government has been a desperate attempt to avoid compliance with this ruling by obfuscation and the manipulation of the definition of indefinite ie by saying 6 years counts as compliance.
3)spokesmen/women have stated in the media that ACPO will not comply with the ruling until the government gives a definite policy on this, however there has been a marked lack of enthusiasm for this ruling from ACPO indeed there seems to be considerable support from ACPO for the government to undermine and ignore this ruling in order to retain the DNA of innocent and guilty alike.
4)There has been considerable repetition of the mantra "if you've done nothing wrong you've nothing to hide" this is an extremely dangerous and foolish argument that is music to the ears of those who would enslave us
5)The number of cold cases that have been resolved with DNA is a very small number and for those of you who advocate mass DNA sampling on the grounds of public safety,as Benjamen Franklin said "Those who would trade freedom for a little security deserve neither".

Blimey! I agree with most of what chris elmes says!

I take issue with just two points.

Firstly, I too have read that "the number of cold cases that have been resolved with DNA is a very small".

What I don't know is the actual figures, and if that figure IS small, how it was arrived at, as from personal local experience I know that DNA has been responsible for MANY successful prosecutions.

It may be propaganda or it may be to do with the definition of a cold case.

It could be that other UK forces are not reviewing 'old' cases for DNA evidence - which I find that hard to believe.

Secondly, I worry when anyone uses EU legislation or Court judgements to support their argument in this way.

Too many people are anti EU (as I am) but use such judgements when it suits them. (I have no idea if this is the case with chris elmes).

I would like to see the DNA issue resolved not because the European Court says so but because it is the right thing to do.

The EU would do well to get their financial matter in order and get the accountants to sign their accounts off, before trying to dictate to member states.

Until that happens, they surely have little credibility.

I'd just like to echo Ambassadors point that it is nice to see a rational debate take place, on what is undeniably a controversial subject, without the usual name calling and "I'm right, you're wrong" attitude.

(I suspect it is largely due to the absence of a certain someone...)

Thanks for letting us know that you deem yrself as "logical and intelligent" maybe you should post more often, that would help me understand the world better.
s w sponk bubble

It's not a contraversial subject. I object to the fascist police taking a part of the body of innocent people, and retaining it in the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future.

The police are out of control. The European Court has spoken. It is time the police shut up and obeyed the ruling, and not try and avoid it.

Twelve months ago, I asked for the removal of my fingerprints and DNA samples and profile, citing "my arrest on 12th August 2004 by the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, aided by the dishonest PC Wilkinson . . . I was not allowed to see a witness statement which had led to my arrest. It was presumably by Mabry, an ex-policeman, my next-door neighbour, the most shameless liar I have met in my life."

Sussex Police refused my requests, quoting an ACPO spokesperson on "the existing
law".

I had insisted on a court hearing, but the CPS refused to offer any evidence. My role as a victim of police dishonesty and corruption has been recorded at length on my website and on YouTube.

We should not just be blaming the local police and the private company which calls itself ACPO for the lack of acceptable professional standards. Sussex Police Authority is also to blame. Its Chairman is unelected. Complaints about the police are monitored by a committee with a majority of unelected members, including a Chairman and Vice-Chairman both of whom are unelected. The people of Sussex should take more interest in this spineless agglomeration of police supporters.

Sussex Police think they are a law unto themselves...Their arrogance is outstanding and should be part of their motto. We the Public are not going to accept anything less than the removal of innocent people's data, which should be an automatic time-frame across the whole country, and not decided by some pumped up Chief Constable. Hopefully the number of Chief Constables will be cut when forces are joined.

D Merrett wrote:
Sussex Police think they are a law unto themselves...Their arrogance is outstanding and should be part of their motto. We the Public are not going to accept anything less than the removal of innocent people's data, which should be an automatic time-frame across the whole country, and not decided by some pumped up Chief Constable. Hopefully the number of Chief Constables will be cut when forces are joined.

Very well said, D Merrett.

Geoffrey Madden wrote:
Twelve months ago, I asked for the removal of my fingerprints and DNA samples and profile, citing "my arrest on 12th August 2004 by the dishonest and corrupt PC Francis, aided by the dishonest PC Wilkinson . . . I was not allowed to see a witness statement which had led to my arrest. It was presumably by Mabry, an ex-policeman, my next-door neighbour, the most shameless liar I have met in my life." Sussex Police refused my requests, quoting an ACPO spokesperson on "the existing law". I had insisted on a court hearing, but the CPS refused to offer any evidence. My role as a victim of police dishonesty and corruption has been recorded at length on my website and on YouTube. We should not just be blaming the local police and the private company which calls itself ACPO for the lack of acceptable professional standards. Sussex Police Authority is also to blame. Its Chairman is unelected. Complaints about the police are monitored by a committee with a majority of unelected members, including a Chairman and Vice-Chairman both of whom are unelected. The people of Sussex should take more interest in this spineless agglomeration of police supporters.

Police corruption is endemic. It starts at the top. I have every reason to believe your version of events. The day of just trusting the police is long long over.

Can I put forward an alternative view - these innocent motorists who complain about the cops as they were only blah blah blah , stop wasting time on innocent car drivers,fines are only a tax, I've been caught speeding so ALL Police are bad - its people like you who kill (murder?) more people in one day than terrorists do in a year so YES bring back traffic cops
I admit IF terrorists manage to set off a dirty bomb (nuclear, chemical or biological) in Brighton or London those figures would be reversed
But until then those people are innocent according to bibble and must not be arrested or even questioned and IF and when they are succesful it will be the Polices fault for not doing their job

Tye wrote:
Can I put forward an alternative view - these innocent motorists who complain about the cops as they were only blah blah blah , stop wasting time on innocent car drivers,fines are only a tax, I've been caught speeding so ALL Police are bad - its people like you who kill (murder?) more people in one day than terrorists do in a year so YES bring back traffic cops I admit IF terrorists manage to set off a dirty bomb (nuclear, chemical or biological) in Brighton or London those figures would be reversed But until then those people are innocent according to bibble and must not be arrested or even questioned and IF and when they are succesful it will be the Polices fault for not doing their job

Your illogical rant has nothing to do with entirely innocent people being arrested so that their DNA can be kept on the criminal DNA database.

It is entirely right that people are considered innocent until proven guilty in a court. If you think otherwise, please move to somewhere more to your liking. Perhaps Burma.

If the police have EVIDENCE that people are commiting crime, they should arrest and charge accordingly. If those people are merely SUSPECTED that is different. A couple of days ago we had the poolice stating that they will act illegally, by treating all persons merely in possession of legal articles as criminals until they can prove otherwise.

bibble wrote:
It's not a contraversial subject. I object to the fascist police taking a part of the body of innocent people, and retaining it in the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future.

The police are out of control. The European Court has spoken. It is time the police shut up and obeyed the ruling, and not try and avoid it.

yes it is a contravesial subject, as you clearly hate everything the police stand for, yet i don't. if your home was burgled, and DNA evidence put a known criminal at the scene, i'm convinced you would be delighted that his DNA was taken last time he committed a crime. there is a place for DNA holding, but only on convicted people, not anyone who is arrested. it is people like you, who continually 'diss' the police, that are causing this friction between us and them in the first place. if everyone was law abiding, then their job would be easy, but they are not. the police frequently come up against people who object to them, and will do anything to stop a conviction taking place. habitual criminals should be worried that they may well be caught again, but innocent people need not be.

davyboy wrote:

bibble wrote: It's not a contraversial subject. I object to the fascist police taking a part of the body of innocent people, and retaining it in the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future. The police are out of control. The European Court has spoken. It is time the police shut up and obeyed the ruling, and not try and avoid it.

yes it is a contravesial subject, as you clearly hate everything the police stand for, yet i don't. if your home was burgled, and DNA evidence put a known criminal at the scene, i'm convinced you would be delighted that his DNA was taken last time he committed a crime. there is a place for DNA holding, but only on convicted people, not anyone who is arrested. it is people like you, who continually 'diss' the police, that are causing this friction between us and them in the first place. if everyone was law abiding, then their job would be easy, but they are not. the police frequently come up against people who object to them, and will do anything to stop a conviction taking place. habitual criminals should be worried that they may well be caught again, but innocent people need not be.

No it is not contraversial.

Since when, and who empowered, the police to "stand for" anything? They are not politicians. We do not elect them. They should keep their big mouths shut and get on with their job.

If the police returned the DNA of people who are not charged, there would not be a problem. You seem to say as much yourself, with your "only on convicted people" line.

It is the police who are causing the problems with the public, not people like me pointing out their corrupt practices. What about the police last week who said they are going to treat people as guilty until they can prove their innocence? That is corruption. These corrupt officers need to be arrested and charged.

ambassador wrote:
Another paranoid geek!

Allegations! Allegations!

Where is the EVIDENCE?

I bet you believe in 'area 51'?

The evidence is all police forces and courts are registered as companies. Companies operate for the sole purpose of making profit - from us.
Is area 51 next to 52?

bibble,

You clearly don't understand the meaning of 'controversial' which this subject is. Look it up.

You clearly don't understand the principle of reasoned debate as you merely keep repeating the same point time and time and time again.

Nor do you seem to get the veiled messages being sent to you or even the overt one, so try this...

You are a complete knob.

Sorry to the rest of you.

I'll try one more time....

bibble, EVERYONE who is arrested is INNOCENT. But they are suspected of an offence and are arrested in order 1) for evidence to be gained and 2) to give them the oportunity to explain their side of the story.

Now, go away and read that a few times and then try to understand it. Unless you can understand that simple process you have little chance of understanding any more copmplex issue and no hope of putting forward a credible argument.

Why don't you just write a long paragraph about how much you hate the police? You are incapable of countering any point put forward by others.

Geoffrey Madden,

My heart felt condolences! Everyone else is wrong, lying, corrupt, etc., etc., and you are right and innocent and have been fitted up.

Pretty much the same story that every sad trouble-maker arrested tells.

D. Merrett,

"We the public..." You are spokesperson for us all then? Bit of bibbleography there I think. No, just plain bigoted arrogance. Speak for yourself, not 'the public' and not for me.

bibble,

"Police corruption is endemic." Is it? Then give us your EVIDENCE (go and look that word up before you reply with more twaddle and hearsay).

Why am I not surprised that you believe Madden's story? What do you base that judgement on? You know the facts of the case do you?

Wouldn't be that his allegations happen to suit your prejudices would it?

How old are you? I and others have assumed you are about 11 but I'm beginning to think you are no more than 6.

Tye's "...illogical rant has nothing to do with entirely innocent people being arrested so that their DNA can be kept on the criminal DNA database."

WRONG bibble you knob.

Tye's contribution was a considered comment to a controversial debate.

It is your contributions that are "illogical rants". Try to understand the difference. Get some lessons; get some help.....

You say "If the police have EVIDENCE that people are commiting crime, they should arrest and charge accordingly. If those people are merely SUSPECTED that is different."

This muddled statement proves you do not understand the basic principals (and certainly not the language or definitions) of the law.

Taking the statement as wibbled by bibble literally, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

Bugger! Does your foot hurt bibble? You just shot yourself in it! Go away and buy a law book or even a second rate crime novel and then try again.

Clue: look up the word 'believed'. You might find it useful.

Yes, I know, I'm wasting my time.

You repeat yourself again stating "No it is not contraversial."

Yes it is, knob! Look up the meaning of that word. By arguing (or in your case, ranting) you are proving that it is contraversial.

You say "people like pointing out their (police) corrupt practices."

I only wish you would! In all your wibbling, blathering, rants, you have offered no EVIDENCE of any such corruption.

You must just be repeating what you hear other allege or write or claim. Do you hear this in the pub? In the cells? In the probation office? Where?

You offer nothing but your opinion, your take on the world, your belief, no evidence, nothing to support your claims.

You even fail to accept that others (including me) agrees that the DNA retention process needs changing.

Hueman,

Right - "The evidence is all police forces and courts are registered as companies. Companies operate for the sole purpose of making profit - from us."

Blimey, that's conclusive proof!

How in the name of bibble does that prove anything? Endless 'not for profit' organisations are registered companies.

All police forces sell off office equipment, vehicles, etc., and many train other forces or agencies, for which they are paid. They therefore need to be registered to 'trade'.

People like you and bibble really need to get a basic understanding of how the world operates before you start tapping your keyboards and bumping your gums.

This debate wouldn't be happening if England used the Scottish system.i.e.;if you're innocent,your DNA isn't kept.

ambassador wrote:
bibble,

You clearly don't understand the meaning of 'controversial' which this subject is. Look it up.

You clearly don't understand the principle of reasoned debate as you merely keep repeating the same point time and time and time again.

Nor do you seem to get the veiled messages being sent to you or even the overt one, so try this...

You are a complete knob.

Sorry to the rest of you.

I'll try one more time....

bibble, EVERYONE who is arrested is INNOCENT. But they are suspected of an offence and are arrested in order 1) for evidence to be gained and 2) to give them the oportunity to explain their side of the story.

Now, go away and read that a few times and then try to understand it. Unless you can understand that simple process you have little chance of understanding any more copmplex issue and no hope of putting forward a credible argument.

Why don't you just write a long paragraph about how much you hate the police? You are incapable of countering any point put forward by others.

Geoffrey Madden,

My heart felt condolences! Everyone else is wrong, lying, corrupt, etc., etc., and you are right and innocent and have been fitted up.

Pretty much the same story that every sad trouble-maker arrested tells.

D. Merrett,

"We the public..." You are spokesperson for us all then? Bit of bibbleography there I think. No, just plain bigoted arrogance. Speak for yourself, not 'the public' and not for me.

bibble,

"Police corruption is endemic." Is it? Then give us your EVIDENCE (go and look that word up before you reply with more twaddle and hearsay).

Why am I not surprised that you believe Madden's story? What do you base that judgement on? You know the facts of the case do you?

Wouldn't be that his allegations happen to suit your prejudices would it?

How old are you? I and others have assumed you are about 11 but I'm beginning to think you are no more than 6.

Tye's "...illogical rant has nothing to do with entirely innocent people being arrested so that their DNA can be kept on the criminal DNA database."

WRONG bibble you knob.

Tye's contribution was a considered comment to a controversial debate.

It is your contributions that are "illogical rants". Try to understand the difference. Get some lessons; get some help.....

You say "If the police have EVIDENCE that people are commiting crime, they should arrest and charge accordingly. If those people are merely SUSPECTED that is different."

This muddled statement proves you do not understand the basic principals (and certainly not the language or definitions) of the law.

Taking the statement as wibbled by bibble literally, there is NO DIFFERENCE.

Bugger! Does your foot hurt bibble? You just shot yourself in it! Go away and buy a law book or even a second rate crime novel and then try again.

Clue: look up the word 'believed'. You might find it useful.

Yes, I know, I'm wasting my time.

You repeat yourself again stating "No it is not contraversial."

Yes it is, knob! Look up the meaning of that word. By arguing (or in your case, ranting) you are proving that it is contraversial.

You say "people like pointing out their (police) corrupt practices."

I only wish you would! In all your wibbling, blathering, rants, you have offered no EVIDENCE of any such corruption.

You must just be repeating what you hear other allege or write or claim. Do you hear this in the pub? In the cells? In the probation office? Where?

You offer nothing but your opinion, your take on the world, your belief, no evidence, nothing to support your claims.

You even fail to accept that others (including me) agrees that the DNA retention process needs changing.

Hueman,

Right - "The evidence is all police forces and courts are registered as companies. Companies operate for the sole purpose of making profit - from us."

Blimey, that's conclusive proof!

How in the name of bibble does that prove anything? Endless 'not for profit' organisations are registered companies.

All police forces sell off office equipment, vehicles, etc., and many train other forces or agencies, for which they are paid. They therefore need to be registered to 'trade'.

People like you and bibble really need to get a basic understanding of how the world operates before you start tapping your keyboards and bumping your gums.

Crikey!

I must be getting Old, I yearn for a decent quality of life and not be scared If I decide to go out in the evening or stay at home and be beaten up by a burglar.
Bibble and his like have already strangled the Police - Its now a service where some forces (sorry SERVICE) have handed out cards - asking for feedback
Dear Mr thug, murderer, paedo
How were you treated - with respect? called "Sir"?
Even the argus have had stories along the line of some mother on the front page claiming the police did not treat her sons "properly" and with respect i.e called SIR when they were throwing large stones at the cops
personally as they were endangering the lives of the public I'd have shot em- wouldn't do it again ;-)

@ Tye, Pembroke

Totally agree.

Free the Police Service of all accountability for 1 year and task them with striking fear into the hearts of villains.

After 1 year - see where we are and decide then.

As for DNA, who cares, it solves past crimes so they can do what they like as far as I'm concerned.

Up until about 20 years ago, there was not enough police accountability and there was wrong doing and corruption within the police.

The police & criminal evidence act (PACE) effectively (and rightly) put an end to most of that but no safeguards were introduced to protect the victims of crime or indeed the police.

Add to that the growth of 'political correctness' and it is now obvious that the pendulum has swung far to far in favour of the criminal and the whinging member of the public who resents being spoken to by a police officer.