How many millions of hard earned tax payers’ money will be spent trying to catch Jo Yeates’s killer?
Hopefully nowhere near as many as the millions that were squandered in apprehending the wrong man in the Rachel Nickell murder case, before the real killer was finally caught – and only after he had killed again.
In the Nickell case, the police finally got their man after trapping him with a scrap of DNA. And we can only pray that the savage murderer who took the life of the young landscape architect from Bristol will be swiftly snared in the same way – but what if the police don’t have his DNA?
Hasn’t the time now come for everyone’s DNA to be stored on a national register – rather than, as is the case at present, just the samples taken from criminals or suspects?
In plain and simple terms, that means every person living in this country should, by law, be required to give a sample which would then be held on a database accessed only by law enforcement authorities.
There’s no doubt that the DNA database, launched in 1995 to allow police to store DNA profiles from crime scenes and suspects, has been a useful resource in fighting crime, but it needs to be extended to include everybody.
At present if you are convicted of a recordable offence, it is stored for life. If you are acquitted or not charged following an arrest, DNA is kept for only six years – though, interestingly, the European Court of Human Rights want those samples junking immediately. (An anomaly that needs addressing by the current government).
No doubt the civil liberties brigade will be choking at my suggestion, which they would undoubtedly regard as a massive infringement on personal privacy. “How dare we all be regarded as suspects every time a crime is committed?”, they would thunder.
But if you’ve not done anything wrong, what’s your problem? Isn’t it far better to harness DNA technology and live in a society that is cleansed by the swift arrest of the evil monsters who lurk amongst us.
Bristol East Labour MP Kerry McCarthy declared at the weekend that all men in Bristol should be DNA screened as part of the hunt for the murderer of Jo Yeates – believing most would understand why they were being asked.
How misguided. Does she seriously imagine the killer would hang around, mouth open, ready to donate his swab of saliva rather than legging it at the first glimpse of a cotton bud.
Furthermore establishing DNA sampling for a specific crime, is unduly selective and manifestly unfair. We need an all inclusive programme – royalty, politicians, police, yes, and lawyers – so that we can all lie comfortably together.
And if you object? Well, I’m just wondering what you’ve got to hide.
It’s time to give us all the swine flu vaccination
Yesterday’s story on the front page of the M.E.N about three-year-old Lana Ameen, who tragically died from swine flu, is a poignant reminder of the terrible consequences of this potentially fatal infection.
Public concern about swine flu is justifiably acute. And to my mind it is now surely vital to offer an all-encompassing flu vaccine to everyone, rather than limiting it to vulnerable groups such as the elderly and pregnant.
On a personal note my birthday, Christmas and New Year passed in a blur after being laid low with flu. I felt rather sorry for myself at the time. Reading about this tragic toddler makes me realise I was one of the lucky ones.
We all deserve the chance to be lucky. That’s why everyone should be entitled to the vaccination now.
Now it’s Pippa’s turn to take centre stage
As regular readers will know, my beloved Staffie Rocco was put down in his prime after suffering the terrible symptoms of an auto-immune disease.
There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t shed a tear for him. However, Rocco’s passing has miraculously rejuvenated my other dog, a thirteen and a half year old Staffie called Pippa. She has metamorphosed into an energetic, affectionate companion and, despite her advanced age, is now enjoying a new lease of life.
It makes me realize that Pippa felt sidelined by Rocco, who was so territorial about my affection and attention. Consequently, I have shelved my plans to buy a pup so I can devote myself to Pippa. I owe her big time.
You must do the right thing …
International property tycoon Gavin French is awaiting sentence by Plymouth Crown Court after trying to pin a speeding ticket on his half-blind ailing father, who was on an operating table the moment the camera was set off.
Over my thirty year career I have witnessed so many law abiding citizens thinking they can outsmart the cops by saying someone else was driving after their car has triggered a camera, instead of simply holding their hands up and taking their medicine – usually a £60 fine and three points. Instead, they’ve been caught lying and ended up in jail with their lives and reputations in tatters.
So if you get flashed by a camera and receive a ticket do the right thing and nominate the driver – and then leave the rest to the lawyers.
Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
Couldn't disagree more with your simplistic arguments. Even if a DNA database would help identify the perpetrator of odd crime (and does truly believe any system is infallible?) it wouldn't mean the automatic arrest of a criminal. They could still disguise their appearance, go underground, leave the Country etc. Even without these flaws in your arguments the apprehension of one killer is barely justification for the cataloguing of 65 million human beings...
DNA, ID cards, human micro chipping are all huge risks to human freedom. Nick Freeman volunteer yourself and your family if you wish to but count me out.
As for you comments on flu vaccinations - ever wondered why a large percentage of UK / US doctors and nurses won't take the jab? Maybe go out and find why...
Nothing so why not have more stop and search? Why not have police ransacking homes at randomn, just in case? If you have nothing to hide........
Have to agree, if you get flashed by the dreaded device just cough up.
"Bristol East Labour MP Kerry McCarthy declared at the weekend that all men in Bristol should be DNA screened as part of the hunt for the murderer of Jo Yeates"
I didn't know they had narrowed down the murderer to a man
As a poster has quite rightly said, having somebody's DNA doesn't mean you actually have that person too. There's also the case that not all crimes committed involve the perpetrator leaving a DNA sample behind.
Lastly, though, and far more importantly, it's about time this Government (including their Labour predecessors) woke up to the fact that it is here to serve us, not the other way round.
I don't see why I, as a law abiding citizen, who having never knowingly committed any crime should have my personal genetic material stored on a publicly owned computer. I have nothing to hide but I enjoy my privacy and the right not to be molested because those pro-DNA Database, Pro-ID cards use the worn out phrase, "If you've nothing to hide, why worry". Anybody who says that should be banned from having curtains in their home. And taking DNA when somebody has been arrested on suspicion should not be allowed either or the Suspicion arrests may be used if somebody refuses to participate.
Article 8 of the European convention on human rights gives me a right to privacy. I will give my all to defend that right.
What you do when the government loses child benefit records of 25 million people?
A government that in one year has court cases brought by the information commisioner against four departments (FCO, MOD, DOH and HMRC) for loss or misuse of personal data?
Loses the personal details of 600,000 new or potential army recruits?
Loses 38,000 medical records in one area alone (the Isle of Wight)?
That treats data with so much care that the details of the entire prison population are stored on a memory stick, which is then lost?
Obviously we need to give them lots of even more personal data they can lose, or sell.
how can you put a price on finding this poor girls killer.
and how stupid is Nick would it not cost money to take EVERYONES dna or would that be free?
How can you put a price on finding this coward? How insulting must it be for Jo's family to read this morning "How many millions of hard earned tax payers’ money will be spent trying to catch Jo Yeates’s killer?" HOW INSENSITIVE I'M SURE IF IT WAS NICKS HUSBAND WHO WAS MURDERED HE WOULDN'T CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS.
How much does it cost keeping them alive in jail. I'm infuriated by reading this and ive never met jo. TERRIBLE PIC BY THE WAY!!!
WOULD IT BE FREE IF EVERYONE'S DNA WAS TAKEN
HOW CAN U PUT A PRICE ON FINDING THIS POOR MURDERED GIRLS KILLER
IF THE TAX WOULD HAVE GONE ON MORE CCTV IN BRISTOL MAYBE THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO GO ON DNA
HOW INSENSITIVE IS THIS FOOL IM SURE IF HIS HUSBAND WAS MURDERED HE WOULDN'T PUT A PRICE ON FINDING HIS KILLER
HOW MUCH IS WASTED EACH YEAR ON KEEPING SICKO'S ALIVE IN JAIL
HOW MUST JO'S FAMILY FEEL READING THIS LIKE THEIR DAUGHTER ISN'T WORTH EVERY PENNY IN BRITAIN
BTW TERRIBLE MONSTROUS PICTURE NICK HOW MUCH WOULD IT COST FOR A FACE TRANSPLANT ONE NEEDS ONE.
We live in a police state, but it doesn't mean it's right. We are not your subjects, answerable to your whims and dark agendas.
Enslaving each other is not freedom.
Forcing people to have their DNA taken is wrong and you have no right to demand it.
Unfortunately, you're so secure in those thoughts of yours, anything anyone says to you, especially on here, will go in one ear and out the other.
It's all one sided with you. Preaching at the readers about morality.
Don't make me laugh!
On this occasion Mr Freeman I must admit I agree with you totally on your DNA database article and I for one would happily supply my DNA. Problem is though the thousands of unsolved crimes obviously mean that there are thousands of unfound criminals out there who will never be willing to freely give up their identities.
As for Vote yes in May, UK - I really don't think I should remove all my curtains. In public I have nothing to hide, but in private you may not like it.
"And if you object? Well, I’m just wondering what you’ve got to hide."
In that statement you answer your own question. A national compusory database or a screening of the entire population of a certain area changes the relationship between the state and the individual. The individual is transformed into a perpetual suspect; and that is a fundamental attack on liberty and democracy. And it would not stop there, as we have seen with the creeping intrusion of the state in many areas of personal lives. More and more, people are being asked, demanded of, to prove their innocence on some of the most tenuous pretexts.
A compulsory DNA database would accelerate the shift from free individual to state suspect and lead to further state intrusion. Orwellian 1984 would be a picnic by comparison.
my problem with your DNA proposal would be the expense, the fraud that would be involved, the incompetence and lastly because I dont want too.
How long before certain people get refused medical insurance after the "database accessed only by law enforcement authorities." is sold to companies for their own screenings.
My concern is that the DNA evidence is stored on server farms along with those supporting insurance companies data. The government of the day allows insurance and third party companies to search the DVLA databases and sell this information on. Imagine what would happen if DNA material was sold on to Third party companies or insurance companies. They could use your medical information as an infeed to insurance policies or evidence for not paying out. We do not want a situation where medical data is available publically, i.e., Mr Jones your insurance policy has increased by 37% because your father had Prostate Cancer and therefore you are in a higher risk group. No.
So its guilty until you prove yourself innocent now?
I've got a few more ideas for you:
- Everyone has a tracker on their cars to check their driving and speeds
- Everyone has to take a random blood test every few months
Yes, and UK Government Ltd has a glowing track record in terms of creating, storing and protecting its' citizens data, Nick. You might recall a little incident involving 25 million child benefit records...
blackflag's rather quiet on this one?
This is a disgusting and simplistic statement. Fact is that the UK was convicted by the court of human rights for the DNA retention practices of the previous government and the new coalition government undertook in its manifesto to do something about it.Are you, like the Association of Police Officers (APCO), suggesting that the police should continue to violate important data protection principles and the Right to a Private Life of UK citizens?
If you are looking for arguments why you are so wrong join the 'Reclaim your DNA' group on face book and start reading some of the horror stories that exist today around misue of his DNA data base and learn some history lessons!
So if you get flashed by a camera and receive a ticket do the right thing and nominate the driver – and then leave the rest to the lawyers.
I would never have guessed that a lawyer had written that !
As other posters have said, there's a number of good reasons to object to a compulsory database :
1. Government incompetence in keeping data secure.
2. The selling of data to, say an insurance company, to fund the database.
3. The loss of the presumption of innocence.
4. It sets a precedent for permanent government access to other personal information.
5. It creates a feeling amongst the public of living in a police/big brother state.
6. DNA is not a magic crime solving bullet. I sure Mr. Freeman has heard of secondary & tertiary transfer (with enhanced DNA recovery techniques & possible future developments this will become more of an issue). Just because someone's DNA is at a scene does not mean they're involved in that offence.
I work for the police in scenes of crime & my DNA is on a database purely for elimination purposes. I would not agree to it for any other reason.
Can't DNA be planted in a premeditated crime ??
Nick, as a solicitor I'm surprised at you. You, better than most, know that the justice and investigatory system is FAR from flawless, and that time and again the authorities have abused their power to use information against people. One only need look at how RIPA has been abused, and how bus lane enforcement was abused.
Most public authorities can't hold data as they have deeply insecure systems that allow horrendous abuse, and permit information to be easily downloaded. To store DNA in such a system would allow major problems to arise, and identity theft to profligate.
I'll remind you that the mantra "I've nothing to hide" is often used by those marching us towards a totalitarian police state. If you truly have nothing to hide, then live in a see-through house, publish your bank details and "private" information online and don't myther the rest of us who want to live a life unfettered by the state peering at what we're doing.
"What have DNA database objectors got to hide?"
Spoken like a true idiot.
At last.
Nick Freeman has produced a constructive article.
Having our DNA stored will make absolutely no difference to murder statistics. Yes, they might catch the odd one sooner but it will not deter that murderer from killing in the first place, they just don't think that way and if they know they're on a database they'll just go about their murderous deeds in a different way. The majortiy of us have nothing to hide but some of us don't like to live in a big brother state at the same time. This is OUR world. We are the ones who go out everyday and work our arses off to give up large chunks of our money for the governments of the world to play around with. Why should we agree to this type of thing, and do you really think it would only ever be available to law enforcement? The wikileaks guy is giving us something to think about isn't he, would you seriously trust any of these politicians and world leaders? I would rather have a wasps nest stuck up my bum before I would vote for any of these creeps. My DNA is mine, I don't want to share my precious genes with anyone unless I commit a violent crime, than I wouldn't object.
Nick, when you advise someone who has received a ticket to do the right thing and take the medicine, you don't mean actually pay the ticket too, right? That would leave no room for you. What you mean is, dont argue with them, pay me to do that and I'll get you off by means of a loophole. I live in Florida and traffic tickets here are dealt with in this way. You get your ticket and have certain options. If you can't be bothered showing up in court for a pre trial hearing with the judge who basically bargains with you, you can just walk into a traffic office, owned by a lawyer of course and pay a fee and they do it for you. My last ticket I showed up at the court in person to try it myself, I bargained with the judge in front of all the other bad people who had been speeding and agreed to have the points dropped and pay half the original fine if I pleaded no contest. Next time (I'm not planning on a next time) I will go to the traffic office because I spent the whole afternoon in a court room to save the lawyers fee, which really isn't that much because they do hundreds a day by sending one office girl with all the files for a private sitting with the judge for the same outcome. You can edge your bets by telling the judge you want to go to trial, then you are in the system for maybe a year, you go to a trial with hundreds of others and if the original cop doesn't show up, your ticket is thrown out. The cops never show up because they are too busy on the streets giving out more tickets.
Now go and give Pippa a kiss, she deserves some love after being bullied by Rocco.