BF2S Forums DNA information Bank UK

thats not good

Someone is probz gone want to steal my dna and try to make a perfect human race. .

I think that a DNA bank would be a step up from fingerprint ID. I know that in the last 20 some odd years alot of judicial cases have come to faster closure thanks to DNA evidence. So I would venture to say that a regulated system of DNA Banking would be a great idea. The key word there is regulated. I wouldnt want my DNA distributed for any purpose other than filling for ID purposes in criminal cases.

yeah but you only give your fingerprints after you have been arrested (as with current DNA samples) everyone isn't fingerprinted before hand.  To Bertster -  they DNA sampled the entire population of N.Ireland back in the early 90's (on the grounds of terrorism obviously)- when you went to the dentist a DNA swab was taken from the inside of your mouth, they didn't make a big song and dance about it, it was just done. What makes you think that the government wouldn't implement this in England/Wales/Scotland etc etc?

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-01 06:43:23)

ZoMG?!@#!@ V for Vendetta comming true?

IG-Calibre wrote:

people got pissed off about the closure of rural post offices, fox hunting, and the war in Iraq too, what's your point?

Fox Hunting got banned and there is a subsidisation scheme running into billions of pounds to keep as many rural post offices as possible open. That's my point.

The war in Iraq, well that's different entirely.

Bertster7 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

people got pissed off about the closure of rural post offices, fox hunting, and the war in Iraq too, what's your point?

Fox Hunting got banned and there is a subsidisation scheme running into billions of pounds to keep as many rural post offices as possible open. That's my point.

The war in Iraq, well that's different entirely.

I don't think that Calibre was pointing out those individual cases as backing for his beliefs. He was just saying that people will be pissed off regardless. Take these forums as a microcosm of the public. People get pissed off while others are nonchalant. There will always be people pissed about one thing or another, that isn't a good basis to make decisions.

Last edited by Earl_SwaggerJr. (2006-11-01 07:04:56)

Earl_SwaggerJr. wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

people got pissed off about the closure of rural post offices, fox hunting, and the war in Iraq too, what's your point?

Fox Hunting got banned and there is a subsidisation scheme running into billions of pounds to keep as many rural post offices as possible open. That's my point.

The war in Iraq, well that's different entirely.

I don't think that Calibre was pointing out those individual cases as backing for his beliefs. He was just saying that people will be pissed off regardless. Take these forums as a microcosm of the public. People get pissed off while others are nonchalant. There will always be people pissed about one thing or another, that isn't a good basis to make decisions.

And my point was that when a lot of people are pissed off about something, it tends to get changed. With 2 out of 3 of the examples he gave, this has been the case. There are many other examples too.

People won't stand for it. This sort of over-hyped media attention on matters like this is probably a good thing, because it mans more people will speak out against it. If lots of people speak out against it the government won't do it.

kr@cker wrote:

it should be purely consentual, you should have full access to your file, and (in the event of a concerned parent logging in their child in the event of a kidnapping) you should be able to have it destroyed/walk out with all copies of it under your arm should you wish it.

Damn straight! Except in the case of criminals, or someone under investigation, if found innocent they should have the option of having their DNA file destroyed.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-01 07:25:06)

IG-Calibre wrote:

actually my point was  the mass demonstrations pro fox hunting did not stop it being banned. Also the other point; is anyone who has been DNA sampled and has not been charged have not had their information removed from the database it is still being held - where are all the marches to have this information removed? in effect the cataloging is under way already! even though the government assured that only criminal DNA would be stored when the system was proposed in Great Britain..

In answer to your first point, fox hunting was banned because more people protested about it than for it. There were protests when it was banned, but those protestors were in the minority.

I know DNA samples do not get removed from the databases when people are not charged, I was only suggesting that it should be.

If you look at the way that the idea of biometric data on ID cards disappeared due to public disapproval, you can see an example why I don't believe everyones DNA will be sampled in the UK at any time in the foreseeable future.

IG-Calibre wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

fox hunting was banned because more people protested about it than for it

thats not the way I remember it i'm afraid.  The pro hunting lobby was out in major force prior to and proceeding the passing of the bill. remember the countryside alliance march on Parliament? -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

If you look at the opinion polls from varying sources, over a number of years, you can see it to be the case. The best fox hunting has ever done in an opinion poll is 48% of the public for it. In 1997 when the issue was first raised in Parliament under this government, hunting was only viewed favourably by a little over 20% of the public. That means fox hunting has never, in recent years, been supported by a majority.

IG-Calibre wrote:

and who says that the  biometric data on ID cards has disappeared? http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/scheme- … oduced.asp

Seems I was wrong on that one. They've kept that pretty quiet. They pulled the scheme just before the general election in May last year, because of it's unpopularity - they must have snuck it back in some time after that. The idea was withdrawn due to public disapproval - but it seems it's now back on the agenda for the future. It hasn't happened though and I doubt it will. It is something the conservatives oppose, as do the majority of the public - which means that it'll probably never happen out of fear of losing votes to the opposition.

Facial biometrics are another story though - they can get those from a photograph and I think they are included on the new passports. But then that's only really like a photo, I don't care about that - nor do I think the majority of the public will.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2006-11-01 10:54:43)

Bertster7 wrote:

IG-Calibre wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

fox hunting was banned because more people protested about it than for it

thats not the way I remember it i'm afraid.  The pro hunting lobby was out in major force prior to and proceeding the passing of the bill. remember the countryside alliance march on Parliament? -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2274129.stm

If you look at the opinion polls from varying sources, over a number of years, you can see it to be the case. The best fox hunting has ever done in an opinion poll is 48% of the public for it. In 1997 when the issue was first raised in Parliament under this government, hunting was only viewed favourably by a little over 20% of the public. That means fox hunting has never, in recent years, been supported by a majority.

IG-Calibre wrote:

and who says that the  biometric data on ID cards has disappeared? http://www.identitycards.gov.uk/scheme- … oduced.asp

Seems I was wrong on that one. They've kept that pretty quiet. They pulled the scheme just before the general election in May last year, because of it's unpopularity - they must have snuck it back in some time after that. The idea was withdrawn due to public disapproval - but it seems it's now back on the agenda for the future. It hasn't happened though and I doubt it will. It is something the conservatives oppose, as do the majority of the public - which means that it'll probably never happen out of fear of losing votes to the opposition.

Facial biometrics are another story though - they can get those from a photograph and I think they are included on the new passports. But then that's only really like a photo, I don't care about that - nor do I think the majority of the public will.

I think we're missing the wood for looking at the tree's here. Did all the demonstrations stop the poll tax? did the Miner strikes accomplish anything? or the Hunger Strikes in N.Ireland for that matter? my point is DNA profiling will become mandatory (they have all ready taken a head start by keeping all DNA data that have been stored even though it's only supposed to be that of convicted criminals, as for  biometric ID cards - most people objected to having to pay 150 quid for one, that was the main objection to them.  People will demonstrate against it no matter the Government that is in power at the time when it is introduced but they will introduce it..

Last edited by IG-Calibre (2006-11-01 13:22:37)

The first step was to take away your weapons of defense, then to get your DNA on file, right before they revoke all freedoms!