• This is a stand-to for an incoming competition, one of our most expensive yet.
    Later this week we're going to be offering the opportunity to Win £270 Rab Neutrino Pro military down jacket
    Visit the thread at that link above and Watch it to be notified as soon as the competition goes live

DNA Database Breach of rights

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#1

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#5
Still one in the eye for the plod & control freaks though Hackle.
Interesting that the Law Lords said it was not a breach of the HR law but the European Court disagreed.
 
#6
Good! Now let's congratulate the judges before Part-Time-Pongo decides in his ultimate wisdom that human rights are an unworthy issue for a military forum and bins this thread too.
 
#8
Will this government abide by the court judgement? Do they have to? Will they ignore this edict? Will they change the law or bring in a new one vis-a-vis retention of personal data that has to be challenged through the whole judicial process again?
The control freaks will not like it.
 
#9
exile1 said:
Will this government abide by the court judgement? Do they have to? Will they ignore this edict? Will they change the law or bring in a new one vis-a-vis retention of personal data that has to be challenged through the whole judicial process again?
The control freaks will not like it.
Our government only accepts European Law that suits it.
Hence the removal of the right to silence.
 
#10
Spliffy Smiff has already said she will ignore the judgement until they have had time to consider it - so that could take some time and some sort of expensive challenge or tinkering with laws to get round judgement should be expected.

Did anyone expect a swift grovelling apology for treating millions of people as if they were criminals?

It is a dreadful state of affairs when a democratic country like ours sets up laws that even the European Courts think are draconian and unfair.
 
#11
But even if they change the law will it still not be illegal?

I thought that ECHR applied to all of us in its entirety not that you can cherry pick the bits you like.

Nice to know that Ms Smith is looking for a way to get round it though.
 
#12
tearsbeforebedtime said:
But even if they change the law will it still not be illegal?

I thought that ECHR applied to all of us in its entirety not that you can cherry pick the bits you like.

Nice to know that Ms Smith is looking for a way to get round it though.
You would have thought so wouldn't you? But no, HMG reserves the right to ignore the European Convention on Human Rights. The prime use of this in the past has simply been to enforce Gatso usage, thats how they get around forcing you to admit to the crime of speeding in spite of it being illegal under Eoropean Law to force a confesion.
They did manage to get the Law Lords to issue a ruling that admitting to driving a vehicle wasn't the same as admitting you were speeding but prior to that HMG simply stated that when it comes to Human Rights British Law takes precedence over European.
Don't expect reason or justice from the shower of shite that govern us
 
#13
If this does change anything and those not convicted can request their DNA is taken off the Data base, as I'm sure they won't do it as a matter of course, how can you 'prove' that it has been removed? If they want it on there and you request it removed, what's to stop them just saying that they have, while keeping it on a second 'emergency' data base?

Tin foil hat? Me?
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#14
TopBadger said:
Seems the EU ain't that bad after all.
One of its better decisions. I'll bet Jacqui Smith was 'disappointed'. These commy b&stards wanted all of us on it, whether you were a criminal or not. Blair openly said that it was one of his aims.

Don't be led by this 'if you haven't done anything you've nothing to worry about' sh*te that gets churned out either.

For those who promote that played out clap-trap (usually after a high profile murder), can they provide the figures showing how many crimes the NDNAD actually solved last year, the year before an in every year since it was started, against the actual crime figures for England & Wales? That doesn't include crimes where the suspect was already known and could have been convicted on other evidence anway.

This decision may have been reached by a European Court, but it is one which has promoted our beliefs that this is a free country, despite the efforts of this Government to turn it into a dictatorship. I wonder if they'll remove the 117,000 samples belonging to kids which shouldn't be there either or whether they'll just keep schtum about it?
 
#16
Will be interesting to read exactly how the judgement works.
I have had my fingerprints, DNA etc taken about half a dozen times by the Police (why they do it repeatedly on every arrest is beyond me, its not as if my fingerprints or DNA are going to change is it?)
I do have a conviction from many many years ago for forgery, long since a spent conviction, but that predates DNA being taken when arrested, will they still have the legal right to keep my DNA?
I have never been tried or convicted for anything on the occasions my DNA was taken
 
#17
That fat faced sexually unattractive old hag is still looking for a way around this.
 
B

Biscuits_AB

Guest
#18
western said:
That fat faced sexually unattractive old hag is still looking for a way around this.
I find her quite arousing in a strange, perverted, got a thing for plump chicks, sort of way. If she wants a sample of my DNA, I'll give her one. 8)
 
#19
This ruling will force HMG to examine why and when DNA samples are taken from persons in custody. It will also force them to consider how and when these samples are retained and removed from the database. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will or have to change the law.

As regards the right to silence I can assure Arrsers that this hasn't been removed. Jagman is referring to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which places an obligation on the registered owner of a vehicle to disclose who the driver was when an alleged offence was committed. This is probably most commonly used in association with speeding offences and is a big bone of contention. It has been argued that you cannot be forced to incriminate yourself as you have a right to silence. It is worthy of note however that this legislation also applies to the chav twat who piles into your car while the Mrs is taking the kids to school and then f***s off from the scene leaving the carnage behind. In those circumstances I'm happy to live with one thing if it gives me another.
 
#20
Whats wrong with having a DNA register

surely it would help to detect crime

and aid in the prevention of crime

in all seriousness- whats wrong with having

every citizen registered on the DNA data base
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top