HearFromYourMP

Comments

• Posted by Michaella Hagger, 15:09, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I personally wouldnt mind them having my DNA as i know ive done nothing wrong. In fact I think that it would be benificial for them to have everyones DNA as then it would be easier to find criminals. Also then people wouldnt feel singled out.

• Posted by Fiona Turner, 15:17, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I personally have no problem with everyone's DNA being held on a database so long as security can be reasonably guaraneed, which with the current Government, does not appear to be possible.I believe the problem arises when distinctions are made between those arrested and charged and not charged. It would make policing easier and believe would assist in the medical world.

• Posted by Richard Bragg, 15:25, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I don't trust anyone with this sort of details, least of all those whose performance maybe measured on using that data.

  You really have to think on how a future group could abuse this power and data and not simply take a "I've done nothing wrong so nothing to hide mentality". Jews in Germany had done nothing wrong except be Jewish when the Nazis came to power.

  I think that DNA should only be taken and kept when there is a need for it, same as any other data, and when that need expires should be removed completely.

  Prosecution have to prove guilt not the other way round and I'd rather see some guilty go free than some innocents punished.

• Posted by karen anderson, 15:50, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I have mixed feelings on this one. Initial response is that as you haven't been found guilty of a crime you are presumed innocent. DNA samples aren't taken from the general public so shouldn't be kept. Otherwise it's tantamount to criminalising people for being in the proximity of a crime, for mistaken identity or for unfounded accusation etc.

  However, presumed innocent or not, common sense and hard evidence show that not everyone IS innocent .. some have just escaped justice. Those DNA samples DO solve or confirm other crimes.

  So is infringing people's rights a price worth paying? Perhaps the rights of the majority are better served by enabling the police to apprehend criminals rather than just observing the right to anonymity.

  I still don't know.

• Posted by David Illsley, 17:31, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  The possible future problems for those on the database - identity theft/loss, loss of/inability to buy medical cover, inability to get a job, inaccurately accused of a crime, racial/genetic profiling suggest that being on the database is something that should be voluntary unless you're in the process of being prosecuted for a crime, are convicted of a crime, or are between being acquitted and some form of appeal/retrial.

  The notion that it'll help convict people is clearly inaccurate (if you've got a suspect with credible evidence, the police can always get a fresh DNA sample to confirm the suspicion and convict). Clearly it may help identify suspects, but given the people the discussion tends to revolve around are well known by the police, my guess is that it's not necessary in most cases.

  If MPs genuinely believe the 'if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to worry about', they should only pass the measure if it includes a requirement that all MPs have DNA samples taken and kept indefinitely. That would have a practical and beneficial effect. It would give MPs an incentive to keep the database secure, accurate, and prohibit trawling of the database for questionable reasons, and by unsuitable parties.

  So my views are that the proposals (at least as I've heard them) strike the wrong balance, and I don't want my DNA on the database if I'm wrongly arrested because of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

  David

• Posted by David Wilkie, 20:05, Thu 14 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I cannot understand why any law abiding person would have any objection to their DNA being held on a central registry. I can understand only why criminals would be anxious to avoid having such details held. For most of the violent crimes, and for even plain burglary,being able to identify the person whose DNA has been left behind at the scene of the crime, etc., would lead to an immediate arrest of the CORRECT person, and save thousands, probably millions, of wasted police manhours trying to guess who is the villain, and save taxpayers money. It would also lead to a reduction of incorrect punishment of non offenders. Isn't this a good thing?? Rapists would be so easily identified it would almost certainly lead to their identification after their first victim,leading to a reduction of that revolting crime. Why do all these goody-goody people who claim such a register is in some imagined way an intrusion on their privacy object to cutting down on rape, murder, burglary, and all other violent crime ? Why are we worried about our DNA details falling into the wrong hands. What is anybody going to do with these details if they have them ? I don't care who knows my DNA. I don't have any crime to hide.

• Posted by Dave Craven, 05:05, Fri 15 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Is this some form of diversionary tactic to relieve the heat over the MP expenses fiddles? I think the mood of public opinion is one of NO confidence in any of the political parties and a referendum should be called immediately to purge the system of the all the rotten apples, before embarking on any further legislation.I would also include the House of Lords and the MEPs as they too seem to have other ways of generating personal wealth at the tax payers expense.

• Posted by David Illsley, 08:01, Fri 15 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  David Wilkie, This isn't a database which holds your phone number, but your DNA. In the coming years, that might well enable a police officer who pulls you over for speeding and taps your name into their PDA to see that you've got an genetic disease that you don't know about yet.

  The other disagreement I have is the notion that the database leads to an immediate arrest of the correct person. No database is 100% accurate, and for those people whose details are incorrect (through incompetence or malice) are likely to find themselves on the receiving end of pretty robust treatment and a presumption of guilt from police officers who think they've got the right person. Added to that is the fact that it clearly isn't a magic wand. The database exists today with even more expansive retention policies and the conviction rate for rape is still devastatingly low.

  David

• Posted by Ian Waring Green, 08:56, Fri 15 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  I agree with Dave Craven when he suggests that this is a diversionary tactic away from the current fiasco at Westminster. NONE of the MPs that I have heard seem to understand the seriousness of all this and the arrogance of the likes of Margaret Beckett (Question Time, 14th May) shows their imperviousness. There is a widespread immorality in Parliament -it is all very well claiming that most people are doing a good job and are innocent, but if this is true, why, time after time, have MPs voted by a majority to try to hide the details. Indeed, my understanding that they are still trying to do so. As for grand gestures such as paying capital gains tax of £13k, how about repaying the Capital Gain itself? We have a deep moral corruption at the heart of our Government, and so any assurances given on the safety of a DNA or any other database (remember ID cards?) is currently worthless.

• Posted by karen anderson, 14:40, Fri 15 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Diversionary? maybe! It's disappointing to admit that (most) MP's aren't worthy of our trust but just look at society and you could argue they are still representative!! Perhaps if other sectors of society hadn't been allowed to cream off vast ill gotten gains, in the form of ludicrous salaries and bonuses, then the rest wouldn't feel a compulsion to follow on that greed trail. Uneven distribution of wealth is a breeding ground for corruption.

• Posted by Ian Waring Green, 08:23, Sat 16 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Chicken and egg here - isn't it more likely that the arrogance of MPs (not a new phenomenon) and the "I have done nothing wrong" mantra in the face of plain misconduct (again, not new) has led the rest of us, rather than the other way round. Having said that, with a 38% turnout in the last General Election maybe we have got the politicians we deserve. The main thing now is to accept the fact that they are not capable of policing themselves and to insist on some form of control for when the media loses interest in this particular story. We have a huge amount of damage being done to our democracy, not least by the current responses of MPs to being found out. Restore trust and acceptance of judgement in such matters as DNA databases etc? Show that Parliament is not above the law, and put some of these criminals behind bars, or at least ban them from being MPs. As for the Speaker - I'm Speechless.

• Posted by karen anderson, 09:26, Sat 16 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Having re-read other people's comments on here I am most persuaded by Richard Bragg and David Illsley. Karen

• Posted by Mark Oaten, 08:28, Sun 17 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  thanks for comments re the idea that i only asked about dna to take your minds of expenses

  please do me a favour do you really think i would go to that kind of effort

  actually each day i get 100 e mails- so far in total 4 on expenses- and about 10 on dna

  but if you want to have expenses as a topic i am cool with that

• Posted by Mark Oaten, 10:03, Thu 28 May 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #

  Thanks to everyone who got in touch - on here and on email.

  Very constructive comments, some who agreed there should be no database, some who believe it is not a problem.

  However one thing that is encouraging to me is even those of you who do not have a problem having your DNA collected agree that it should be all or nothing, e.g. people who are innocent and wrongfully arrested should not be singled out.

  I am going to sumbit my cocnerns to the consultation and I feel that it will reflect the opinions shown here.

  Mark

Commenting on this message is now disabled.