• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Europe protects freedom of British

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Originally posted by M_B View Post
    How would it be a breach of his human rights ? He's on trial for murder and as such his DNA can be analysed. The European ruling doesnt change that.
    It was DNA obtained from an arrest for another offence prior to the case being put together a so called dead case.It will be those types of cases that suffer. I bet Trevor Eve is sh1tting himself!
    The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

    But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post
      IMHO taking someones dna for a civil offence e.g. a motoring conviction should be outlawed, ........Add to that many serious sex offending criminals commit numerous petty offences for which they are not always convicted these people would be stopped sooner.
      Speeding is a criminal offence and no doubt some kiddie fiddlers do it, so aren't you being a bit inconsistent?

      Comment


        #23
        The argument about wives, mothers and sisters being murdered is interesting if only to highlight its weakness.

        Personalising the issue in that way will always generate the outcome to reduce civil liberties. For example, to stop your wife, mother, children, sister being murdered, wouldn't it be best if we...

        1) Brought in a ID card scheme
        2) Stop the sale of axes, screwdrivers and knives
        3) Stopped and searched all males over 12 at any time, day or night

        or again, to stop your children dying in a road accident, shouldn't we remove all vehicles from the roads.

        People cannot think logically about these issues when they focus on the victim. It's too emotive, which is why we ask our legislators and judges to be disinterested.

        It's a good decision for civil liberties, which affects more people than have had their loved ones murdered and the offender not caught.
        When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns--or dollars. Take your choice - Ayn Rand, Atlas.

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by deano View Post
          The argument about wives, mothers and sisters being murdered is interesting if only to highlight its weakness.

          Personalising the issue in that way will always generate the outcome to reduce civil liberties. For example, to stop your wife, mother, children, sister being murdered, wouldn't it be best if we...

          1) Brought in a ID card scheme
          2) Stop the sale of axes, screwdrivers and knives
          3) Stopped and searched all males over 12 at any time, day or night

          or again, to stop your children dying in a road accident, shouldn't we remove all vehicles from the roads.

          People cannot think logically about these issues .....
          WHS and for what it's worth I know for certain my Mother doesn't wish to give up her freedoms for an illusion of safety.

          Comment


            #25
            Originally posted by deano View Post
            The argument about wives, mothers and sisters being murdered is interesting if only to highlight its weakness.

            Personalising the issue in that way will always generate the outcome to reduce civil liberties. ...People cannot think logically about these issues when they focus on the victim. It's too emotive, which is why we ask our legislators and judges to be disinterested.
            That's right.

            Also, some people do seem to have this lingering idea that someone who is arrested is not really an innocent party. I don't think it is excessively liberal to say that someone who is not found guilty, and especially someone who is not charged with any crime, should then be treated as innocent.

            Some of you may not realise how easy it is to be arrested. If for example the police are called to a fight outside a pub, and you happen to be around at the time and somebody says you did it, you will be arrested. If you counter-claim that they hit you, they will be arrested too. You may well both be released later, but not until your prints and DNA go on record for keeps.

            Or try this one: Girl arrested in racism inquiry
            A 14-year-old girl has been arrested for allegedly making racist remarks at a school in Greater Manchester.
            Codie Stott said she asked to be moved from a science group where she was with five Asian pupils - only one of whom spoke English.
            ...
            Codie said: "I asked the teacher could I change groups because I didn't understand them and she said I was being racist and started shouting at me."

            A complaint was made and she was taken to a police station.

            Her mother said her Codie's jewellery and shoelaces were removed, her fingerprints and DNA samples were taken and she was put in a cell.

            Good. Now she can be matched up for every crime for the foreseeable future. Makes you feel a lot safer knowing that, doesn't it?

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by deano View Post
              The argument about wives, mothers and sisters being murdered is interesting if only to highlight its weakness.

              Personalising the issue in that way will always generate the outcome to reduce civil liberties. For example, to stop your wife, mother, children, sister being murdered, wouldn't it be best if we...

              1) Brought in a ID card scheme
              2) Stop the sale of axes, screwdrivers and knives
              3) Stopped and searched all males over 12 at any time, day or night

              or again, to stop your children dying in a road accident, shouldn't we remove all vehicles from the roads.

              People cannot think logically about these issues when they focus on the victim. It's too emotive, which is why we ask our legislators and judges to be disinterested.

              It's a good decision for civil liberties, which affects more people than have had their loved ones murdered and the offender not caught.
              You are comparing apples with oranges. If arrested they collect your fingerprints and store them and have done so for over 100 years, so why not your DNA? What exactly is the difference?
              The court heard Darren Upton had written a letter to Judge Sally Cahill QC saying he wasn’t “a typical inmate of prison”.

              But the judge said: “That simply demonstrates your arrogance continues. You are typical. Inmates of prison are people who are dishonest. You are a thoroughly dishonestly man motivated by your own selfish greed.”

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post
                You are comparing apples with oranges. If arrested they collect your fingerprints and store them and have done so for over 100 years, so why not your DNA? What exactly is the difference?
                They shouldn't be keeping either if you are not convicted - they don't in Scotland.

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by Bagpuss View Post
                  You are comparing apples with oranges. If arrested they collect your fingerprints and store them and have done so for over 100 years, so why not your DNA? What exactly is the difference?
                  I think you have your "facts" wrong about fingerprint collection and retention on arrest, too - we have records going back a long way for convicted people (which I have no problem with) but the law on keeping innocent people's prints is quite recent.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by ace00 View Post
                    .. I don't know whether to be happy (that the judgement was made) or sad that the only way to get the government to listen to the people is to sue them. And the human rights act too, oh the irony. And may I also say well done Europe
                    It's the oldest trick in the book, and probably planned to turn out this way from the start to try and put the EU in a good light for once.

                    Mr Nasty replaced by Mr Nice, simply retreating (temporarily) from a situation that should never have occurred in the first place, and wouldn't have done a few years ago.

                    But I bet there are long-term plans for DNA to be included in the biometrics stored in the ID card database, and I doubt the EU will quibble with that once they think people are used to using ID cards.
                    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

                    Comment


                      #30
                      How many times has Europe saved English business and English people's Asses?

                      I bet even Kilroy himself was jumping up and down. The BNP only did a half jump because they figured out this would also affect ethnics..
                      McCoy: "Medical men are trained in logic."
                      Spock: "Trained? Judging from you, I would have guessed it was trial and error."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X