in thinking the dna database should not be removed

[ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana]

i prefer the police having a massive dna database don't you?

I don't, no.

WHATSMYNAME, are you on the dna database? If not, why not?

no i dont. i think its awful and should be illegal. if it isnt already

No. Then again, I've never committed a crime so am not on it.

Depends, I have no real problem with the police having a database of people who have been convicted in a criminal court.
I'd have a huge problem if someone like Kerry McCarthy got her way and felt that large portions of the population should provide DNA samples to prove they are innocent.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-12145602

As soon as you are arrested they take your DNA, whether you want them to or not. It then remains on the database whether you are found guilty or not. It is percieved as a punishment. You either do everyone or no-one at all.
They sold the DVLA database, what is to stop them from selling this one?

I'm sure the police would take your DNA and add it if you'd feel everyone should adhere to the 'If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear' bollocks.

But who knows what you think about it with such a short OP.

I don't think that makes a difference Chickens given the amount of innocent people on it.

ive never been arrseted so have never given my dna, but i'd be more than happy to.

"As soon as you are arrested they take your DNA, whether you want them to or not. It then remains on the database whether you are found guilty or not. It is percieved as a punishment."

Which I'd disagree with, I think that dna data should only be retained in the event of a criminal conviction.

I would not be happy about being on the DNA database. And I have never been in trouble.

Well then WHATSMYNAME, pop along to a police station (they're open all hours) and ask them to take a swab. Tell them you think it's a great idea and would like to be on the database.

Do report back here when you've done it, won't you?

I didn't know that dna was kept unless there was a criminal conviction. Nah, not keen. Far too open to abuse.

"As soon as you are arrested they take your DNA, whether you want them to or not. It then remains on the database whether you are found guilty or not. It is percieved as a punishment."

this is actually illegal, there has been a european court case. but for some reason uk is not in a rush to change current practices...

I can't see what the problem is. I would rather rapists and criminals in society were swiftly identified and arrested.

You'll be off to see them today then OP?

I'm sure they'll be really impressed with such an upstanding member of the community putting themselves forward for the prize of 'Most smugly innocent citizen' award, and probably suspicious of your motivations.

I'm sure the police could find most people guilty of at least a couple of things if they looked hard enough and at small enough things.

Only if a conviction is made - outrageous that so many perfectly innocent people's dna is kept

MrsRuffallo, you pop along too. The bigger the database, the better, right?

Just curious, why are people so anti it? On face value I think a DNA database is a good thing, what issues should I be considering?

If you think the database could be just used for catching Very Bad Men MrsR, you need to be looking at the imaginative ways the terrorism acts are used by the police.

I dont think everyone should be DNA tested but I think if you're arrested then your DNA should stay on the database.

The law up here is different - they can't keep the DNA if someone isn't charged or convicted, except they can keep it for 3 years in the case of people acquitted of some violent or sexual offenses, presumably "just in case" they get a match for it on a similar charge within that timescale. Not perfect, but way better than keeping it just because you've been suspected of something trivial.

England is one of the worst places for civil liberties these days!

it's not just if you are arrested that you are added to it.

dh's car was broken into.

he reported it, as had a couple of things stolen.

police took a swab, so as to eliminate him from enquiries (they were fingerprinting the car etc)

his sample remained on the database, even though he was totally uninvolved int he crime.

Don't understand your point. I haven't committed a violent crime of late so it would be a waste of time.

My issue (and I fully admit to reading a hell of a lot of crime novels) is that it's extremely hard to argue against dna evidence, yet it would no longer be purely the individual with the dna iyswim. At the moment, if traces of me are found, they have come from me

Terrorism is a crime committed by quite bad people , don't you think?