in thinking the dna database should not be removed

[ohnanaWHATSMYNAMEohnana]

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

LyingWitch - so you would assume all women are probably untrustworthy? I would have felt seriously insulted at the suggestion that I had been unfaithful to my husband, and he would have felt equally insulted on my behalf, if anyone had suggested that it should be "checked up on" just to make sure he was my baby's father.

And how would it solve women not knowing? If she didn't ask his name at the time, how could he be tracked down to be tested as a potential father?

I would love to be a fly on the wall with her first test subject, if LyingWitch got her way!

But then I wouldn't be keen on the blood when whoever was forcibly taking it got punched in the face.

But it was reported last year that the NHS had been compling a secret database of blood taken from babies heel prick tests, which the police and coronors can apply to access to 'identify people involved in crimes'.

So babies, well, our children, might not actually be on the police DNA database, but the police can access them and other personal information about the individuals.

AMumInScotland... No, not at all. I didn't think that anybody trustworth might feel insulted by it; I wouldn't have minded but then like you, there would have been no suggestion that the baby wasn't my husbands.

I didn't think about whether you'd be told the results either, just a database so that if there were medical needs, or need to check paternity for any reason, the information would already be there.

It's the women who lie that I have a problem with... it's very unfair to lead somebody to believe that they're the father when they aren't; bad for the child, bad for everybody.

Yes, obviously if a woman can't remember who the father is then the paternity issue will be the same as it is now, a mess.

Thanks for that link, Agent Zigzag. Very interesting.

No, I hate the idea of a DNA database that includes anyone except criminals who have been convicted of violent crimes on it, for all the convincing arguments given above.

Using blood samples from infants for research after informed consent is OK, but it shouldn't be released to anyone who wanted it for commercial reasons. It's a bit like the scandal a few years back of aborted foetuses being used without consent. Again, if it's going to help someone with Parkinson's Disease, you'd consent, wouldn't you, so why don't they just ask you properly?

The DNA database idea (a New Labour one) was a bad one.

I know this is a tenuous suggestion but, if ever there was a "thin end of the wedge" towards a Big Brother state, this was it.

Notwithstanding the massive invasion of privacy and presumption of guilt over innocence (i.e. "why do YOU not want to be on it?"), the idea forgets how inefficient, corrupt and just, basically..."wank" the organs of State are.

Those lefties on here that have indicated their pleasure at its demise should reflect on what their view says about them and their preferred relationship with the State.

Not for me it's not monkey because the possibilities for using the database go further than just catching rapists and murderers.

Hmm, so despite him being on the database, he managed to murder five women before being fingered.

Not a stunning example, is it?

YABU I don't believe that the State should the DNA of millions of innocent people.