egafd.com

do you mean to tell me there are low lifes that would stoop down like the snakes belly and drive in a bus lane. these bastards that comit such offenses should be hunted like the wild boar of exmoor
malc

for those still checking i still could not give a toss bout me spellin

Fingerprint evidence was allowed to help get a prosecution and many a person was convicted and sometimes hanged on the basis of this evidence, years later they had to admit that fingerprinting was not as reliable as first thought so given that DNA evidence at its final source is collated by someone in a laboratory who could be having a bad day, its probably a good thing that we dont now have capital punishment.

I tire very quickly of this non debate and those who claim they aren't doing a crime when speeding but thats probably down to my best mates brother being killed nd his friends crippled for life.

There is no for speed limits to be cameras because believe it or not the speed limit is the same for the rest of the road, not just that little bit covered by the camera view.

All I can suggest is try looking at the road signs they'll tell you what the speed is and IF the raods signs aren't there try doing 30 until you find out differently.

I know this is going to sound really really silly but if you don't brake the limit the camera won't take your picture.

If you do brake the limit the answer is quite simple pay the fine, look on the bright side you could have done for driving without due care and attention.

Sorry Graham but I don't see what your point is.

Are you saying that those involved with any form of criminal activity shouldn't by added to a criminal database?

Pot luck has caught a few serious offenders wasn't the Yorkshire Ripper caught because of a broken rear light or something?

They way I see it a database of DNA would help more not less.

Take sample, take cross refrence and bingo (or not) isn't that how it works?

With regards to the someone in a lab having a bad day point wouldn't any barrister ask for a test of their clients 'sample' IF their crime was only detected by it?

I know if it was the only evidence against me and I wasn't guilty I'd be asking about it.

andy

My point randyandy is that the powers that be will rely to much on DNA when catching and prosecuting someone when maybe some years down the line we find out that DNA is not as reliable as first thought, and that this goverments rush to get as many people on the database is part of the reason why every offence is now an arrestable one, still i have no doubt that some of the MPs who have allowed all this to happen will end up on the database themselves especialy the badger watchers.

Lets get one thing straight here in that a database of DNA will not stop people committing crime. It will definitely help solve crimes but it won't stop or prevent people from committing them.

As for the debate about the list and it's ethics.........well I'm on it and I couldn't care less if I am or not. So if it helps to solve murders, rapes and catch kiddy fiddlers then so much the better.

No eduardo it will not stop crime like hanging never stopped murder, but the criminals will find out how not to leave DNA and once you have everybody on the database it will defeat itself because you will start finding more than one match for every sample found at a crime scene and lots of innocent people could leave DNA at a crime scene so the end result could mean that the criminals win and joe public who happens to be in the wrong place and leaves their DNA could be wrongly accused.

Sure of course the old bill (and others will use it to fit some people up) but they have being doing that for years.

We have a member of the local c.i.d. drink in our local pub. When he gets pissed he talks and talks too much. He was asked one day by someone if they got the right person for a serious assault. His answer was "my guvnor tells me that we can get a conviction". "So he's guilty" somebody else said. "My guvnor tells me we can get a conviction" he said again.

Which roughly translates to "we don't care if he's innocent or guilty as long as long as we get a result". Something which he admits too when he's had a few.

Take also this stupid thing that the government have brought in where Juries can now be told before and during a trial of the accused's previous criminal record (if they have one).

That's ballocks and bound to prejudice a Jury. People aren't on trial for there previous crimes and where the goverment have been sneaky is that so far they have brought this in for paedophile cases (where the public will have an outcry over anyway and have no sympathy) but most legal people says it's inevitable that this will spread and become commonplace for nearly all crimes.

Therefore all the old bill will have to do for a case is look in there local files and find someone with a record and then lay it on them. The jury will see that they have form that a derby winner would be proud of and that will influence the outcome. Then hey presto we have a conviction.

The majority of the public won't have any sympathy because they'll say "once a con always a con".

From my point of view then I'd be more worried about that than a DNA database and I only have one conviction.

Rant over.

Thanks eduardo what you have said gives cred to the point i was making.

I wasn't saying you were wrong in the first place.

I have dealt with the Police and been through the Courts and I know what devious fuckers that (most of them) they are.

I'm just saying that a DNA database isn't suddenly going to start the old bill fitting people up as they've known how to do that for years.