Due to the move of the blog to Wordpress posts from Jan 2012 onward will have commenting disabled (when I remember to do it)
Cheers - AE

Tuesday, 10 March 2009

Not a police state? Yeah, sure...

This simply beggars belief.
Jacqui Smith was embroiled in another row over the Big Brother state last night after admitting that a baby had its DNA recorded on the national database.
The Home Secretary said the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored.
Liberal Democrat spokesman Chris Huhne said: 'It is illegal, immoral and ineffective to keep the DNA of a baby on a national police database as if they had committed some felony.'
What the fuck? It's so outrageous that even the ilLiberal Democrat Chris Huhne has taken time out from his busy schedule opposing free speech to condemn the retention of a baby's DNA by the authorities.
Changes to the law forced through by Labour have allowed the police to take samples as soon as a person is arrested, then keep it permanently even if they are later cleared of wrongdoing.

But, with the age of criminal responsibility set at ten in England and Wales, there are no circumstances in which this can have happened to a baby.
Yeah, I was wondering that myself. The Mail speculates:
The most likely explanation is that the sample was taken from the baby at a crime scene at which they were present, such as the family home, in order to avoid any confusion. Mr Huhne said it should have been immediately destroyed.
Chris Loon is absolutely right. There is no fucking excuse whatsoever for this. I can imagine a situation such as the Mail suggests in which DNA needs to be taken for elimination purposes, but once that's achieved its aim it must be destroyed without delay. Bad enough - and don't get me wrong, it's very bad indeed - that DNA is kept when people are simply charged. Not actually convicted, but just charged. But as said, under tens can't be charged with anything anyway. Is it paranoid or cynical to suppose that if this hadn't come to light the bastards would have kept that DNA record along with those of the other million or so children on the database?

Honest to Christ, pick a dictator. Any dictator you like. Now tell me that they wouldn't have traded parts of their anatomy to be able to do this sort of shit?

H/T to a poster called "sinister" at Nanny Knows Best.

UPDATE: I wonder.... just noticed this on the UK Libertarian Party unofficial blog:
Dr Butler found that in just one year - 2006/7 - half of the 722,464 DNA samples collected by the police came from children, including a seven-month old girl.
And what I'm wondering if this is the child mentioned in the Daily Wail article, which said:
The Home Secretary said the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored...

Miss Smith, revealing that the sample had been stored, said: 'As at November 26, 2008, the youngest person with a profile on the NDNAD was aged under one and the oldest was over 90.'
If it is the same child then they kept the DNA for at least 18 months and possibly over two years. Alternatively, if it's not the same child that means they've done it more than once. Either way, what utter utter bastards.

1 comment:

Sue said...

Makes you wonder what crime the poor little sod committed!

Sue in Spain :)

Related Posts with Thumbnails