Farking good invention!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 987806.stm

Well I do hope his human rights werent abused in way, shape or form, just after they cut his bollocks off and flushed em down the pan, old, tired, working class view I know, but thats how I feel....

exactly what i was on about the othert day

Half a story, Abingdon. The reason why a cold case review came up trumps in this case is that the defendant, Andrew Watkins, had been previously convicted of gbh on a 15 year old girl in Cardiff in 1994, when DNA had been taken. So this conviction was not the result of a random testing programme.

Would you have any budget left for cold case reviews like this if all pensioners (for example) had to be put on the NDNAD? It took long enough as it is.

And by the way, why did the police have to go to Denmark to carry out the profiling? Perhaps their labs are cheaper?

probably or maybe that thats the lab who go the contract the place i work for does testing also for the yemen and USA so its more like contract work. i agree about your budget regarding putting everyone on the NDNAD but surely couldnt the money be diverted from the ID card mess that noone wants or wont result in any worth while gain, to the NDNAD

Even better, Abingdon, save the money from your daft idea of universal profiling and Tony Blair's nasty idea of an ID card, and spend the money on education and apprenticeships. Far more likely to cut crime than more surveillance which does little to deter crime and in the meantime makes everyone feel they are living in a prison camp.

how is DNA profiling surveillance? i do agree we need more for education but crimes are alwasy going to be committed wouldnt it be nice to know by whom

According to the Report on the Surveillance Society for the Information Commissioner by the Surveillance Studies Network (September 2006), http://www.ico.gov.uk/upload/documents/library/data_protection/practical_application/surveillance_society_full_report_2006.pdf

"3.1. Definitions are vital, especially with a controversial word like surveillance. Often thought of in rather specific, targeted terms, in reality it is much more. Rather than starting with what intelligence services or police may define as surveillance it is best to begin with a set of activities that have a similar characteristic and work out from there. Where we find purposeful, routine, systematic and focused attention paid to personal details, for the sake of control, entitlement, management, influence or protection, we are looking at surveillance.

3.2. To break this down:
• The attention is first purposeful; the watching has a point that can be justified, in terms of control, entitlement, or some other publicly agreed goal.
• Then it is routine; it happens as we all go about our daily business, it’s in the weave of life.
• But surveillance is also systematic; it is planned and carried out according to a schedule that is rational, not merely random.
• Lastly, it is focused; surveillance gets down to details. While some surveillance depends on aggregate data, much refers to identifiable persons, whose data are collected, stored, transmitted, retrieved, compared, mined and traded.

3.3. The personal details in question may be of many kinds, including CCTV images, biometrics such as fingerprints or iris scans, communication records or the actual content of calls, or most commonly, numerical or categorical data."

I could go on, but I don't want to spoil the ending for you.

In the meantime, yes, of course we like to know who committed crime in all cases. But why do you make the assumption that a universal NDNAD will deliver that outcome? And do you think that outcome should be pursued to the severe detriment of policies which can reduce crimes taking place in the first place.

i didnt make that assumption i said its an aid to do so. and i welcome all aids to the provention of crime but the simple truth of the matter that crime will and always has happened, no matter how well educated someone is or if they have stable jobs. i do take on board that this will radically reduce the level of crime. i mean a lot of crime ie burglary etc are commited to feed another problem like drugs etc so all efforts to prevent the initial cause of the resultant crime should be welcomed

I take on board that DNA profiling is an important aid to crime detection, and that crime will remain a social problem even in an affluent,inclusive, educated society. I also take on board that DNA profiling is not the mother of all miracles, which ideas like universal sampling seem to suggest. You said in your earlier post

'exactly what i was on about the othert day'

Well what you were on about the other day (after Lord Justice Sedley did his best to wind people up) was universal sampling. You are wrong on that score as a general proposition, and you are wrong that the case of Andrew Watkins proves your case.

what i ment by that point was it highlights what i am saying regarding catching criminals for past crimes to assist in prosectutions, granted i didnt word it well as had to get back to work.

if the increases in DNA technology ie low copy number DNA, wasn't around this man would have never been caught similarly if he hadnt been on the NDNAD he wouldnt have been caught either.

as you stated earlier
Andrew Watkins, had been previously convicted of gbh on a 15 year old girl in Cardiff in 1994, when DNA had been taken. So this conviction was not the result of a random testing programme.

Therefore its possible that similar cases like this may prove to be closed or lead to a new suspect if more people were on the NDNAD from the resultant testing.

Yes, if more people were on the NDNAD, then more 'hits' might be secured, including in cold case reviews. But the vast cost of universal testing would not produce (i) a vastly higher rate of detection since many offenders are repeat offenders (which is the very assumption in cold case reviews) (ii) nor would it produce universal crime detection since a DNA profile is not available in all crimes. The process would also bankrupt the country, not only from the cost of taking the profiles from all people (and visitors if Sedley has his way) but also taking profiles at all crime scenes. It is evident to any rational person that selection is required in both steps and that other policies regarding crime rates and social harmony should also be considered.

The Police don't even attend 70% of crime scenes so how are you going to get SOCO there? When they do attend and evidence is found, the Police only sometimes act on it if they have available personnel and can be arsed. I have personal experience of this.

I agree.
It's all very well saying this rapist has been caught and punished, but he's going to be in prison for quite a lot less than his 8 yr sentence. So in a quite short time he's going to be with us again. He's been described as a violent and dangerous man. Prison won't change that. I think the DNA issue, focussing on detection, masks the fact that nothing is being done to prevent offending or reoffending, as linighan says