school fingerprinting 6 year old children.

[nobber]

a local school , according to ms nobber (shes a nanny) has started fingerprinting 6 year olds , their excuse? for her library pass.:eek:

[nobber]

http://www.leavethemkidsalone.com/deceived.htm

[Snagger]

And fingerprinting kids harms them how? EVERYONE should be finger printed and give DNA samples to the police for use in a databank. It would then give police a place to start their investigations. As long as other evidence was required for conviction, not just a fingerprint or DNA trace, then what's the issue. People who get upset about this either don't have enough real things to worry about or have something to hide.

[Newsreader]

People who get upset about this either don't have enough real things to worry about or have something to hide.
Well I don't fall into either of those categories. But I can see no valid reason why the state has any right to keep a record of my fingerprints or DNA. I've done nothing wrong, so it is none of their business. What harm can come of it? It can be mis-used and abused. No thank you.

[nobber]

i think fingerprinting kids for a database without parents permission is very very wrong.
we have still got our human rights and this is an obvious invasion of them.

i do see your point though nick but let me ask you this, would you agree to have a microchip installed in your body so you can be traced every where you go?
if our government had their way , if we let them get away with things like this , then its quite probably going to go in that direction.

[Snagger]

Well I don't fall into either of those categories. But I can see no valid reason why the state has any right to keep a record of my fingerprints or DNA. I've done nothing wrong, so it is none of their business. What harm can come of it? It can be mis-used and abused. No thank you.
You haven't done anything wrong, Bernie, but thre are plenty of crimianls who get away with their acts because they have not previously been caught and are not yet on a database. The cases of serial killers, rapists and paedophiles are the best examples of where the public would be protected by having everyones biometric data on file - the criminal should be identified after the first offence, preventing the normal continuation of their pattern. Now, if you think that is a weak arguement, so be it, but I can't imagine why police would misuse biometric data if they had to provide corroborating evidence in court - they already have the opportunity to fiddle the pathology, but experience shows they don't. If a conviction can currently be achieved on a DNA match with no other evidence, then what I'm suggesting would be safer as well as quicker and more efficient. Too many people bleat on about their rights being infringed evry time something new is proposed without thinking about why it might be a good idea.

[ken110]

they'll be tagging them next...

although i do think that chavs and hoodie types should'nt be allowed to have kids!

[Newsreader]

Too many people bleat on about their rights being infringed evry time something new is proposed without thinking about why it might be a good idea.
I'm not bleating on about rights, I'm putting across a point of view, why do you always have to insult those who don;t agree with you?

And I have given this a lot of thought over many years. We all have a right to a private life and I don't see why the state should have the right to track my every move ...

You seem perfectly happy to sleepwalk into a Big Brother state in which we are all gradually being taken over, and losing our individuality. I happen to think the price is too high to pay, and I don't believe that these infiringments of our liberties are actually justified, in terms of how much they reduce crime / terrorism etc etc.

[Pogmahog]

a local school , according to ms nobber (shes a nanny) has started fingerprinting 6 year olds , their excuse? for her library pass.:eek:

The little scrotes will nick anything these days!:D

On a more serious note several years ago at an end of term party. A group of teachers came up with a reasoned logical argument for tattoing a bar code on the forehead of each pupil:

Aid registration,
No money needed for meals, (no theft)
Security; uses code to open doors, log on to computers, etc
Replace uniform

[mrsjohnty]

they'll be tagging them next...

although i do think that chavs and hoodie types should'nt be allowed to have kids!


I am a 36 year old mother of 2 girls aged 17 and 14 and guess what.......... I wear hoodies! Cos they keep my flippin head warm:eek: Oh and if anyone other than the police wanted to fingerprint my children....... damn straight I would kick off about it!

[stevo]

I happen to think the price is too high to pay, and I don't believe that these infiringments of our liberties are actually justified, in terms of how much they reduce crime / terrorism etc etc.

Proven in some way by the ongoing court case of the '21/7' would be bombers.

On the news tonight, the alleged bombers had been filmed the previous year by security forces. They were under surveillance, yet still managed to get on trains with bombs....

How on earth would fingerprinting have prevented this??

[nobber]

How on earth would fingerprinting have prevented this??

it wouldnt , nor would id cards.

[Snagger]

Proven in some way by the ongoing court case of the '21/7' would be bombers.

On the news tonight, the alleged bombers had been filmed the previous year by security forces. They were under surveillance, yet still managed to get on trains with bombs....

How on earth would fingerprinting have prevented this??
Finger printing wouldn't have, because they were already identified. They were deemed a threat, but presumably hadn't commited an actual offence until the bombing itself, and so any action would have been deemed a similar "infringement of their rights" as fingerprinting.

[Snagger]

I'm not bleating on about rights, I'm putting across a point of view, why do you always have to insult those who don;t agree with you?

And I have given this a lot of thought over many years. We all have a right to a private life and I don't see why the state should have the right to track my every move ...

You seem perfectly happy to sleepwalk into a Big Brother state in which we are all gradually being taken over, and losing our individuality. I happen to think the price is too high to pay, and I don't believe that these infiringments of our liberties are actually justified, in terms of how much they reduce crime / terrorism etc etc.
Sorry Bernie. Porrly put. I didn't mean to insult anyone. I just don't see how having your fingerprints is any threat to your privacy - what would the police be interested in a law abiding citizen for? They would, thogh, be a very useful tool in starting an investigation in the right direction, especially if other evidence is initially hard to come by.

I don't mind surveilance by the authorities - I don't do anything that requires secrecy. I do object to the removal of our other freedoms, like what activities we undertake or what items we own - LRs and laning are perfect examples. Perhaps if there were better surveilance to catch the irresponsible laners and punish them, we wouldn't all have lost access to them? I'd hate to live in an Orwellian dictat, but a state where surveilance is effective can be liberating rather than restricting if applied correctly.

[stevo]

Fingerprinting / dna samples / iris recognition........

Its all the same - individual identifiers of people.

We already have it with an NI number.

I suspect the way this will happen will be samples taken at birth and recorded. Its a bit Orwellian to do it., but I don't actually think it will prevent crime.

It might just make our lives easier eventually.

[theoldtrout]

they'll be tagging them next...

although i do think that chavs and hoodie types should'nt be allowed to have kids!

Yeh, what a great idea!

Seriously. It is always the people who abide by the law that are expected to to tolerate infringments such as DNA sampling, surveillence etc We are the good guys so why should we put up with our freedom to a private life being eroded just because there are some dodgy geezers and geezeresses out there. If someone is convicted of any crime then their details should be on a database, but leave the rest of us alone!

Angela

[Newsreader]

Sorry Bernie. Porrly put. I didn't mean to insult anyone. I just don't see how having your fingerprints is any threat to your privacy - what would the police be interested in a law abiding citizen for? They would, thogh, be a very useful tool in starting an investigation in the right direction, especially if other evidence is initially hard to come by.
No probs Nick, I know what you mean :D ;)

My point is these are all creeping steps towards a total erosion of our privacy. If I have never done anything wrong, why should i have such personal details held about me by a law enforcement agency? it is well known from past cases that little 'mistakes' can be made, accidental and deliberate, and there is always going to be an element of corruption ... the more data you put into the hands of the 'powers that be', the more it can be abused.

But as with many of these things, we will have to agree to disagree :D

[PORK_PIE]

[quote=nobber;774745]ii do see your point though nick but let me ask you this, would you agree to have a microchip installed in your body so you can be traced every where you go?
quote]

i'm sure that if this were available that a large percentage of "caring" parents would have it done, it could be removed upon reaching, say 18 or so, i for one would not hesitate, look at the recent case in america where the child was reunited after 4 years? would all such cases not be avoided? it had a happy outcome, most do not. note that i say caring parents, as there are so many out there who just do not care enough, these are the ones who's children run the streets at night, terrorising, vandalising etc, they could not give a monkey's where their kids are or what they are doing, and these are the ones who would kick up about civil liberties. i also think that DNA testing at birth is a good idea, how many times have multiple murderers/rapists etc carried on, when the police had a DNA profile of the suspect, but because they had no previous criminal record (and hence no DNA on record) ? they just kept on commiting crimes

[kram]

well it does not seem that long ago when we were that age we used to chase each other around the play park just to get a smelly finger

[Roger Whittle]

No probs Nick, I know what you mean :D ;)

My point is these are all creeping steps towards a total erosion of our privacy. If I have never done anything wrong, why should i have such personal details held about me by a law enforcement agency? it is well known from past cases that little 'mistakes' can be made, accidental and deliberate, and there is always going to be an element of corruption ... the more data you put into the hands of the 'powers that be', the more it can be abused.

But as with many of these things, we will have to agree to disagree :D

Yup, I'll admit the 'total erosion' threat ..... well, potential really, does give me furiously to think, while the 'cock up' theory rules absolutely, as far as I'm concerned. Added to which, the only 'law' the 'powers that be' are ever likely to observe ..... is Murphy's law.

Having said that ........ couldn't you hear that coming? Having said that, if there were - heaven forbid - a serial killer in your borough or geographical area, wouldn't you want to help by providing a DNA sample that will eliminate you and the thousands of other innocent people? The more effective the coverage, the more likely the killer will either be found, or left unsampled in a constituency of 99.999% sampled innocents.

The DNA sample, even if it were held on record permanently, does nothing to track you or provide information on your habits or interests. It simply eliminates you when someone else is committing a crime. How would crime be affected, if everyone was DNA sampled and recorded (at birth where appropriate) and fingerprinted at say, ten, if fingerprints are stable and relevant by that age?

I bet it would plummet. A thug smacks someone in a bar - leaving a smear of his own blood on the victims face - and does the usual vanish into the crowd. Police take samples from the victim and the computer says 'Wayne Scrote dun it.' Knock, knock on the door; 'Mr. Wayne Scrote? Yor' nicked - GBH. Assume the position.'

And ten isn't too young - look at the Bulger case.

So called 'joy riders' - AKA scrotes with no consideration for other people or their property - would all have to go equipped with gloves and the possession of same in suspicious circumstances - like at a club - would attract police interest. Even then, they would probably leave DNA evidence. True, the costs at first would be astronomical, but the personal cost to each and every scrote would be too high for the buzz they get.

I'm still in two minds, but I think Nick has a point worthy of consideration.

Roger.

[redhand]

And fingerprinting kids harms them how? EVERYONE should be finger printed and give DNA samples to the police for use in a databank. It would then give police a place to start their investigations. As long as other evidence was required for conviction, not just a fingerprint or DNA trace, then what's the issue. People who get upset about this either don't have enough real things to worry about or have something to hide.

and when the Police decide that a great way to improve funding wiould be to sell the database to insurance companies/ mortgage lenders who decide that because your dna makeup means you may be susceptical to parkinsons or similar condition and decline to insure you or give you a mortgage. What do you do then. Or suppose they discover that been acriminal is in your dna structure do we round them all up before they commit any crimes?

[redhand]

You haven't done anything wrong, Bernie, but thre are plenty of crimianls who get away with their acts because they have not previously been caught and are not yet on a database. The cases of serial killers, rapists and paedophiles are the best examples of where the public would be protected by having everyones biometric data on file - the criminal should be identified after the first offence, preventing the normal continuation of their pattern. Now, if you think that is a weak arguement, so be it, but I can't imagine why police would misuse biometric data if they had to provide corroborating evidence in court - they already have the opportunity to fiddle the pathology, but experience shows they don't. If a conviction can currently be achieved on a DNA match with no other evidence, then what I'm suggesting would be safer as well as quicker and more efficient. Too many people bleat on about their rights being infringed evry time something new is proposed without thinking about why it might be a good idea.

you could ask the birmingham 6 or the guildford 4 what they think about the suggestion that the police would alter evidence or torture confessions out of innocent people. or do you think that the thousands of convistions that are overturned on appeal are just the result of human error.

[redhand]

Proven in some way by the ongoing court case of the '21/7' would be bombers.

On the news tonight, the alleged bombers had been filmed the previous year by security forces. They were under surveillance, yet still managed to get on trains with bombs....

How on earth would fingerprinting have prevented this??

And they were RAMBLERS:eek: :eek: :eek: they've got film footage of them hiking and camping in the Lake District. 1 of them even had a rucksack on his back if that doesn't prove their guilt then I don't know what will If I was a juror that would swing it for me.:D

[Greg S]

Recent article I was reading about the legal system points out that although DNA can pinpoint an individual, with the typical lab methods and contamination etc. there is only a 99.5% accuracy rate with DNA evidence. That means that it is wrong in 1 out of every 200 cases.

Regarding fingerprinting. We had our kids done when they were about four years old. It is commonly done here in shopping malls and the like. Usually an RCMP officer and helpers. They print the kids and the parent gets the only copy to file away in case of emergency. Sounds like a good use of it, but not for library cards.

[Laninlandy]

I can't see a problem with the plod taking a sample from adults (18yrs and over) of DNA and prints in local area's . Those details can be held on a database and any kind of crime comiited where DNA or prints are found can be quickly cross referenced .
I was a naughty boy 18 mths ago :rolleyes: .The plod took a sample of my DNA and my prints , i didn't have a problem with it .
Nothing serious of course before you all get suspicious :D .
A lad went the wrong way round a roundabout on purpose to "beat" me and i nearly smashed into the side of him and he sped off . 2 weeks later as his sheer bad luck would have it he turned up in my local to pick his barmaid G/F up . I told him his driving was dangerous and he was lucky i couldn't catch him and because by now i had calmed down i also told him to watch himself because one day someone will catch him up .
He laughed and told me to have intercourse with myself , so i banged him one or maybe two :rolleyes: . He reported me and i got arrested slapped the handcuffs on and carted off to the cells for the night and charged with assault . Fair enough .The magistrate let me off ;)
Thing is though , i reported him for dangerous driving and gave the plod his reg no and they did nothing with it .
But such is life .
I seriously disagree with 6 year olds having prints taken though .

[Snagger]

you could ask the birmingham 6 or the guildford 4 what they think about the suggestion that the police would alter evidence or torture confessions out of innocent people. or do you think that the thousands of convistions that are overturned on appeal are just the result of human error.
An isolated case used for scaremongering about the police. Like I said, at the moment just a finger print or DNA sample is needed for a conviction. My suggestion was that the database would allow a starting point for a more effective and efficient investigation that would bring about a conviction, but only with the aid of corroborating evidence. No-one is talking about removing trial by jury, so why you think that the database will be used to fit everyone up I don't know.

[Snagger]

and when the Police decide that a great way to improve funding wiould be to sell the database to insurance companies/ mortgage lenders who decide that because your dna makeup means you may be susceptical to parkinsons or similar condition and decline to insure you or give you a mortgage. What do you do then. Or suppose they discover that been acriminal is in your dna structure do we round them all up before they commit any crimes?Introduce, as apart of the bill, the illegality of disemination of information on the database outside of Police hands and the illegality of the use of DNA in financial services. However, if someone's DNA points towards strong predisposition to heart attack, narcilepsy or seizures, shouldn't their car insurance premium reflect their higher risk? Separate topic which doesn't really need a reply - I don't want to derail the original discussion.

A question I would appreciate an answer to is how and why fingerprinting invades your privacy. It's an honest question - I really don't understand that perspective but would like to. It's really no different after all to having your photo on record from driving licences and passport applications, having your address for tax or polling registration, having your health details on file withing the NHS...

[SVENUK]

and when the Police decide that a great way to improve funding wiould be to sell the database to insurance companies/ mortgage lenders who decide that because your dna makeup means you may be susceptical to parkinsons or similar condition and decline to insure you or give you a mortgage. What do you do then. Or suppose they discover that been acriminal is in your dna structure do we round them all up before they commit any crimes?

what was the film where they banged you up b4 you did the crime

IT'S A COMIN

The big brother bus is on it's way

also i.d theft is on the increase, just one more thing for the scrotes to nick off a database.

[Snagger]

what was the film where they banged you up b4 you did the crime

IT'S A COMIN

Minority Report? But that's a fair leap from what we're talking about here, and again, more emotional scaremongering than reasoned arguement. The ID theft issue is significant, but a Police database should be secure, whereas most ID theft is done by sifting through rubbish left out by homeowners and banks.

[redhand]

Minority Report? But that's a fair leap from what we're talking about here, and again, more emotional scaremongering than reasoned arguement. The ID theft issue is significant, but a Police database should be secure, whereas most ID theft is done by sifting through rubbish left out by homeowners and banks.

Nobody believed that Hitler would do the things he did or stalin, or Pol-pot or Idi Amin or a dozen other dictators. I know the chances of it happening here are slim but the fact it could happen, is cause enough not to want everyone on a national database.

As to isolated cases of false convictions try doing a web search thy;re not as isolated as you'd think

[Alane]

I think it should be a personal choice, if you're ok with it, partake in it. If not don't.

I would gladly give my DNA/fingerprints to a national police data base. I think the idea of the police handing over your details to insurance & motgage lenders is a bit conspiratorial. Besides the breaking of the Data Protection Act.

[nobber]

you know i can type in someones address and name into the land registery and find out what they payed for their house , who lent them the money etc etc. it costs around a pound.
now you can credit check people , you can find out if their car is taxed and when it was last taxed , you can get access to their criminal records etc , some of this you need permission to do , some of it you dont.

if you really wanted to you could find out quite a lot about a persons private life legally.

my ex landlord threatened ms nobber and me saying he would find out where we lived and come around and 'silence us' if we took him to court to retrieve our deposite which he thought he would keep for no apparent reason. he works for a bank and has access to our address and personal details.
i phoned his bank to inform them that a member of their staff was using/abusing his position within the bank to intimadate people and their reply was 'what do you want us to do about it'?
basically he can find out our personal details in order to intimidate us for 650 quid and there is nothing we , nor his employers nor the police can do about it.
its not just a case of big brother is watching us , its more complicated than that. the systems in use to keep private information is being ABUSED on a daily basis. most of us have nothing to hide , but we also have a lot to loose because delicate information about our private lives is pretty much open to public viewing.

[redhand]

A question I would appreciate an answer to is how and why fingerprinting invades your privacy. It's an honest question - I really don't understand that perspective but would like to. It's really no different after all to having your photo on record from driving licences and passport applications, having your address for tax or polling registration, having your health details on file withing the NHS...

Haven't changed the address on my driving licence since 1998. Still got the old 1 part paper licence, I destroyed my passport in 2004, I will go to prison before I carry a photo ID card. Never been on the electoral register address on NHS database is 2 years old When I need a prescription for a new asthma inhalor or need a doctor I tell them I'm visiting friends in the area.

Sucessive governments have gradully eroded our civil liberties and freedom of movement. From the miners strikes of the 80's upto today. Did you know it is illegal to play certain types of music in public (rave which I know could be seen as a good thing) or that 3 of you standing on a corner can be an illegal gathering if the PC on the scene says so.

Our rights to protest have been twisted so that all protesters are now seen as anti-social. Speed cameras are a typical example of big brother at work They were introduced to prevent accidents and reduce deaths not 1 report commissioned by anyone including the government has shown any reduction in road accident figures. so why are they still in use? all police forces use numberplate recognition cameras on a permanent basis London has more cctv cameras per square Metre than any other capital in the world. Cime figures aren't falling. So why are more of them been planned not for crime prevention but for social control. Big brother isn't coming! He's been here for years.

[nobber]

if my children were to be fingerprinted in their school id protest , but that would mean my kids couldnt join the school library.
thats blackmail. why on earth do kids need to be fingerprinted to join a library?
did you know the police cannot even finger print you without either your consent or a court order? nor can they photograph you, even if you have commited a crime.
but schools can take 6 year old childrens fingerprints without anyones consent?
its just wrong.

[redhand]

if my children were to be fingerprinted in their school id protest , but that would mean my kids couldnt join the school library.
thats blackmail. why on earth do kids need to be fingerprinted to join a library?
did you know the police cannot even finger print you without either your consent or a court order? nor can they photograph you, even if you have commited a crime.
but schools can take 6 year old childrens fingerprints without anyones consent?
its just wrong.

The police can fingerprint you without your consent.
I know of one case where 6 police officers pinned a 14 year old girl to the floor while they took her prints.

When you are first arrested,[note] (http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/procedures16.html) you can normally be fingerprinted or DNAed (non-intimate sample) only after you have been charged, or told that you have been reported for the offence.

•You cannot have an intimate DNA sample taken without your consent.
•You can also be fingerprinted or DNAed after you are convicted (by a court), and can be required to go to a police station for this.
•If you resist having fingerprints or samples taken, “reasonable force” can be used.
•You can now be photographed without your consent, and force can be used (including to remove any item or substance worn on or over your head).[note] (http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/procedures17.html)
•You can always have fingerprints or samples taken if you consent.[note] (http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/procedures18.html) More detail: fingerprints

The basic rule states that fingerprints can only be taken without your consent after you have been charged, or informed that you are being ‘reported’. Two qualifications, one positive and one negative:
+Fingerprints cannot be taken unless it’s a recordable offence. In practice, about the only offences you might be charged with that aren’t recordable are ‘Obstruction of the Highway’ and ‘Breach of the Peace’.[note] (http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/procedures19.html)
-You can also have your fingerprints taken without your consent, before being charged, on the authorisation of a Inspector.[note] (http://www.andrewgray.uklinux.net/legalsupport/procedures20.html)
The authorisation for fingerprinting before charge can only be given if the Inspector “has reasonable grounds . . . for believing that [your] fingerprints will tend to confirm or disprove [your] involvement [in a criminal offence]” (PACE, s.61(4)). A copy of this authorisation should go on your custody record (which you can ask for a copy of after you are released). In addition, you can be required to go to a police station after you have been charged (or reported) and released, or (if convicted) after you have been convicted by a court, or after you have accepted a Caution or (if under 18) a Reprimand or Warning, in order to have your fingerprints taken. This only applies if it’s for a recordable offence, and if you have not had fingerprints taken before or they proved unsuitable or insufficient. You must be summoned within one month of release or conviction (or one month after the police find out that the prints are unsuitable or insufficient), and must be given at least 7 days notice. You can be arrested without a warrant if you do not turn up. (PACE, s.63A(4)–(7))

[TBM]

I don't plan on doing anything wrong in the future, so the police have no need for my DNA and fingerprints........

[redhand]

I don't plan on doing anything wrong in the future, so the police have no need for my DNA and fingerprints........

Very few people "plan on doing something wrong" Sometimes you get involved in something. An argument in a pub, accident on the road. the point is once your arrested they have the power to photo, fingerprint and dna you. You don't have to charged with anything afterwards.

your details are then in the system. if a crime is then commited and your details come up as a possibly been relevent they will come after you and make your life hell wether you are innocent or not. Their prime concern used to be crime prevention now it is reducing crime figures. Getting the right person is a bonus not a necessity.

[nobber]

surely if they dont charge you they have to destroy those records as they have no right to keep them?

[Newsreader]

I pretty much agree with redhand, TBM Sven etc on this ...

Very interesting point you made, Roger, about sampling everyone in an area where a crime has been committed.

There was a documentary on the moron box the other night, about the very first case in which DNA evidence was used in this country. Serial rapist and murderer. That's exactly what they did, spent months getting all males in the area to go and give a DNA sample so they could be eliminated. What did he do? Got someone else to go and give a DNA sample in his place. It worked. He was only found out because the guy who did it for him eventually couldn't keep it in any more, and blabbed to his mates in the pub. Apart from that, he had fooled the system.

But the programme got me to thinking, if I was in that area, would I voluntarily go and give my DNA sample? I think probably not. If I know I am innocent I don't see why I should turn such information over to the police. As mentioned above, any form of stored data is open to corruption, misuse, selling on, and of course we get into this thing, also mentioned, where insurers get hold of the info and start using it not to cover you because you have a certain personality type etc ... :shakehead:

[Pogmahog]

[quote=nobber;774745]ii do see your point though nick but let me ask you this, would you agree to have a microchip installed in your body so you can be traced every where you go?
quote]

i'm sure that if this were available that a large percentage of "caring" parents would have it done, it could be removed upon reaching, say 18 or so, i for one would not hesitate, look at the recent case in america where the child was reunited after 4 years? would all such cases not be avoided? it had a happy outcome, most do not. note that i say caring parents, as there are so many out there who just do not care enough, these are the ones who's children run the streets at night, terrorising, vandalising etc, they could not give a monkey's where their kids are or what they are doing, and these are the ones who would kick up about civil liberties. i also think that DNA testing at birth is a good idea, how many times have multiple murderers/rapists etc carried on, when the police had a DNA profile of the suspect, but because they had no previous criminal record (and hence no DNA on record) ? they just kept on commiting crimes


Why go to all the trouble of implanting a microchip?

http://www.mobilelocate.co.uk/?gclid=COjv9r_a6okCFTYNQgodGFJfJg

Mobile locate

Locate mobile phone £1.47/month 30 day free trial

[redhand]

[quote=PORK_PIE;775015]


Why go to all the trouble of implanting a microchip?

http://www.mobilelocate.co.uk/?gclid=COjv9r_a6okCFTYNQgodGFJfJg

Mobile locate

Locate mobile phone £1.47/month 30 day free trial

Try this link worth reading. Raises a few interesting points.
http://www.populistamerica.com/gps_surveillance_creeps_into_daily_life

[PORK_PIE]

Haven't changed the address on my driving licence since 1998. Still got the old 1 part paper licence, I destroyed my passport in 2004, I will go to prison before I carry a photo ID card. Never been on the electoral register address on NHS database is 2 years old When I need a prescription for a new asthma inhalor or need a doctor I tell them I'm visiting friends in the area.

so, mr paranoid, what have you got to hide?? if i was living near you i might be worried :)

[Snagger]

Haven't changed the address on my driving licence since 1998. Still got the old 1 part paper licence, I destroyed my passport in 2004, I will go to prison before I carry a photo ID card. Never been on the electoral register address on NHS database is 2 years old When I need a prescription for a new asthma inhalor or need a doctor I tell them I'm visiting friends in the area.

Sucessive governments have gradully eroded our civil liberties and freedom of movement. From the miners strikes of the 80's upto today. Did you know it is illegal to play certain types of music in public (rave which I know could be seen as a good thing) or that 3 of you standing on a corner can be an illegal gathering if the PC on the scene says so.

Our rights to protest have been twisted so that all protesters are now seen as anti-social. Speed cameras are a typical example of big brother at work They were introduced to prevent accidents and reduce deaths not 1 report commissioned by anyone including the government has shown any reduction in road accident figures. so why are they still in use? all police forces use numberplate recognition cameras on a permanent basis London has more cctv cameras per square Metre than any other capital in the world. Cime figures aren't falling. So why are more of them been planned not for crime prevention but for social control. Big brother isn't coming! He's been here for years.
Destroying your passport has confined you to this island, but the authorities still have your data on file, so you achieved nothing but restricting your freedom to travel. Not putting yourself on an electoral register has prevented you from excercising your right to vote. You complain about the authorities eroding your liberties, but it is quite clearly you who is improsoning yourself. As for CCTV in London not forcing crime down, that is extremely narrow-minded. Do you not think that, just maybe, crime would have increased far more dramatically without the cameras, given the reduction in police numbers, increased beaureaucracy in the Force and increasing anti-social attitudes and behaviour?

[ButtonMonkey]

I'm on both the fingerprint and DNA database (had to for security clearence for a couple of contracts) wife is because of her job, and in 2009 she would have to be by law because she is not a British Citizan.

No problem with it at all, in fact I would love them to bring the ID cards in but I don't think the current idea goes far enough.

I'd love one bit of plastic that was my ID, Driving licence, and enough ID to let me travel around any EU country I desired (better if it was just a passport full stop)

Oh and can we please have the Euro as I'm getting peed off of having to change money every time I go to my other home , or visit my sister in France or my mum in Tenerife

[redhand]

so, mr paranoid, what have you got to hide?? if i was living near you i might be worried :)

you've got nothing to worry about on my behalf. I just happen to believe in free choice and don't like the way sucessive govt's have eroded our personal freedoms. Did you know that if you become homeless and end up sleeping in your vehicle you are breaking the law. Because you must have a permanent UK address to register your vehicle to. If you haven't you are not allowed to own a vehicle.

If the rules and restrictions they introduced were effective and did what they were supposed to do then I might be prepared to join the system

[Snagger]

Very few people "plan on doing something wrong" Sometimes you get involved in something. An argument in a pub, accident on the road. the point is once your arrested they have the power to photo, fingerprint and dna you. You don't have to charged with anything afterwards.

your details are then in the system. if a crime is then commited and your details come up as a possibly been relevent they will come after you and make your life hell wether you are innocent or not. Their prime concern used to be crime prevention now it is reducing crime figures. Getting the right person is a bonus not a necessity.
What? Your example is that you get in a pub fight, get put on a DNA database , and so you are automatically accused of the next crime in the area? THE DNA WILL EXCLUDE YOU FROM THE ENQUIRY IF YOU'RE INNOCENT, NOT INCRIMINATE YOU!

[Snagger]

you know i can type in someones address and name into the land registery and find out what they payed for their house , who lent them the money etc etc. it costs around a pound.
now you can credit check people , you can find out if their car is taxed and when it was last taxed , you can get access to their criminal records etc , some of this you need permission to do , some of it you dont.

if you really wanted to you could find out quite a lot about a persons private life legally.

my ex landlord threatened ms nobber and me saying he would find out where we lived and come around and 'silence us' if we took him to court to retrieve our deposite which he thought he would keep for no apparent reason. he works for a bank and has access to our address and personal details.
i phoned his bank to inform them that a member of their staff was using/abusing his position within the bank to intimadate people and their reply was 'what do you want us to do about it'?
basically he can find out our personal details in order to intimidate us for 650 quid and there is nothing we , nor his employers nor the police can do about it.
its not just a case of big brother is watching us , its more complicated than that. the systems in use to keep private information is being ABUSED on a daily basis. most of us have nothing to hide , but we also have a lot to loose because delicate information about our private lives is pretty much open to public viewing.

Exactly - all the personal data useful to criminals is already out there and accessible to them. The useful personal data to the police, finger prints and DNA, are of no use to the criminals, but you want to prevent the police from having the database with the advantages already mentioned?

[redhand]

What? Your example is that you get in a pub fight, get put on a DNA database , and so you are automatically accused of the next crime in the area? THE DNA WILL EXCLUDE YOU FROM THE ENQUIRY IF YOU'RE INNOCENT, NOT INCRIMINATE YOU!

Actually there is a lot of controversy about the use of DNA as you can leave you dna in a place weeks or even months before the crime is committed and there is often no way to prove how long it has been there. So when your DNA turns up you are automatically assumed guilty and the burden of proof then falls on you to prove how and when your DNA got there. With that and the removal of a persons right to silence. That's the innocent til proven guilty concept blown away.

[ButtonMonkey]

Exactly - all the personal data useful to criminals is already out there and accessible to them. The useful personal data to the police, finger prints and DNA, are of no use to the criminals, but you want to prevent the police from having the database with the advantages already mentioned?

Exactly, you only have to look at the amount of crimes that are now being cleared up because of DNA evidence, Mrs BM has found one burgelers DNA that turned out to be a murderer from 1980.

DNA evidence has only been in use since the mid-late 80's but samples that contained genetic materials have been collected for much longer.

Just imagine how many case could be cleared up if there was a nationwide database, how many parents, husbands, wifes or significant other could finally know what happened to their loved ones and more importantly who was responsible

[redhand]

Exactly, you only have to look at the amount of crimes that are now being cleared up because of DNA evidence, Mrs BM has found one burgelers DNA that turned out to be a murderer from 1980.

DNA evidence has only been in use since the mid-late 80's but samples that contained genetic materials have been collected for much longer.

Just imagine how many case could be cleared up if there was a nationwide database, how many parents, husbands, wifes or significant other could finally know what happened to their loved ones and more importantly who was responsible

What about all the false samples that have been taken.

[ButtonMonkey]

What about all the false samples that have been taken.

There is no such thing as a false sample.

If you are talking about samples that have been taken from susoects that turn out not to be guilty I say good luck to the national database stick um on and keep em

[Snagger]

Actually there is a lot of controversy about the use of DNA as you can leave you dna in a place weeks or even months before the crime is committed and there is often no way to prove how long it has been there. So when your DNA turns up you are automatically assumed guilty and the burden of proof then falls on you to prove how and when your DNA got there. With that and the removal of a persons right to silence. That's the innocent til proven guilty concept blown away.No, as I said, corroborating evidence should be required, and the CPS even now have a tough time getting a conviction on one piece of evidence alone. As for a right to silence, I agree with it being interpreted as an admission - at the very least, it's obstruction of justice.

[mrsjohnty]

Ok my daughter's purse was stolen in school on monday along with a boy in the same class. So what do you think the school are going to do about it bearing in mind that they had them pinched at the same time in the same lesson.......... are the going to question the rest of the class and call the police? No! They are going to hold an assembly.......... so tell me what good it does to fingerprint them????????????

[mmgemini]

Helen - you have the right to go to the police.

Margaret

[Sandy M.]

Ok my daughter's purse was stolen in school on monday along with a boy in the same class.


Holy Cowpat Batman :eek: !

Someone has kidnapped a child, and stole a purse :D :D

[Sandy M.]

..... Did you know that if you become homeless and end up sleeping in your vehicle you are breaking the law. Because you must have a permanent UK address to register your vehicle to. If you haven't you are not allowed to own a vehicle.

Not strictly true, - the registered keeper of a vehicle does not necessarily have to be the legal owner.

Besides which, If I was unfortunate enough to find myself homeless, I'm not so sure that having to look after a motor vehicle would be my prime concern.

[Snagger]

Ok my daughter's purse was stolen in school on monday along with a boy in the same class. So what do you think the school are going to do about it bearing in mind that they had them pinched at the same time in the same lesson.......... are the going to question the rest of the class and call the police? No! They are going to hold an assembly.......... so tell me what good it does to fingerprint them????????????The schools don't take fingerprints in order to conduct their own criminal investicgations - I suspect it would be illegal for them to do so anyway. Those schools that do finger print children for school library lending do it because it's a sure way of proving who was the last child to borrow a book if it goes missing, and thus who's parents should replace it, though it does seem an uneccessarily complex way of doing it.

[hodghog]

You haven't done anything wrong, Bernie, but thre are plenty of crimianls who get away with their acts because they have not previously been caught and are not yet on a database. The cases of serial killers, rapists and paedophiles are the best examples of where the public would be protected by having everyones biometric data on file - the criminal should be identified after the first offence, preventing the normal continuation of their pattern. Now, if you think that is a weak arguement, so be it, but I can't imagine why police would misuse biometric data if they had to provide corroborating evidence in court - they already have the opportunity to fiddle the pathology, but experience shows they don't. If a conviction can currently be achieved on a DNA match with no other evidence, then what I'm suggesting would be safer as well as quicker and more efficient. Too many people bleat on about their rights being infringed evry time something new is proposed without thinking about why it might be a good idea.
I dont know which plant youve been living on mate but it sertainly isnt this one
only last week a guy in aberdeen was cleared of murder after spending 16 years in jail on falsified evidance he had to wait untill he got out and could go round up said evidance and produce it in court.

hes on for a couple of milion in compensation

[TBM]

Those that are blase about, or condone the erosion of civil liberties and rights in the UK could do worse than read up about Germany in the 1930's.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me -
and by then there was no one left to speak out for me.