Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@gazlan wrote:
Ive considered this, i think in general the priciple is a good one but, the problem is that although this may have a small impact regarding criminal capture the downside is that this will give government information on even those innocent of any crime…all well and good you might assume, yes on the face of it. In light of the ever increasing incompetence by these government workers and the security forces, i am of the opinion that the court of human rights made the right decision when deciding they breach the human rights charter, i say this because not only is there potential for incompetence ie ..losing data etc, there also will be people who will be in a position to use this information to the detriment of anyone on the database…this for instance might occur with the leaking of personal information/ samples to corperate bodies who have been known to pay for such information…. I agree that those guilty and convicted should be put on the database but, only following conviction and not prior…
In an ideal world without those who are quite happy to sell their souls to the devil, it could be accepted as a necassery step to safeguard society against the criminal… having said that….in an ideal world we would not feel the need to transgress… :?Gazlan, I see your point but exactly what good would stolen DNA be to anyone other than the police? Scientists maybe but have you seen DNA readings? Totally useless to the untrained eye. A series of lines like a graph.
The Passport Office hold details on your height, looks, distinguishing marks etc. Why does no one protest about passports? Is it because the ultimate aim of a passport is to allow an individual to travel – mainly for holiday and therefore pleasure?
Pleasure – yes, as long as the reason for holding one’s personal data is an acceptable palliative to selfish human nature then it’s ok.
But! Holding personal data for the sake of deterring crime and increasing the crime clean up rate – well that’s not palliative.
Is it because a person cannot be certain that they will not commit a crime in the future? Commit a crime for which they want to get away with but might not be able to do so because of the DNA database?
A DNA database will help solve some of the more heinous crimes (not all, I’m aware of that) such as rape and murder – crimes which involve contact where the perpetrator will undoubtedly leave a trace of themselves.
Peter Sutcliffe, Denis Neilson, Robert Black et al – were all serial murderers. DNA wasn’t around when they were killing but it is now and IMHO, a DNA database would probably prevent future would be serial killers like them from committing the crime more than once.
And perhaps the thought of being almost immediately apprehended might stop some (not all) from committing a crime in the first place.
If you have nothing to hide then there should be no objection, surely?
Science has advanced and brought a new crime fighting tool, a bit like fingerprinting, so it’s about time we used it.
As far as I am concerned, it is a breach of my human rights not to have such a database. In not doing so, the government and the police are failing in their duty to take every measure possible to protect me and the British public from crime and criminals.
How many horses died in today’s Grand national as a result of human cruelty and greed?
Shame on you.
Typical human race – treat animals like s h i t take them out their own natural environment for our own financial gain and entertainment then have the cheek to complain when the said animal displays (shock horror) it’s own natural instincts rather than human characteristics!
This is what this is all about – the evil whale has acted like an animal and killed and as we humans know full well, killing is wrong!
Not that we ever kill for fun, do we? We don’t slaughter animals for at all, do we?
In my honest opinion hunters that kill for fun and trophies should all be taken out the gene pool with a lethal injection – they are not fit to be part of the human race – ever.
The most destructive and unintelligent life form on this planet is the human race.
@gazlan wrote:
The way i was mistreated you would think i looked suspicious 8) :wink:
Sounds like the woman PC man handled you and used unreasonable force.
They should scrap the current police force and start again.
Good idea. These days you need ID for just about anything but it’s not fool proof. Bio metric data will be so hopefully will not only increase national security but will also stop a lot of fraud. My other half just has just has his bank account fleeced by a person impersonating him – with these ID cards it wouldn’t have been possible.
No doubt certain ppl on here will will up in the air seeing it as an infringement of their human rights etc etc but they will always shout louder than anyone about everything because that’s their irrational and selfish nature.
@minim wrote:
The police dealings I have had have always been very positive. I have got nothing but praise for the way they handle very difficult situations. I suspect that negative dealings have more to do with the way people respond to them. I watched a programme the other day and a police officer had done someone for drink driving. He said he was always polite to people until they gave him “attitude” and he then gave them “attitude” back. In other words, if you are polite and help them do their jobs, they will treat you with respect.
I know that there are always exceptions and I am sure that the police force contains people who are arrogant and extreme. I still think that overall, the police do a good job often in very difficult circumstances.
Well you’ve had good experiences then.
I’m still waiting for the police to solve the 1996 armed robbery on my pub. They didn’t take my fingerprints for elimination, or the cable ties used to tie me up for analysis. In fact they did feck all except drink alcohol whilst on duty. Total incompetance.
Last year, I got pulled over for driving with my front fog lights on. When I pointed out to the rather fat, unfit Officer that my car doesn’t have front fog lights he said, “well you best be going then but if you want me to find fault with your car, I will.” No apology for their incompetance, instead a veiled threat.
Real life cop shows on tv? Rude and arrogant – no wonder they put people’s backs up.
@kent f OBE wrote:
When adults “hate” the police the likelihood is the kids around you will “hate” the police! The police should be seen as someone who helps you when you need it. Respect for adults includes extended family, teachers, police etc. Shame the days are gone when the local Bobby could give a kid a clip round his ear and drag him home to his parents!
TBH, I’ve yet to meet a nice, polite police officer. Sure they came to my school to give talks and they were pleasant then but in the street or just doing their job they make ppl resent them with their arrogant, impolite, cockiness, esp the younger ones. Who wants to be spoken to like a piece of shyte by a PC that looks 14 years old?
A lot of them are also fat and unfit and incapable of walking a flight of stairs let alone running after a suspect. Part of getting their job is proving fitness – they should be made to maintain it or get the sack.
The whole force needs a shake up – get fit, stay fit or get out and put them all on customer service courses or give them personality transplants.
A lot of them go for soft targets and provoke a situation so they can make an arrest and spend their time dealing with that trivial matter as they haven’t got the guts to tackle real, or violent crime.
I’d rather have the army (unarmed) on the streets – at least they’re fit and wouldn’t be afraid to tackle gang and violence related crimes.
@florrie wrote:
@nemesis wrote:
And excatly why was capital punishment abolished?
James Hanratty was hung for a murder he didn’t commit – due to the doubts about his conviction played a significant role in the decision to abolish capital punishment.
DNA testing in 2002 found the olny DNA from the rape and murder was his, so the Appeal Court concluded he was guilty.
Timothy Evans is a far sadder miscarriage of justice. The death penalty shouldn’t be brought back but life should mean life and NO parole.
@panda12 wrote:
If you are thinking of voting for this party but also claim to be an intelligent person, bear in mind that UKIP believe fossil fuels are renewable:
Steve Reed (Chairman, UKIP Wells and Weston-super-Mare branch) has written:
“Brussels requires us (Directive 2001/77/EC) to generate 12 per cent of all our
energy and 22.1 per cent of our electricity from ‘renewable resources’ by 2010. I
place ‘renewable resources’ in parenthesis [sic], because the resources meant are not
renewable, whereas fossil-fuels are. … Fossil-fuels are constantly being produced
on the tectonic conveyor-belt. This is not just academic nit-picking: these processes
are generally very slow, but oil-wells do refill”.34Of course they may well refill – in a few million years.
:roll:
If you do vote for them, best keep it quiet unless intelligent people think you’re a simpleton.
Full article: http://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/assets/docs/briefing/theres-something-about-ukip.pdf
It gets even better from UKIP:
Steve Reed has also stated: “[‘Renewable resources’] are not renewable… Taking
energy from winds and tides irreversibly enervates the weather system and slows
the rotation of the Earth”Yeah – the wind farms near me generating clean electricity is causing my clocks to lose time :roll:
@quiet_man wrote:
There – I said it. Let’s have a quick run through the facts.
* Labour need fewer votes than the Tories to win a majority.
* Labour have built up a massive client state of public sector workers and benefits claimants that have a vested interest in the status quo.
* Labour can come up with wizard wheezes like a wholesale clearout of the House of Lords.
* Labour can palliate all sorts of social & economic pain until after the election.
* Labour can initiate rescue packages for car-makers and other industries in key marginals.
* Labour can pull a rabbit out of the hat at the Budget (scrapping the 50p rate?).
* If Labour have damaged their core vote due to immigration, the Tories have damaged theirs ten-fold on Europe.
* Cameron still isn’t sealing the deal. His PR is shambolic, his preparation is sub-standard, his message is indiscernible from white noise. His fire-bellied, but fact-free, performance at PMQs last week was just silly.
* Osborne is a lightweight and an empty suit – is it any wonder Ken Clarke’s taken over as economics spokesman?
* Since the Tories are manifestly failing to distinguish themselves, ‘better the devil you know’ will hold a lot of power with an electorate facing continued choppy economic waters.
* People are incredibly stupid, spiteful, small-minded and short-sighted. It will take much more profound upheaval before the masses will lash back at Labour with the vigour so many of us demand.
* Gordon Brown, whether you choose to accept this or not, has run 3 successful general election campaigns for Labour. Whatever else he is, he’s a master tactician.
* Even the Spectator can only suggest voting for the Tories on the basis of the economic terror that 5 more years of Labour would wreak.Ladbrokes are giving 10-1 against Labour securing an overall majority. I’ve just put a big chunk of change on it.
And if Labour lose, hey – I won’t feel too sad about the cash. If they win, though, my bet will pay for a couple of years of tax increases and inflation. Or a one way ticket to somewhere far far away.
I hope.
I’ll pay for your one way ticket QM – you can join the likes of Michael Caine and Andrew Lloyd Webber who reckon they’re going to leave the country if Labour win. They never do though. Shame. But perhaps you will? :D
