Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MikeDundee]

Thankfully the kids were in bed, if they were'nt then I would probably not reacted the way I did, as I do not like kids being subjected to that kind of behaviour, let alone letting them see police arrive at the house

I am still kind of pissed off over the whole situation, and have nothing to say to SWMBO at the moment

[Martin_1962]

Were you DNA sampled?

[bob.dent]

Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!!
Having had similar experiences when I was still married, in those odd situations where you've been out for a heavy one on the juice I always found it best not to come home until the morning. They might still be pee'd off but at least you can rationalise a bit better when you're sober(ish) rather than fuelling the situation while still pissed.
Hope things get sorted out between you and Kate although there's bound to be a few days "simmering off" period. Sounds a bit like the old Thai hormones were running a bit high!

[Elite Pete]

Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!!
Having had similar experiences when I was still married, in those odd situations where you've been out for a heavy one on the juice I always found it best not to come home until the morning. They might still be pee'd off but at least you can rationalise a bit better when you're sober(ish) rather than fuelling the situation while still pissed.
Hope things get sorted out between you and Kate although there's bound to be a few days "simmering off" period. Sounds a bit like the old Thai hormones were running a bit high!

Thats because you bought a rent boy

[bob.dent]

Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!!
Having had similar experiences when I was still married, in those odd situations where you've been out for a heavy one on the juice I always found it best not to come home until the morning. They might still be pee'd off but at least you can rationalise a bit better when you're sober(ish) rather than fuelling the situation while still pissed.
Hope things get sorted out between you and Kate although there's bound to be a few days "simmering off" period. Sounds a bit like the old Thai hormones were running a bit high!

Thats because you bought a rent boy

You're only jealous!!

[KillerWatt]

..Unfortunately I was arrested on Friday evening, outside my own front door, and subsequently spent just over 20 hours in walworth nick,

Carter St...now that's a place people don't forget in a hurry 


As others have said mate, a lot of the law is down to interpretation these days.....which basically means we've gone back 25 years and the old bill can do whatever they want.

[Debs.]

A bit late; I know!

I remember reading this......

If you ever suffer the unfortunate cause to find yourself cautioned by a Police officer (and unless you specifically want to un-burdon yourself of guilt, like in the movies); at the end of the officer`s caution, say NOTHING except:

"No, I do not understand the meaning or consequences of what you have just said and I want to exercise my rights under PACE."

.......you then MUST be allowed access to a copy of the (weighty) PACE manual and be given sufficient time to read and digest it`s contents and their implications for your situation.

*The above legal right to access the PACE manual, applies equally: whether you`re sat in the back of a police car, standing out in the street or at the police station.

[cruisetopoland]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

[mantahatch]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

Imagine it is nice warm sunny day in the park, you stop, sit on the grass for a few minutes and watch the world go by, you smoke a cigarette, and 2 of you hairs fall out on to the ground.
That night in that spot a attack takes place (use your imagination) The police comb the spot and two hairs and cigarette end is recovered from the crime scene.

Check database, and you are arrested and inprisoned, no need for a trial, as your DNA proves you where there.

OK this is very simple way of looking at it, but how long before the law would change so it was up to you to prove your innocence.

Yes if someone is convicted of a serious crime then there DNA should be kept. but not someone who had a minor car accident but was a bit riled up because of it.

[cruisetopoland]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

Imagine it is nice warm sunny day in the park, you stop, sit on the grass for a few minutes and watch the world go by, you smoke a cigarette, and 2 of you hairs fall out on to the ground.
That night in that spot a attack takes place (use your imagination) The police comb the spot and two hairs and cigarette end is recovered from the crime scene.

Check database, and you are arrested and inprisoned, no need for a trial, as your DNA proves you where there.

OK this is very simple way of looking at it, but how long before the law would change so it was up to you to prove your innocence.

Yes if someone is convicted of a serious crime then there DNA should be kept. but not someone who had a minor car accident but was a bit riled up because of it.

Good point, but in court you could argue the case that you were there earlier and that was the only specimen-on the ground, not on the victim, plus there would be other specimens from the real attacker.  The likelihood of a conviction from this evidence is minimal compared to the benefit.

I'd rather take this minor risk and protect victims from repeat attacks by just knowing who the attacker was, in minutes and getting them caught.

It would save unthinkable amounts of resources and police time too.

[mantahatch]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

Imagine it is nice warm sunny day in the park, you stop, sit on the grass for a few minutes and watch the world go by, you smoke a cigarette, and 2 of you hairs fall out on to the ground.
That night in that spot a attack takes place (use your imagination) The police comb the spot and two hairs and cigarette end is recovered from the crime scene.

Check database, and you are arrested and inprisoned, no need for a trial, as your DNA proves you where there.

OK this is very simple way of looking at it, but how long before the law would change so it was up to you to prove your innocence.

Yes if someone is convicted of a serious crime then there DNA should be kept. but not someone who had a minor car accident but was a bit riled up because of it.

Good point, but in court you could argue the case that you were there earlier and that was the only specimen-on the ground, not on the victim, plus there would be other specimens from the real attacker.  The likelihood of a conviction from this evidence is minimal compared to the benefit.

I'd rather take this minor risk and protect victims from repeat attacks by just knowing who the attacker was, in minutes and getting them caught.

It would save unthinkable amounts of resources and police time too.

You are of course assuming you would get the chance to get court !!! in the future I doubt you will be able to afford to.

Your second bit I highlitghted, this is why they want to do it, purely for economic cost.

[cruisetopoland]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

Imagine it is nice warm sunny day in the park, you stop, sit on the grass for a few minutes and watch the world go by, you smoke a cigarette, and 2 of you hairs fall out on to the ground.
That night in that spot a attack takes place (use your imagination) The police comb the spot and two hairs and cigarette end is recovered from the crime scene.

Check database, and you are arrested and inprisoned, no need for a trial, as your DNA proves you where there.

OK this is very simple way of looking at it, but how long before the law would change so it was up to you to prove your innocence.

Yes if someone is convicted of a serious crime then there DNA should be kept. but not someone who had a minor car accident but was a bit riled up because of it.

Good point, but in court you could argue the case that you were there earlier and that was the only specimen-on the ground, not on the victim, plus there would be other specimens from the real attacker.  The likelihood of a conviction from this evidence is minimal compared to the benefit.

I'd rather take this minor risk and protect victims from repeat attacks by just knowing who the attacker was, in minutes and getting them caught.

It would save unthinkable amounts of resources and police time too.

You are of course assuming you would get the chance to get court !!! in the future I doubt you will be able to afford to.

Your second bit I highlitghted, this is why they want to do it, purely for economic cost.

I suppose any change in DNA policy would ned accompanying by a guarantee that trials would still be held  :-/

Saving money- they should be looking to 

[Kevin Wood]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

The biggest problem I have with this, is that the next step (as it was with the electoral register, etc..) is for the government to succumb to the temptation to sell the data to anyone who'll pay.

Next thing that happens is that someone develops a way to screen DNA for those predisposed to develop cancer, heart disease, epilepsy, diabetes etc.. Insurance companies will buy this, of course..

Suddenly, half the population have become an uninsurable, unemployable underclass.

Kevin

[cruisetopoland]

Were you DNA sampled?

Taking DNA on all arrestees is all over the news today as people are making an issue of it being kept on file even if they are not charged with anything.

There may be security of data issues that need properly addressing, but surely if everyone's DNA was held, more crime would be solved and prevented which would over-ride any other argument?

Am I missing something?  Why is it not taken at birth and kept on file to cross-reference against crimes?
If a positive result came back, the samples would be checked again at time of arrest to protect against any errors.

The biggest problem I have with this, is that the next step (as it was with the electoral register, etc..) is for the government to succumb to the temptation to sell the data to anyone who'll pay.

Next thing that happens is that someone develops a way to screen DNA for those predisposed to develop cancer, heart disease, epilepsy, diabetes etc.. Insurance companies will buy this, of course..

Suddenly, half the population have become an uninsurable, unemployable underclass.

Kevin

I may be being an idealist, but surely there could be legislation against this happening, so the data could be used for positive reasons, not negative.

I know what you are getting at, certainly-but surely the positive aspect of it is worth working towards and setting laws to control?

[Kevin Wood]

I know what you are getting at, certainly-but surely the positive aspect of it is worth working towards and setting laws to control?

Depends how much trust you have in government IT and their competence and morals in general.

Either way, it should, IMHO, only be used to eliminate suspects for the reasons discussed, so one wonders how useful it would be against the enormous cost of profiling everybody. :-/

Kevin