Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: MikeDundee on 23 November 2009, 19:56:14
-
..Unfortunately I was arrested on Friday evening, outside my own front door, and subsequently spent just over 20 hours in walworth nick, and was released at 20.30 hrs saturday evening.
So now having read through the definitions of affray, I somewhat feel, after having been cautioned (which I declined to accept, but did accept just to get out, otherwise lengthen my stay in the nick)
Under the public order act 1986 (england & wales)
below is what I have been cautioned under:
A person is guilty of affray if he uses or threatens unlawful violence towards another and the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
Highlighted is probably more applicable to the events, albeit that I did not threaten anyone, or the officers that turned up at my front door, I just declined to allow the officers entry, as there was no reason to allow them entry into my property as I had not committed any offence.
Comments and views are welcome at this stage :y
-
what were the events leading upto the rozzers being at your front door?
-
Christ countess,what have you been up to ????? :o :o :o
H21 may be the best person to ask for a sensible response :y
-
I thought they have no reason to enter your property without reasonable cause and a warrant but I am sure some of our members in the know would be able to confirm this
-
How on earth did you do that :o
-
Have a read of this Mike http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry
-
The Police were called by my other good half because I came home late pissed :-X, no violence, just the missus giving me what for, why did you come home told you not too, for me just water off the shoulder, went upstairs got changed, came back down she is calling the cops, which kind of really pissed me off as there was no reason too :-X
-
I thought they have no reason to enter your property without reasonable cause and a warrant but I am sure some of our members in the know would be able to confirm this
They never entered the property, cause I would'nt let them in, cause there was no reason to let them in :y...cause I done nothing wrong :y
-
The Police were called by my other good half because I came home late pissed :-X, no violence, just the missus giving me what for, why did you come home told you not too, for me just water off the shoulder, went upstairs got changed, came back down she is calling the cops, which kind of really pissed me off as there was no reason too :-X
In that case, if your missus wasn't visible from the front door, and saying she was OK, they had every right to enter to check she was OK.
I'm not saying she wasn't alright Mike, but you must know they see women knocked about every day and they wont be sent away by the possible offender.
-
The Police were called by my other good half because I came home late pissed :-X, no violence, just the missus giving me what for, why did you come home told you not too, for me just water off the shoulder, went upstairs got changed, came back down she is calling the cops, which kind of really pissed me off as there was no reason too :-X
:o
Would this not be classed as a domestic, rather an affray? :-/
Should be just a warning, as long as the Mrs is in a better mood :)
-
Have a read of this Mike http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry
Yes read that, unfortunately in my infinite wisdom, I had an ice axe in my hand, whilst telling the officers that I would not let them into the property, but never actually threatened anyone ::)
-
Ah, the age-old in-the-doghouse with the missus then ;D
Did she say she felt threatened, or you out of control?
-
The Police were called by my other good half because I came home late pissed :-X, no violence, just the missus giving me what for, why did you come home told you not too, for me just water off the shoulder, went upstairs got changed, came back down she is calling the cops, which kind of really pissed me off as there was no reason too :-X
In that case, if your missus wasn't visible from the front door, and saying she was OK, they had every right to enter to check she was OK.
I'm not saying she wasn't alright Mike, but you must know they see women knocked about every day and they wont be sent away by the possible offender.
Yes right after she went through the kitchen door, which is less than a metre from the front door where I was standing, she then goes out the kitchen window, into the arms of the police :D, there is more wait for it 8-)
-
Christ countess,what have you been up to ????? :o :o :o
H21 may be the best person to ask for a sensible response :y
Maybe maybe not as affray relates to England/Wales law, in scotland they just lock you up and never let you out ;D
-
popcorn ready....
-
Have a read of this Mike http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry
Yes read that, unfortunately in my infinite wisdom, I had an ice axe in my hand, whilst telling the officers that I would not let them into the property, but never actually threatened anyone ::)
Hmm..........Can't really blame them for being concerned for your wife's safety though. Were you agressive towards them, without actually being threatening?
-
Ah, the age-old in-the-doghouse with the missus then ;D
Did she say she felt threatened, or you out of control?
I do not know what she said to the cops when she phoned them, should have asked them during the interview, but they never actaully did state what she said when she phoned them ::)
-
Ah, the age-old in-the-doghouse with the missus then ;D
Did she say she felt threatened, or you out of control?
I do not know what she said to the cops when she phoned them, should have asked them during the interview, but they never actaully did state what she said when she phoned them ::)
Probably just anti pissed-up-jock. Cant say I blame them ;D
-
Have a read of this Mike http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/index/your_rights/legal_system/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry
Yes read that, unfortunately in my infinite wisdom, I had an ice axe in my hand, whilst telling the officers that I would not let them into the property, but never actually threatened anyone ::)
Hmm..........Can't really blame them for being concerned for your wife's safety though. Were you agressive towards them, without actually being threatening?
If you read the previous threads ::), I never threatened my wife nor was violent towards her or the officers that turned up at the door other than tell them they were not getting into my property as there was no reason for them to enter :y
-
Bloody hell Mike, or should that be McVicar ::)
There's always a spare room here just leave the ice axe at home ;D
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
-
However, after the wife had called the cops, apparantley I said, ''you have done it now, no one is coming into this house'', ''someone will get killed'', I really do not recall the latter statement :-X
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
Maybe I should have called the cops, given she tried to hit me over the head with the phone ::)
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
This was raised at the interview, and I threatened my wife or even raised a hand to her, other than to stop her hitting me with now let's see ::)......glass milk bottles, cordless telephones, kitchen knife ::), the police know this from their records, cos I threw her out, that was the second time I threw her out because of her actions, a man cannot go for a friggin pint, do not go out at all in the evenings or weekends, but they can f**k off all night leave the f**kin phone off and not turn up til late afternoon the following day, without even sayign a rather word, I was out on a works do, and she knew it, I just got back a few hours later than I said I would, but still managed to answer the friggin phone when she called shouting down at me.
-
In hindsight, it would have been better to let them in, offer them a cuppa...and let them see for themselves that their time was being wasted.
Not sure if they would have needed a warrant under the circumstances. They were responding to a 999 call. If you had not opened the door to them, I suspect they would have been within their rights to forcefully gain access.
Had a similar scenario myself about 10 years ago with an now ex long term girlfriend. She was the one that had been on the pop, I was driving that evening. She kicked off about something when we got home. She wasn't happy that I was not arguing back (w.t.f ?!?) and became violent at which point I restrained her and then she started yelling she was gonna call the police. I said "fine" and let her go to do just that. She dialled the number and hung up when the emergency operator answered. She said "You're lucky, I've changed my mind" at which point I went to open the front door in readyness and told her that she can explain it to them when the arrive. She didn't realise that a car is automatically sent out to any uncompleted 999 calls, or at least down here they do. Fair play, no address, just a phone number to go on but they were here in less than 5 mins. They were good as gold and once they were happy that all was ok they left and that was that.
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
This was raised at the interview, and I threatened my wife or even raised a hand to her, other than to stop her hitting me with now let's see ::)......glass milk bottles, cordless telephones, kitchen knife ::), the police know this from their records, cos I threw her out, that was the second time I threw her out because of her actions, a man cannot go for a friggin pint, do not go out at all in the evenings or weekends, but they can f**k off all night leave the f**kin phone off and not turn up til late afternoon the following day, without even sayign a rather word, I was out on a works do, and she knew it, I just got back a few hours later than I said I would, but still managed to answer the friggin phone when she called shouting down at me.
usual family life ;D :y
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
Maybe I should have called the cops, given she tried to hit me over the head with the phone ::)
You're lucky, I was getting the 3" heel of a shoe ;D
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
This was raised at the interview, and I threatened my wife or even raised a hand to her, other than to stop her hitting me with now let's see ::)......glass milk bottles, cordless telephones, kitchen knife ::), the police know this from their records, cos I threw her out, that was the second time I threw her out because of her actions, a man cannot go for a friggin pint, do not go out at all in the evenings or weekends, but they can f**k off all night leave the f**kin phone off and not turn up til late afternoon the following day, without even sayign a rather word, I was out on a works do, and she knew it, I just got back a few hours later than I said I would, but still managed to answer the friggin phone when she called shouting down at me.
usual family life ;D :y
Good job he wasn't in Turkey eh, Cem. Shoot first, interrogate later. ;D
-
Right folks, I know most of you have met my wife, and may think why I am sharing this event on an open Forum, and quite frankly because I think that women can just phone the police without just cause, that is what pissed me off and made me slightly flip on Friday night, nevertheless I never at any point threatened anyone, and I handed over the ice axes through the window ont the riot shield, the friggin house was surrounded, they were jumping over the back gardens and eveything, even told me they were gona tazer me :-X, opened the door, I walked out and four of them jumped, never resisted, but a wee bit OTT in my view, handcuffed up the back, then when I protested, they changed to the front, and let me have a cigarette, cos I knew after they threw me in the wagon that was it, anyway on a good note I did ask them what they thought of the mig :y
-
The definition of "AFFRAY" being what it is .. if your wife convinced the police that SHE fell into the category of
the person's conduct is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety.
ie .. she felt unsafe .. then there are grounds to charge you with affray ...
It doesn't have to be the police who feel threatened ... :(
This was raised at the interview, and I threatened my wife or even raised a hand to her, other than to stop her hitting me with now let's see ::)......glass milk bottles, cordless telephones, kitchen knife ::), the police know this from their records, cos I threw her out, that was the second time I threw her out because of her actions, a man cannot go for a friggin pint, do not go out at all in the evenings or weekends, but they can f**k off all night leave the f**kin phone off and not turn up til late afternoon the following day, without even sayign a rather word, I was out on a works do, and she knew it, I just got back a few hours later than I said I would, but still managed to answer the friggin phone when she called shouting down at me.
usual family life ;D :y
Good job he wasn't in Turkey eh, Cem. Shoot first, interrogate later. ;D
;D yep..but not in those cases..
police here is scared in involving family cases..
or they will be shot dead ;D :y
-
In hindsight, it would have been better to let them in, offer them a cuppa...and let them see for themselves that their time was being wasted.
Not sure if they would have needed a warrant under the circumstances. They were responding to a 999 call. If you had not opened the door to them, I suspect they would have been within their rights to forcefully gain access.
Had a similar scenario myself about 10 years ago with an now ex long term girlfriend. She was the one that had been on the pop, I was driving that evening. She kicked off about something when we got home. She wasn't happy that I was not arguing back (w.t.f ?!?) and became violent at which point I restrained her and then she started yelling she was gonna call the police. I said "fine" and let her go to do just that. She dialled the number and hung up when the emergency operator answered. She said "You're lucky, I've changed my mind" at which point I went to open the front door in readyness and told her that she can explain it to them when the arrive. She didn't realise that a car is automatically sent out to any uncompleted 999 calls, or at least down here they do. Fair play, no address, just a phone number to go on but they were here in less than 5 mins. They were good as gold and once they were happy that all was ok they left and that was that.
I know that is what I should have done, but I did'nt e.g., my home my castle scenario ;D..they did not have a ticket and they were not getting in, and they never did, I opened the door and walked out :y
-
'kin ell mate, your missus sounds like a right handful! Feisty women - love 'em ;D
-
And now for the rest of the story???? :P Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned you know!!!! ;) ;)
Admit it there was a tasty policewoman involved, hence the ice axe to get her to cuff you!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Bet all this was worth watching!
Thought about having em for racism?
I bet if it was an 'English' person, it may have gone differently.
You have a strong accent without a drink....which gets stronger with a few..
Picture the police arguing with Rab C. Nesbitt :D
Bet half the problem was a language barrier...they should have got an interpretter ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I hope this isnt gonna stop the lovely Mrs Dundee's curry's arriving at OOF meets :-/
-
Where were the girls, that alone would be enough reason for them to force their way in to see if the kids were OK following a domestic.....
-
And did they like the miggy???? ;D ;D ;D ;D it is better than their diesel astra`s anyway ;D ;D ;D
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
-
Im on my 3rd box. :y ::) :o :D ;D
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_popcorn.gif)
Shove up TB. ;D
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_popcorn.gif)
Shove up TB. ;D
Hold yer breath, I farted on that chair...
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_popcorn.gif)
Shove up TB. ;D
Hold yer breath, I Flatulenceed on that chair...
rather word filter...
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_popcorn.gif)
Shove up TB. ;D
Hold yer breath, I Flatulenceed on that chair...
rather word filter...
;D ;D ;D
-
another box of popcorn out and ready...
munch munch
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_popcorn.gif)
Shove up TB. ;D
Hold yer breath, I Flatulenceed on that chair...
(http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/smilies/emote_head_explode.gif)
-
It's a tricky call Mike. I'm looking at the police's point of view. Called out by a tiny wife to deal with an angry hubby, they arrive to meet you who they guess could be a bit of a handfull despite the fact you took all the physical abuse. You did'nt threaten or assault anybody but i bet you were steaming...& holding an ice axe?
Seems the whole situation got blown out of proportion, no one was hurt & i hope you both manage to smooth things over. Guy.
-
Standard police reaction >:( many years ago the old fella came back with the ex step mother both a bit pissed, she started ranting and raving at both of us :(.
I was half asleep on the settee next thing she rings the cops screaming domestic and within five minutes the two biggest coppers ive ever seen were banging on the door.
The ask the questions when they get you out the way, just glad i was sober that night and was a bit eaiser to reason with them, still spent night in a hotel ;D ;D
Hope it all gets sorted mike :y
-
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 :y
I am still kind of pissed off over the whole situation, and have nothing to say to SWMBO at the moment >:(
-
Were you DNA sampled?
-
Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!! :o
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! ::)
-
Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!! :o
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 ;D
-
Bloody hell Mike, sounds like all is not well in Costa del Peckham!! :o
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 ;D
You're only jealous!! :P :-* :-*
-
..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.
-
A bit late; I know! :-X
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ;)
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
Oh dear :(
Big Winston could be getting a new best friend ;D
Bet Timbuk has his fingers crossed aswell as his legs ;D
-
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.
Lets say 20 or so people have the same DNA value - you will all be pulled in, lets say you have done nothing wrong in your life, but you could not account for your actions on day xx (at home alone ect).
Why should you be investigated just for having the same DNA value as a criminal.
The values stored are NOT unique
-
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
It's an interesting topic.
My view is that they should start profiling every newborn from now, if they cannot roll it out across the existing population.
The government's record of keeping data is not great, granted ;D
-
Yes a DNA sample/swab was taken from the mouth :-/