• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Britain: Police State?

jimv1 said:
If used here, this argument would slightly settle my niggly concerns but the government and police 'service' in this country seem to have an attitude that we must all give our DNA regardless, even from birth, which seems to me to place us all in the category of potential suspects to some Futurecrime. I feel this may break an already flimsy bond between the public and their paid and elected representatives. Granted they are there to preserve order but a high-handed blanket cataloguing of each individual is going too far.

The reality is, though, that people are even less trusting of the rest of the public than they are of their representatives. Few people, rightly or wrongly, will feel as threatened by the state as they will by crime, serious or otherwise.
 
SmartWater....eh...what....eh?

Free smartwater - protect your home with forensic science
by Rugby Town West Team — last modified 31 July 2007 03:41 PM
Event30/08/2007 09:30 to 30/08/2007 11:30

Location: New Bilton community centre - corner of Avenue Rd/Gladstone street



Residents in New Bilton are entitled to FREE Smartwater, this has been funded by the reNEW scheme. It will be given out on a first come first served basis so please come along to a drop in and get your bottle. Smartwater is a property marking system and is a solution with a unique DNA which is registered to your household. With the Smartwater you get window stickers to deter burglars from entering your home and it helps the Police to identify property from your home.

Safer Neighbourhoods with forensic science and 'smart water' DNA ID Stuff Link.
ModEdit: URL reduced. P_M
 
jimv1 said:
SmartWater....eh...what....eh?

SmartWater is a great aid in the detection of crime. Each bottle contains a unique DNA fingerprint coded to an individual address. It is odourless, colourless, fluoresces under UV light and cannot be washed off the person or property that comes into contact with it.
Fear of SmartWater is proven to deter criminals, and is a British invention. It's website can be found Here

Info about SmartWater on the site includes the following:
SmartWater’s Fight against Crime
There is undoubtedly a compelling argument for the concept of property marking: one of the common requirements of the criminal justice systems is the need, if convictions are to be secured, for the police to be able to identify the owner of recovered stolen property.
The technology developed by the royal award-winning scientists at SmartWater represents a revolutionary development over traditional property marking systems and can be described as a ‘forensic coding system’ used to protect the whole spectrum of property, from cars to valuable antiques.

SmartWater’s evolution is the direct result of assessing market requirements, including those of the police, and then developing a system which fulfilled certain key parameters. The system had to be easy to apply to all kinds of property, difficult to remove, easy to detect and be supported by robust administrative systems to satisfy the criminal justice system. SmartWater satisfies all these criteria and more.

Each bottle of SmartWater contains a unique forensic code which is dabbed into the nooks and crannies of the valuable item. A clear solution which cures hard, SmartWater is virtually impossible to remove and will withstand significant attack. SmartWater has passed extensive testing by organisations such as the Forensic Science Service, an agency of the Home Office, and Thatcham*.

*Thatcham is the Motor Insurance Industry Test Centre at Thatcham, Berkshire, which grades and accredits security products on behalf of the insurance industry.

The degree of identification provided by SmartWater has been likened to a more robust version of DNA profiling, such is its efficacy; and because the SmartWater chemical formula can be analysed down to billionths of a part, the criminal has to remove every speck before he/she is safe from the police.

By developing a strategic approach, and working closely with the Police across the UK, SmartWater has become well known to the criminal fraternity, not least because of its 100% record in convictions. Having applied the SmartWater solution, all that is required is to display the SmartWater warning labels. SmartWater has become a cornerstone in household and business security and one of the most powerful deterrents in the fight against the common criminal.

The SmartWater Effect: Anti-theft
SmartWater products are now widely used by police throughout the UK as an anti theft system to reduce crimes ranging from car theft to armed robbery. For instance, in Oldham, the Greater Manchester Police experienced a 62% reduction in burglaries, sustained over a 12 month period. West Midlands Police also recently reported a sustained 33 per cent reduction in burglary in an estate that used SmartWater. Additionally, Nottingham Police claims to have reduced repeat victimisation by 95%. SmartWater has direct financial benefits for businesses and consumers as well as the insurance industry, saving thousands of pounds by acting as a deterrent against crime and reducing costly claims.

SmartWater’s Security Solutions
The SmartWater Security System has been designed to protect household property, private and commercial vehicles as well as asset protection within commercial premises. Each bottle of SmartWater contains a unique forensic code, which is assigned to a particular household or a vehicle's registration or V.I.N. - vehicle identification number. The solution is simply painted on. Since March 2000, all Honda motorcycles have been marked with SmartWater and a number of major insurers now offer discounts to vehicle owners that use SmartWater.
The SmartWater Index Spray System is an anti-burglary/anti-intruder device for SME’s, financial institutions and large corporates. The SmartWater Index Spray System is designed to spray intruders with a water-based solution, which contains a unique 'forensic code’. This creates an irrefutable link between the crime scene and the criminal.

Forensic Coding – multiple applications
The police themselves are finding new uses for SmartWater, such as fighting racist attacks. But SmartWater is increasingly used in a wide variety of applications in the commercial arena. For instance, it can be used to create traceability within manufacturing production, of key importance to companies who have health and safety or quality control requirements to fulfill. The problem of counterfeiting is a major issue for well-known brands and the unique forensic qualities of SmartWater means that it can be embedded into materials to prove the authenticity of product. The Rubber and Plastics Research Association (RAPRA) has tested SmartWater, concluding that it is ‘the most important invention for the Rubber and Plastics industry for 20 years’. SmartWater also authenticates memorabilia for many celebrities through its association with Touched by Greatness.

Engineering Solutions
SmartWater has developed forensic additives and solutions that contain information at molecular levels relating to the name of the manufacturer, location of production facility, the production line and even date of production. Applied either as a surface coating or, in the case of polymer-based products; rubber, inks, paints and textiles etc as an additive during the manufacturing phase, it can be widely used either to supplement or replace traditional part marking technology.

Brand Protection and Traceability
The risks of counterfeiting to manufacturers grow daily. It is now apparent that gangs are actually copying traditional anti-counterfeiting measures, such as holograms, in order to ‘validate’ the counterfeit item.

SmartWater’s forensic technology now offers an alternative approach, allowing a manufacturer to incorporate a unique ‘molecular fingerprint’ within their product that can be used to track and identify the true authenticity of the item. Reliable traceability of a product’s provenance is now a reality with SmartWater Brand Protection.

Our revolutionary forensic coding system offers companies a limitless variety of valuable brand control applications. We offer a full support package to manufacturers, including consultancy, technical development and access to our analytical labs.

Accreditations and Awards
Critically, SmartWater is an officially police accredited organisation, and licence holder of the ‘Secured By Design’ mark, which is awarded by ACPO CPI (Association of Chief Police Officers Crime Prevention Unit). The company has IS09000:2000 quality assurance accreditation and SmartWater Instant is Thatcham Q tested. SmartWater is also BS7799 approved which is the highest level of data security worldwide and is used by organisations such as M15 and GCHQ. SmartWater Technology Ltd is also a member of The Association of Police and Public Security Suppliers.

The company has also won a number of prestigious awards, including the Prince of Wales Award for Innovation in 1996 and Millennium Product status from the British Design Council, on behalf of the UK Government, as an influential product for the 21st century.
SmartWater’s contribution to crime reduction has been recently acknowledged in a survey of Police Forces (Crime Reduction through Forensic Coding: An Assessment of the SmartWater Strategy in Four Police Forces), a paper produced by Perpetuity Research, a spin-out company of Leicester University which is headed up by Professor Martin Gill.
 
I suspect it's the use of the term 'DNA,' to describe the stuff's unique 'fingerprint' like qualities, that might cause confusion. It's not real DNA, just that it's a special and unique combination of chemicals, used as an identifier.

When I worked in the scaffolding trade, our scaffolding was marked with a special paint, that identified our kit. It was supposed to be unique and unfakeable, so we knew if someone else had lifted our stuff. That was years ago.

How much better if the paint's invisible. ;)
 
Fears grow over Taser expansion

Taser electronic stun guns are being made available to more police officers in England and Wales.

Officers who are not firearms specialists will be able to use the 50,000-volt Tasers to protect themselves or the public from Saturday.

As part of a year-long trial the officers will be able to use Tasers when faced with serious violence - even if a suspect is not armed.

Amnesty International opposes the move, claiming the guns can be lethal.

Until now Tasers have only been issued in Britain to members of police firearms units.

How does a Taser work?

Electric shocks

They could only use them when confronted by an armed attacker.

But now, as part of the trial in 10 forces, officers from other units will be able to use Tasers when faced with serious violence.

Tasers deliver powerful electric shocks and are intended to be a non-lethal alternative to regular police weapons.


You need trained firearms officers who not only know how to fire a Taser but know when to fire a Taser
Mike Blakemore
Amnesty International

The move has been welcomed by the Police Federation who say Tasers are an increasingly necessary piece of equipment for frontline officers.

Amnesty International says stun guns are potentially lethal and there have been numerous deaths in the US because they have been misused.

Amnesty spokesman Mike Blakemore said: "The police have a very difficult job to do and they need to protect themselves and they need to protect the public.

"You need trained firearms officers who not only know how to fire a Taser but know when to fire a Taser.

"These are potentially very dangerous weapons. Firearms officers undergo continuous training. I understand they undergo training for real life situations.

"And they undergo repeated training every month to keep them up to date. What we don't know is exactly what the nature of the training is that non-firearms officers will receive.

"And we're concerned that it won't be up to the same standard."

Former Scotland Yard commander John O' Connor told BBC News 24 that he believed the move was dangerous because officers were not being properly trained.

He said: "I think the notion of giving these guns, these Taser guns, out indiscriminately to untrained officers - because it's a non-lethal option - they're going to run the risk of these things being used far too indiscriminately."


Death in Durham

More than 3,000 Tasers have been issued to police since 2003.

In October last year 47-year-old Brian Loan died several days after being shot by a Taser by police in County Durham. A coroner later recorded a verdict of death by natural causes, attributing his death to heart disease.

His sister, Barbara Hodgson, refused to accept the Taser was not to blame for his death and told a local paper: "The evidence might not exist at the minute, but I am sure we will be proved right as more cases come to light."


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6973610.stm
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Fears grow over Taser expansion

Taser electronic stun guns are being made available to more police officers in England and Wales.
The move has been welcomed by the Police Federation who say Tasers are an increasingly necessary piece of equipment for frontline officers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6973610.stm

What I find interesting here is the use of the word "increasingly". Aren't we being told that crime is decreasing and the streets are generally safer places to be? Aren't we told that it's actually the perception of crime and not crime itself that's actually rising?

Are we then to believe that the police are ignoring government statistics and are falling for a false perception of a rise in violent crime?

This leads me to believe any of 3 things:

1) crime is getting far worse or far more common than we're repeatedly told

2) this is a move towards 'arming' the police generally; another step towards police state-lite

3) some messed-up arms deal is going on and someone is government is set to make his own weight in gold the minute they retire

I'll also add the view that I don't think many people will see this as an a big issue until some middle-class piss-can or cokehead gets tasered and dies after some rowdiness following the pass of a medical degree or something.
 
jefflovestone said:
This leads me to believe any of 3 things:

1) crime is getting far worse or far more common than we're repeatedly told

2) this is a move towards 'arming' the police generally; another step towards police state-lite

3) some messed-up arms deal is going on and someone is government is set to make his own weight in gold the minute they retire

I'll also add the view that I don't think many people will see this as an a big issue until some middle-class piss-can or cokehead gets tasered and dies after some rowdiness following the pass of a medical degree or something.
A fourth option (and the one I subscribe to) is that, although crime figures in general are falling, attacks against Police Officers are on the rise, Tasers are a proven method of quickly subduing armed protagonists, and can be used in situations where pepper spray is ineffective.
 
ArthurASCII said:
A fourth option (and the one I subscribe to) is that, although crime figures in general are falling, attacks against Police Officers are on the rise, Tasers are a proven method of quickly subduing armed protagonists, and can be used in situations where pepper spray is ineffective.

The problem I have with this is the fact the original article mentions

they need to protect themselves and they need to protect the public
Protect the public from what? A falling level of crime?
 
The case of the man, Brian Loan, shot in County Durham is outlined here:

Taser Death

That BBC story makes it sound such a bad thing!

The notion of routinely equipping untrained officers with these things is unsettling, however. :(
 
JamesWhitehead said:
The case of the man, Brian Loan, shot in County Durham is outlined here:

Taser Death

That BBC story makes it sound such a bad thing!

The notion of routinely equipping untrained officers with these things is unsettling, however. :(

I know looks aren't everything, but that guy actually looks pretty trim and toned rather than scrawny and out of condition. Anyhoo... I found it worrying the police were shooting tasers blind:

It was dark and the officer could not tell if the barbs had connected because it appeared to have no effect

and then, presumably in the same conditions, fired 'rubber bullets' at him. Then fired a taser at him a second time? Again, presumably in "the dark"? WTF?

The guy was obviously a headcase but this is ridiculous, IMO.
 
The chief problem with tasers is that there is a perception that they are safe to use in an uncertain situation. After all, if the person you hit is innocent, or you hit a bystander, it's not as bad as a gunshot wound, is it?
 
Anome_ said:
The chief problem with tasers is that there is a perception that they are safe to use in an uncertain situation. After all, if the person you hit is innocent, or you hit a bystander, it's not as bad as a gunshot wound, is it?

I wonder just how optimal the circumstances are when the police test and train taser usage.
 
The most recent DOMILL statement reference DSTL/BSC/27/01/07 dated 30
May 2007 identifies that children and adults of smaller stature as being at
potentially greater risk from the cardiac effects of Taser currents than normal
adults of average or large stature. DOMILL recommends that STUs should be
particularly vigilant for any Taser-induced adverse responses in this subset of
the population.

Shooting in the dark isn't really an option, folks who are smaller could be killed by the Taser. ( West Mercia Police Taser Document)

Amnesty also have quite a lot to say too.

Source

Although there is no suggestion that the taser itself is unsafe, there is (from the amnesty source):

The ACPO operational guidance for taser use in the UK deals with these risk factors by limiting tasers only to authorized situations where trained officers might otherwise use a firearm, and by instructing officers to take them into account when determining the appropriate options.(164) The guidelines also recommend immediate referral to hospital of any tasered suspect who has been fitted with a pacemaker or cardiac device and state that "all arrested persons who have been subjected to discharge of a taser must be examined by a Forensic Medical Examiner as soon as practicable".(165)

So perhaps the police in Co. Durham weren't following procedures, or perhaps they got a bit lazy knowing that the the taser itself is non-lethal. As for the taser causing death in this case only the coroner can answer that with a clear conscience.

To be honest, I'd rather an increase in non-lethal weapons for the police than firearms, I'd also prefer it if the taser fails to become publicly available (google "taser c2" and see the various reviews from the US), ideally I'd like a more public debate on the issuing of weaponry to the police.
 
Well apparently tasering is soooooo alright, the Police Service seem to have the go ahead to use them on CHILDREN and have been testing the effects of this dramatic electrocutive restraint on PREGNANT WOMEN.

While not saying whether police would be allowed to Taser an expectant mother, the Home Office said the DSAC committee had "specifically asked" for computer simulations to be carried out to analyse the effect on "a pregnant female".

From a larger article here... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/a ... =1770&ct=5

The Chief Commissioner of Northern Ireland's Conflict Management Development Unit has previously raised some concerns on the grounds of lack of testing. While it is denied that someone with a particular ailment could die, not enough research has been done to establish the effects on someone with a combination of ailments.
Also, there are concerns that the use of the taser contravenes Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights

The primary standard applied in preparing this response is Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in terms both of the obligation to refrain from violation of the right to life, and in terms of the positive obligation on the state to protect life. Article 3 ECHR, relating to the prevention of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, is also of immediate relevance.

She concludes on this point.


In the light of these concerns, the Commission is opposed to the introduction of Tasers at present, pending further consideration of the human rights and equality issues. We would urge that prior to any trialling of Tasers more independent research be carried out; the human rights assessment being carried out for the Policing Board be made available; and that clarity be established over whether or not this is a pilot exercise and what legal test as to necessity or reasonable force is intended to govern the use of Tasers.


Already, there has been one death after a tasering. I find it difficult to believe that the bloke from Sacriston would have keeled over the next day if the incident had not taken place.
 
Is there a source for the Daily Mail assertion about being able to taser children and pregnant women? Asking for a computer model of the effects is not the same as legitimising it?
 
The DOMILL (DSAC Sub-committee on the Medical Implications of Less-lethal Weapons) doc has this to say...


source: http://www.statewatch.org/news/2007/aug ... tement.pdf






11. The more frequent use of the taser will result in a greater annual incidence of minor injuries and a greater, but still low, chance of a serious adverse event.

12. DOMILL anticipates that there will be an increase in the numbers of children subjected to Taser. DOMILL has reviewed ten cases of the exposure of persons under the age of eighteen to Taser currents in Great britain up to 2006, under fireams authority.The medical effects reported that could be attributed directly to the Taser were the expected minor wounds from the probe barbs.


...Until more research is undertaken to clarify the vulnerability of children to taser currents, children or persons of small stature should be considered at possible greater risk than adults and this should be stated in the Guidance and training modules.
 
Aren't official documents great to read... :? So the advice is down to watch out for adverse affects. Bastards.
 
(edited for duplication of above link)

The thing is IMHO, that the scope where a Taser will be used will increase and become a first option of restraint. We've already seen multiple Taserings of one SUSPECT and children and possibly pregnant women will also be targetted. As has already happened in the US. The days when the Police Service become frightened of expectant mothers and kids is a bad sign.
 
If the Police Service stated it was desirable that aggressive children and young adults below voting age be subdued by having jump leads attatched to the nipples and a 50,000 volt current put through them, I think there'd be a bit of an outcry. What difference does the distance of a few yards make?
 
JamesWhitehead said:
The notion of routinely equipping untrained officers with these things is unsettling, however. :(
I can only vouch for my own Police Force, but here in Northampton, Officers are given intensive training before being issued with Tasers. You may be interested to know that each Officer is "Tazed" during training so that they know the effects of the weapon (I have volunteered to Taze them myself, but, sadly, I'm not allowed ;) ).
 
jimv1 said:
If the Police Service stated it was desirable that aggressive children and young adults below voting age be subdued by having jump leads attatched to the nipples and a 50,000 volt current put through them, I think there'd be a bit of an outcry. What difference does the distance of a few yards make?

If you were close enough to do that then you'd be close enough to subdue them by other means. It's not like the police have the option of telescopic arms or spideywebs after all. Also it's worth pointing out that if a police officer had the option of tasering the killer of Rhys Jones as he drew his gun and didn't take it there'd be an even bigger outcry. The fact is that some of the most violent crimes in this country are carried out by those under the age of 18.
 
ted_bloody_maul said:
jimv1 said:
If the Police Service stated it was desirable that aggressive children and young adults below voting age be subdued by having jump leads attatched to the nipples and a 50,000 volt current put through them, I think there'd be a bit of an outcry. What difference does the distance of a few yards make?

If you were close enough to do that then you'd be close enough to subdue them by other means. It's not like the police have the option of telescopic arms or spideywebs after all. Also it's worth pointing out that if a police officer had the option of tasering the killer of Rhys Jones as he drew his gun and didn't take it there'd be an even bigger outcry. The fact is that some of the most violent crimes in this country are carried out by those under the age of 18.

I know that kids are responsible for a lot of crimes and there and many opinions on why this is so. That doesn't necessarily make it right that they be subdued by a 50,000 volt shock and using violence against violence will just prove to them that might is right, which is why kids are arming themselves up in the first place.

My bleeding-heart liberalism may be out of place but one 'accidental' death down to the use of tasering as a form of restraint is one too many.
 
Also it's worth pointing out that if a police officer had the option of tasering the killer of Rhys Jones as he drew his gun and didn't take it there'd be an even bigger outcry.

i don't think anyone would disagree with a taser being used against someone with a firearm, whether underage or not, but i don;t see that as being the majority of cases where one is going to be deployed...
 
jimv1 said:
I know that kids are responsible for a lot of crimes and there and many opinions on why this is so. That doesn't necessarily make it right that they be subdued by a 50,000 volt shock and using violence against violence will just prove to them that might is right, which is why kids are arming themselves up in the first place.

My bleeding-heart liberalism may be out of place but one 'accidental' death down to the use of tasering as a form of restraint is one too many.

I'm not sure we can ascribe children's desire to arm themselves to a reasoned self-justification that 'might is right' especially given that we live in a time when any violence against a child is deeply condemned. You could make a stronger case for the view that the behaviour of violent children would be less likely to exist were there actually a threat of physical force from the authorities given that there appears to be more of it without the supposed lesson of might being right via corporal punishment which at one time existed. Add to that the fear that many adults have of intervening in lawless behaviour by children given that they're limited in terms of the force they believe they can use.

Tasering doesn't teach that might is right - it's probably more likely to teach that might will be opposed. If the lesson that they draw from being subdued in this fashion during aggressive or criminal behaviour is that might is right then our children must be the first generation to be de-evolving, frankly. What they should learn is that if they're going to indulge in threatening or bullying behaviour then, basically, there will always be someone bigger than them who they'll never be able to beat (and the same lesson should apply to adults as well as children given that both apparently already believe in the doctrine of unopposed force).

I too consider myself liberal but personally I'm more troubled by the possibility of living in a society in which innocent people may die because we're more concerned about the consequences of our decisions on the people who would kill them. One accidental death due to tasering would be tragic but less so, imo, than the many deliberate deaths and life-threatening assualts that they might prevent.
 
BlackRiverFalls said:
Also it's worth pointing out that if a police officer had the option of tasering the killer of Rhys Jones as he drew his gun and didn't take it there'd be an even bigger outcry.

i don't think anyone would disagree with a taser being used against someone with a firearm, whether underage or not, but i don;t see that as being the majority of cases where one is going to be deployed...

It would appear that they will only be used in incidents of "violence and threats of violence of such severity that they will need force". If police officers start using them inappropriately they will most likely face censure. We already allow our police to use batons and various other weaponry which, if used, could be fatal but instances of this are rare. There's no reason to suspect that tasering will neccessarily be any different.
 
All UK 'must be on DNA database'

Lord Justice Sedley is a senior appeal court judge
The whole population and every UK visitor should be added to the national DNA database, a senior judge has said.
Lord Justice Sedley said the current database, which holds DNA from crime suspects and scenes, was "indefensible" because it was unfair and inconsistent.

He told BBC News an expanded database would also aid crime prevention. Four million profiles are currently held.

Critics say those who commit certain offences should have their details removed after a set period.

The DNA database - which is 12 years old - grows by 30,000 samples a month taken from suspects or recovered from crime scenes. It is the largest in the world.

ANGRY ABOUT DNA

They have said they are keeping the DNA - it annoys me because I had not done anything

Jeffrey Orchard


Innocent man's DNA campaign

The data of everyone arrested for a recordable offence - all but the most minor offences - remains on the system regardless of their age, the seriousness of their alleged offence, and whether or not they were prosecuted.

It includes some 24,000 samples from young people between 10 and 17 years old, who were arrested but never convicted.

Sir Stephen Sedley, who is one of England's most experienced appeal court judges, said: "Where we are at the moment is indefensible.

"We have a situation where if you happen to have been in the hands of the police then your DNA is on permanent record. If you haven't, it isn't... that's broadly the picture.

"It means that people who have been arrested but acquitted, some of them because they are innocent, some of them because they are just lucky, all stay on the database.

"It means where there is ethnic profiling going on disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get onto the database.

"It also means that a great many people who are walking the streets and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free."

He said reducing the database would be a mistake. He knew of cases where a serious offender who had escaped conviction had ultimately been brought to justice by DNA evidence that may have been otherwise destroyed.

'Going forwards'

He said the only option was to expand the database to cover the whole population and all those who visit the UK.


There are four million DNA samples on the database

"Going forwards has very serious but manageable implications. It means that everybody guilty or innocent should expect their DNA to be on file for the absolutely rigorously restricted purpose of crime detection and prevention."

But Professor Stephen Bain, a member of the national DNA database strategy board, warned expansion would be expensive and make mistakes more likely.

"The DNA genie can't be put back in the bottle," he said.

"If the information about you is exposed due to illegal or perhaps even legalised use of the database, in a way that is not currently anticipated, then it's a very difficult situation."

Tony Lake, chief constable of Lincolnshire Police and chairman of the DNA board, said there needed to be a debate.

"If people have been convicted or have been arrested for offences which involve violent crime or offences of a sexual nature, I think there is an argument [that DNA] should stay on the database for life," he said.

"If we are talking about very minor offences... I don't think that it's a problem to say let's have a means by which we would reassess if we want to keep that DNA."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6979138.stm
 
Back
Top