a shop in dunfermilne we deliver to got broken into several wks back, now C.I.D. are coming into our work place to take D.N.A samples to take us out of the picture so to speak, i reckon this is a breach of our rights what do you think!! 
they say all samples will be destroyed if proven innocent!! some how i don’t think so. 
sounds like dunfermline lol.
where in dunfermline was it cause i live there.
also it is a breach id say but if youve done nout wrong then really what you got to worry about aslong as the police destroy the samples.
in a wee ind estate up by somerfields gaff. i’m not so sure of plod destroying said samples
they might get you for something else 
neil46:
they might get you for something else
that’s what’s puttin the (ZB) up a few folk.
I reckon that some day DNA will be taken from all at birth and stored in a database.
ivor biggin:
in a wee ind estate up by somerfields gaff. i’m not so sure of plod destroying said samples
i know where you are. wouldnt have been somerfields or p&h as they are 24 7 days a week. not much else round there worth stealing from tbh
ivor biggin:
a shop in dunfermilne we deliver to got broken into several wks back, now C.I.D. are coming into our work place to take D.N.A samples to take us out of the picture so to speak, i reckon this is a breach of our rights what do you think!!
just refuse because they will keep the DNA, its only fingerprints they have to destroy by law
ROG:
I reckon that some day DNA will be taken from all at birth and stored in a database.
its already being done and has been for a while, on the quiet ready for when it becomes law in one of the terrorism bills
biggusdickusgb:
just refuse because they will keep the DNA, its only fingerprints they have to destroy by law
complete lie,
they have to destroy all DNA samples that are not relevant, but they can use them in other cases if you have done something wrong in teh past. as soon as you hav ebeen eliminated from any enquiries they are not allowed to holld it on record.
ROG:
I reckon that some day DNA will be taken from all at birth and stored in a database.
its already being done and has been for a while, on the quiet ready for when it becomes law in one of the terrorism bills
[/quote]
and so it should, why spend hours and thousands of pounds searching for people to swab when all you do is take a swab from a crime scene and send it through teh computer and there is your suspect or victim! easy. i am all for it and nine times out of ten the people against it have something to hide.
Don’t see a problem with it. Unless you did it (and I’m not saying you 
) then what are you worried about.
The only other way they could do it would be to haul you in for questioning, which no doubt would mean you having unpaid time off work.
Hour or so instead of 5 minutes for a swab. So if there is an easy way to be elminated from thier enquiry then I’d take it.
Colingl:
Don’t see a problem with it. Unless you did it (and I’m not saying youThe only other way they could do it would be to haul you in for questioning, which no doubt would mean you having unpaid time off work.
Hour or so instead of 5 minutes for a swab. So if there is an easy way to be elminated from thier enquiry then I’d take it.
its fife constabulary they will take more than an hour… remember they arrested the stig when he was racing to knockhill lol.
Giblsa:
biggusdickusgb:
just refuse because they will keep the DNA, its only fingerprints they have to destroy by lawcomplete lie,
they have to destroy all DNA samples that are not relevant, but they can use them in other cases if you have done something wrong in teh past. as soon as you hav ebeen eliminated from any enquiries they are not allowed to holld it on record.
ROG:
I reckon that some day DNA will be taken from all at birth and stored in a database.its already being done and has been for a while, on the quiet ready for when it becomes law in one of the terrorism bills
and so it should, why spend hours and thousands of pounds searching for people to swab when all you do is take a swab from a crime scene and send it through teh computer and there is your suspect or victim! easy. i am all for it and nine times out of ten the people against it have something to hide.
don’t call me a liar,
i may get things wrong now and again but i’m no liar
Jack Straw, then home secretary, sparked controversy in 2001 when he proposed keeping all fingerprints and DNA samples even if a suspect was acquitted or never charged.
The Court of Appeal last year ruled that police could keep DNA and fingerprints from people charged with a crime and never convicted.
i take it you’re mistaken about the bits highlighted in red, or are you a liar?
biggusdickusgb:
Giblsa:
biggusdickusgb:
just refuse because they will keep the DNA, its only fingerprints they have to destroy by lawcomplete lie,
they have to destroy all DNA samples that are not relevant, but they can use them in other cases if you have done something wrong in teh past. as soon as you hav ebeen eliminated from any enquiries they are not allowed to holld it on record.
ROG:
I reckon that some day DNA will be taken from all at birth and stored in a database.its already being done and has been for a while, on the quiet ready for when it becomes law in one of the terrorism bills
and so it should, why spend hours and thousands of pounds searching for people to swab when all you do is take a swab from a crime scene and send it through teh computer and there is your suspect or victim! easy. i am all for it and nine times out of ten the people against it have something to hide.
don’t call me a liar,
i may get things wrong now and again but i’m no liarJack Straw, then home secretary, sparked controversy in 2001 when he proposed keeping all fingerprints and DNA samples even if a suspect was acquitted or never charged.
The Court of Appeal last year ruled that police could keep DNA and fingerprints from people charged with a crime and never convicted.
i take it you’re mistaken about the bits highlighted in red, or are you a liar?
no i am not mistaken about the bits in red but you are obviously mistaken about the fact the dna samples would be to eliminate them from thier enquiries. if they dont get charged, the dna samples get destroyed, and if they are charged, now a days it seems to me they only charge people if they have a strong enough case to savea bit of face and maybe some tax payers money but hey, you never know!
i already admitted i’m wrong, but half right, half wrong really.
if you get arrested, ie taken to the station you give a sample of DNA and fingerprints.
in the old days if you were found not guilty they had by law to destroy the prints, they didn’t do DNA then.
since 2001 they have kept both, wether guilty or innocent, strengthened by further legislation
In 2004, new legislation permitted samples to be taken and retained from anyone arrested for a recordable offence.
Police are required to destroy samples taken from juveniles when they become adults if they have committed no further crimes and have the discretion to remove any samples from the register.
This is rarely exercised as police point to ‘cold’ cases increasingly being solved as DNA technology becomes more advanced.
in 2007 we had this
The Court of Appeal ruled that police could keep DNA and fingerprints from people charged with a crime and never convicted.
anybody that thinks the police have given up such a powerful tool and that they now destroy samples is naive
the key word here is CHARGED.
if they are just taken to eliminate someone from the enquiries then they are destroyed, if that person has nothing to do with that or any other crime, if they are found to be significant in the pending case or any other outstanding cases then they will be retained until it is decided if that person will be charged or not.
personally i am all for it. why not have a DNA database with everyones DNA on it. i have nothing to hide and, hopefully, never will. the only people that are passionately against it have something to hide.
its like the old argument about ID cards. i have had to carry one for 99.9% of my adult life since i was 16 and it has not done me any harm, sometimes it has got me out of scrapes and speeding fines but thats another story, why object if it is going to help find the crims and terrorists and lock them up to make our streets safer?
but if they’re taken to eliminate from a particular enquiry they shouldn’t be tested against any other crime.
i’m not against it in principle,
if we had a statute of limitations i’d give mine willingly tomorrow.
as it stands at the moment, if i had to give it now i’d be sweating for something i did 30+ years ago,
i don’t even know if they took samples then, but there are older cold cases than mine been dealt with.
as it stands at the moment i dont get drunk anymore and everything that has to be had i’ve got so i’m not really bothered at the moment.