Two men from Sheffield, south Yorkshire, who were previously cleared of criminal charges, have won a major victory after the European Court of Human Rights ruled keeping their DNA on the British police database breached their human rights.
The decision now has far reaching consequences for the police, the Home Office and the British Government, although officials initially refused to say whether all the samples of innocent people on the system will now have to wiped.
Bet you they don't. Bet you they make every fucker jump through hoops, rather than doing the decent thing.
And what's this shit:
Deleting the records could mean that thousands of rapists, murderers and other criminals are not caught.
Just fuck off, you authoritarian cunts.
Update: As if by magic:
Home secretary Jacqui "Tits" Smith said: "The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement."
And how long will you be "carefully considering", you raddled old fascist harpy?
7 comments:
Agreed. Fuck off indeed.
I'm all for keeping a DNA database for convicted criminals.
But for people who are innocent as well...? Too fucking right they should be removed.
A good day indeed 3400 HMRC staff are to lose their jobs as well - Hurrah !
They're only required to delete those who weren't convicted. That 'rapists and child molesters getting away' junk is a red herring.
The Ripper isn't going to do it though. That 'Human Rights' stuff only applies when she says it does.
They'll 'debate' this for years.
Yeah, and even if they decide to "obey" the judgement, whose going to fucking check the trustworthy and upright plods have actually done it?
The Penguin
Penguin, you're not hinting at a darker side to our magnificent police force, are you?
Essentially she is saying that they are guilty regardless of whether or not they've been charged and found guilty.
Because obviously they will do a crime in the future. Only party members are pure and legal and free.
I hate her, I hate her so much.
Actually, I have a little thought about this: it is becoming increasingly possible to spot individuals who are at high risk from various diseases by checking their DNA. Now the state holds the DNA of many citizens. Suppose that one of them develops a disease which might have been prevented, had their DNA been checked. Could it not then be argued that the state has failed in its duty of care to the citizen, by not warning them?
Let's get a few lawsuits going on that basis and then see how long it will be deemed worthwhile to keep all the DNA...
(For the avoidance of doubt: I think the state should keep its nose well out of my and everybody else's DNA, unless we ask the state for a check. I am just trying to think of arguments Nanny might understand and worry about.)
Post a Comment