Nanny's desire to record all of her subjects on a DNA database will not be mollified by ethics, decency or public outcry.
Nanny's best chum the ever hapless and hopeless Home Economics Minister (sorry Secretary of State for The Home Orifice), Jacqui Smith, has found herself trying lamely to defend a decision to place a baby's DNA on the national database.
Smith admitted that the child was aged under one at the time its profile was taken by police and stored.
I would remind everyone that, aside from the obvious point that a baby is unlikely to commit a crime, the age of age of criminal responsibility is ten in England and Wales.
Why therefore did the state choose to take the baby's DNA sample?
The most likely explanation is that the baby was at a crime scene, and all persons present had their DNA taken.
OK, that sounds just about plausible.
However, could Ms Smith explain why the baby's DNA sample (having been eliminated from the enquiry) was not then destroyed instead of being place in the database?
Even our "friends" in Europe think we are overdoing this. The European Court of Human Rights condemned the system as excessive and disproportionate, claiming it "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
Oddly, back in December Ms Smith said that the Nanny would take "immediate steps" to remove the profiles of children under ten.
So why then does this baby's DNA remain on the database?
To further expose her lack of comprehension of the basic tenets of a democratic and just criminal justice system, Ms Smith said it was her intention to treat innocent people with "greater flexibility and fairness".
Errmmm...call me old fashioned...but isn't that what the system was meant to be doing already?
Is Ms Smith suggesting that the system does not, at present, treat innocent people fairly?
Isn't that the hallmark of a dictatorship?
Ms Smith is a fine example of a ZaNuLabour frontbencher:
- lacking in initiative,
- lacking intelligence,
- lacking understanding of the basic principles of law,
- lacking empathy with the voters,
- a failure,
- disliking democracy and,
- ignorant.
Vote ZaNuLabour for more of the same.
Visit The Orifice of Government Commerce and buy a collector's item.
Visit The Joy of Lard and indulge your lard fantasies.
Show your contempt for Nanny by buying a T shirt or thong from Nanny's Store.
www.nannyknowsbest.com is brought to you by www.kenfrost.com "The Living Brand"
Celebrate the joy of living with champagne. Click and drink!
Why not really indulge yourself, by doing all the things that Nanny really hates? Click on the relevant link to indulge yourselves; Food, Bonking, Toys, Gifts and Flowers, Groceries
Jack Boots Jackie represents for me, all that is wrong with our current government.....Labour wants all people's details and DNA on the database so they can keep an eye on us, all the time.....The government are obviously afraid of the people, as well they should be, because come next June, they will be voted out and their last period in the political wilderness will seem like a short break, compared to the length their next period will be.....Who knows, perhaps I shall never see another Labour government in my lifetime....Oh wouldn't that be nice?
ReplyDeleteJacqui can ignore the Court of European Rights, what can they do?
ReplyDeleteNothing.. she refuses to destroy any samples taken even if she removes names from a criminal database.
From the cradle to the grave, that great socialist statement now has a different ring doesn't it.
ReplyDeleteNew Labour = Old Communist.
There was some speculation that the baby's DNA may have been taken originally for elimination, which I suppose is fair enough. But then why not destroy the sample as soon as you've finished. Instead it looks like it was kept for at least 18 months, and possibly a lot longer. Who knows if they'd ever have disposed of it if they hadn't been caught? Personally I doubt it. Bastards.
ReplyDeleteKen,
ReplyDeleteı read this comment on another website and on an unrelated topic, but it seemed applicable to so many of the issues discussed here that I am copying it below:
"What we are getting is anarcho-tyranny, weakening states unable to carry out the basic functions of statehood becoming increasingly brutal and oppressive - not against genuine enemies, but against loyal citizenry who protest, and remaining traditionalist elements."
This, I fear, sums up the general drift of things, not only in the UK, but throughout the so-called "Free World."
With regard to your current post, I would argue that an effective criminal justice system should aspire to treat both the innocent and the guilty with equal fairness. Fairness implies that the innocent are not punished, and the guilty are.