| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 04, 2008 11:48 pm Post subject: European court rules DNA database breaches human rights |
 |
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7764069.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/dec/04/law-genetics
BBC
Page last updated at 12:44 GMT, Thursday, 4 December 2008
DNA database 'breach of rights'
Two British men should not have had their DNA and fingerprints retained by police, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The men's information was held by South Yorkshire Police, although neither was convicted of any offence.
The judgement could have major implications on how DNA records are stored in the UK's national database.
The judges said keeping the information "could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said she was "disappointed" by the European Court of Human Rights' decision.
The database may now have to be scaled back following the unanimous judgement by 17 senior judges from across Europe.
Under present laws, the DNA profiles of everyone arrested for a recordable offence in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are kept on the database, regardless of whether they are charged or convicted.
Discriminatory
The details of about 4.5m people are held and one in five of them does not have a current criminal record.
Both men were awarded £36,400 (42,000 Euros) in costs, less the money already paid in legal aid.
The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary
The court found that the police's actions were in violation of Article 8 - the right to respect for private and family life - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
It also said it was "struck by the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the power of retention in England and Wales".
The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard".
The court also ruled "the retention in question constituted a disproportionate interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life and could not be regarded as necessary in a democratic society".
'Privacy protection'
The home secretary said: "DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month.
"The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice.
"The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement."
FROM THE TODAY PROGRAMME
More from Today programme
Solicitor Peter Mahy, who represented the men, said that the decision will have far-reaching implications.
"It will be very interesting to see how the UK government respond.
"The government should now start destroying the DNA records of those people who are currently on the DNA database and who are innocent of any crime."
Human rights group Liberty said it welcomed the court's decision.
Director Shami Chakrabarti said: "This is one of the most strongly worded judgements that Liberty has ever seen from the Court of Human Rights.
"That court has used human rights principles and common sense to deliver the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver."
'Invasion of privacy'
Phil Booth, of the NO2ID group, which campaigns against identity cards, said: "'This is a victory for liberty and privacy.
"Though these judgements are always complicated and slow in coming, it is a vindication of what privacy campaigners have said all along.
"The principle that we need to follow is simple - when charges are dropped suspect samples are destroyed. No charge, no DNA."
The Nuffield Council on Bioethics reports on the ethical questions raised by recent advances in biological and medical research.
Its director, Hugh Whittall, said: "We agree wholeheartedly with this ruling. The DNA of innocent people should not be kept by police.
"People feel it is an invasion of their privacy, and there is no evidence that removing from the DNA database people who have not been charged or convicted will lead to serious crimes going undetected.
"The government now has an obligation to bring its own policies into line."
Rights breach claim
One of the men who sought the ruling in Strasbourg, Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in 2001.
He was charged with harassing his partner but the case was later dropped. He had no previous convictions.
The other man - a teenager identified as "S" - was arrested and charged with attempted robbery but later acquitted.
In both cases the police refused to destroy fingerprints and DNA samples taken when the men were taken in to custody.
The men went to the European Court of Human Rights after their cases were thrown out by the House of Lords.
They argued that retaining their DNA profiles is discriminatory and breaches their right to a private life.
The government claims the DNA profile from people who are not convicted may sometimes be linked to later offences, so storing the details on the database is a proportionate response to tackling crime.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people who are not charged or who are later acquitted of alleged offences.
The Home Office has already set up a "contingency planning group" to look into the potential implications arising from a ruling in favour of the men.
Guardian:
European court rules DNA database breaches human rights
* Peter Walker
* guardian.co.uk, Thursday December 4 2008 10.55 GMT
Only DNA samples for those convicted of crimes should be kept, according to the ruling. Photograph: PA
Police forces in much of the UK could be forced to destroy the DNA details of hundreds of thousands of people with no criminal convictions, after a court ruled today that keeping them breaches human rights.
The European court of human rights in Strasbourg said that keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.
The decision was welcomed by civil liberties campaigners, but the home secretary, Jacqui Smith, said she was "disappointed". Police chiefs warned that destroying DNA details would make it harder to investigate many crimes.
The European court said that keeping DNA material from those who were "entitled to the presumption of innocence" as they had never been convicted of an offence, carried "the risk of stigmatisation".
Attacking the "blanket and indiscriminate nature" of the power to retain data, the judges said protections offered by article eight "would be unacceptably weakened if the use of modern scientific techniques in the criminal justice system were allowed at any cost and without carefully balancing the potential benefits of the extensive use of such techniques against important private-life interests".
The decision could oblige the government to order the destruction of DNA data belonging to those without criminal convictions among the approximately 4.4m records on the England, Wales and Northern Ireland database.
Scotland already destroys DNA samples taken during criminal investigations from people, who are eventually not charged or who are later acquitted.
The decision follows a lengthy legal challenge by two British men. Michael Marper, 45, was arrested in March 2001 and charged with harassing his partner, but the case was later dropped.
Separately, a 19-year-old named in court only as "S" was arrested and charged with attempted robbery in January 2001, when he was 12, but he was cleared five months later.
The men, both from Sheffield, asked that their fingerprints, DNA samples and profiles be destroyed. South Yorkshire police refused, saying the details would be retained "to aid criminal investigation".
They applied to the European court after their case was turned down by the House of Lords, which ruled that keeping the information did not breach human rights.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of the human rights group, Liberty, which helped fund the case, said parliament should be allowed to debate new DNA database rules.
"This is one of the most strongly-worded judgments that Liberty has ever seen from the court of human rights," she said, arguing that the court had ensured "the privacy protection of innocent people that the British government has shamefully failed to deliver".
Smith, however, said existing laws would remain in place while ministers considered the judgment.
"DNA and fingerprinting is vital to the fight against crime, providing the police with more than 3,500 matches a month, and I am disappointed by the European court of human rights' decision," she said.
"The government mounted a robust defence before the court and I strongly believe DNA and fingerprints play an invaluable role in fighting crime and bringing people to justice."
Chris Sims, the chief constable of Staffordshire police, who speaks on forensics for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said the ruling would have a "profound impact" on policing.
Analysis of 200,000 DNA samples retained on the database between 2001 and 2005, which would have to be destroyed under today's ruling, showed that 8,500 profiles had been linked to crime scenes, among them 114 murders and 116 rapes, said Sims.
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just heard this from a friend. How long can they last before they have to scrap it??
What good news 
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 19, 2009 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/19/us/19DNA.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
| New York Times wrote: | F.B.I. and States Vastly Expand DNA Databases
Monica Almeida/The New York Times
Published: April 18, 2009
Law enforcement officials are vastly expanding their collection of DNA to include millions more people who have been arrested or detained but not yet convicted. The move, intended to help solve more crimes, is raising concerns about the privacy of petty offenders and people who are presumed innocent.
Until now, the federal government genetically tracked only convicts. But starting this month, the Federal Bureau of Investigation will join 15 states that collect DNA samples from those awaiting trial and will collect DNA from detained immigrants — the vanguard of a growing class of genetic registrants.
The F.B.I., with a DNA database of 6.7 million profiles, expects to accelerate its growth rate from 80,000 new entries a year to 1.2 million by 2012 — a 17-fold increase. F.B.I. officials say they expect DNA processing backlogs — which now stand at more than 500,000 cases — to increase.
Law enforcement officials say that expanding the DNA databanks to include legally innocent people will help solve more violent crimes. They point out that DNA has helped convict thousands of criminals and has exonerated more than 200 wrongfully convicted people.
But criminal justice experts cite Fourth Amendment privacy concerns and worry that the nation is becoming a genetic surveillance society.
“DNA databases were built initially to deal with violent sexual crimes and homicides — a very limited number of crimes,” said Harry Levine, a professor of sociology at City University of New York who studies policing trends. “Over time more and more crimes of decreasing severity have been added to the database. Cops and prosecutors like it because it gives everybody more information and creates a new suspect pool.”
Courts have generally upheld laws authorizing compulsory collection of DNA from convicts and ex-convicts under supervised release, on the grounds that criminal acts diminish privacy rights.
DNA extraction upon arrest potentially erodes that argument, a recent Congressional study found. “Courts have not fully considered legal implications of recent extensions of DNA-collection to people whom the government has arrested but not tried or convicted,” the report said.
Minors are required to provide DNA samples in 35 states upon conviction, and in some states upon arrest. Three juvenile suspects in November filed the only current constitutional challenge against taking DNA at the time of arrest. The judge temporarily stopped DNA collection from the three youths, and the case is continuing.
Sixteen states now take DNA from some who have been found guilty of misdemeanors. As more police agencies take DNA for a greater variety of lesser and suspected crimes, civil rights advocates say the government’s power is becoming too broadly applied. “What we object to — and what the Constitution prohibits — is the indiscriminate taking of DNA for things like writing an insufficient funds check, shoplifting, drug convictions,” said Michael Risher, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.
This year, California began taking DNA upon arrest and expects to nearly double the growth rate of its database, to 390,000 profiles a year from 200,000.
One of those was Brian Roberts, 29, who was awaiting trial for methamphetamine possession. Inside the Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles last month, Mr. Roberts let a sheriff’s deputy swab the inside of his cheek.
Mr. Roberts’s DNA will be translated into a numerical sequence at the F.B.I.’s DNA database, the largest in the world.
The system will search for matches between Mr. Roberts’s DNA and other profiles every Monday, from now into the indeterminate future — until one day, perhaps decades hence, Mr. Roberts might leave a drop of blood or semen at some crime scene.
Law enforcement officials say that DNA extraction upon arrest is no different than fingerprinting at routine bookings and that states purge profiles after people are cleared of suspicion. In practice, defense lawyers say this is a laborious process that often involves a court order. (The F.B.I. says it has never received a request to purge a profile from its database.)
When DNA is taken in error, expunging a profile can be just as difficult. In Pennsylvania, Ellyn Sapper, a Philadelphia public defender, has spent weeks trying to expunge the profile taken erroneously of a 14-year-old boy guilty of assault and bicycle theft. “I’m going to have to get a judge’s order to make sure that all references to his DNA are gone,” she said.
The police say that the potential hazards of genetic surveillance are worth it because it solves crimes and because DNA is more accurate than other physical evidence. “I’ve watched women go from mug-book to mug-book looking for the man who raped her,” said Mitch Morrissey, the Denver district attorney and an advocate for more expansive DNA sampling. “It saves women’s lives.”
Mr. Morrissey pointed to Britain, which has fewer privacy protections than the United States and has been taking DNA upon arrest for years. It has a population of 61 million — and 4.5 million DNA profiles. “About 8 percent of the people commit about 70 percent of your crimes, so if you can get the majority of that community, you don’t have to do more than that,” he said.
In the United States, 8 percent of the population would be roughly 24 million people.
Britain may provide a window into America’s genetic surveillance future: As of March 2008, 857,000 people in the British database, or about one-fifth, have no current criminal record. In December, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Britain violated international law by collecting DNA profiles from innocent people, including children as young as 10.
Critics are also disturbed by the demographics of DNA databases. Again Britain is instructive. According to a House of Commons report, 27 percent of black people and 42 percent of black males are genetically registered, compared with 6 percent of white people.
As in Britain, expanding genetic sampling in the United States could exacerbate racial disparities in the criminal justice system, according to Hank Greely, a Stanford University Law School professor who studies the intersection of genetics, policing and race. Mr. Greely estimated that African-Americans, who are about 12 percent of the national population, make up 40 percent of the DNA profiles in the federal database, reflective of their prison population. He also expects Latinos, who are about 13 percent of the population and committed 40 percent of last year’s federal offenses — nearly half of them immigration crimes — to dominate DNA databases.
Enforcement officials contend that DNA is blind to race. Federal profiles include little more information than the DNA sequence and the referring police agency. Subjects’ names are usually kept by investigators.
Rock Harmon, a former prosecutor for Alameda County, Calif., and an adviser to crime laboratories, said DNA demographics reflected the criminal population. Even if an innocent man’s DNA was included in a genetic database, he said, it would come to nothing without a crime scene sample to match it. “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to fear,” he said.
» A version of this article appeared in print on April 19, 2009, on page A1 of the New York edition |
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Disco_Destroyer
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 05 Sep 2006
Posts: 6342
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:25 pm Post subject: We're having your DNA whether you like it or not |
|
|
Judge: Tasering a suspect for DNA legal if not ‘malicious’
By Stephen C. Webster
Published: June 4, 2009
Updated 17 hours ago
A judge in Niagara County, New York, ruled Thursday that DNA evidence, obtained only after police applied a Taser to a suspect who refused to provide evidence against himself, may be used by the prosecution because the electric shock was not administered with malice.
Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza, with this 17-page decision, becomes “the first judge in western civilization to say you can use a Taser to enforce a court order,” defense attorney Patrick Balkin said, according to The Niagara Gazette.
“Note that if Smith is guilty, he’s a pretty bad guy,” interjected The Buffalo News. “He’s charged with shooting a man in the groin after invading his ex-girlfriend’s home, tying up her two children and forcing her to take her to the home of the man he shot. He’s also charged with the shotgun-point robbery of a Niagara Falls gas station. DNA was found at both crime scenes.”
Smith, according to reports, had previously agreed to a court order for a DNA sample. But when authorities accidentally spoiled the sample, forcing them to return to the judge for a second order Sperrazza issued it without consulting the defense counsel, thinking the defendant would not mind.
“Smith did object, reportedly telling officers, ‘I ain’t giving it up. You’re going to have to tase me,’” added Buffalo News.
“Which they did, after consulting with a prosecutor, who either told them to use ‘the minimum force necessary’ (according to police testimony at last month’s court hearing) or ‘any means necessary’ (according to a police report written the day of the incident).”
After tasing Smith, a DNA swab was taken without consent.
“They have now given the Niagara Falls police discretion to Taser anybody anytime they think it’s reasonable,” Smith’s attorney said, according to a separate report in The Buffalo News. “Her decision says you can enforce a court order by force. If you extrapolate that, we no longer have to have child support hearings; you can just Taser the parent.”
In the decision’s text, Sperrazza cited a Wyoming case in which a judge ruled police acted legally when they tased a man in order to force him to open his hand relative to a search.
“The Court is certainly concerned that the purpose of the Taser was to inflict pain, and has seriously considered the argument of the defendant that a line is crossed when such government action is sanctioned,” she wrote. “This Court would immediately condemn and sanction the actions of the police if there was any indication that the Taser was used maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury. The Court is convinced by the evidence presented that the exact opposite of those factors was present in this case.
“The court would not advice the government to systematically utilize pain compliance as a standard tool in future similar circumstances, because of the intense scrutiny the use of such tactics would receive from this Court. However, this case is perhaps best described as the ‘perfect storm’ where the crimes being investigated were egregious, the evidence sought highly probative, the intrusion was minimal, and with a subject who steadfastly refused to comply with a lawful court Order. Further, the officers, armed with the Order issued, repeatedly sought the subject’s compliance, explored alternative methods of obtaining the sample, repeatedly warned the defendant of the consequences of his refusal and took steps to minimize the pain inflicted and the potential for injury. There was no malice or desire to injure the defendant.”
“Well, this certainly changes the landscape for noncompliance with an order,” socked the blog Simple Justice. “No need to go back to the issuing magistrate for a pep talk about the penalty for noncompliance, just zap ‘em right then and there. Cut out the middleman. There are plenty of aspects of the criminal justice system where this could move things along a little faster. Like maybe just executing defendants upon arrest. Think of the cost savings.”
The judge granted a postponement to August 11 of Smith’s trial on the 24-count indictment. Smith’s lawyer, not expecting Thursday’s ruling, asked for the extension because he had not yet begun having the DNA in question analyzed.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/06/04/judge-tasering-a-suspect-for-dn a-legal-if-not-malicious/
_________________
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
www.myspace.com/disco_destroyer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 08, 2009 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/aug/07/dna-database-police-adv ice
Police told to ignore human rights ruling over DNA database
* Alan Travis, home affairs editor
* guardian.co.uk, Friday 7 August 2009 21.32 BST
Chief constables across England and Wales have been told to ignore a landmark ruling by the European court of human rights and carry on adding the DNA profiles of tens of thousands of innocent people to a national DNA database.
Senior police officers have also been "strongly advised" that it is "vitally important" that they resist individual requests based on the Strasbourg ruling to remove DNA profiles from the national database in cases such as wrongful arrest, mistaken identity, or where no crime has been committed.
European human rights judges ruled last December in the S and Marper case that the blanket and indiscriminate retention of the DNA profiles and fingerprints of 850,000 people arrested but never convicted of any offence amounts to an unlawful breach of their rights.
Britain already has the largest police national DNA database in the world, with 5.8m profiles, including one in three of all young black males. Thousands more are being added each week.
So far the Home Office has responded to the judgment by proposing a controversial package to keep DNA profiles of the innocent for six to 12 years, depending on the seriousness of the offence. The official consultation period ended today.
The advice to senior officers comes in a letter from the Association of Chief Police Officers criminal records office. The letter, seen by the Guardian, tells chief constables that new Home Office guidelines following the ruling in the case of S and Marper are not expected to take effect until 2010.
"Until that time, the current retention policy on fingerprints and DNA remains unchanged," it says. "Individuals who consider they fall within the ruling in the S and Marper case should await the full response to the ruling by the government prior to seeking advice and/or action from the police service in order to address their personal issue on the matter.
"Acpo strongly advise that decisions to remove records should not be based on [the government's] proposed changes. It is therefore vitally important that any applications for removals of records should be considered against current legislation."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' shadow home secretary, said it was clear from the letter that the government intends to string out its response to the European court ruling that they should not keep the DNA of innocent people.
"It is unacceptable that new guidance won't be provided to police until 2010. In that time thousands more innocent people will have been added to the database, where they will remain for years.
"It is not up to police forces to ignore court judgments because they or their masters do not like them."
The tone of the letter is in sharp contrast to what the Home Office told the House of Lords in June when peers sharply criticised the government's intention to push through their plan to keep innocent people's DNA for up to 12 years by using "back door" secondary legislation to get it through parliament. The Home Office told peers that they could not afford the delay that would be involved in making the changes in primary legislation that would allow MPs and peers to fully debate the changes.
Home Office officials said they face a possible "surge of pressure" from individuals seeking deletion of their data from the relevant databases. Ministers have already received some legal challenges.
But the Lords committee on delegated powers and regulatory reform has told ministers that provision "about this important and complex subject should be in primary legislation".
_________________
Summary of 9/11 scepticism: http://tinyurl.com/27ngaw6 and www.911summary.com
Off the TV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4szU19bQVE
Those who do not think that employment is systemic slavery are either blind or employed. (Nassim Taleb)
www.moneyasdebt.net
http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:20 pm Post subject: DNA evidence can be fabricated, scientists say |
|
|
DNA evidence can be fabricated, scientists say
Tue, 18 Aug 2009 08:36:50 GMT
Undermining what has long been considered as irrefutable proof in investigation of criminal cases, scientists announce that DNA evidence found at crime scenes can "easily" be fabricated.
A scientific company specialized in forensic DNA analysis revealed that while DNA fingerprinting is considered one of the leading forensic tools in dealing with criminal cases, DNA evidence can easily be falsified and planted at crime scenes prior to collection by law enforcement officers.
According to the Tel Aviv-based life science company, Nucleix, a sample of DNA matching any profile can be constructed using basic equipment and access to DNA or a DNA profile in a database without obtaining any tissue from that person.
"You can just engineer a crime scene," said Dan Frumkin, lead author of the new study conducted by Nucleix and published by the journal Forensic Science International: Genetics. "Any biology undergraduate could perform this."
Andrew Cohen, a legal analyst at CBS News, said "This is potentially terrible news for prosecutors and police and the military and all sorts of industries that use DNA testing to confirm or find information."
Meanwhile, the company has moved to address the need to safeguard the accuracy and credibility of DNA samples through development of a test for distinguishing real DNA samples from fake ones.
The company hopes to sell the "DNA authentication" assay to forensics laboratories.
DNA, or Deoxyribonucleic Acid, is the material that makes up the genetic code of most organisms and no two individuals have the same DNA blueprint.
http://www.presstv.ir/classic/Detail.aspx?id=103841§ionid=3510208
_________________
www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org
www.rethink911.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org
www.mediafor911truth.org
www.pilotsfor911truth.org
www.mp911truth.org
www.ae911truth.org
www.rl911truth.org
www.stj911.org
www.v911t.org
www.thisweek.org.uk
www.abolishwar.org.uk
www.elementary.org.uk
www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149
http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russet
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2009
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 19, 2009 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heeellllloooooo....
Shami Chakrabati at Liberty is Common Purpose.....
The EU is the 100% undemocratic super state. Which I thought we were fighting.
| Quote: | | The judges ruled the retention of the men's DNA "failed to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests," and that the UK government "had overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard". |
Now, what exactly is a 'fair balance between the competing public and private interests'. ??????
What is meant by 'private interests'?
| Quote: | 'The existing law will remain in place while we carefully consider the judgement'
Jacqui Smith, Home Secretary
|
So, no change to the law.
And we are led to believe the EU are the good guys. Cunning really.
Wakey wakey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TonyGosling
Editor
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 18335
Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
acrobat74
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 03 Jun 2007
Posts: 836
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
