Police stole my DNA...!

[poisonidea]

Hey all,

About 2 months ago I was arrested whilst getting off a train for suposedly being in posession of a "controlled substance" They were just caffine tablets I hasten to add! (which I kept telling them) but never the less I had spent the next 4 hours in the police station (3 of which were in a cell) protesting my innocence, during which I was drug tested (clean obviously), had fingerprints, photos and DNA taken. Eventually they let me go on bail pending forensic analysis of the tablets. Which was great as it meant I now had to get a ?50 taxi home as I'd been separated from the mates I was out with and had to postpone a trip to the Hague I had planned to visit my cousin as I wasn't allowed to leave the country... Anyway, yesterday the nice police officer rang me to say that they'd had the results back and I'd been telling the truth all along. So basically the whole experience has cost ?50 plus a holiday and what I've been told was a wicked night out... I'm not really one for pursuing compensation or anything, but this has really got on my tits especially when i'd been nothing but truthfull and cooperative with them from the first place, despite the fact I was treated/spoken to like I was a rapist throughout the whole thing. What ever happened to innocent till proven guilty!?

Anyway, I asked the police at the time whether WHEN they got the results back proving my innocence whether my dna, fingerprints...etc would be taken off their records, they said no... I'm a law abiding citizen, but just don't like the idea of my most personal information being on their system when I've done nothing wrong. The idea of a compulsary national DNA register frankly sickens me but it does appear that the police can just take innocent civilian's dna at will anyway... Does anyone know about the legalities of this sort of thing?

[the_lone_wolf]

welcome to britain, 2008

but don't worry, in a few years we'll all have our genetic data stored on a nice, easy to lose/steal card

[MiniMatt]

Unfortunately, you're screwed. And it's completely wrong.

But the police are well within their rights, and indeed do so as a matter of procedure, to take and retain DNA for nearly every arrestable offence. Whether you're subsequently found innocent, or even not charged, they can and do retain your DNA for the rest of your life.

The UK has the largest DNA database in the world as a result. It contains children, innocent people, oh, and some crims too.

[pencil shavings]

Hey all,

Does anyone know about the legalities of this sort of thing?

Yep, its what they do these days. Part of the find out everyones personal info so we can save the world.

Sorry to hear your night out was ruinned! :smt075

[beaniebikerbabe]

sorry m8 i think this is how it is not just with the police but social services have same stupid policies too.

[tigersaw]

Did they explain any concequences if you refused the DNA?

[simesb]

Did they explain any concequences if you refused the DNA?

Can you refuse if you have been arrested, or can you only refuse if you are being "questioned" voluntarily?

[Baph]

Ok, take it to an extreme:

You were innocent this time, but in a couple of years, your break into someones house, cutting your hand on broken glass as you enter.

They get a DNA sample from the broken glass, run it through the DB, and you get a knock on the door.

Not good for you, but great for the guy that got burgled. Now imagine that you as a law adiding citizen get your house broken into, and the police have a DNA match in the database?

It's all a matter of perspective.

If you're innocent, it's a good system, if you're planning on comitting an offence, it's not so great.

[tigersaw]

Can you refuse if you have been arrested, or can you only refuse if you are being "questioned" voluntarily?

Well you can always refuse, so they would have to assult you in order to get the sample. Maybe thats a crime in itself, allowing them to criminalise innocent people.

[poisonidea]

No, I don't think they explained the concequences for not letting them take dna...

Bugger, so it looks like all those crimes I had lined up for the summer will have to go on hold :rolleyes:

I always said thought if the national dna register came into force i'd emmigrate, it's just one step to far in this farcical country but now i guess theres no point. We elect a government to run the country, not to control every aspect of everyones life. Maybe the next step will be to install a sort of 3rd eye cctv camera on everyone at birth so "the man" can see what you see at all times. Anyone read 1984....?

:smt032

[simesb]

If you're innocent, it's a good system, if you're planning on comitting an offence, it's not so great.

bit of a pet rant of mine - civil liberties.

So by extension, you would be happy to wear a tracker 24/7 (and for everybody else to wear one) as you have "nothing to hide". :smt064

PS - no more speeding!

[wyrdness]

Could you sue for wrongful arrest? It might be worth talking to a solicitor, as you may be entitled to compensation.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Ok, take it to an extreme:

You were innocent this time, but in a couple of years, your break into someones house, cutting your hand on broken glass as you enter.

They get a DNA sample from the broken glass, run it through the DB, and you get a knock on the door.

Not good for you, but great for the guy that got burgled. Now imagine that you as a law adiding citizen get your house broken into, and the police have a DNA match in the database?

It's all a matter of perspective.

If you're innocent, it's a good system, if you're planning on comitting an offence, it's not so great.

That's the kind of **** about face thinking that's getting this country into the mess it is.

Criminalising the entire countries population to make it easier for the police to nick people after a crime has already been committed is completely stupid.

[the_lone_wolf]

Ok, take it to an extreme:

You were innocent this time...
sorry but no... considering the OP has commited no crime, what suggests that "in a couple of years time" he is likely to do so? in reality i would bet that having gone 20-30yrs without commiting a crime it's unlikely anyone would suddenly turn to it. if previous criminal activity is no indicator as to the likelyhood of future activity then we should all be on it, mandatory at birth.

if my house were burgled and a DNA sample taken, chances are the guy would do it again, leaving the same sample, eventually he would be caught and linked to all previous crimes and justice could be served. that's policework, not saying "oh, sorry we couldn't do anything about the guy who stole your bike because he didn't leave a jar of sperm in its place so we can't see if he was arrested for looking like a terrorist five years ago"

come to think of it, why not chip everyone's cars/bikes, that way we can monitor where everyone is at any time, 24hrs a day. great if your innocent, not so great if you're considering commiting a crime like speeding?

[Baph]

Again my sarcasam goes under the radar. Apologies.

FWIW, in response to the "everyone wear trackers" post, does no-one remember my comment a while back in relation to bikes have GPS trackers fitted for road taxation purposes? I posted a number of ways to easily defeat GPS units...

[poisonidea]

Could you sue for wrongful arrest? It might be worth talking to a solicitor, as you may be entitled to compensation.


I thought about it but I wouldn't really feel right about taking money from a "public service" that could go elsewhere, even though it'd probably be frittered away on a nice new role of red tape...

[timwilky]

It is wrong, plod is allowed to use force to steal your DNA if you refuse.

Whilst I understand Baphs argument, I am against the storing of any information relating to innocent people. However, I guess they will take mine when I commit the offence of refusing to buy an ID card to tell the government who I am.

[Baph]

come to think of it, why not chip everyone's cars/bikes, that way we can monitor where everyone is at any time, 24hrs a day. great if your innocent, not so great if you're considering commiting a crime like speeding?

Again, see above.

Is this another example of things in writing on the .Org being taken too literally? :)

[gettin2dizzy]

If you're innocent, it's a good system, if you're planning on comitting an offence, it's not so great.
You obviously haven't heard of the innocent people arrested over crimes simply because their DNA was found at the scene of the crime.

If the police wanted my DNA they'd need the whole force to hold me down! I'm not comprimising my freedom because the government are incompetant at running the country. DNA databasing only leads to wrongful prosecutions and opens doors to mass surveillance of the innocent public.


I'm sorry to hear they got you mate! Whilst I don't think you'll be entitled to any compensation I'd definitely pursue the DNA issue. Lifes a b*tch sometimes

[simesb]

I will admit to a sense of humour failure when it comes to this sort of thing. It all makes me so :smt075

[the_lone_wolf]

Again, see above.

Is this another example of things in writing on the .Org being taken too literally? :)

you need to observe proper smiley usage if you don't want people to misunderstand you;)

[Baph]

you need to observe proper smiley usage if you don't want people to misunderstand you;)
Where's the fun in that? :D

[SoulKiss]

you need to observe proper smiley usage if you don't want people to misunderstand you;)

Please provide this essential reference to Forum etiquette to help us all :P

[MiniMatt]

I feel sorry for the OP because he has now lost his "innocent till proven guilty" tag. He is now a potential suspect.

Ten years down the line, lets imagine you get a taxi, and a hair drops from your head and lands on the seat. Next week, the poor taxi driver gets beaten to death and robbed. Naturally, there are many human hairs found and dutifully the police will run them through the DNA database. Ooh, here's a hit - this one fella we arrested for drug possession - now does the arrest record say "oops, our bad, turns out they were pro-plus" - or does it say something potentially leading like "had to release due to insufficient evidence". So back to the taxi - hmm, a suspected drug dealer left evidence at a murder scene - worth pulling him in for questioning at any rate. Now, I have enough faith left to believe this won't result in your wrongful conviction, or even charge, but I'm quite sure you don't want the hassle of being arrested on suspicion of murder. Possibly publically. At your place of work perhaps.

[PAPPACLART]

Could you sue for wrongful arrest? It might be worth talking to a solicitor, as you may be entitled to compensation.


It can't be wrongful arrest, as the police have to have good reason, and pills are a good reason if any. Yes it turned out to be caffine pills as stated, but how many people have used that one on the cops as an excuse.

Come on, dude is out on the town and is found will pills in his pocket..do the math:D


Tho, perhaps an aplogy from the Police/sergant etc would go very far in this case

[Baph]

I'm quite sure you don't want the hassle of being arrested on suspicion of murder. Possibly publically. At your place of work perhaps.

Don't get me wrong, but I'd love to be arrested (then found innocent later) whilst at work.

I don't care how publically they did it, but with fully armed SWAT woul be fun.

It'd get me the day off at least. :)

[slark01]

I don't want my DNA on a datbase because i'm innocent of any crimes and it affects my civil liberties,in what way I dunno but it does!
I don't want my DNA on a database because i'm guilty of other crimes and I don't want to be caught!
I don't want my DNA on a database because someone might be able to use it to get a loan in my name!
I don't want my DNA on a database because it's wrong!
Whats DNA innit a drug?!?
As for me, I don't care, if the police wants my DNA they can have it.
It will not affect me in any way, has not done so far and will not do in the future no matter want any paranoids say.
Rather we have a better system where the judges can put people in prison and that we can hang murderers.

[poisonidea]

Exactly, forgot to mention that I was originally bailed till I had to return on the 12th April, the police said they'd ring when when they get the results (so i wouldn't have to go back) heard nothing till I rang them on the 11th, to which they said they'd have to extend bail till 12th May due to them not having the results... All this time, although innocent, there's always a voice inside my head thinking, what if they stitch me up...etc. Not nice.

[SoulKiss]

Don't get me wrong, but I'd love to be arrested (then found innocent later) whilst at work.

I don't care how publically they did it, but with fully armed SWAT woul be fun.

It'd get me the day off at least. :)

Whats the number for your local Crimestoppers Baph, and have you ever downloaded software with "heavy" encryption from the US?

If so a quick call reporting you for illegally importing Millitary grade stuff from the US should see you being SWATted as you asked.

Might even get free travel to Paddington Green Station in London as a terrorist.

Then when they realise it was just the source to SSH, and we time it right, you can show up at Frith Street :)

[Baph]

Whats the number for your local Crimestoppers Baph, and have you ever downloaded software with "heavy" encryption from the US?

At the risk of derailling, the strongest I have knowingly downloaded (and used in code) would be AES196 - which isn't banned for export. :(

However, if you know anyone that has AES256 outside of the US, I'd be interested in chatting. :)

[neio79]

While i can see both cases for and against DNA storage, i think it should be collected after every arrest.

you lot would be singing from a different song sheet if your mum,sister, daughter had just been raped and the rapist caught via a DNA sample he had provided for a lesser crime? i bet everyone would think its a brilliant idea then!!!

[Flamin_Squirrel]

you lot would be singing from a different song sheet if your mum,sister, daughter had just been raped and the rapist caught via a DNA sample he had provided for a lesser crime? i bet everyone would think its a brilliant idea then!!!

That's actually the precise reason why you must never EVER seek the views on crime prevention from victims.

[slark01]

That's actually the precise reason why you must never EVER seek the views on crime prevention from victims.
Erm thats probably nearly every single person so who should we speak to and get their views?:confused:

[Baph]

While i can see both cases for and against DNA storage, i think it should be collected after every arrest.

you lot would be singing from a different song sheet if your mum,sister, daughter had just been raped and the rapist caught via a DNA sample he had provided for a lesser crime? i bet everyone would think its a brilliant idea then!!!

Neio, I think you're missing the point.

If collected at the time of arrest, DNA information (IMO) should be destroyed the moment you're proven innocent (or at least not charged & the case is dropped).

If you're charged for any offence, then fine, the information can stay.

[wyrdness]

It can't be wrongful arrest, as the police have to have good reason, and pills are a good reason if any. Yes it turned out to be caffine pills as stated, but how many people have used that one on the cops as an excuse.

Come on, dude is out on the town and is found will pills in his pocket..do the math:D


Tho, perhaps an aplogy from the Police/sergant etc would go very far in this case

I'd disagree that possession of pills is valid grounds for arrest. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for having pills. They could be asprins for a headache or medicine for a serious condition. If they have no other evidence that he's carry illegal drugs, then surely the arrest could be classed as 'wrongful'.

Also, he didn't say that he was 'out on the town', he said that he was getting off a train.

[simesb]

you lot would be singing from a different song sheet if your mum,sister, daughter had just been raped and the rapist caught via a DNA sample he had provided for a lesser crime? i bet everyone would think its a brilliant idea then!!!

I have no problem with the DNA database per-se, it's how you end up on it that is the problem. Re-offending rates are 60-90% for certain types of crime. If you are in court and the jury are told that you were arrested because your DNA was in the database - how does that look? Explaining that you are on the database because you we arrested and then released implies that you are re-offending, but that there was not enough evidence to convict the first time round. :confused:

A lot of people are very willing to believe the worst until it is proven otherwise. I certainly believe the worst when it comes to the government and their motives for "security"

PS This (http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/03/craigslist_scam.html) is interesting for how to mess with the police and DNA.

[timwilky]

At the risk of derailling, the strongest I have knowingly downloaded (and used in code) would be AES196 - which isn't banned for export. :(

However, if you know anyone that has AES256 outside of the US, I'd be interested in chatting. :)



Derail, I use AES256 for my VPNs. am I naughty?

[poisonidea]

I was out on the town....on my way to a club called Antichrist lol.

I'm not really going to lose any sleep over them having my dna, just feel a bit violated. My mates got a photo of me being arrested, When I was being shoved into the car I held my cuffed hands in the air and shouted "The death penalty mocks justice!" to the assembled crowd who were watching. The police didn't see the funny side I dont think... :p It's now my facebook profile pic lol

[Baph]

Derail, I use AES256 for my VPNs. am I naughty?
Now see, that depends. :)

AES256 code is banned under US Export law (you're not allowed to export it unless licenced to do so).

If your VPNs are running under commercial licence, then I would suspect the relevant companies have applied for the respective export licences.

I'm working on a project & I'd love to use AES256, but the cost of the licence just isn't worth it. :(

[neio79]

If you are in court and the jury are told that you were arrested because your DNA was in the database - how does that look? .
Well to me it would look like they have got the right person, you are in court because the DNA evidence that you committed the crime is good proof. If I was Jury member and after listening to your side and if I thought there was no other reason for your DNA to have been found then to the gallows with you.

I have never subscribed to this whole its infringing my civil liberties clap trap, exactly how does it??( DNA database on its own) it does not stop you going anywhere or doing anything, well except it might stop you from committing a crime if you know your DNA is already held and only a match from your latest crime is required to nail you.

[SoulKiss]

If you're charged for any offence, then fine, the information can stay.

With the expiry on this retention being set to the information being destroyed once you are have been rehabilitated.

After all, once you have done the time for doing your crime then the slate is clean, isnt it?

Oh wait, I just woke up..... must stop sleep-posting

[blue curvy jester]

my only issue is the DNA database it not perfect ( and yes i am a DNA scientist )

the chance of them messing up when picking up DNA at a crime scene picking up a suspect on other evidential groundsand then him matching is tiny

the issue happens when they only have DNA do an analysis and they do a data base search they will then probably get a few 90 % hits and the possibility of more than 1 100% hits (the way the analysis is done relies upon staistical probabilities that you do or don't match a certain DNA marker)

This means that its directed randomness that give us our alegedley 'unique' signature.

I am on the DNA database for my work but in my case it means that i can go and rob banks!!! and my DNA evidence will be excluded from the scene

[neio79]

That's actually the precise reason why you must never EVER seek the views on crime prevention from victims.

Why? Surely they are the ones who can shed some light on what happened etc, their view and experience may well help Police or whoever learn and put better systems in place to prevent crime?

e.g., it was a dark ally way where I was mugged, better lighting provided so you can see what/who is down there?
Neio, I think you're missing the point.

If collected at the time of arrest, DNA information (IMO) should be destroyed the moment you're proven innocent (or at least not charged & the case is dropped).

If you're charged for any offence, then fine, the information can stay.

Baph, agreed, yes I can see a case for destroying it if you are proven 100% innocent of the offence.

[neio79]

I am on the DNA database for my work but in my case it means that i can go and rob banks!!! and my DNA evidence will be excluded from the scene

My Mrs is the same as the Police have it taken for the same reason, to remove them from a crime scene.

hmmmmmmm therfore pecome a cop and avoid detection :rolleyes:

[Baph]

become a cop and avoid detection

I'm sure I saw that in a movie once. Maybe it was more than once...

[Luckypants]

Baph, agreed, yes I can see a case for destroying it if you are proven 100% innocent of the offence.

Actually in this country you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the cops and CPS to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence. So DNA should NOT be registered on the database until you have been PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

[Baph]

So DNA should NOT be registered on the database until you have been PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

But where would it be stored in the interim? :rolleyes: And would nefarious types tamper with it whilst it was stored prior to being in the 'live' database?

[tigersaw]

As an airside worker I'm one of the first lucky ones to be forced into the voluntary ID card. We already carry a pass that shows we have been vetted through all the crim databases, which is reviewed regularily. Because of that, Bigbrother plc assumes we are a soft target and will all be happy about it, but there are a lot of people going to kick off if we are forced to give a DNA sample.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Why? Surely they are the ones who can shed some light on what happened etc, their view and experience may well help Police or whoever learn and put better systems in place to prevent crime?

Because victims are very subjective - they feel that the crime that's been committed against them is the worst in the world and view anything, even if it only had the minutest chance of proventing the crime is a good thing, regardless of any negative consiquences it might have.

[arc123]

But where would it be stored in the interim? :rolleyes: And would nefarious types tamper with it whilst it was stored prior to being in the 'live' database?

Simple soulution - DNA samples should be taken once judged guilty. There is no need to collect them on arrest.

I am not comfortable with the DNA DB. DNA is not the fool-proof science that it is made out to be.

Add in to the equation costs (ie the cost per detection - money can and should be spent more efficiently), slack laws on samples being used for genetic studies (without permission granted from donor), breach of liberties (children under the age of 10 on the national DB). I believe the cons far, far out way the pros.

[neio79]

Actually in this country you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the cops and CPS to prove guilt, not for the accused to prove innocence. So DNA should NOT be registered on the database until you have been PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

Yes true, but DNA is a little different is it not? You have to have it in some cases to as evidence so it’s held from day one. But yes after that say you are proven guilty part of the process should be to take DNA as you leave the court or when processed at the prison if you are given a custodial sentence

[neio79]

Simple soulution - DNA samples should be taken once judged guilty. There is no need to collect them on arrest.

.


No none what so ever, other than for evidence or to eliminate as suspect, nope none!!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Luckypants]

But where would it be stored in the interim? :rolleyes: And would nefarious types tamper with it whilst it was stored prior to being in the 'live' database?

The exact same argument can be levelled against the collection process now. Who is to say some nefarious type will not substitute your DNA with that of a rapist priuor to it being logged on the DB now?

That is just another reason why not to have this willy nilly collection.

[arc123]

No none what so ever, other than for evidence or to eliminate as suspect, nope none!!!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

refer back to:

DNA is not the fool-proof science that it is made out to be.

And I meant there is no need to sample as standard practice. Ie carrying caffiene pills - how is sampling DNA going to be useful here??

[Luckypants]

Yes true, but DNA is a little different is it not? You have to have it in some cases to as evidence so it’s held from day one. But yes after that say you are proven guilty part of the process should be to take DNA as you leave the court or when processed at the prison if you are given a custodial sentence

How is DNA any different to any other evidence? It should still be subject to the same rules of admissible evidence as anything else. It can be proved or dis-proved like any other evidence. DNA evidence is not the magic 100% accurate bullet some would have us believe.

I agree that taking the DNA may be necessary in some cases where DNA evidence has been discovered. Note I said it should be registered on the big bad DNA DB once you were proven guilty, not stored there as a matter of course.

[neio79]

refer back to:



And I meant there is no need to sample as standard practice. Ie carrying caffiene pills - how is sampling DNA going to be useful here??


no you are right in this case it provides no usefull evidence to any case, but in say a rape case there is a need to DNA sample ASAP to either help prove or dis prove a suspects quilt.

[Luckypants]

no you are right in this case it provides no usefull evidence to any case, but in say a rape case there is a need to DNA sample ASAP to either help prove or dis prove a suspects quilt.

and once 'proven innocent' that DNA sample should be destroyed and not registered.

[blue curvy jester]

Its simple DNA is taken as part of an investigation once the investigation is finished DNA should be destroyed unless you are found guility. ( as happens when you give fingerprints when your house is robbed)

The DNA can stay on the database indefinatley when you are convicted ( as fingerprints do)

You are then guilty and treated as a person of 'poor 'charecter or a crim

[neio79]

and once 'proven innocent' that DNA sample should be destroyed and not registered.

yes

[yorkie_chris]

Seems to be the thing in this country at the moment, what is morally right and wrong has no bearing on decisions, it seems that living a long life is far more important to those in power than living a free life.

[Flamin_Squirrel]

Seems to be the thing in this country at the moment, what is morally right and wrong has no bearing on decisions, it seems that living a long life is far more important to those in power than living a free life.

Sadly that seems to be the gerneral concensus amoungst the whole population, not just government.

[PAPPACLART]

I'd disagree that possession of pills is valid grounds for arrest. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for having pills. They could be asprins for a headache or medicine for a serious condition. If they have no other evidence that he's carry illegal drugs, then surely the arrest could be classed as 'wrongful'.

Also, he didn't say that he was 'out on the town', he said that he was getting off a train.


Maybe I made an assuption, maybe the thread starter will clarify, but I as he mentioned the great night out that he missed, also that he was seperated from his mates - I assumed he was with his friends when he was stopped getting off of the train, maybe I am wrong, if so my bad:D

Though, if a pill/pills are found and can not be proven ( at the time of the stop) to be anything other than a legal over the counter product, then the police reserve the right to arrest you on suspicion of possesing a controlled substance. All common sense may have sudjested that this was in fact exactly what the persons stopped claimed it to be, but wihout proof then the police can arrest you, until proven otherwise. You see the problem is, other than his word, he could not prove that they were not illegal drugs, and that gives the police grounds to arrest.

Me and my father were once attacked in the street late at night, I was 16 and my dad was about 58, we was walking the dog. This poor excuse for a crack head attacked us, I defended myself with a bag with a can of beer in it, my had, (despite is old age) proceded to beat the **** out of this guy. He ran away. None of us had a mobile, and we flagged down the 1st police car to report the incident, before we got to a pay phone. We told the police what happened, and as we were telling one of the coppers, the other one was on the radio to another squad car that found a man slumped in the gutter bleeding. This man that attacked me and my dad for no good reason (with a knife) had told the other police that found him, that me and my farther robbed him of £50 and then beat the crap out of him. It was obvious to see that my dad is an old man, and I was a teenager with no priors. We were out walking the dog, enjoying the cool summer night. This guy was cleary a crack head, scruffy cloths, scabs all over his face, and probably lots of holes in his arms and legs from jacking up! Anyway, me and my father were subsequently arrested, both strip searched and bailed about 8am the next morning for attacking this guy - supposedly!!!

The point is, Mr Crackhead made an accusation against us, as well as we did againts him, both of us had to be arrested, while the investigation took place to find the truth , despite what was obvious to everuone. In this threads case, an officer of the law has made an accusation, for Mr thread starter potentially having a controlled substance. As this is illegal, then the said person has to be arrested until the facts are found or proved otherwise. It is BS I know.

[yorkie_chris]

In any "self defence" type scenario the police are never your friends IMO

[ArtyLady]

what if you carry prescription meds - is it enough that the name is written on the foil packaging?

[PAPPACLART]

what if you carry prescription meds - is it enough that the name is written on the foil packaging?


If the pills are in a sealed labled packaging then I am sure that is fine. But if you have an asprin bottle with a screwed lid that is not sealed, and you have pills inside, then yes the police can arrest you if you can not prove that they are infact asprin or some other legal drug.

A pill is a a pill at the end of the day, and lots of illegal drugs these days have branded stamps on them, to make them look legal in an attempt to imitate a legal drug. i.e. Little white pill with asprin engraved on it etc

[ArtyLady]

If the pills are in a sealed labled packaging then I am sure that is fine. But if you have an asprin bottle with a screwed lid that is not sealed, and you have pills inside, then yes the police can arrest you if you can not prove that they are infact asprin or some other legal drug.

A pill is a a pill at the end of the day, and lots of illegal drugs these days have branded stamps on them, to make them look legal in an attempt to imitate a legal drug. i.e. Little white pill with asprin engraved on it etc

just spoke to my GP sugery's pharmacist about this and she said the best thing is to carry a copy of your prescription with you.

[PAPPACLART]

just spoke to my GP sugery's pharmacist about this and she said the best thing is to carry a copy of your prescription with you.

thats true but will only really protect you if your pills are sealed either in a bottle or in thos foil/platic things. Anyone can carry a perscription along with an already opened package/bottle of pills.

[getyerkneedown]

It sucks big time, and it's only going to get worse.

If you dont renew your passport by the end of this year (2008), when you go to renew it, you'll have all your biometric data recorded at the new 'interviews' and all this will be stored on a national database.

It's the first step in the National ID Card Scheme (NIDCS).

It won't be optional, it's compulsory.

The National Identity Register (NIR) needs to be stopped, and it needs to be stopped now....

Please visit http://www.no2id.net/ for more information on the NIR and NIDC.

[ArtyLady]

thats true but will only really protect you if your pills are sealed either in a bottle or in thos foil/platic things. Anyone can carry a perscription along with an already opened package/bottle of pills.

Fer christ's sake - then I cant take the pill organiser out when I go out in the evening then - I give up - its all too scary for me - think I'll become a recluse :(

[sinbad]

I think it should be optional upon proof of innocence. I actually would say they keep it on file, but it would annoy me if they didn't ask, and I'd be very unwilling if they demanded.

It's the principle of the thing, and I think that's the basis of the argument against them filing it in general. There's a lack of trust for the authorities born out of this kind of thing happening all too frequently. The nanny state opposition grows and whilst many of the things which they are doing and basically not going to hurt anyone, and protect the law abiding, we question and oppose them for the way they implement these things.

[northwind]

Seems to be the thing in this country at the moment, what is morally right and wrong has no bearing on decisions, it seems that living a long life is far more important to those in power than living a free life.

Great post. Though I'd go a bit further, I don't think it's just those in power, I think you'd be surprised how many people actually support this sort of madness. A lot of people have grown terrified of the big cold scary world...

[getyerkneedown]

Great post. Though I'd go a bit further, I don't think it's just those in power, I think you'd be surprised how many people actually support this sort of madness. A lot of people have grown terrified of the big cold scary world...

Agreed in entirity.

I was having a fairly lively debate with a friend over a pint the other week about this very issue, and the issue of compensation culture etc.

He just couldnt understand that sometimes accidents just happen, and that we all have a responsibilty to take care of ourselves... we cant go around blaming others for our stupidity. Being a claims handler for one such ambulance chaser, he refused to accept that point and insisted that there's always someone to blame and it's always the other person.

He was a prime example of what you've just said North... someone who's grown so scared of the big cold scary world.... that he cant see life for what it is. A gamble. An adventure.

When i asked him about NIR (national ID register) and the whole ID card thing, he, unsurprisingly, was quite content to sail his freedoms down the river in order to feel a little safer. When i pushed him harder on it, he confessed that even if he wasn't actually any safer, so long as he FELT safer.. it was worth it.

At that i just had to end it and made my excuses and left... otherwise with alcohol it would have gotten too lively.

[yorkie_chris]

he, unsurprisingly, was quite content to sail his freedoms down the river in order to feel a little safer. When i pushed him harder on it, he confessed that even if he wasn't actually any safer, so long as he FELT safer.. it was worth it.

I'm of the opinion that accepting that nothing is safe if you don't make it so, and you need to take full responsibility for your own safety. This is why the nanny state b0llocks annoys me so much. To take another example, I'm all for being allowed to carry weapons, but no chance of that any more!

[Red Herring]

There was a question earlier over what happens if you don't let them take the DNA sample, which made me do some digging. I'm no expert,so if there is one out there who knows differently do say so......but,

If you refuse to give a DNA sample at time of arrest then they can only take it by force if a police superintendent says so, and they can only say yes if you have been arrested for a "recordable offence" (which poissession of drugs is) AND they believe the sample with either prove or disprove your involvement in the offence suspected.

The OP says he was arrested for possession of the tablets, well I don't see how his DNA would help the police prove or disprove he had them,(the only issue was what are the tablets) so they wouldn't have got permission to take his DNA by force if he had refused to give it.

The books then go on to say that they can take it by force once you have been charged/convicted, but that isn't the issue in this thread, this is all about the police having your DNA when you haven't been charged/convicted.

Like I said, I'm no expert, but it does seem there is some advantage to be had by not rolling over at the first hurdle.......

[yorkie_chris]

See here
http://www.joebrower.com/RKBA/RKBA_FILES/ESSAYS/Memo_on_Arms_&_Freedom.pdf

For a "from my cold dead hands" outlook on it. :p

Interestingly, we almost had the right to bear arms in the bill of rights, but the phrase "as permitted by law" made it completely meaningless...

[getyerkneedown]

I'm of the opinion that accepting that nothing is safe if you don't make it so, and you need to take full responsibility for your own safety. This is why the nanny state b0llocks annoys me so much. To take another example, I'm all for being allowed to carry weapons, but no chance of that any more!

Yeah i hate all that nanny state rubbish too.. but i also disagree entirely with the right to carry.

Just look at the USA.

There's no proof that citizens carrying firearms makes for a safer society.

In the US even when you take into account their size on a pro-rata basis, they are still way out in the lead for the number of murders per annum. No proof at all that having more people carrying actually prevents murders... it actually increases them.

Firearms don't make society safer... they just make it easier for someone to lose control and blow another away in a moment of madness.

And besides, one can never make anything totally safe... you can merely control the risk and make it acceptable.

I think the UK in terms of the firearms laws has it pretty much right on, although the Firearms [Amendment] Act 1996 does need some tidying up, as it leaves it open for the likes of Soft Air and Paintballing to be banned also. But that's a seperate debate and one perhaps for another day.

[yorkie_chris]

Firearms don't make society safer... they just make it easier for someone to lose control and blow another away in a moment of madness.

To which end I could walk 10 minutes down the road, draw some cash out and buy one. There's enough floating about round here. Or indeed just stab someone in the eye with a potato peeler, just as dead :-P

My views on this are pretty selfish really, given the choice between being armed, and being helpless, which is what everyone is now, not safe at all, I know which I prefer!

[getyerkneedown]

To which end I could walk 10 minutes down the road, draw some cash out and buy one. There's enough floating about round here. Or indeed just stab someone in the eye with a potato peeler, just as dead :-P

My views on this are pretty selfish really, given the choice between being armed, and being helpless, which is what everyone is now, not safe at all, I know which I prefer!

Firearms crime in the UK is not actually all that common. Especially out of the hot spots.

If the public had the right to carry firearms, there'd be a heck of a lot more firearms problems. Then the police would need to be armed, and the criminals would go one further... it's a vicious cycle, and one that only leads down hill.

You can still arm yourself to be able to defend yourself, in methods that remain totally legal.

[northwind]

My views on this are pretty selfish really, given the choice between being armed, and being helpless, which is what everyone is now, not safe at all, I know which I prefer!

Except that we're actually very safe. Also, you're statistically more likely to be killed as a result of a theft or street attack if you carry a gun than if you don't- it introduces the temptation to resist, which is more likely to get you hurt than to protect you. Concealed carry laws tend to lead to offence ramping- you may get lower crime but you tend to get a rise in serious crime as criminals look at the risk/reward, and look for higher gains.

At the end of the day, if someone comes after you with a gun, the intent to use it, and they're mentally prepared for the situation, you're out of luck- even if you were clint eastwood on the draw, how fast do you switch from thinking about what you're going to have for dinner, to shooting someone? Not very fast, is the answer, and certainly not as fast as someone thinking "I might shoot this guy" switches to shooting you.

[Red Herring]

And not forgetting of course it's not always the bloke in front of you demanding your money that has the gun. Most common practice is for his mate standing a few yards away to have it, if the victim resists and/or produces a weapon to threaten the "robber" back then they get it in the back of the head, no warning. Try defending yourself against that.....

[gettin2dizzy]

There's no proof that citizens carrying firearms makes for a safer society.



Firearms don't make society safer... they just make it easier for someone to lose control and blow another away in a moment of madness.

Don't be so sure. You need to look at individual states policy on firearms in relation to the violent crime rates.

[neio79]

I personally believe that Americas ?right to bear arms? has lead to all sorts of problems. There is far more gun related crime over there, and having such easy access to guns makes it easy to carry out. Europe has far less gun crime and it can?t be a coincidence that we have far tighter gun laws and not able to arm ourselves. Once you go down that route of letting people arm themselves, first the crims do then civilians do to give themselves the illusion they are safer!

Guns do not make you less likely to be able to defend yourself against other guns, as if someone decided to shoot you then you are going to be dead before you have chance to realise what is going on, let alone draw your own gun in defence.

Guns are an offensive weapon full stop, they are not designed to tickle you, they are designed to maim and kill. Infact the 5.56mm NATO standard round was decided upon because it has a far greater incapacitating ability than the 7.62mm of the AK-47. the 5.56 will tumble in the body ricochet off bone and generally tear through vital organs causing massive internal damage. The reason for this is if you just maim your enemy you effectively take out 2-3 people as he has to be looked after and evacuated, using up vital recourses. It was found the old 7.62 round would quite often pass through a person and allow them to carry on for a bit. Of curse a head shot negates either of these scenarios J. Saying that officially we are not trained to kill!!!! :rolleyes:

[gettin2dizzy]

I personally believe that Americas ?right to bear arms? has lead to all sorts of problems. There is far more gun related crime over there, and having such easy access to guns makes it easy to carry out. Europe has far less gun crime and it can?t be a coincidence that we have far tighter gun laws and not able to arm ourselves. Once you go down that route of letting people arm themselves, first the crims do then civilians do to give themselves the illusion they are safer!

Guns do not make you less likely to be able to defend yourself against other guns, as if someone decided to shoot you then you are going to be dead before you have chance to realise what is going on, let alone draw your own gun in defence.
There are many European countries with very relaxed gun laws. In Switzerland for example it's almost expected to have one on your person! ;) But they are a very calm nation.

I believe the issue of violent crime in the US is allowing some states unlimited access to arms and others no access. This only leads to an imbalance in the criminals favour. In states with relaxed gun laws the amount of gun crime is similar to the levels we have here in the UK!


Guns are an offensive weapon full stop, they are not designed to tickle you, they are designed to maim and kill. Infact the 5.56mm NATO standard round was decided upon because it has a far greater incapacitating ability than the 7.62mm of the AK-47. the 5.56 will tumble in the body ricochet off bone and generally tear through vital organs causing massive internal damage. The reason for this is if you just maim your enemy you effectively take out 2-3 people as he has to be looked after and evacuated, using up vital recourses. It was found the old 7.62 round would quite often pass through a person and allow them to carry on for a bit. Of curse a head shot negates either of these scenarios J. Saying that officially we are not trained to kill!!!! :rolleyes:

The 7.62 was dropped for standard military use because a fully automatic 7.62 gun is ineffective from sholder fire from as little 100 yards! The 5.56 is much more accurate , has a greater range, and volume wise a soldier can carry almost twice as many 5.56 rounds to 7.62- so it's the obvious choice. I think the rumour about the 5.56 being more deadly is one of those banded about by anti-arms groups just trying to pick fault as damage wise the 7.62 is actually much worse; hence why your standard anti personnel machine gun round is still a 7.62mm.

I look like I'm picking fault here - but I'm not ;)

[neio79]

The 7.62 was dropped for standard military use because a fully automatic 7.62 gun is ineffective from sholder fire from as little 100 yards! The 5.56 is much more accurate , has a greater range, and volume wise a soldier can carry almost twice as many 5.56 rounds to 7.62- so it's the obvious choice. I think the rumour about the 5.56 being more deadly is one of those banded about by anti-arms groups just trying to pick fault as damage wise the 7.62 is actually much worse; hence why your standard anti personnel machine gun round is still a 7.62mm.

I look like I'm picking fault here - but I'm not ;)

i know you are not, but the lack of efect at 100 yds is due to it going straight throuh a person due to its higher weight and velocity, hence my point about the 5.56 doing more damage. 5.56 will do more fdamage at close range, where to be fair most NATO forces do their firing, up to 300m .

the 7.62 used in our support weapons is still used as generally the support weapons are used at distances approacing 600m+ and the extra weight and velocity of the 7.62 is required to be as effective as 5.56 close up!

[gettin2dizzy]

You get to shoot these then? If so I make your tracers;7.62mm, DSRR, 25mm, 30mm & 40mm.

I heard a story that when the Americans invented the 7.62 round the British held a competition to prove what was more deadly used in a fully automatic. Apparently after proving the 5.56 was better they then went on to prove a pistol was more deadly as the 7.62 missed so many times. I can believe it; they're big buggers.

You want to see the 30 & 40mm jobs though ;)

[yorkie_chris]

The 308 win maybe, but the AK round is a different kettle of fish.

As it is at the moment, knife vs right hook, no chance of winning that one unless incredibly lucky. Gun vs gun is far more even odds, northy, note I didn't say carrying should cause you to totally switch off from your surroundings :-P

[SoulKiss]

You want to see the 30 & 40mm jobs though ;)

If I PM you my address, can you send me some for visual inspection purposes :P

Oh, it wasnt an offer then....

[gettin2dizzy]

As long as you live within a mile of the AA gun. I'll send them super super express delivery ;)

[SoulKiss]

As long as you live within a mile of the AA gun. I'll send them super super express delivery ;)

How about you just shoot up a Post Office Van for me instead - I'm outside your standard expidited delivery area.

[neio79]

You get to shoot these then? If so I make your tracers;7.62mm, DSRR, 25mm, 30mm & 40mm.

I heard a story that when the Americans invented the 7.62 round the British held a competition to prove what was more deadly used in a fully automatic. Apparently after proving the 5.56 was better they then went on to prove a pistol was more deadly as the 7.62 missed so many times. I can believe it; they're big buggers.

You want to see the 30 & 40mm jobs though ;)

Yes i get to fire them, although being in the Signals not too often. Fired 5.56 and 7.62 in Iraq, Get to fire 5.56 most of the time.

When we used to do range days in NI with out any officers around we saved all the tracer rounds and filled our mags with them, tis very cool as dusk falls, watching them bounce off all over the place.

[gettin2dizzy]

Yes i get to fire them, although being in the Signals not too often. Fired 5.56 and 7.62 in Iraq, Get to fire 5.56 most of the time.

When we used to do range days in NI with out any officers around we saved all the tracer rounds and filled our mags with them, tis very cool as dusk falls, watching them bounce off all over the place.
No wonder we can't make enough with you bloody wasting them all ;)

[neio79]

No wonder we can't make enough with you bloody wasting them all ;)

Ah but now that will be the boys fighting those nasty peeps in Afgan, and quit moaning we are keepng you employed :wink:

[gettin2dizzy]

Ah but now that will be the boys fighting those nasty peeps in Afgan, and quit moaning we are keepng you employed :wink:
Hehe.
You got any experience with 105mm Field / 155mm / 81mm Mortar ?

[Warthog]

i know you are not, but the lack of efect at 100 yds is due to it going straight throuh a person due to its higher weight and velocity, hence my point about the 5.56 doing more damage. 5.56 will do more fdamage at close range, where to be fair most NATO forces do their firing, up to 300m .

the 7.62 used in our support weapons is still used as generally the support weapons are used at distances approacing 600m+ and the extra weight and velocity of the 7.62 is required to be as effective as 5.56 close up!


In the account of the delta farce and ranger combat in Mogadishu, a lot of the rangers noticed that the Delta guys had reverted to older 7.62 caliber weapons because they complained that with 5.56 you could shoot a "skinny" three times and its wouldn't knock him over and stop him cos a lot of them were high on khat?

[yorkie_chris]

223 is quite high velocity, so at close range like that city fighting it tended to go straight through, as the velocity was so high it wouldn't tumble at all.
7.62 is next to impossible to control though, and also a physically large round.
Like anything else, it's a tradeoff.

[SoulKiss]

To all those involved in the ammo conversation.

The police will be round to collect your DNA later :)

[yorkie_chris]

Derailled or what? :-P

[neio79]

Hehe.
You got any experience with 105mm Field / 155mm / 81mm Mortar ?

nope, only enough to know to not get hit by any of it! It would bea desperate day for our forces if the Signals had to use mortars and 105mm field guns!! but i would be more than happy to have a play with them .:cool:

[SoulKiss]

nope, only enough to know to not get hit by any of it! It would bea desperate day for our forces if the Signals had to use mortars and 105mm field guns!! but i would be more than happy to have a play with them .:cool:

Assuming the job of the Signals is communication, I would have thought that nothing says Ferk-Orf like a morter/105mm field gun round :)

[gettin2dizzy]

Assuming the job of the Signals is communication, I would have thought that nothing says Ferk-Orf like a morter/105mm field gun round :)
You obviously haven't seen the 155 & 4.5 shells ;)