BBC News Updated every minute of every day

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:22 GMT 11:22 UK

It comes to something when I need protecting from my own Government by others outside. You could expect this in China or Russia. No good old Blighty wants your DNA just in-case that sub 1% of cases were DNA is used pops up with something.

Christopher Davies, Chippenham, United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:21 GMT 11:21 UK

all in the last 12 years.
Scary stuff.
Richard Hill, Birmingham, United Kingdom

Much longer than 12 years.
Mrs. Thatcher was one of the worst, both for erosion of rights and excess PC, safety laws, & state control of professionals.
Making DNA into political football just diverts us from real solutions , eg. creative education for a more alert population.

Stephanie Snape, Liverpool

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:20 GMT 11:20 UK

I would donate my DNA why is there an issue of the police having your DNA it helps rule you out of crimes.

Man with No Name Wakefield, England, United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:17 GMT 11:17 UK

I've never seen so much paranoia! You're far more likely to be killed in a road accident than have someone frame you for a crime you didn't commit because they have your DNA.
Let's not get carried away, there are real dangers out there you know.
The Running Man, London, United Kingdom

-------------------
exactly, so go spend money on real crimes instead of thinking connecting everyone to a system will resolve everything. the "matrix" comes to mind.my dna is mine!

[supadupacushty], United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:15 GMT 11:15 UK

Until either charges or dropped or until acquittal and DNA should not even be taken unless there is recovered DNA evidence requiring a comparison. This is not the old eastern bloc quite yet.

jon sanderson, retford

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:11 GMT 11:11 UK

The experience of David Sweeney of Manchester (see the Head to Head feature) is PRECISELY why the DNA of innocent people should never be retained.
Furthermore, is everyone aware that if you get a police 'caution' you are then on their database..? I've heard that the advice is not to accept a caution; insist on being arrested, then due process has to be gone through.

david, Cambridge

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:09 GMT 11:09 UK

I would never willingly give a DNA sample to police, they would have to charge me first - all it needs is for everyone opposed to database to do the same and the police would be so bogged down with 'false arrest' cases that they would have to be back in the office 24/7 doing paperwork.

[Enuf_Zed], Unpublished is the new rejected, United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:07 GMT 11:07 UK

Once again, so much paranoia demonstrated by the people of HYS! I'm yet to be shown any valid reason for the government not to have everybody's DNA on record from birth.

graham, Bolton

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:04 GMT 11:04 UK

Having been arrested 20 years ago for Drunk & Disorderly (I though it was a wind up at first) & refused a blood test or breathalyser test by the arresting officers and the station sergeant (I wanted one because I hadn't drunk anything) threatened with having drugs evidence "found" on me if I didn't shut up (demanding a breathalyser), told by my lawyer to "plead guilty because you can't win against a Suss charge" and then listen to the "police version" in court, I know I'm not paranoid about DNA

[pandatank], london

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:02 GMT 11:02 UK

First it should not ever be taken without a court order, having proved beyond reasonable doubt the victim accused was involved, and there is forensic evidence to use it against. Obviously all DNA on the database bar that of very serious criminals should be deleted immediately. A second's retention is too long.

ALL DNA trawling must stop and all gathering on any arrest by habit.

Labour are creating a Police State, give me any amount of crime instead!

James StGeorge, London

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:00 GMT 11:00 UK

'Guilty until proven innocent' - the law reformers must be spinning wildly in their graves.

[Enuf_Zed], Unpublished is the new rejected, United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 11:00 GMT 11:00 UK

Whether or not DNA samples should be retained on Police databases is a decision which should be made by the electorate. VIA REFERENDUM!

Brian Langfield, Doncaster, United Kingdom

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 10:58 GMT 10:58 UK

Quote:

"I have no argument with the DNA of people convicted of an offence being kept indefinitely."

Look back in the history books at some of the things that used to be against the law. They are crazy aren't they? Laws change, regimes change, public attitudes change. I know someone with a criminal record for riding a push bike on the path. It isn't even a criminal offence anymore. But he still has a criminal record. Try thinking about the implications.

Dee Enay, The Database

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 10:57 GMT 10:57 UK

Any, and all DNA found at an unsolved crime should be kept
for future reference..Agreed a time limited for innocent people.

borobear, bristol

Added: Thursday, 12 November, 2009, 10:56 GMT 10:56 UK

Classic! First think up something outrageous (keeping INNOCENT people's DNA). Then make an even more outrageous suggestion (keep it for 12 years). Then make dumbos feel happy by suggesting you'll keep it for "only" 6 years. Ah, I feel all huggy-feely. Fact is it shouldn't be kept for 6 seconds!

SUe Loveday, Granada