TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I don't know where you'd donate. A police station, maybe? I'd have thought your willingness would enable you to find a way. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to post back how you achieved it once you have, for the benefit of everyone else on this thread who thinks its coverage should be universal. My thinking is that the founding fathers were very keen on the idea of as small a government as possible Come on Splodgey. We are both respecters of the founding fathers and I am pretty well versed in their generalviews on matters of government and liberty etc. But I thought you were going to be a bit more specific than that, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Traditionally the police have filmed protesters in order to provide evidence to prosecute the lawbreakers. These days the filming goes both ways. The police are filmed by demonstrators and occasionally are brought to book by the evidence. i know but im talking about more recent events where people have been arrested or threatened with arrest for simpley filming / photographing single coppers / squaddies etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Come on Splodgey. We are both respecters of the founding fathers and I am pretty well versed in their generalviews on matters of government and liberty etc. But I thought you were going to be a bit more specific than that,Start a thread on it, then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 i know but im talking about more recent events where people have been arrested or threatened with arrest for simpley filming / photographing single coppers / squaddies etc Yes. It is a good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 i know but im talking about more recent events where people have been arrested or threatened with arrest for simpley filming / photographing single coppers / squaddies etc it is a little creepy taking photos of one guy (in uniform or not) if you don't know them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrence Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Will be? Are you sure? Oh forgive me, the retrial opened in late November. There's a website friendsofamanda.org with more details. She's been in prison for 3 years!! It's largely irrelevant to this thread, though. The low quality of the DNA evidence is a matter of record - it's much worse than would be allowed in an American court - and the various innocent means by which it could have made its way onto the samples were not properly investigated. Even if she is the killer, using bad science to secure a conviction is wrong. It's no better than saying to a jury "she did it because we say so". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Oh forgive me, the retrial opened in late November. There's a website friendsofamanda.org with more details. She's been in prison for 3 years!! It's largely irrelevant to this thread, though. The low quality of the DNA evidence is a matter of record - it's much worse than would be allowed in an American court - and the various innocent means by which it could have made its way onto the samples were not properly investigated. Even if she is the killer, using bad science to secure a conviction is wrong. It's no better than saying to a jury "she did it because we say so". Agree with all of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaimani Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Agree with all of that. T, sorry if you've already explained, but how exactly do you think a national DNA database is going to cut crime/ help catch criminals to the extend of being worthwhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TallestDwarf Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 T, sorry if you've already explained, but how exactly do you think a national DNA database is going to cut crime/ help catch criminals to the extend of being worthwhile? It is very hard for a person to commit certain types of crime without leaving behind DNA in some form. Clearly sexual assault/murder will always leave DNA. In the case in Bristol my understanding is that the perpetrator did leave DNA evidence. Also there are other examples where a person has been required to provide a DNA sample because they have been arrested for eg a traffic offence. That DNA has matched DNA left at a more serious crime scene. It transpires that the police got lucky....or the criminal got unlucky........because the more serious crime was cleared up in this way. If an all inclusive National DNA database existed then the police could, at the click of a mouse, eliminate millions of people from the the pool of potential suspects and maybe narrow the field of suspects very quickly. For example; I think that, if a NDNADB had existed in the 1980s then the Yorkshire ripper would have had a much shorter career. That is just one example but an important one to those kids who lost their mums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 It is very hard for a person to commit certain types of crime without leaving behind DNA in some form. Clearly sexual assault/murder will always leave DNA. You're utterly wrong as it happens. I can think of any number of ways a murder or sexual assault could be comitted without leaving DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now