This "debate" will be the same as all other "debates/conversations" this govt has.

ie - They will only listen to you if you agree with them.

Everyone else will be totally wasting their time, energy and money engaging in ANY sort of debate with this govt.

A few weeks ago there were no plans to debate the issue, now the Home Office wants a discussion. Is it too cynical to suggest we're being softened up for a government bill setting up a compulsory DNA database. Of course it's an interesting philosophical question whether you can be too cynical about New Labour.

I'm reasonably certain that the Reg did an article on a paper that a couple of Chinese students submitted to their university, about how biological agents could be engineered to target specific traits in a genome.

Given the Chinese governents resources and propensity to hack whatever it feels like, having your entire population's DNA in one database just seems like an astonishingly bad idea.

If it's kept when no crime was committed, and the Government has no plans for a universal database (presumably AKA the ID card) - then *why* is it kept in the first place, and *why* is it so difficult to have it removed?

> "Because it has grown to include more than four million people, it is important that we get the chance to debate how we proceed," the minister said.

Hmm - there's a horse-before-cart syndrome hiding behind that innocent little "Because". It's grown to include more than four million people because there was no proper debate in the first place.

Too cynical?

Not sure you can be with the orwellian powermongers that we have in government...

I've noticed quite a few programmes on TV recently which purported to show 'both side' of the 'debate'. Oddly enough, they had a heavy emphasis on the 'benefits'.

I'm not a criminal (this could conceivably change if the government extends 'anti-hate' legislation to include themselves!), so why should I be fingerprinted (passports / ID) and DNA'd ?

Wake up Britain, Big Brother is already watching you and is merely joining up all the surveillance and identification tools in order to monitor every aspect of your life, then sell the info to the highest bidder (well why not, how else is a nation that makes nothing going to make money?)

Time to reel out the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' brigade.....

Why do I get the feeling this "Debate" isn't going to be *whether* we'll have a national DNA database but only *how* they're going to impose it on us!

Write to your MP via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ and remind them that we have the Right to be Presumed Innocent Unless Proven Guilty, not Presumed Guilty if we have your DNA on file...

Too cynical?

Not sure you can be with the orwellian powermongers that we have in government...

I've noticed quite a few programmes on TV recently which purported to show 'both side' of the 'debate'. Oddly enough, they had a heavy emphasis on the 'benefits'.

I'm not a criminal (this could conceivably change if the government extends 'anti-hate' legislation to include themselves!), so why should I be fingerprinted (passports / ID) and DNA'd ?

Wake up Britain, Big Brother is already watching you and is merely joining up all the surveillance and identification tools in order to monitor every aspect of your life, then sell the info to the highest bidder (well why not, how else is a nation that makes nothing going to make money?)

Time to reel out the 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear' brigade.....

"[Meg Hillier] also stressed the fact that a person's DNA was held on the database was not an indication of guilt."

The phrase "an indication of guilt" would've been better put as "proof of guilt". A politician; as is now usual, of the unLaboured variety; uses description slippage to soften up the public, for the next stage of whatever it is, yet again.

Geoffrey Orchard would've had his DNA collected as evidence, at the very least, potential evidence. So, how is this evidence not being used as a past, present or future indicator, exactly? If DNA serves no purpose as evidence/indication of guilt, then why do the police need to collect it, hold it & generally waste their own time with it? The fact is that the police would use it as evidence/indication of guilt, in court, if they thought that they could get away with making use of it; as with a doctored photograph, in the de Menezes case. Ms. Hillier has stressed a non-fact (i.e. a big, stinking pile of it), from the point of view of police evidence. Everyone, when in use on that database, is considered to be guilty until discounted as innocent; something which is completely contrary to English, though not European/Napoleonic, law! What purpose does it serve in maintaining this database, which Joe Public is not being told by an elected official, if DNA is not being used as an indication of guilt? No spoken purpose, so scrap it or come clean.

I live in France, so I'm not actually impacted by all this yet. I'm just wondering how long it is going to take my own Benevolent Government Officials to catch on to this trendy thing that is DNA profiling.

Oh wait - they've just approved a law to have a beta trial on DNA profiling of immigrant mother and children - on a "voluntary" basis of course ! So, it looks like my wonderful, Pays de la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l'Homme, has just hopped on to the bandwagon and is starting on its merry way.

Having just watched V for Vendetta not long ago, who exactly is it I have to strangle/blow up/cut to pieces to stop this madness ?

Because I don't think a regular, civil chit-chat session is going to stop it from happening.

Is there anyone left, anywhere, that remembers the definition of Freedom ? Is it still in the dictionary ? Or is it in the science-fiction library now ?

When a minister calls for a debate, it means they have have handed you your coat, called your taxi, and are shunting you out the door. Or, if you prefer,

setjmp (dnaDatabase);

assert (DEBATE);

longjmp(dnaDatabase, YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS);