DNA database

An excellent article by Jonathan Myerson on the DNA database, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and a piece in tomorrow's Guardian (or today by the time you read this). The Guardian is concerned that the Home Secretary proposes to keep for 12 years the DNA profiles of those arrested but not convicted of serious sexual and violent offences - and yet we know that only a tiny proportion of those responsible for rapes and serious sexual assaults are prosecuted and an even smaller proportion go on to be convicted. In other words - there are a lot of 'innocent' rapists out there.

We know that DNA evidence has helped solved a significant number of murder cases, and also, importantly, clear those who have been wrongfully imprisoned, over recent years. It has also helped police identify rapists who would otherwise never be caught and who would go on to commit many more crimes. And this is where I fall out with the liberals on the left and the libertarians on the right. One person's freedom not to have their DNA on the database is another person's freedom to rape without being caught. Or to kill without being brought to justice.

According to the Guardian "The Home Office estimates that even this package will mean 4,500 fewer crimes each year being detected ­compared with the current policy of retaining indefinitely the profiles of all those arrested."

Yes, Shami Chakrabati is right when she says the Government's proposals could mean that 'wholly innocent' people could have their details stockpiled for years. That's the cost of such a plan. But the benefit - protecting other wholly innocent people from being raped or worse, isn't that worth the sacrifice? Are your 'civil liberties' really so precious that you'd be prepared to have these crimes on your conscience?

When is a bomber not a bomber?

When he's not actually bombed anyone or anything? And when he's only been charged but not convicted of terrorism-related offences?

I've been altered to a recent blog entry by the Conservative candidate for Bristol North West.
She says: "You probably, like me, gaped when you found out that First Bus has charged Avon and Somerset Police £125,000 - yes, £125 GRAND, for CCTV footage to help investigate the case of Andrew Ibrahim, the Bristol Bomber."

So much for Conservative support for civil liberties. Leaving aside whether he could, even if convicted, be accurately described as 'a bomber', whatever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty?

The Tories want to hear your views

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi, the Conservatives' Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, is coming to Bristol East on June 20th, 6pm-7.30pm, at the Black Development Agency. It's billed as the Conservatives 'wanting to hear your views'. So presumably if anyone wants to ask her about suggestions that she might be just a little bit homophobic, then they'd be very welcome.

As a Tory PPC in the 2005 General Election, the allegation is that she distributed leaflets in the Muslim areas of the seat she was fighting, saying that "Labour has scrapped section 28 which was introduced by the Conservatives to stop schools promoting alternative sexual lifestyles such as homosexuality to children as young as seven years old. Schools are allowed and do promote homosexuality and other alternative sexual lifestyles to your children. Labour reduced the age of consent for homosexuality from 18 to 16 allowing school children to be propositioned for homosexual relationships." In the white areas of the constituency - which has, I think, the highest BNP vote in the country - she is said to have distributed anti-immigration leaflets.

Obviously this is quite a topical issue in east Bristol, with the recent controversy when parents objected to certain books being used for anti-homophobic bullying lessons in a couple of schools. Would be interesting also to know how she thinks her views square with David Davis' mission to protect civil liberties - although of course in his case, that doesn't extend to gay or lesbian people either.