Bomb threat letters
Discussion
Just watching ITV news(god knows why) and they are running piece about the bomb threat letters that have been sent out to Tescos and various Radio/TV stations.
At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:45
Marf said:
Just watching ITV news(god knows why) and they are running piece about the bomb threat letters that have been sent out to Tescos and various Radio/TV stations.
At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
I don't know what I'm talking about, but surely it would be so they could isolate the DNA of the person that *hadn't* touched the letter?At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:45
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
imbecile said:
Marf said:
Just watching ITV news(god knows why) and they are running piece about the bomb threat letters that have been sent out to Tescos and various Radio/TV stations.
At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
I don't know what I'm talking about, but surely it would be so they could isolate the DNA of the person that *hadn't* touched the letter?At one workplace where a letter had been received, the DNA was being taken of every person to come in contact with the letter , but they were not being arrested.
One employee was even being swabbed behind the reporter as he did his piece to camera.
Can any BiB enlighten me as to why this would be SOP in a case like this?
Other than attempting to eliminate the contactee's as the sender of the letter I cant think of any reason why. If that were the case surely the DNA of *every* employee would be taken, not just those who touch the letter.
In what other circumstances can the police take DNA from a person who has not been arrested?
Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:45
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
Marf said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
imbecile said:
Marf said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
So can it be taken forcibly/without consent without being arrested?7.
Number 7 said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
So can it be taken forcibly/without consent without being arrested?7.
xxplod said:
imbecile said:
Marf said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said:
The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State May 2007
6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
Streaky6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
streaky said:
xxplod said:
imbecile said:
Marf said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said:
The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State May 2007
6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
Streaky6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
Why should a witness's DNA be retained.....Plod are only doing the job they get paid to do. Can't tar them all with the same brush!!!
With regard to DNA samples being taken, personally, If Plod phoned me and asked me to go down to station to provide a DNA sample to go on database, I would be more than willing!!!. Simple really,nothing to hide, no need to worry!! And I know for a fact, that I will never be hauled before a court for something I haven't done!!!
With regard to DNA samples being taken, personally, If Plod phoned me and asked me to go down to station to provide a DNA sample to go on database, I would be more than willing!!!. Simple really,nothing to hide, no need to worry!! And I know for a fact, that I will never be hauled before a court for something I haven't done!!!
delboy735 said:
And I know for a fact, that I will never be hauled before a court for something I haven't done!!!
It has happened already. A student was printed & sampled after being in the same bar as a fight (he was in the toilets when it kicked off). Several months later, he was pulled for vandalising and robbing a post box - had his DNA all over it. He spent a couple of nights in the cells, interrogated and (IIRC) was charged.Fortunately for him, the remains of the mail was discovered abandoned, and he had a smart lawyer who asked for details of the all the addressees. Oddly enough, quite a lot of them were on his Christmas card list.
He got lucky. Worse, I know of a rape conviction based on DNA that is deeply suspect. The description didn't tally, there was an almost complete alibi, but the guy went down.
The problem is that DNA and prints are so definitive, it can sucker the police into treating it as proof, without questioning it. Unless you dip yourself in latex every morning, your DNA could turn up at so many crime scenes. If your DNA happens to be at a future crime scene (bank? supermarket? train?), you could be in for a very rough ride.
Are you still so certain?
delboy735 said:
Simple really,nothing to hide, no need to worry!! And I know for a fact, that I will never be hauled before a court for something I haven't done!!!
This is the typically flawed response to any comment against surveillance or DNA databases.How on earth do you know "for a fact" that you will never be hauled up for something you haven't done?
Oh, and you don't have to finish every sentence with !!! either. If you look on your keyboard, there is a button with a . on it.
Edited by silversun on Tuesday 17th July 13:11
i for one would not want to have my dna kept on the database, i just have an inherant distrust of the system (nothing against the policeforce - but the politicians etc. that control our country with more and more and more survelliance).
what with mobile phone tracking (through cell broadcasts), surveillance cameras everywhere, access to bank transactions and now your dna on database, if someone in authority wanted to fit you up you're buggered!
what with mobile phone tracking (through cell broadcasts), surveillance cameras everywhere, access to bank transactions and now your dna on database, if someone in authority wanted to fit you up you're buggered!
delboy735 said:
With regard to DNA samples being taken, personally, If Plod phoned me and asked me to go down to station to provide a DNA sample to go on database, I would be more than willing!!!. Simple really,nothing to hide, no need to worry!! And I know for a fact, that I will never be hauled before a court for something I haven't done!!!
One of the reasons I do not want my DNA taken is because courts, magistrates, joe public and thus jurors do not understand the flaws in the evidence.If you are told for example that the likelihood of someone having that DNA is one in 30m, and the accused does match. Do you convict? many would, but actually if there no other evidence and the person was only accused because of their DNA then assuming it was someone in UK there is a greater than 50% chance you have the wrong person
streaky said:
xxplod said:
imbecile said:
Marf said:
xxplod said:
It is standard stuff. The letter would be examined for DNA. You need to eliminate any profiles found that are there legitimately, i.e. staff who may have handled or come in to contact with it. Then maybe, just maybe if there is an unidentified profile there it might beling to the person wot sent it.
OK I can understand that, and in regard to sample retention in cases like this?Edited by Marf on Monday 16th July 18:53
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution said:
The Impact of Surveillance and Data Collection upon the Privacy of Citizens and their Relationship with the State May 2007
6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
Streaky6.2 The National DNA Database is an ever-growing repository of DNA profiles and samples collected from suspects, witnesses and volunteers. The existence and use of this database raises significant questions regarding the rights of those on it. Once a profile is added to the database it is retained, even if collected from a witness, a volunteer, or a suspect who is cleared of involvement in a crime. These are kept on the basis of the mere chance that they will be useful in future investigations – surely something that the DPA would rule out. DNA profiles can be used to identify family relationships or to predict susceptibility to disease. They therefore constitute sensitive personal information that an individual should have the right to withhold if there is no specific need for it in the investigation or prevention of crime.
Is this really the case? When my DNA and prints were taken a little while ago (caught the little git robbing MY car) I was assured it was to eliminate my finger prints and DNA so that they could match up the little g1ts. I was very uneasy (just am) and was expressly told that once mine were eliminated and his were identified (or some such) then mine would be deleted. My finger prints were done the old fashioned way so that they could be thrown away afterwards.
Was I being somewhat 'Naive'?
P
edited as I didnt proof it and cant type quickly enough or accuratelky enouhg
Edited by Slaav on Tuesday 17th July 19:23
Thanks for the punctuation correction Silversun, after many hours of searching, I have found the . button. Here's another., just checking it works...., yep, seems fine...
As for my comments, they represent my opinion only and I do not wish others to think that I am trying to force you to have the same opinion.There it is again.
As for my comments, they represent my opinion only and I do not wish others to think that I am trying to force you to have the same opinion.There it is again.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff