test your police knowledge
Discussion
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4119135.stm
interesting to see how well the PH (non plod) crew do?
interesting to see how well the PH (non plod) crew do?
I got seven by being as paranoid as possible (and I only got the fireworks one wrong by missing the special case for new year's eve)- horrifying isn't it.
I thought I lived in a free country, obviously I was wrong. If we carry on like this I shall have to move (although I don't yet know where to)
I thought I lived in a free country, obviously I was wrong. If we carry on like this I shall have to move (although I don't yet know where to)
tone said:
If we carry on like this I shall have to move (although I don't yet know where to)
France? Germany? Italy?
All have more control and power over their citizens than the UK....
We are still in a pussy cat country....relax.....
Known terrorists and sympathisers can walk the streets of Blighty unhindered nowadays......as we don't want to infringe their human rights, do we?
tone said:
I got seven by being as paranoid as possible
The same, and for the same reason.
tone said:
I thought I lived in a free country, obviously I was wrong. If we carry on like this I shall have to move (although I don't yet know where to)
The trouble is that all the so-called liberal democracies are going the same way.
No Discretion said:
Known terrorists and sympathisers can walk the streets of Blighty unhindered nowadays......as we don't want to infringe their human rights, do we?
Hmmmm...so you're OK with the concept of having a sample of your DNA taken forcibly, and the records held ad infinitum on a database just because you were arrested - even though you have never even been charged with an offence?
Human rights? What human rights? 'Human Rights' is just another way for lawyers to make money out of the general public. Means nothing.
mungo said:
The more DNA we can gather the better! If someone burgled your house and the police got a DNA hit giving a immediate suspect match that is surely better than the police never bringing that person to justice?
DNA is great evidence!
That's the kind of blinkered attitude that really scares me.
>> Edited by Bonce on Thursday 23 December 13:58
mungo said:
No Discretion said:
Known terrorists and sympathisers can walk the streets of Blighty unhindered nowadays......as we don't want to infringe their human rights, do we?
Hmmmm...so you're OK with the concept of having a sample of your DNA taken forcibly, and the records held ad infinitum on a database just because you were arrested - even though you have never even been charged with an offence?
Human rights? What human rights? 'Human Rights' is just another way for lawyers to make money out of the general public. Means nothing.
DNA needn't be taken forcibly if someone doesn't resist.
Mungo old bean, you missed the point by a number of time zones.
Why should I be compelled to give a DNA sample if I'm not guilty? By all means take DNA from those who are found guilty of an arrestable offence - but scrape my cheek just because I've been arrested, not charged, not found guilty? Fecking right I'm going to resist.
mungo said:
The more DNA we can gather the better! If someone burgled your house and the police got a DNA hit giving a immediate suspect match that is surely better than the police never bringing that person to justice?
Most burglars are repeat offenders so would be covered by the above.
Just a little pebble to chuck into the pond - DNA does not positively identify an individual. If you see a s9 statement with a result from the FSS with a DNA result they always quote a probability of the sample not coming from the suspect in question. Occasionally that probability is so low that you could argue that there is no-one else with that particular profile.
As any DNA scientist will tell you 'adventitious hits' are incredibly common. I know of one scientist who's profile came up on a serious offence and was subsequently interviewed by the BiB. When I was working for them there was no way I was ever going to voluntarily give a sample for the staff elimination database - too many people believe that DNA is the grand solution to all crime.
As any DNA scientist will tell you 'adventitious hits' are incredibly common. I know of one scientist who's profile came up on a serious offence and was subsequently interviewed by the BiB. When I was working for them there was no way I was ever going to voluntarily give a sample for the staff elimination database - too many people believe that DNA is the grand solution to all crime.
loaf said:
Why should I be compelled to give a DNA sample if I'm not guilty? By all means take DNA from those who are found guilty of an arrestable offence - but scrape my cheek just because I've been arrested, not charged, not found guilty? Fecking right I'm going to resist.
To compare with previous crimes and future crimes...
As for your right to resist....that's just sport for the police
...as a clump of hair is all that's required.... Obviously, this is not directed at you personally...
No Discretion said:
loaf said:
Why should I be compelled to give a DNA sample if I'm not guilty? By all means take DNA from those who are found guilty of an arrestable offence - but scrape my cheek just because I've been arrested, not charged, not found guilty? Fecking right I'm going to resist.
To compare with previous crimes and future crimes...
As for your right to resist....that's just sport for the police
Obviously, this is not directed at you personally...
None taken
You still haven't covered why the State should be allowed to invade an individual's privacy - indeed their body - to take evidence in relation to a crime that has yet to be proven.
What's to stop BiB going out into the street, stopping the first car/pedestrian they see, picking an 'offence', taking the DNA sample in the station and then 'oh sorry sir, mistaken identity, you're de-arrested and free to go' ???
Answer: Feck all.
And I wouldn't be thick enough to resist in the station; I may look dumb but I ain't stoopid...
>> Edited by loaf on Thursday 23 December 14:29
On the DNA evidence front - what is the situation for identical twins -triplets etc. If I remember my schoolboy biology identical twins occur when the fertilized zygote splits into two separate groups of cells. If this is the case then surely identical twins have identical DNA - hence the whole DNA evidence thing is flawed.
Can anyone; either Boys in Blue, lawyers or genetic type chaps correct my understandin on this.
Frankly I feel the whole situation is becoming a 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition. We think your a terrorist so you are arrested as a potertial terrorist, you can be tried without a jury as we think you are a terrorist who might do something in the future and we can invade your body for DNA samples, keep them indefinately - and use them as eveidence; even though DNA evidence is potentially flawed.
For posting this I have probably gone onto Tony's subversives list.
Can anyone; either Boys in Blue, lawyers or genetic type chaps correct my understandin on this.
Frankly I feel the whole situation is becoming a 21st century version of the Spanish Inquisition. We think your a terrorist so you are arrested as a potertial terrorist, you can be tried without a jury as we think you are a terrorist who might do something in the future and we can invade your body for DNA samples, keep them indefinately - and use them as eveidence; even though DNA evidence is potentially flawed.
For posting this I have probably gone onto Tony's subversives list.
From what i can remember identical twins do not have identical DNA profiles.
I think some people are applying the logic of keeping DNA based on them selves. Bear in mind that alot of people that come into custody have been or will be in trouble with the police in the future, and it provides a very good evidence if they commit crimes where DNA evidence is left at the scene.
DNA is also conclusive evidence if there is a match. Means they were at the scene to have left the DNA there.
I think its a great tool to be used. I personally dont mind and i know civvies that dont mind having DNA on record as they never have been or never will be inclided to commit offences. If you havent done any wrong and wont do any wrongs in the future what is there to worry about if it is just used for law enforcement.
I think some people are applying the logic of keeping DNA based on them selves. Bear in mind that alot of people that come into custody have been or will be in trouble with the police in the future, and it provides a very good evidence if they commit crimes where DNA evidence is left at the scene.
DNA is also conclusive evidence if there is a match. Means they were at the scene to have left the DNA there.
I think its a great tool to be used. I personally dont mind and i know civvies that dont mind having DNA on record as they never have been or never will be inclided to commit offences. If you havent done any wrong and wont do any wrongs in the future what is there to worry about if it is just used for law enforcement.
Well I got 8 out of 9, and I'm not being a spoilsport but I don't agree with Q6. Can't be @rsed to look it up but whilst possession of fireworks aged U18 is an offence I do not beleive it is an arrestable offence. I may be wrong. Don't care.
With the DNA thing, frankly it should be taken at birth and kept on record. When you've investigated multiple rapes, especially ones where the victim has been a child and the offenders DNA is not on the system it is rather depressing. We've all seen the frequent news stories where an offender may be caught say drink driving, DNA taken and they are convicted of a series of sexual offences committed 20+ yeras previously.
It's not a case of big brother. Nobody follows you 24 hours a day. If you are a law abiding citizen you can happily supply a DNA sample, forget about and get on with your life without a second thought.
With the DNA thing, frankly it should be taken at birth and kept on record. When you've investigated multiple rapes, especially ones where the victim has been a child and the offenders DNA is not on the system it is rather depressing. We've all seen the frequent news stories where an offender may be caught say drink driving, DNA taken and they are convicted of a series of sexual offences committed 20+ yeras previously.
It's not a case of big brother. Nobody follows you 24 hours a day. If you are a law abiding citizen you can happily supply a DNA sample, forget about and get on with your life without a second thought.
No Discretion said:
With the wrongful imprisonments and such like of yesteryears...I think we should all embrace DNA
I think we should all understand the techniques involved and their manifold short comings. As a scientist myself i know from personal experience that these techniques are not infallible.
Do you fully understand the science behind these techniques? If you did you wouldn't be so ready to embrace them unquestioningly, trust me! A useful tool but no replacement for thorough professional police work.
Most wrongful convictions are based on an over-reliance on forensic evidence...
You're right we should all embrace DNA... its made me what i am today
mungo said:Yep - I got that question wrong, and for the same reason. All Victorinox ('official' Swiss army knives to you
Question 2 is bollocks... a knife is legal if it has a blade less than 3 inches long and it does not lock and is a folding blade - Most "Swiss army knifes" I would imagine, fit that criteria...
) knives that I know of have blades less than 3" long, and none of the blades lock. Also - a fair few of the questions were phrased as 'will the officer arrest', rather than 'can they'.
Dan
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff