“Researcher

That is a quote from the people who run the system. It is a claim - NOT a fact. There is statistically NO WAY of proving how many people have been protected - obviously, as one cannot know something that never happened (ie there not being CRB checks) - but when we look at the FACTS we can see that there has been no change at all - no reduction in abuse of children or vulnerable people, because there was no big problem before (of abuse by teachers) and the vast majority of abuse of all kinds is done in the home, usually done by mummy and daddy, or mummy's latest 'partner'.

You are not a very good researcher if you just believe anything anyone claims, are you? CRB checks have, in reality, protected no-one at all - but kept lots of bureaucrats in well-paid powerful jobs and made everyone paranoid. The only people who love them are those who are a danger to children. Ian Huntley would have good a clean CRB check, as would Myra Hindley.

Try deadline with FACTS Researcher, not imaginary claims by those who are most certainly not disinterested. OK?

CRB checks are a waste of time and are there to reassure those who cannot assess risk sensibly. Also, they are intrusive and let employers know irrelevant information. DNA tests on the other hand are great and based on fact - and I would love all people's DNA to be on the system, not just those with tiny criminal records. How can anyone object to that?

The CRB checks and the absurd new system that will have 11 million people on a database are expensive, pointless and protect no-one IN REALITY (not extrapolated imagined claims of success). OK?”

“eddie, uplands

Perhaps eddie, if you consider that CRB checks system is as bad as you say it is, than perhaps you can explain the Mori Research that reported in July 2007 that;

"Children and vulnerable adults have been protected from over 60,000 unsuitable people as a direct result of CRB (Criminal Records Bureau) checks in the last three years".

Or do you think that such a reduction, would have minimal effects on children and vulnerable adults being at risk!?”

“Eddie,

Agree with most of your points however for information the rules have changed and now all police officers have their DNA held on a database - a requirement now for elimination purposes at crime scenes. This became part of the conract of employment and no one was exempt.”

“Firstly, I would say that the difference between 'innocent' and 'guilty' is not as clear cut as many seem to think. As someone once said, no-one is innocent. People can also be suspected but not found guilty. Many accept a caution just to avoid the hassle of court too, despite thinking themselves innocent. The children (ie teenagers) who are 'innocent' in this headline are the most likely people to commit crime of course, and may well have done so, but there is not gthe evidence to convict them.

But I do not see why only those with a criminal record, however trivial, should have their DNA on the system for life when others do not have their DNA on record - everyone should have their DNA on the system, including all immigrants and asylum seekers, I agree. This is FAR preferable to CCTV cameras sprouting up everywhere or some ill-thought-through CRB system or new database to check teacher and nurses etc. are 'safe' to work with vulnerable people (defined as anyone and everyone) - which of course it will not do; it will just show if someone has a criminal record - for shoplifting in 1989 perhaps, which is utterly irrelevant and is information that should not have to be revealed to anyone. Paedophiles, of course, love this new system as it can get them clearance to access children, provided they have no previous conviction (as many do not - Ian Huntley for example).

I would also refrain from using the phrase 'If you've got nothing to hide' - a great favourite phrase of great dictators everywhere who want to control individuals and strip them of their rights. It could be used to put CCTV cameras in every room in every house in the land, for example.

I do however see no problem at all with a DNA database, so long as everyone is one it - perhaps everyone in Europe. I have no issue with ID cards either as they have them all over the EU without issue anyway (and can use them as passports). I do have an issue with CCTV everywhere and also ineffective, expensive, pointless databases such as the CRB or the new one which will have 11 million people on it, which claim to protect children but which do nothing of the sort and spread suspicion, hysteria, fear, unhealthy attitudes and risk-aversion in society in a way that is deeply unhealthy for children.”

“I am also for a DNA database.
but i must say,that when Imigrants come to this country, then,they should be automatically swabbed for the database.Also when illegals are caught,they should also contribute to a database.I think that is fair.Like someone else said,If you got nothing to hide!!”

“Im all for it! I think DNA should be taken at birth and stored on the data base!

If you have nothing to hide then whats the problem?”

“Phil - but DNA evidence can be trusted, certainly far more than any other kind of evidence. The statistic is certainly not merely 1 in 100, 000 - not for all parts of the DNA to match on the test - and the benefit is that if we have the DNA of relatives of a rapist or murderer, then that can be identified too due to unique DNA shared by those with the same maternal family.

DNA is FAR more trustworthy than CCTV (very dodgy), witness statements (VERY dodgy), police evidence (sometimes dodgy) or Jury opinion (very dodgy too).

A DNA databse which hold all people's details is not a problem and every single man woman and child should have their DNA on a national - preferebly international - database. The objections are massively outweighed by the benefits - ie that it would solve very many terrible crimes: murder, rape, terrorism etc.”

“The biggest problem with DNA profiling is that it is not foolproof. Whenever the experts (see below) give evidence they state something like that there is a 1 in 100,000 chance that the DNA does not belong to the accused. With 65 million people in the UK that means the DNA could belong to any one of 650 people and that does not take into account all the visitors or illegal immigrants who are not on the books. Without corroborating evidence DNA profiling can not be trusted.

Defination of an EXPERT :-
X = an unknown quantity,
SPURT = a drip under pressure
Says it all.”

“The only problem I have with this is that ONLY the DNA of anyone arrested, cautioned or charged (even for very trivial offences in the distant past) is on the DNA database.

EVERYONE should be on the DNA database, including police officers, half of whom refused to have their DNA volutarily taken for it apparently. So many crimes could be solved using DNA profiling, and no, I am not worried about misuse of this data in this country. I am far more worried about databases storing names and addresses, for example, than DNA.

Every single person in the UK and preferably Europe should be taken and put on a central regulated database. Then everyone would be equal and this wouldn;t be an issue, would it.”