Politician with some principles?

[Mr. Tea]

Jill Saward saying that sexual violence is at 'epidemic levels' partly because it is 'easy to get away with' is pretty offensive and stupid.

What does this "one in three women have been affected by sexual violence" thing even mean, anyway? Is being "affected by" something the same as being the direct victim? And how are we defining sexual violence here - penetrative rape, or a pinch on the arse by a tipsy colleague at a Christmas party? Either way, I'm not convinced it's going to disappear if we 'simply' genetically catalogue every single person in the country.

 

[crackerjack]

What does this "one in three women have been affected by sexual violence" thing even mean, anyway? Is being "affected by" something the same as being the direct victim? And how are we defining sexual violence here - penetrative rape, or a pinch on the arse by a tipsy colleague at a Christmas party? Either way, I'm not convinced it's going to disappear if we 'simply' genetically catalogue every single person in the country.

Yeah, it's bollocks innit. The first post beneath her article asks whether sexual violence now includes wolf whistling, which seems just about the only way the numbers might stack up. Wild exaggeration aside, there is a reasonable case to be made in favour of DNA databases (and CCTV) that merits a better response than the standard 'OMFG governments are nazis' of reflex libertarians. (This doesn't apply to the 42 days issue, which is plainly just political posturing by a desperaate government).

 

[vimothy]

What did they have on the front of the G2 yesterday, "rapes up 247%... convictions are at an all time low"?

Is it really true that proving that the defendent had sex with the prosecution would make no difference? Has anyone got any data on this?

Also, I'm not sure why we can trust our government with such a vast collection of tasks, but this one is just... too hard? Too dangerous? What?

 

[noel emits]

Her statement is logically disingenuous as well. A 'part' of an epidemic is not an epidemic, even if there were such a thing.

If there is an increase in real sexual violence then it is because people are fucked up. They are fucked up from conflicting conditions of hyper-sexualised media, a confused moral landscape, alienation, uncertainty and other environmental social factors that result in no small part from poisonous 'government' policies and agendas, in my opinion. If you would rather believe that people will just naturally do bad things if you don't control their every move, well go ahead and get your children chipped.

 

[noel emits]

I don't think there is any conceivable reasonable argument in favour of compulsory DNA databases.

It's such a slippery slope, your DNA goes everywhere. And it's a fundamental human right that a person's body belongs to them and not to any state, I would say that that should extend to the information contained in DNA.

We know that computer and all sorts of other technology is advancing at exponential rates. Quantum computers are becoming a reality sooner than anyone thought would be possible. It's just way too dangerous to trust 'governments' with this kind of thing. No way.

Oh and 42 days is not posturing, it's not even popular. It's something they really want for some reason. They were after more if you remember.

 

[vimothy]

If there is an increase in real sexual violence then it is because people are fucked up. They are fucked up from conflicting conditions of hyper-sexualised media, a confused moral landscape, alienation, uncertainty and other environmental social factors that result in no small part from poisonous 'government' policies and agendas, in my opinion. If you would rather believe that people will just naturally do bad things if you don't control their every move, well go ahead and get your children chipped.

"Poisonous government policies" are the reason that men rape? Please... such fucking nonsense.

(Also, are you implying that rape is a function of "modern living" & media over-exposure?]

And I believe most people are generally good, and that even people who do terrible things (like rape, murder, torture, etc) are probably nice to their mothers and a decent sort if you catch them in the right mood.

But so what? If we can make bad things more difficult to get away with by whatever means, then those means deserve consideration.

 

[IdleRich]

"Also, I'm not sure why we can trust our government with such a vast collection of tasks, but this one is just... too hard? Too dangerous? What?"

I think that it is potentially dangerous because, as stated, once that data is collected it can't be uncollected and you have no way of knowing who future governments will be and what they would do with that data. As for being too hard; the government has consistently lost and misrecorded data almost as if they really want to demonstrate that they aren't capable of safeguarding it properly so I think at the moment the default, common sense position is to assume that in fact it is too hard.
Also, maybe I don't trust the government with lots of their other responsibilities either, it's just that we are debating this one now.

"Oh and 42 days is not posturing, it's not even popular. It's something they really want for some reason. They were after more if you remember."

It is popular with the public.

 

[noel emits]

"Poisonous government policies" are the reason that men rape? Please... such fucking nonsense.

(Also, are you implying that rape is a function of "modern living" & media over-exposure?]

Actually yes. To be honest I'm kind of mincing words. I think there has been and is a concerted psychological attack on the British people. Shit's fucked up. But this is a music forum so I might leave it at that.

And I think from a psychological standpoint it is very valid to say that the main cause of men committing sexual violence is feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy.

 

[noel emits]

But so what? If we can make bad things more difficult to get away with by whatever means, then those means deserve consideration.

Bad things like compulsory DNA databases and arbitrary detention? Indeed.

Authoritarianism leads to bad things. Taking away people's dignity, lying to them, psychologically and economically battering them so much that they and up actually wanting to be 'kept safe' by the Father state leads to unfathomably more 'bad things' than some sad wife beater who's boss treats him like shit so he takes it out at home.

 

[vimothy]

Actually yes. To be honest I'm kind of mincing words. I think there has been and is a concerted psychological attack on the British people. Shit's fucked up. But this is a music forum so I might leave it at that.

Can you prove that? It implies some sort of linear relationship between media exposure and incidence of rape, and also that incidence of rape is going to be going steadily straight up over time, because media exposure is doing the same.

And I don't think that happens.

And I think from a psychological standpoint it is very valid to say that the main cause of men committing sexual violence is feelings of powerlessness and inadequacy.

Maybe, but I don't think that it's at all valid to say that rape is a function of government policy. Rape is as old as any other sort of violence. It certainly predates Nu Labour, the Iraq War and faccebook.

 

[vimothy]

Bad things like compulsory DNA databases and arbitrary detention? Indeed.

Wouldn't a DNA database increase in some cases the threshold of proof required for "arbitrary detention", in that a subject's DNA could be used to tie them to the scene of the crime? Maybe a DNA database would make arbitrary detention more difficult.

 

[noel emits]

Can you prove that? It implies some sort of linear relationship between media exposure and incidence of rape, and also that incidence of rape is going to be going steadily straight up over time, because media exposure is doing the same.

Jill Saward says it's going up. I don't mean 'media exposure' solely, but yes there are many toxic memes promoted in the media, sometimes intentionally, perhaps. I just don't think the British government has the British people's best interests at heart, and hasn't done for a long time. And I don't mean that in a BNP sort of way. Sadly I don't think I need to prove anything to you, if I'm wrong that's great, if not it will probably become apparent.

And just to be clear I should always put 'government' in quotes because of course a government is a collection of people and not a monolithic front.

 

[Mr. Tea]

If this database were to be introduced, there is a terrible danger of a legal culture of "DNA doesn't lie" taking hold. Think about it: there could easily be forensically correct but entirely circumstantial evidence linking a suspect to a crime scene (perhaps he was there before, or after, the crime took place?), it's plausible that the real criminal could deliberately contaminate the scene with some poor fall guy's genetic material - and that's without even considering the posibility of technical errors in the lab or clerical errors in the office. All of which could conveniently be disregarded by police and jurors saying "Well the DNA matches, we've got our man, case closed".

 

[noel emits]

Wouldn't a DNA database increase in some cases the threshold of proof required for "arbitrary detention", in that a subject's DNA could be used to tie them to the scene of the crime? Maybe a DNA database would make arbitrary detention more difficult.

You or I could be tied to any number of places we may or may not have even been to. That time when you were called in for questioning and they gave you a nice cup of tea. What happened to the mug afterwords? Were you careful not to let your lips touch the rim?

Maybe you are playing devil's avocado, maybe you are being naive, I dunno.

Just remember that the case for having these things is being hugely exaggerated if not outright fabricated. For what reason? I imagine for one thing there will be some tasty contracts for the equipment required. And that's the least of it.

 

[IdleRich]

"Wouldn't a DNA database increase in some cases the threshold of proof required for "arbitrary detention", in that a subject's DNA could be used to tie them to the scene of the crime? Maybe a DNA database would make arbitrary detention more difficult."

They're not going to introduce a "definitely not guilty unless the dna is there" rule (nor should they) so I would say that that argument is spurious.

 

[noel emits]

If this database were to be introduced, there is a terrible danger of a legal culture of "DNA doesn't lie" taking hold. Think about it: there could easily be forensically correct but entirely circumstantial evidence linking a suspect to a crime scene (perhaps he was there before, or after, the crime took place?), it's plausible that the real criminal could deliberately contaminate the scene with some poor fall guy's genetic material - and that's without even considering the posibility of technical errors in the lab or clerical errors in the office. All of which could conveniently be disregarded by police and jurors saying "Well the DNA matches, we've got our man, case closed".

Indeed.

It's also about the huge potential for blackmail and smearing of opponents. We know that it doesn't matter very much if someone is later shown to be innocent of a crime, the damage has been done.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I really, really hope that the Government's would-be-hilarious-if-it-wasn't-so-serious record on data security and the notorious budget-busting expense, chronic delays and general inefficiencies of big centralised computer systems have in effect destroyed any credibility either the DNA database or the ID cards scheme may have had. And that's without even going into the fact that all this data would inevitably end up on computers in Europe and the US too. Even if you trust our own government to use this information solely for the public good (and good luck to you, if you do) why should you trust other governments to do the same?

 

[vimothy]

It seems to me that you could make all the same arguments about finger prints.

 

[vimothy]

Even if you trust our own government to use this information solely for the public good (and good luck to you, if you do) why should you trust other governments to do the same?

Who says that I trust them with anything? Any government action is a trade off between what you want, what the government can achieve and what it actually does.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Who says that I trust them with anything? Any government action is a trade off between what you want, what the government can achieve and what it actually does.

Well you seem to be saying that you'd trust them, from what I've seen in this thread.

As for the fingerprints thing, I'm not on a national fingerprint database, am I? Which, given that I'm not a criminal, is how it should be.