Amazing Police blunder

[VHG]

Sometimes you despair at the incompetence of the police.

Compare these two stories.

Two guys out fishing shine a laser at ducks. They are arrested and their DNA is taken

http://tinyurl.com/cq6esx

A sex attacker is arrested and his DNA is NOT taken, even though police know a sex attacker is on the lose and they have DNA samples.

http://tinyurl.com/cdmsud

[Oneeyedvic]

A sex attacker is arrested and his DNA is NOT taken, even though police know a sex attacker is on the lose and they have DNA samples.

Slightly misleading.

He was arrested and acquitted in 1995. The attacks on the women were 6 years later.

Presumably no DNA evidence was taken in 1995 since DNA would have had no relevance to the case.

How would you feel if you were arrested and subsequently found not guilty - but then 6 years later the police came round to treat you as a suspect?

[paraffin]

I'll bet the ducks don't think they're incompetent !!

[New Judge]

I'd probably feel about the same as I would if, as a middle aged man out fishing with two mates, I had been arrested under �anti-terrorism� legislation simply because I had a laser pen in my rucksack, had my fingerprints and DNA taken, been subsequently released without charge and told that the identification records taken from me were being retained despite me never having been charged with any offence, let alone found guilty.

I�d feel even worse later when, upon applying for a job I encountered the question �Have you ever had a DNA sample taken by the police?� (which a number of employers are now including on their application forms).

The fishermen�s experience is yet another example of over-zealous police using heavy-handed tactics (ten officers to arrest three middle aged men) and shielding behind legislation, intended for combating serious crime, against law-abiding people going about lawful pursuits.

Meanwhile, the European Court�s ruling that the practice of retaining DNA profiles from innocent people is illegal, continues to be ignored whilst the government �considers� the ruling.

Just what part of "This is wrong and illegal" do they need to consider?

[Oneeyedvic]

He said the men were not arrested under anti-terror legislation, but under the Air Navigation Order 2005.

Whilst it was probably over zealous, if there have been several complaints about laser pens being shined at aircraft and you find some men in the same vicinity with a laser pen apparently using it to scare off ducks, what would you do?

Let them off? Maybe arrest them (as I doubt that it was a Class II laser - more likely something more powerful available by mailorder). Do you believe their story that they want to keep ducks away from bait (most ducks I have seen at this time of night are usually asleep).

Whilst I agree that their DNA should not be kept on record, that is a separate discussion to the one at hand.

[wolf63]

It is right that humans should be advised against using laser pens in such a way. The ducks were innocent victims and the men were in the wrong. To arrest them is a bit harsh and to take their DNA is OTT - unless the police were trying to prove that their relationships with the ducks was 'inappropriate'.

I assume that the police need a legal reason to get DNA from a person. But DNA should not be seen as a weapon that Big Brother uses against us but as a tool to keeping us safer.

Yes - I am perhaps naive. I have had no negative dealings with the police.

I also know that the media has a job to report the news and not to just give us the details that make the stories more exciting.

Life seemed safter when the goodies and baddies wore different coloured hats. Nowadays the goodies can't be the cowboys because the cowboys are now builders and other dodgy tradesmen.

[paraffin]

N.J.:

Where does it state in the legislation that it is, quote "anti terrorism" ? Unless it specifically refers usage ONLY in respect of anti-terrorism measures, then why shouldn't the Police use it where they feel it is appropriate?

It makes no difference if a duck's having a laser pen shone in its eyes or whether a Real IRA suspect is being taken into custody on suspicion of murder. If the legislation allows the Police to take action, what does it matter?

[paraffin]

Steve:

Are you speaking from personal experience of how the Police operate? Or just surmising ?

[VHG]

>The attacks on the women were 6 years later.

But if you read the article it says

"In December 2002, a patrol spoke to Reid and submitted a report after a member of the public reported seeing him following a woman in Clapham".

"But, despite him appearing on their radar several more times, he was not arrested until January 2008 when detectives from Scotland Yard took over the case".

They could have easily taken his DNA anytime after 2002 when he becase a suspect.

[paddiez]

It's all about targets.