Amongst the furore of the Damian Green arrest, and all the other implications that flow from that, is the largely unremarked element of the collection of DNA ‘evidence’.
I, like many others these last few years, have been extremely concerned about the routine collection, and retainment of DNA evidence. It seems to be the case that collection of DNA is now an automatic part of the arrest procedure. Whilst on the face of it that is a perfectly reasonable thing to do, in that it may help tie the suspect into other crimes, even if the suspect is eventually released without charge his DNA evidence is retained. The mere fact that someone is arrested is apparently sufficient grounds for collecting and retaining DNA
That I would suggest, in a society that was previously thought of as a free society, is completely intolerable. Put simply the state has no right to retain DNA evidence of law abiding citizens. Where might this lead? The state may decide that it would be useful to have as many samples of its citizens’ DNA as possible. Short of passing an Act that would require this, (and I fear that we’re getting pretty close with the iris recognition aspects of obtaining a passport), which even for ZANU Labour would probably be a step too far, it may nevertheless think it a good idea to have as many arrests as possible, the better able to collect DNA evidence under the existing system.
What next? An arrest and DNA collection for any minor traffic violation or speeding offence. An arrest for reading out the names of the Iraqi dead in Downing Street? An arrest for heckling Jack Straw at a Labour Party conference.
What fanciable suggestions. Such things couldn’t happen here.
