Further to ACPO’s egregious anti liberty nonsense yesterday, Gene watch skewers their claims.
GeneWatch disputes the police figures, which are exaggerated because they are based on a false assumption that innocent people are as likely to commit future offences as people convicted of serious or multiple offences: in fact about eight out of ten offences are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. As chief constable Sims made clear in evidence, they are also estimates of database matches not convictions. Only about a quarter of DNA matches lead to convictions.
That’s the crucial word, there; assumption. And, indeed, they assume that innocent people are merely criminals waiting to happen. That is the most repugnant aspect of their nasty, repulsive mindset.
People’s trust in police use of DNA will not be helped by scaremongering using figures that mislead the public: the bill does not in reality put anyone in any danger. Many members of the public have innocent friends or family with records on the DNA database for life: they are well aware that these are not people who are murderers or rapists in waiting.
This point needs repeating – particularly when the hard of thinking trot out the line that we should all be on the database so that crime may be eliminated. We are not all criminals in waiting and we should not be treated as such and we do not need to be protected from our fellow citizens.
As for my trust being undermined – there is none left to undermine.
“That’s the crucial word, there; assumption. And, indeed, they assume that innocent people are merely criminals waiting to happen. That is the most repugnant aspect of their nasty, repulsive mindset.”
I don’t think I agree with that statement. I don’t think the ACPO are quite as malicious as that. I prefer to think that they are just pig shit thick and don’t understand simple statistics.
“…in fact about eight out of ten offences are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. “
This inconvenient little fact is often raised on police blogs.
In my small town 70,000 inhabitants 90% of the crime is committed by 50 or 60 people. A well informed plod told me that BUT if he and his compatriots did their job and removed these peeps from the streets then bizarrely the ‘measured efficiency’ of the force would go down!
But as he also pointed out other than the awkward shifts and the odd bit of verbals and ‘handbags’ the job pays the bills!
The point about the handful of over-active criminals is very important. If ACPO really wanted to reduce crime, it would surely call for longer sentences on habitual criminals. If the small number of the most prolific were banged up for a decade, crime would surely go way down. But my belief is that the idea has long been to turn the country into something resembling an open prison, where we are all surveilled and treated as suspects.
If the police (and the courts) did their job properly they would effectively put themselves out of work….
It’s a bit like the old story about the man who invented an everlasting battery – Ever Ready supposedly paid him £millions to keep quiet.
And coming back to the the assumption that innocent people are merely criminals waiting to happen – the way things are heading that may not be too far from the truth. When society breaks down completely (as it will, eventually) it will be a case of every man/woman for him/herself. Mind you I very much doubt that any members of ACPO will be out on the streets trying to restore order then!
I have often wondered how ACPO came into being. Is it a statutory body? Was it set up by an Act of Parliament, if so which one and when? Where do they get their funds from? Can they dictate to the police forces of which they are Chief Officers?
Oh, I don’t know – thick as pig-shit and malicious misanthropy along with a deep rooted mistrust tend to go hand in hand.
It’s a company limited by guarantee and is funded by police authorities and the home office. In plain English; us.
You are right, hence the footer on the web-site of:
Association of Chief Police Officers ©2011. Company Number: 3344583. Registered in England and Wales.
So, as a limited company, a business, how come they get to use the royal crown over what looks like a “police” star?
I don’t know the answer to that one.