national DNA database

[Darth Vodka]

what are the differences and what are their purposes?? is the electoral one used to give you a vote in the elections?? :icon_conf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_register#United_Kingdom

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census#United_Kingdom

 

[Siouxsie]

what are the differences and what are their purposes?? is the electoral one used to give you a vote in the elections?? :icon_conf

The census is a collection of questions about each household taken every 10 years - last time in April 2001. It asks questions about your job, religion (I think it was on this that there was a campaign to put "jedi" last time), education, health etc so the govt can get a picture of what's happening in the country.

The govt site (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/WhatisaCensus/CollectedAndProcessed.asp) implies that it is illegal not to complete it

"Everyone in the country was under an obligation to complete a census form, and a limited number of people were prosecuted for failing to comply with this obligation"

 

[homer]

what are the differences and what are their purposes?? is the electoral one used to give you a vote in the elections?? :icon_conf

The Electoral Register (Roll) is simply the record of those who have registered to vote

The National Census is undertaken every ten years to provide a 'snapshot' of socio-economic issues across the country, and is used primarily as a basis for shaping/justifying government policy. It is a collection of all sorts of individual profile data - the Electoral Roll is just a collection of the names, addresses and D.O.B. s of registered voters

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

cheers you 3 i was right in what i was thinking

 

[muzzysgal]

The census is a collection of questions about each household taken every 10 years - last time in April 2001. It asks questions about your job, religion (I think it was on this that there was a campaign to put "jedi" last time), education, health etc so the govt can get a picture of what's happening in the country.

The govt site (http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census/WhatisaCensus/CollectedAndProcessed.asp) implies that it is illegal not to complete it

"Everyone in the country was under an obligation to complete a census form, and a limited number of people were prosecuted for failing to comply with this obligation"

That is correct. I was a Census Enumerator in 2001 and had to round up a few 'rebels' :icon_roll

 

[H T B]

DNA is a fantastic tool to use in the fight against crime.
I'd start with all prisoners (How many go onto re offend?)
All immigrants.
All new born.

I want my children, my children's children etc etc to have the opportuntiy to grow up in as safe as an environment as possible. If DNAing every fecker in the land ensures this, then let's fecking do it.

 

[Darth Vodka]

All new born.

massive cost, little gain

 

[H T B]

massive cost, little gain

Who know's what little Damians they might turn out to be?

I wasn't bringing cost into the argument, just the discussion of who to DNA. (Once a routine was sorted, I do not believe it would be exhorbitant.)

 

[Darth Vodka]

Who know's what little Damians they might turn out to be?

I wasn't bringing cost into the argument, just the discussion of who to DNA. (Once a routine was sorted, I do not believe it would be exhorbitant.)

hmmm

how do you police it?

tell the midwives to swab kids?

scouse dads will threaten nurses

if you say "no swab = no birth certificate" people would be up in arms and you'd run the risk of creating an underclass

 

[H T B]

If it became part of a routine at birth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another group I'd DNA is anybody claiming any sort of benefit. I hear some of you crying, you can't do that. Why not? It may seem stereotypical, but how many on the dole etc are on the fiddle of one description or another.
Don't give your DNA, don't get your benefit.
Don't give your DNA, don't come in this country.
Don't give your DNA, don't get let out of prison.

The PC brigade would be up in arms, so I'll take their fecker as well for obstructing the law.

Is there a job going in the DNA department? My list is getting longer....

 

[Yorkshire Vixen]

If it became part of a routine at birth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another group I'd DNA is anybody claiming any sort of benefit. I hear some of you crying, you can't do that. Why not? It may seem stereotypical, but how many on the dole etc are on the fiddle of one description or another.
Don't give your DNA, don't get your benefit.
Don't give your DNA, don't come in this country.
Don't give your DNA, don't get let out of prison.

The PC brigade would be up in arms, so I'll take their fecker as well for obstructing the law.

Is there a job going in the DNA department? My list is getting longer....

 

[Darth Vodka]

If it became part of a routine at birth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

no, because the discussion is "what if" not "why did that happen"

Don't give your DNA, don't get your benefit.
Don't give your DNA, don't come in this country.
Don't give your DNA, don't get let out of prison.

surprised the Tories haven't mooted any of those ideas

get a facebook group going, i'll join

 

[homer]

If it became part of a routine at birth we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Another group I'd DNA is anybody claiming any sort of benefit. I hear some of you crying, you can't do that. Why not? It may seem stereotypical, but how many on the dole etc are on the fiddle of one description or another.
Don't give your DNA, don't get your benefit.
Don't give your DNA, don't come in this country.
Don't give your DNA, don't get let out of prison.

The PC brigade would be up in arms, so I'll take their fecker as well for obstructing the law.

Is there a job going in the DNA department? My list is getting longer....

Current estimates of fraud and error put the figure at less than 3% - meaning that 97% of all benefit expenditure is completley legitimate

Fraud on its own is less than 1%

But why let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical stereotyping exercise ??

 

[H T B]

Current estimates of fraud and error put the figure at less than 3% - meaning that 97% of all benefit expenditure is completley legitimate

Fraud on its own is less than 1%

But why let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical stereotyping exercise ??

Anybody that disagrees with my ideas, They'll be DNA'd as well.

 

[Steven]

Current estimates of fraud and error put the figure at less than 3% - meaning that 97% of all benefit expenditure is completley legitimate

Fraud on its own is less than 1%

But why let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical stereotyping exercise ??

People like to respond to an unfettered venting spleen.

 

[Darth Vodka]

Current estimates of fraud and error put the figure at less than 3% - meaning that 97% of all benefit expenditure is completley legitimate

Fraud on its own is less than 1%

But why let the facts get in the way of a good hysterical stereotyping exercise ??

source?

 

[homer]

source?

Go fish...........

 

[Darth Vodka]

Go fish...........

for what? you making up stuff?

 

[Macky]

for what? you making up stuff?

In fairness, he doesn't make up stuff all the time, only about 87% of the time.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

two things:-

deduping of the database would catch someone who got someone to stand in for them

the police now swab the inside of your mouth themselves, the technology has moved on since then

But DV, its not the small fry who get people to stand in for them that will break it, its the clever buggers who have 5 or 6 legit identities. Once one is compromised they just become someone else. I don't have a problem with convicted criminals being swabbed, but no need for the entire population.