Establishing the identity of an abducted child by DNA.

[Eleanor]

One can't be sure of that. Different countries have different rules.
There seems to be an underlying assumption that this testing would take place within a 'western' country that would follow UK rules - this may not be the case.

I don't actually know what might go on in Brazil or Papua, New Guinea, Jassi.  But I doubt that they are completely insensitive, especially as Madeleine could well be in such a place.

[Eleanor]

Quite possibly.

That's a bit sad.

[G-Unit]

No, I am not accepting any such thing.  You used the words, "evidence to the contrary".  But first of all the child has to be roughly the right age, and the person reporting it not obviously crackers.

I just don't understand the fuss.  And in my opinion any normal person would comply.

More caveats? How do the police decide who's crackers and who's not? People with some very strange ideas can appear quite normal.

I don't object to providing proof that my child is my child. I do object to having the child DNA tested as a matter of course.

[Eleanor]

More caveats? How do the police decide who's crackers and who's not? People with some very strange ideas can appear quite normal.

I don't object to providing proof that my child is my child. I do object to having the child DNA tested as a matter of course.

I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal.  Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?

[Jean-Pierre]

If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.

I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.

The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.

I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed.  You may like to try and work out why that is.

I agree with that, G-Unit.

I have never bought into the argument "if you do nothing wrong, then what is the harm in surveillance -for your own safety of course. 

The government having your DNA. 

Having your medical records.

Having CC TV on every street.   

Why not in every home?

Why not have a tracking device implanted at birth.....

1984

[Lace]

The only reason the police would want DNA would be if all other means of identity had failed.

People can be issued with a false birth certificate.

The people who traffic other people are very detailed in what they do.

[Benice]

I agree with that, G-Unit.

I have never bought into the argument "if you do nothing wrong, then what is the harm in surveillance -for your own safety of course. 

The government having your DNA. 

Having your medical records.

Having CC TV on every street.   

Why not in every home?

Why not have a tracking device implanted at birth.....

1984

I tend to agree also JP - and no doubt if it was implemented some clever criminal would find a way round it - especially with a computerised system involved.

I remember when bank cards were introduced - and were claimed to be the answer to all kinds of crimes - no more muggings etc  - as no-one would need to carry cash.    Instead we now have a multi billion pound fraud industry involving bank cards. 

[G-Unit]

I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal.  Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?

That is the impression I have been given; that nothing else is acceptable, which is why I joined the discussion in the first place.

[Eleanor]

That is the impression I have been given; that nothing else is acceptable, which is why I joined the discussion in the first place.

For me it is the only definitive answer.  And I know that I would not object.

[G-Unit]

For me it is the only definitive answer.  And I know that I would not object.

That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.

I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.

[Eleanor]

That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.

I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.

My statement that DNA is the only definitive answer is a fact and not an opinion.  That I would not object is also a fact.
However, I am entitled to an opinion on what other people might do, as is everyone.  This will not cease.

[stephen25000]

I do know that some people with strange ideas can appear to be quite normal.  Some people believe that any sighting of Madeleine is crackers.
And who said anything about a matter of course?

'..... any sighting of Madeleine is crackers...........'  ???

but no trace of Madeleine has been found since she disappeared...........................

[Carana]

If the police want to know who you are in the UK they ask for details such as name, address, driver's licence and so on. We have no history of having our DNA tested to prove who we are. There is no reason why we should be expected to have a DNA test to prove who we are not.

I don't think the police would ask for a DNA test unless normal identity checking methods were inconclusive. For most innocent parents normal methods would quickly demonstrate who a child was.

The reasons being given for submitting to a test are illogical, and none of them over-ride our right to be left alone to live our lives in a free country. The UK isn't a police state and we have the right to be respected and presumed innocent unless there is evidence to the contrary.

I expect some would see it as a good idea for all babies to have their DNA placed on a database for life. That would make police work easier in a lot of cases, but it would be strongly opposed. Issuing identity cards to everyone was strongly opposed.  You may like to try and work out why that is.

Is your objection based on the idea that your child's DNA would remain on a police database? If so, I still don't quite see the difference between that and having the police note all the other bits of identifying information about the child / family.

There was a lot of controversy in the UK about the introduction of a national ID card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_Cards_Act_2006

In some countries, it's illegal to leave your home without some form of ID. It's not just in case the police suddenly to decide that you might have committed an offence, but in case you're in a serious accident.

In Portugal, there was a rumpus about CCTV as it was viewed as an invasion of privacy, yet in many other countries that is an accepted part of life.

Perhaps it's the potential misuse of that information that's scary. Some TV show or other on one of the US channels (ages ago) was based on CCTV footage of people in embarrassing situations. I don't know if that has since been outlawed, but IMO that was clearly a misuse of a legitimate means of security surveillance.

[Benice]

That's fine, everyone is allowed a point of view. Mine is different, but just as valid in my opinion.

I'm prepared to explain and support my viewpoint and I expect others to explain and support theirs. I do object when some people suggest that anyone with a different opinion is lacking in some way though. It adds nothing to the discussion and should cease.

And yet you were unmistakeably of a 'different opinion' to K&G re their holiday activities as a family- and you obviously thought they were seriously ''lacking in some way'' - simply because their opinion on how to spend their holiday was different to yours.   

A tad hypocritical?

[stephen25000]

And yet you were unmistakeably of a 'different opinion' to K&G re their holiday activities as a family- and you obviously thought they were seriously ''lacking in some way'' - simply because their opinion on how to spend their holiday was different to yours.   

A tad hypocritical?

Would you leave children exposed to unnecessary danger ?