Well I don’t actually maintain a full legal library in my house, strange to tell.

You obviously haven’t read the case, because it has nothing to do with policemen.

Incidentally, Sir Robert Mark said many police are corrupt, and he was the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. One might have thought he was in a good position to know.

“I would say that is controversial, and indeed defamatory.”

What a berk!

Have a look at Brown v D C Thomson & Co 1912 SC 359.

Always an idea to know what you are talking about when you choose to shoot your mouth off.

Mister Mat says you’re being deliberately provocative and controversial, and you do it all the time.

I admire this trait

Yes, it’s possible that by long and painstaking practise the error rate will get smaller and smaller. I don’t think the potential for cock-ups in the mean time is worth it. Aside from anything else, I have living proof in the shape of a four year old daughter of what happens when you fall into the 0.5% of things that are 99.5% certain to work (in that case, the contraceptive pill).

DNA testing is generally, at best, with a good quality sample, 99.5% reliable. Given a universal DNA database of the UK population, that means each sample will yield at least 30,000 positive results. Obviously some will be removable on the grounds of being out of the country etc., but that still leaves a metric arseload of follow-up work for the rozzers.

I’m against a DNA database on practical grounds, as well as citizen/state relationship ones.

Dammit, I wish Mat hadn’t made me look at this site.

I would say that is controversial, and indeed defamatory.

I said two thirds of police officers are Freemasons. That is a statement of fact.

Really? Prove it.

Clearly, you know absolutely nothing about historical linguistics.

That’s because I’m not that interested in historical linguistics. I’m more interested in language in the context of evolutionary theory. But only a little bit more interested.

How about answering my questions, rather than repeating your sweeping assertions?

If I make a sweeping assertion, it will probably be because the topic is running outside the scope of this blog. Like the time you asked me to explain how the brain works.

Actually it isn’t my main argument (or any of my arguments) as you well know. I have said that many police are corrupt, not all police. That is surely an uncontroversial statement of fact.

“Power to do what exactly? Set people up?”

Oh right. People in authority don’t want more power. They would rather give it all up and go and live in Patagonia.

“That’s right. You’ve never even mentioned the freemasons.”

I said two thirds of police officers are Freemasons. That is a statement of fact. Freemasonic membership creates a potential conflict of interest, as I am sure you are aware.

“Language predates history which relies upon the written, not the spoken word. I have no idea when exactly language emerged but, as with everything evolutionary, it will have been imperceptibly gradual.”

Clearly, you know absolutely nothing about historical linguistics.

How about answering my questions, rather than repeating your sweeping assertions?

For instance, how did Chinese move from being fully ergative and agglutinative to being fully analytic in 5,000 years without natural selection altering the brains of the Chinese people?

5,000 years is “imperceptibly gradual”, ofcourse.

Well, to be honest it does seem to be your main argument.

When has anyone in authority wanted less, not more, power?

Power to do what exactly? Set people up?

Staw man No 2. Getting to be a habit, Laurence.

That’s right. You’ve never even mentioned the freemasons.

Any attempt to apply evolutionary theory to historical linguistics is doomed to failure.

Language predates history which relies upon the written, not the spoken word. I have no idea when exactly language emerged but, as with everything evolutionary, it will have been imperceptibly gradual.

“Certainly the arguments will need to be of a higher calibre than, “we can’t have a database because the police are totally corrupt.””

A classic case of setting up a straw man. No-one in this thread has said any such thing.

“But a number of figures in the police and judiciary are now coming out in favour of a universal DNA database,”

When has anyone in authority wanted less, not more, power?

“and I don’t happen to believe that they are all part of some Masonic plot.”

Staw man No 2. Getting to be a habit, Laurence.

“I’m afraid that is totally incorrect.”

Two straw men, now an argument by assertion. I should keep a tally.

Any attempt to apply evolutionary theory to historical linguistics is doomed to failure. Human language has moved from being fully ergative and agglutinative to being (almost) fully analytic in the space of 40,000 years. That is in the case of English. A few languages, such as Basque, North and East Caucasian, Burushaski, Yeniseian and Kartvelian are still fully ergative. Chinese, unlike English, moved from being fully ergative to being fully analytic in the space of some 5,000 years. Yet during this 40,000 year period, human physiology has barely changed.

So how could the natural selection of random mutations achieve the alterations in hardwiring of the brain required to produce such radical changes in language in this narrow timescale? Especially when, as you say, evolutionary changes take millions of years?

Are the brains of Basques hardwired differently from those of the Chinese? Basques have little difficulty learning and speaking Spanish and French, languages which are largely analytic. I guess they need some circuits fitted into their skulls to do this.

Not too bad. I attended the AGM of the secular Lib Dems. Please join our Facebook group!

Laurence, This fisking is truly irritating. This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not a to-and-fro point rebuttal.

I’m sorry, but I enjoy it.

I cannot at the moment support a national DNA database. You don’t think this. I want to know why? Really? Not just frivolous answers about the future being wonderful. This is your topic, give me answers, numbers.

I don’t think the future will be wonderful. I just believe in making slow steady progress. But I do think there will come a time when it is the opponents of DNA databases who will be required to justify their continued opposition, not those of us in favour. Certainly the arguments will need to be of a higher calibre than, “we can’t have a database because the police are totally corrupt.” I can’t give you hard numbers about the number of criminals who are currently getting away with murder. We just don’t know; that is the point in a sense. But a number of figures in the police and judiciary are now coming out in favour of a universal DNA database, and I don’t happen to believe that they are all part of some Masonic plot.

Regarding the brain, very little is hardwired.

I’m afraid that is totally incorrect.

Full language communication in apes might be prohibited by something as simple as lack of specific orofacial muscles and structures and inabilities to control breathing.

If that were the case, then we might be able to establish communication using some alternative channel. But all attempts at this have failed. Try as hard as we might, the chimps never seem able to make it beyond the chimp stage. Which, when you think about it, is not altogether surprising.

Laurence, This fisking is truly irritating. This is supposed to be a discussion thread, not a to-and-fro point rebuttal.

I think that because of innate human error and complicity, large databases will continue to have high false positive rates, even if the technology is marvellous. And that this, along with the fact that my DNA does belong to me, I cannot at the moment support a national DNA database. You don’t think this. I want to know why? Really? Not just frivolous answers about the future being wonderful. This is your topic, give me answers, numbers. Make me believe.
Regarding the brain, very little is hardwired. In fact its malleability is what makes it so incredible. There are specialist areas in the brain determined by genetics but the function of these areas can be changed if needs be. And even this functional neuroanatomy is sometimes disputed, including Broca’s area. And for reference, an analogous asymmetry to the human Broca’s area has been cited in great apes. Full language communication in apes might be prohibited by something as simple as lack of specific orofacial muscles and structures and inabilities to control breathing. To both, Laurence and Angus ‘morphic resonance’ Huck, I suggested to both of you to put Kandel’s “Principles of Neural Science” or something similar on your Amazon wish list for Christmas to learn a bit more about the most fascinating structure known to us.

Ah, now that is a vaguely sensible point.

Not necessarily. You provide the sample and get the match, and keep trying till you get the one you want. Or more likely, submit multiple samples from the same location.

“But if you have collusion, then you hardly need to bother with real evidence at all. You can just make it all up.”

Yes, the Police sometimes do make it all up. But there is a difference between a DNA match, which the expert witness says is 1 billion to 1 or whatever, and a prison grass lying through his teeth. The jury is more likely to believe the former than the latter.

And consider the possibility that criminals might plant the DNA of innocent people at crime scenes knowing they will be matched via the national DNA database.

But why would the police need access to the database? All they do is provide the sample. The lab produces the fingerprint and makes the match. Or perhaps a third agency performs the match for good measure. So if the police were to adopt a “keep trying until we get him” approach, then everyone would know that they have done just that.

My basic point is that any serious abuse of the system would require collusion. But if you have collusion, then you hardly need to bother with real evidence at all. You can just make it all up.

Yes, but it you have a national DNA database, the Police will be able to key the name into their computers and up pops the profile.

And they will be able to tell them who owns the profile on the sample they take once they get it back from the lab. If they have taken the wrong DNA, they can chuck away the sample and try again.

Technology is only as good as the people who use it.

A national DNA database would probably be safe in the hands of Robert Mark, John Stalker and Brian Paddick, but definitely not the officers investigated by Operation Countryman or those compulsorily retired by Robert Mark.

As I and many others have reiterated in this thread, a national DNA database would be of only marginal benefit in fighting crime while the potential for abuse is huge.

I would also point out that you are wrong to believe that collusion between Police and expert witnesses never occurs.