Maybe under the new law about which Guy Herbert wrote the other day, all members of the Labour Party should be subjected to an Asbo. Fair's fair.

They should do the same for the Tories, while they are at it.

All this cash for peerages nonsense is so silly. The government could save a bundle by selling peerages for million or two at a time. The market would determine who would sit in the lords rather than corruption. A useful reform if ever there was one.

Remember the benefits to the likes of Eade & Ravenscroft robe makers to he Queen, who would be making a tidy pile from creating frocks of many colors for the big days in the Lords. Not to forget the College of Heralds, and their magical grants of arms , who would also collect a buck or two. A rather nice place to visit, if you get the chance by the way.

As usual, the labour government has lost yet another opportunity to enrich the nation, let alone save a bundle of money that would have been lifted out of the taxpayers pockets otherwise.

No doubt knacker of the yard will act to seal the fate of the purveyors of privilege. Why am I not expecting much here? The odd minnow will get hoicked out of the trout stream for this one, forget the big fish they will swim by untouched.

It all matches, in a rather sick way, the great controversy about barristers’ wigs that engaged the Lord Chancellors office a while back. If the wigs have to go, they will be banned for all, rather than made optional. The reformers and do gooders can’t allow choice, it just ain’t in their nature. Meanwhile, a touch of corrupt honours is just good for the economy. Why is it that the doers of good have a penchant for a bit of financial shenanigans on the one hand and moral posturing on the other?

Hayek had a point about tradition, but what was it? Somehow I don’t think these nonces get it.

If the wigs have to go, they will be banned for all, rather than made optional. The reformers and do gooders can’t allow choice, it just ain’t in their nature.

Also a practical point: if they were to do that it, it might end up demonstrating in practice that what they choose to ban has a useful function - a semiotic one denoting a role and status to those present in open court, in the case of wigs. Were counsel to find the wig did indeed engender respect in others and remind them of their duties to the court, if they found it disguised age to some degree, to the benefit of both aged and very young, they might keep wearing it as a useful tool of the trade.

Two years ago some little toerag robbed my house. Fortunately, though, he left some blood where he smashed our window. About six months later his Mother (LOL!) took him to the police station after catching him with drugs (shocker), they took a blood sample, the system flashed up, he got his comuppance*.
Presumably you think this is a bad thing?

*Well, technically he got a £60 fine and *first offence* status for eight other burglaries and four car thefts he admitted to. Plus he refused to give the names of his partners in crime, because forcing this would be in violation of his human rights. Now, apparently, he's a crystal meth addict, so its not quite a fairy tale.

Gabriel -

there is a difference between holding onto otherwise anonymous DNA samples taken at a scene of an unsolved crime and collecting everyone's DNA systematically. The difference is the one method is trying to keep track of crime, while the other is trying keep track of people (criminals or not).

I don't imagine anyone here is against the police using new technology to solve crime. They are just against the police becoming the data entry clerks of the state.

If the "Godfather" at the top were to be arrested, removed, wasted, wiped out, or in some other way removed because of this big cover up. Do you think it would get a mention on the BBC?

nic,

When you say "trying keep track of people", what non-crime-related tracking are you referring to?

The only alternative use I can think of would be using the data to measure background diversity and so determine how reliable DNA evidence is - i.e. counting up what proportion of the population at large have a particular marker so that they can say a particular match is likely to be unique. Or to grant access to medical researchers on genetic diseases. But that isn't really describable as 'tracking'. Did you have something in mind?