I had my DNA taken, twice, and was not charged in either case. I wrote an email to the Home Office, asking to have my DNA sample destroyed and all they sent back was a garbled email (and most likely flagged my entry in the database - I suppose it is suspicious of me to want this rather flagrant invasion of my privacy redressed).

The problem is, if you are arrested, even if you are not charged, and refuse to give a DNA sample, you are obviously going to bring a world of pain down on yourself. I am not sure of the law exactly, does anybody know if it is an offence to refuse to give a sample?

I believe that all those who are sampled and are not prosecuted should have the DNA they submitted destroyed. It is simply unfair and such a measure would stop the instances of so-called ethnic profiling.

Lastly, please note that police officers themselves have been unwilling to submit their own DNA to the database. The whole notion of a 'trust us' society is bogus.

Jason Kennedy, antigua, guatemala

Yet again we are persuing the who dunnit tactic rather than trying to stop the crime being committed in the first place. CCTV cameras do not sop a murder or robbery being committed they only record the event so we can sit back and watch it later and a DNA database will be no different except if you sneeze in a post office the day before its robbed your DNA will be collected and you will have to prove you didn't do it. Cure the cause of the disease instead of cleaning up the after effects and you might be onto a winner.

Steve P, Leeds, England

The theory might be good but with the governments record for IT disasters the practice would likely be rather different.

Ste, Lome, Togo

I would not be prepared to give my property away, but I would be prepared to sell it to the state.
My fee would be £100,000 per annum, net of tax, for each year or part of a year for which my DNA profile remains on the database.
Corrected, of course, annually for inflation.
Still interested?

Dave, Southampton, UK

Enough already of the 1984/Big Brother references: we all get it. How about a constructive discussion supported by a strategy to implement the policy, or kill it at birth. PUBLIC and OPEN debate; decide (based on the public's wishes - not the government's dogma); then act either way. Just stop moaning.

David Masu, Zürich,

Does Phil M realise what he is saying, if your DNS 'floats' onto a murder weapon or a crime scene then you would have to have a reasonable proximity to the crime itself if logic is applied. And despite doubts to the contrary forensic science is intelligent enough to establish whether there is a direct link or not. Once a case goes to court reasonan and probability is also applied and at some point logic has to win out!

Rebecca, Blackpool, UK

Good idea. If you aren't planning on trying to commit a crime where is the problem in having your DNA profile on file. Do it at birth and keep it on record, everyone gets treated the same.

Henry Fry, Edinburgh, UK

"If you've nothing to hide what's your problem?" When does this stop being a valid argument? How much privacy are you prepared to forgo? Surely this is nothing more than the politics of fear.

Reading some of these comments anyone would think society is on the brink of collapse, and the only thing that'll save it are databases, whether it be your children or your DNA. You should start questioning the sources of information that form your view of the world. Think for yourself a bit more and stop being spoon fed by a reactionary media, who more often than not do not have your best interests at heart.

Have you stopped for a moment to think about what might happen if / when a more malignant form of government takes power? Are you going to ask for your DNA and your child’s privacy back?

You're already reaping the benefits of raising children in an environment where they're filmed up to 300 times a day with the "hoodie". What next?

Jonathan, Auckland,

I see nothing wrong with this idea.

As science advances so must our views change and embrace new ideas

If it helps solve crimes than what is so wrong here.

The Captain, Ringwood, Hampshire

Let's be done with it. Every baby born will be given a criminal conviction and a court date pencilled in for the 'crime ' they will commit. Save time in the long term. We are now all criminals just some don't know it yet.

Alan, Luton, UK

I've just read an article on another Times 'page' to do with the alledged infiltration by computer hackers of US, German and UK defence information.
Clearly if computers can be 'got at' by hackers, it's not safe to put any classified material on them at all. So there's no point in putting everyones DNA on a computer database either, if the information is not safe and can be tampered with. Just a thought!

Tarni, London, UK

Oh, how sweetly convenient and Orwellian, Judge Sedley! And no one could insist on their rights and refuse if the DNA sample were taken at birth!
How many other people, organisations, countries and hackers would have access to this information, intentionally or otherwise, via the internet?
I wonder why only 0.5% of the US population is on their DNA database?
Could it be anything to do with the fact that they live in a free country?

Dave, Southampton, UK

As the DVLA cannot manage vehicle records and prevent cloning of cars, how will this work?
The sheer administration will create jobs for the boys.
Are these the judges who free suspected murderers and terrorists on human rights grounds?

Yes.

A case of wrong priorities.

Lets DNA test all judges ...and when they sort out their own mess they have made of the law....

mike, Stoke on trent, UK

with the past record of public data base management one would have to question the ability of the police force and data base providor to actually handle the volume of data concerned.

Jeff, Bristol, uk

protection for the public from dangerous people can not be in any way negative. this offers a deterrant, and easier convictions, and will save police time and in the long run costs too.

gary eagle, p'boro, uk

"Sir Stephen said disproportionate numbers of ethnic minorities get on to the database where there is ethnic profiling going on."

Yo Einstein, that's because a disproportionate number of crimes are commited by ethnic minorities.

Dave, London,

DNA profiling is a many->many mapping. It splits the population into equivalence classes. DNA testing can only answer the single question" "Is the suspect in the same class as the criminal?" As such, it can only establish innocence, not adduce probability of guilt.

Technology can increase the number of classes, but the fundamental scientific limitation remains, and means that, even ignoring accidental or wilful contamination, testing can not be used as a detection tool.

If this is happening now, it is bad science and incompetent policing. A complete database used as the police's first line of investigation would simply encourage gangs to infiltrate testing labs in order to contaminate samples and misrepresent results.

The correct approach is to have tests performed ONLY at the request of solicitors of suspects, and NEVER at the police's request. Do this, and the issue of who is on the database, and whether their data is retained, becomes, as it should be, unimportant.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

1984? George Orwell? Not quite the thourght police yet but i'm sure we will get there. Now if only they could bring in room 101 for all....

Paul, Bristol, uk

As usual the "nothing to hide" brigade come out in force.Strange they do not live up to such a principle themselves, say by taking down the curtains in their homes !.
The problem with a national data base held by the state, is not about what it may be used for today, but what use it may be put to in 20-50 years by a government.
Imagine if Hitler and the Nazi's had the luxury of such a data base, would certainly have speeded up their evil drive to the pure race -eh.
Nothing to hide, you could have said that to the Jews in 1920's then.
I am not knowingly a criminal today, but say 30 years ago I would have been ..& why, because I am GAY !, who knows what a government may decide is illegal in times future.
The we don't break the law so no need to worry are absurb, you may not be now , but what of your grandchildrens future.
Privacy of your identity from the state is the final bulwark again'st evil regimes, surrender it at your peril.Liberty is easily lost,hard to regain.

Clive, Chester, England

I'm more concerned my my civil liberties being infringed by criminals than I am by having my dna on a computer which will never be used unless I decide to start commiting crimes. Allow people to get away with rape, murder etc or have your DNA on a computer - tough call!

Tim, Maidenhead, UK

I would consider this a gross invasion of privacy.

There is no just cause or argument that warrants such a wide sweeping action such as this. Unfortunately this may happen before the general public realise what has truly happened.

Is it fair that convicted criminals cause havoc and distress in the lives of their victims? Or unfair when they (convicted criminals) get community sentences because the jails are full (and no new ones being built)?

Is it fair that the police appear not to be able to do the job they are paid for I.e. uphold the law? Is it fair that England is becoming a celebrity chasing, fickle, mean, debt ridden and generally unpleasant place to live?

Life isn't fair your honour, it never has been, but what has pulled society through has been the knowledge that justice (however late) comes to those that perpertrate crimes.

Lee, Sheffield, UK

Police keeping records on innocent people? You'd be hard pushed to convince me that isn't the beginnings of a police state.

Paul Davis, London,

I don't care what the rationale is for having everybody's DNA on a database. It's my DNA, I haven't done anything wrong and if they want it, they're going to have to tie me down to get it.

Reg Murgan, Gateshead,

Great idea. About time. I'd happily pop in to have my DNA taken at the weekend. This would also help highlight the career criminals who would avoid giving a sample like the plague or would spend less time committing crime and more argueing about their human rights and those of their ancestors. Either way is a win win situation. Bring it on and let's find out who the 5% of people who spoil society for others are!

Andy, Bristol, England

"Its just a conspiracy theory!"..

I know this gets said everytime, but how many more erosions of our civil liberties is it going to take before people realise that we are living in a police state!

As Gordon Brown has said many times already;

"A New World is emerging... it is a New World Order".

Whats next, biochip implants?.. I would chuckle, but sadly that is what we are heading towards..

Simon, London, UK

There has been no debate in Parliament on the introduction of DNA sampling of anybody, this has been introduced by stealth, Human Rights?. As for this Judge Dredd advocating a creeping assault on everybody's civil liberties by the creepy sounding Ministry of Justice he should shut up or resign, they are there to interpret the law not formulate it (who elected him?), not only has he decided that all U.K. citizens should have their DNA taken but also every visitor to the U.K.- Welcome to Britain, this way for your mouth swab, and why not a lie detector test while we are at it (already being rolled out for benefit claimants) just follow the Cyborg, that guy dressed in black with the TV camera mounted on his head and the 50.000 volt Taser. I can see the tourists flocking. Show ME the way out.

Simon, Leeds, U.K.

Not only should this proposal not be considered but all the current dna samples taken from innocent people should be scrapped too. The database, consisting largely of samples from people who have never committed a crime, is the biggest in the world. If this isn't an infringement of our human rights I don't know what is. It is time British citizens had some say in this matter instead of the police who will always use security as an excuse to introduce and do whatever they want. The dna database and compulsory sampling was introduced without public agreement. This isn't the work of a democracy but a police state.

Barrie Redfern, Krsko, Slovenia

I trust that this judge will feel honour bound to resign. It is not the role of the judiciary to promote a police state by compelling everyone to register their DNA
Anyway, would it not infringe my Human Rights to be forced to register my DNA?
Surely it is the role of an independent judiciary to protect us from an all powerful government - rather than to promote it.

Wessex Man, Wessex,

The fundamental problem here is that DNA evidence is considered to be infallible, bt it can actually be difficult to differentiate samples in certain cases. If there is a database with every persons DNA on it, then there will be mismatches, which no court or jury will ever question. I would also ask how
easy would it be to plant DNA evidence, very easy I think?

Add those concerns to the prospect of Government & business profiling the DNA and society will be on a rapid slide into a nightmare scenario if this proposal was adopted. I can tell this judge that this will be the cause of violent civil dissobedience.

Steven Katirai, Newcastle Upon Tyne, England

DNA is much more than an individual fingerprint. Your DNA sequence is unique and effectively contains every single piece of information about you. For example, you may unknowingly be a carrier of a gene for haemophilia and the government would then know this. If this information were ever to be held by an extereme government in the future or if an insurance company were to get hold of this information.... You see where this is going? And if you haven't read "1984", very soon you won't need to. By the way, all these extra criminals we're going to catch with this amazing flawless system, anybody thought about where to put them yet?

George Owens, Addlestone, Surrey

I can't see what the problem is; if you're not likely to be committing violent and / or sexual offences then you've no need to be concerned. On the other hand, a database of the whole populations DNA would make these crimes a lot easier to solve which can only be a good thing.

All the whining about civil liberities is one of the reasons why so many people escape justice.

Simon, Southampton,

What a wildly disproportionate suggestion from a judge who's generally held in high esteem by many. Perhaps LJ Sedley is seeking some attention and probably,he has got it.

However, it is unlikely that such public remarks would inspire public confidence in leading judges of the court of appeal.

Before talking about DNA databases, I would have thought that there're more pressing issues for lord justices to address such putting their own house in order,eg.conflicts of interest and greater transparency of judicial office holders.

Samantha, Leeds, UK

How can anyone seriously object to this. It's perfectly sensible. As the Judge says, how many people have committed a crime, left DNA at the scene and cannot be traced because there is no DNA record of them. I'll bet it's tens of thousands. If we create a database like this then it becomes far easier to identify who might have committed the crime. Think how many serious assaults, murders and rape cases could be solved. Don't believe me - just ask John Humble. All those liberal do gooders who worry about civil liberties should realise that a huge amount of crime is now solved thanks to the spread of CCTV cameras that they objected to. Same principle here. If you haven't done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?

nick, london, uk

Why not? For those of us that have nothing to hide or fear - bring it on. If it stops a rapist in his tracks then is that not a good thing.

Ryan , east sussex,

The Government can't even get the Tax Credit system right...what's the chance they will be able to manage a national database that will be used to "prove" an individual commited a crime!

LRT, Basingstoke, Hampshire

And that's at 5% of the proposed size. Never mind the civil liberties issues, what about the government's utter incompetency when it comes to IT & databases.

Jeremy Poynton, Fromeville, 51st State

The people who attend crime scenes in addition to the criminals include the police. Let's start with the compulsory DNA records of ALL police officers so that false positive DNA id's can be eliminated -no matter how small the likelyhood. No, I won't bet on this happening either.

Allan, London,

If the decline of this country follows precedent, then there will come a time when various ethnic groups will be identified as the source of all our problems. When the government of the day decides it's time to 'cleanse' those culprits, say all people with English ancestry, it will be easy to avoid mistakes with the gas chambers. The addition of chipping would make it even easier to set up an efficient detection and despatch process. RFID technology holds great promise here. Chips could be implanted at birth and thus automate registration. So, within a generation or two all society's problems will be solved. I'm off to buy shares in the few various suppliers favored by the British government in these areas.

Ray Warren, Dartmouth,

Lord Justice Sedley, on BBC Radio Four (8:10) this morning, attributes the preponderance of black males on the database to “ethnic profiling.

1. Lord Justice Sedley does not state:

2. The relative absence of Sikhs, Hindus or Chinese males on the database due to “ethnic profiling”.

3. Why it is that only 40% of black males are on the database compared to 9% of white males (stated by Information Commissioner Richard Thomas in the immediately following interview) when the relative conviction rates of blacks are much higher .

4. Why the wholly disproportionate number of males on the database versus females is due to “sexual profiling”.

This is the first time I have heard any member of the judiciary speak politically, as some police chief constables have already done.

Bert Rustle, London, UK

Did anyone elect this judge? I have "nothing to hide", as the apparently self-righteous keep saying. However, I don't believe for one moment that the system will be infallible, and until the "Big Brother" culture of the current government, used as an excuse for failures to enforce normal policing in a democratic society is revised, then the idea of a database of every persons' DNA is an affront to democracy and freedom.

Jillita, Lewisham, UK

About time and what a perfectly sensible crimefighting measure! Too many people who are walking the streets, and whose DNA would show them guilty of crimes, go free - as Lord Justice Sedley said!

Dorian, London,

I don't understand why people make such a fuss about it.
"We're being tagged", "We're being big-brother'd" etc.

It's DNA, it's just a bit of your blood or skin, 1 hair, they don't follow you around with it, they don't put radioactive markers in your blood stream and track you from their outer-space headquarters or whatever else you want to believe.

Get over it, your DNA is everywhere, so what's wrong with having yours on a database? All you lose is your ability to commit your first real crime and get away with it.

And for the note, my DNA's been on that database since my school days, and there hasn't been an ounce of repercussion.

You should give DNA, or you should leave.

Adam, Manchester, UK

I really don't understand what the problem is; if you don't commit a crime, you have nothing to worry about. I would have absolutely no problem with my DNA being held on database. People get huffy about human rights but what about the human rights of every victim of crime whose attacker is never brought to justice?

Heather, Gloucester, U.K.

I understand and have sympathy for the above views. It appears to make sense that like the data protection act the information (DNA) should be current and relevant. However there is more to keeping DNA on file than that. Especially the DNA of juveniles. Why?
The reason is because the young offender starts with small crimes and climb the criminal ladder to far more serious crimes.
On the other hand 1984 and how safe will this information about us be kept now and more importantly in the future?
Would I voluntarily give my DNA to this data base?
No chance. If on the other hand you get arrested and your DNA is the take that is another matter. Question did you notice the change in Police procedure in the taking of DNA?
Overnight it went from when you are charged and if you are found guilty. To processing on entering a custody suite. A massive difference.
Did The Police do this? No they were instructed to do it by The Home Office. Who and why?

********** Now that's a story **********

R Coleshill, Southampton, uk

The only people who should be afraid are those who have something to hide. If such a database existed and something happened to a child of one of the opposers of the system, would they be so "against" the idea if it could help them find one of theirs? Of course not!
People all had identity cards in the war, foreign driving licences have photographs on, nobody complained then, so why not have a DNA database? I have nothing to reproach myself with, so I'll volunteer to be the first!

George, Poitiers,

How can we so quickly forget the totalitarian police states of Germany and Russia when run by Hitler and Stalin?
Why do we want to self destruct as individuals and become the property of the State?

Freedom!, Taunton,

Apart from a worry about mistakes and possible abuse, I'd say the sooner the better. If you deny the police this technology, you might as well deny them fingerprinting. It's ridiculous to have to wait for some backdoor excuse to take a DNA profile. Only people with something to hide should be concerned if it is set up and operated within proper statute law.

Stuart, Chester,

Let's say we all do this, how long before this database is hacked and health information is made available to employers, insurers and your date of a Friday night?

Please make this judge watch the movie "Gattaca" as soon as possible.

Joe, London, UK

This kind of database makes me feel much safer in the UK. As a law abinding citizen (except speed limits) I would rather this than speed cameras or road-pricing trackers.

James Brown, London,

What next? Barcodes to be tattooed on our wrists? My own country is starting to sicken me.

Simon, Lancaster, UK

some of you whining about the big brother state probably think having a speed limit outside schools is fascism, gun control is anti-libertarian and making drug-dealing illegal is interfering with people's rights to free trade.

what you forget is that, in order for you to be able to enjoy your "freedom", everyone else has to abide by a set of rules. when your child gets raped by a serial rapist who was not apprehended due to the lack of an all-encapsulating dna database, no doubt you will think that is a price worth paying for some faint notion of liberty. personally, I see you putting my children's liberty at risk. so put that in your pipe and smoke it.

jem, london, uk

Whats next ? Cameras in our homes ?

Lucas, Ryde, Isle of Wight

In other words, Judge Sedley wants the whole of the UK to make his life easier so he can wrap up court cases faster and get on with the most important thing, sneaking in a couple of rounds of golf with some MP's.

The most important thing here that isn't advertised anywhere is that when an doctor or a GP takes a blood sample form you, they have the choice to add you to the DNA datatbase without consulting you, no matter how illegal this seems.

We're sleepwalking into 1984, Orwell was 20 years too early

Phil, Birmingham,

Does this mean I am guilty of all crimes committed until the police clear me?

Christopher, Wiltshire,

Could there be pressure on police to make arrests in order to get the sample? My daughter was arrested on the flimsiest of grounds and had her DNA taken, although she wasn't even charged let alone prosecuted.

jan, Cheltenham,

Ofcourse every UK visitor should and must give a DNA sample! It is entirely inkeeping with the British way of life to reject compulsory DNA sampling, therefore it should be introduced as a voluntary scheme. If you have nothing to hide then why object. We should in theory know our blood type in a case of an emergency. The police would be able to respond and save time/money solving violent crime making the country that much safer, by ilimination.What is rape,murder, if it is not an emergency. If you think Big Brother has taken over? Read George Orwell 1984. The opposite is true, I think.

christopher, cardiff, UK

Not only is where we are now 'indefensible', so is how we got where we are. The 'how' is by extending police power to dictate rules on collection and retention of DNA samples.

To simply throw away what remains of our resulting privacy is the devil's answer to the dilemma. The consequences of rolling back police power in this area is grossly mis-portrayed in order to unfairly bully people into accepting that complete loss privacy is 'inevitable' and the least worst option.

This is an example of the establishment bashing individuals' liberties at its worst. The populace should take it as a warning as to where the authorities want to take our society.

You have been warned.

Edwin Thornber, Bucharest,

But they don't prosecute the criminals they catch now?

Steve Byrne, Christchurch, UK

What about the people who refuse, charge them, imprison them and forcibly take dna suppose

willihudso, retford, england

Do they seriously expect to take DNA from visitors to the UK? What will this do to the tourism industry? Just picture the queues at Heathrow, and the indignation of foreigners being treated like criminals.

And how will they get DNA samples from residents? Are they going to round us all up and stick swabs in our mouths?

The debate about whether it violates our rights is irrelevant because the whole idea is nonsense.

Mark, London,

My advice to this judge would be:-

Get you own house in order and give realistic sentences to deter would be criminals.

The current DNA database has already been exposed of having duplicate and invalid name entries. Additionally, the system is reputed to be easily open to hacking and corruption.

Apparently, MP’s want to be excluded from this database. Invariably this will move to other groups wanting exclusion, including judges? So this will NOT be everyone!

Prevention is better than cure. MORE Police and LESS CCTV, databases, liberal do- gooders, civil servants and ‘feet not quite on the ground’ judges.

I firmly oppose this as yet again it is a further act of despotism.

KF, Cornwall, England

DNA evidence is not as reliable as the state wants us to believe. There are several recorded cases around the world of errors being made in the use of DNA "evidence".

Mark, Warwick, UK

Next step

Microchip and GPS Tracking device implanted in the Brain.

Free country - my backside.

Si, Reading,

About time, a Judge that is talking sense.

If we have nothing to hide then as a nation we shouldn't mind having our DNA held on a database.

Yes it will help to catch criminals quicker and that is what I want this country to do.

Crime is going up and we are letting in more and more people. It may act as a deterrant and hopefully crime would go down.

Just think of all those unsolved crimes some to awful to mention (especailly rape and abuse against children). Having a database would help to catch the perpatrator quicker.

I am happy to have my DNA held and I would be happy to give it tomorrow.

Kerry, Rugby, UK

If you believe in the Big Brother of British Government, you will no doubt believe that DNA is already being collected with each new born. Probably with every medical operation too; nevertheless if one has nothing to hide, then why not offer a free DNA collection by those that wish it ?

Same with ID cards. So what ?

It might eventually make those airport queues disappear altogether. And that's just for the Britons waiting to get out.

But you can say goodbye then to millions of tourist euros, dollars and yen - because why should they comply?

Pondlife, France,

Lets just assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent and we shall then have reached the stage that the police state wants.
God help this Country.

Frank, Hertford, UK

The Judge is correct. But the database should be separated from the Police and Government, and run independently, eg like the BBC. That would help prevent the govt Men in Black from doctoring DNA samples.
And all government workers should be on the database immediately. Including the security services.
Do not forget, many of us already detectable because DNA has parts in common with the rest of one's family. So if you have a relation with a conviction, chances are that you could be quickly identified if you were foolish enough to commit a crime.

Tim C, Southern England,

The degree by which the 'Ebstablishment' wishes to inpinge upon our liberties increases by the day. You may think you 'have nothing to hide' if you are innocent - but you are wrong. Say for example a hair or skin cell from your body floats into a murder scene and onto the murder weapon? Given the judge's stance you will be convicted without much chance. The DNA technology might be there, but the procedures to use it CORRECTLY are NOT!

Phil M, Wolverhampton, England

Of course members of the Establishment will be excluded from any such reveral of natural justice process--guilty until/unless proved innocent--in the same way the progeny of politicians and celebrities will not be included on the ridiculous national children's database, the need for which allegedly arose from the Climbie Inquiry - whose chairman Lord Laming was formerly director of social services at Hertfordshire County Council.

Robert Hill, Harpenden, Herts, UK

no brainer, less crime and more offenders put away. Those guilty of no cirmes should have nothing to fear

David, London,

Lets start with royalty, politicians and the police force.

Maguire, Nottingham,

the judge is 100% right in principle. the only concerns can be practical concerns regarding mistakes or inappropriate use of the information.

james, the existence of this database would not in any way impinge on your liberties. indeed, it would help make you free from the interference of criminals. you and ms liberty rentaquote haven't got a legitimate argument between you.

jem, london, uk

I am 60 years old. When I was a boy I would never have believed that England could ever degenerate to the place it is becoming - an Orwellian police state.
Objections to civil liberty infringements are always challenged by that nasty, ridiculous false premise, "if you have nothing to hide, why should you mind?" Well, I do mind.
The next step, maybe in a few decade's time, will be the micro-chipping of new-born babies - they will claim it will prevent kidnapping. I hope I'm not alive to see that day, but youngsters, remember this post when you get older.
I wonder - will the invigilator accept this post if I mention the name of David Icke? Just a thought...

Max , London,

What next your brain waves ???
The State has far too much information on all of us already.
Britain has the largest DNA database of any country in the entire world, DOES THAT NOT TELL US SOMETHING.
Big brother and a fully intergrated centralised police state moves ever CLOSER. This is utter insanity.
As a Scotsman, if I lived in England or Wales, I would leave NOW.

L J Stewart, Edinburgh, Scotland

There are such things as false positives in DNA testing. This is something that is usually overlooked. If someone is suspected of a crime and who then provides a positive DNA test result, then that test result is fairly strong evidence. However, to identify an unknown suspect from a DNA sample is something that is totally different. In these circumstances, virtually no emphasis can be placed on the test result without biasing the outcome. Such 'dragnet' style approaches have been widely criticised (scientifically) because of this and maybe it is something the judge should have considered before speaking out.

Kenn, Cirencester, UK

The proposition, let alone the reason for it, is absurd. The only databse that is compulsory for people to be on is the electoral roll. If you dont want to vote you can opt out. Yet here is a proposition that everyone should have their exact genome, something far more personal than an address, on a databse. As to the reason just because the current database is skewed does fairness justify the draconian inclusion of every member of the public? Finally how safe will this databse be? With the possibility of biometric passports is there any part of humanity in the UK that wont be recorded somewhere and open for abuse by someone. No matter how well intentioned this is it send shivers up my spine.

AN Other, somewhere , out there

The answer is simple - from now on never go anywhere or do anything without a companion. You never now when you will need an alibi!!!!

Danny, wakefield,

I totally agree with Sir Stephen. I think it would pretty much stop crime or at least make criminals think twice. In fact while we are on the case why dont we bring back capital punishment, that way we wont even have to worry if the DNA stays on the database or not, bury it with the criminals......

Geoff, Birmingham, England

I totally agree we should build a complete national database. Whether it is practical to include visitors I am not sure.

There was a case a few years ago - I think it was the South London railway rapist case - which could have been solved much quicker had a full database existed. The rapist had no police record, and had never been required to submit a sample. So it took a lot longer to track him down. I wonder how many of his victims suffered unnecessarily as a result. This was a high profile case, but surely not an isolated one.

Of course it's not a simple matter, and concerns about personal freedom and potential misuse of information have to be addressed.

As a starting point it would be interesting to see what would happen if there was a campaign inviting people to give samples voluntarily. That in itself could save the Police a lot of time by immediately eliminating people in cases where they can not easily produce a list of potential suspects

Keith Berrett, Cheshire,

4m CCTV camera's watching us, satelites watching the speed we drive at and now this! Welcome to 1984. Big Brother has arrived and is living in Whitehall !! What would those who died to keep this country free think about that? Should they have bothered if this is how democracy turns out? Even the Stasi couldn't keep it up for ever. Why does this idiot think that we want this? The Police can't prove they're free from corruption and we can''t trust them to administer this for the greater good. Would it mean that they could just "fit" someone up for any crime seeing as they've got your DNA... How would we ever fight that in Court then? Alibi's are no defence against hard "evidence" such as that. You think the prisons are full now...!

High time people such as this Judge got in touch with the people of the UK and found out what we define as freedom. It's a country mile away from his view. Is he still smarting that we don't all work in service for rich people like him?

Neil, Derby, England

Shouldn't be much of a problem in our sink estates....most of the inmates have the same dna anyway

fresian, edinburgh, uk

In pinciple this would allow all the inocent people to know that the authorities know they are innocent - good thing.
But how is the DNA sampling to be achieved ?.
My guess is it will be done by reference to an existing data base - perhaps electoral roll and/or NHS records.
The big problem is making sure that everyone is sampled so what about the thousands of people in this country illegally - they dont appear on any database - bad thing.

Brian Tetlow, Oldham - UK,

I agree with the judge. Why not take DNA samples from newborns? That way everyone will be aware they can be caught if they do something wrong. Some might even do less harm because of this knowledge.

Igor, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Is it that people may be opposed to this because: 1. They have something to hide or 2. The possibility that the system can be abused? As long as the data is securely held and not open to private companies, surely this has got to be the way of the future to ensure the security of vulnerable and children?

Paul, Bournemouth,

Good idea. I'll get in the queue behind Judge Sedley, if he lets me know when he's going to give his sample.

eric campbell, harrogate, uk

Big Brother has arrived.We are all to be tagged and bagged.The argument is now because a minority of people commit crimes,the rest of the nation should now be tagged.
Its no wonder hundreds of thousands of native British are leaving the country in droves.
The state is taking away liberties that our ancestors died for,faster that you can say Ken Livingstone.
Will the last one to leave please turn out the lights!

James, London, U.K.

questionable meddling by the judiciary branch of government. A proper separatinn of legislature, Executive and Judicial Branch of Government is non-existent in the UK (and most or all other states), but this is a blatant breach of etiquette. Needless to say, these judges are not accountable to the citizens, cannot be fired (or hardly ever are). Similar abuse of priviledge can be observed by charities getting involved in political campaigns - when the state (taxpayer) becomes their main paymaster this is even more dangerous.

Kleiber Carlos, London,

Britain is a police state but the penny has not yet dropped among the populace.
Human rights trampled at will by persons who think they have a divine right by virtue of their position.

Richard, London,

We are innocent until proven guilty. If we have done nothing wrong then the state has no business invading our lives and treating every one of us as a potential criminal.
The state exists to serve us. We do not exist to serve the state.

Jim, Edinburgh,

What a joke this judge is! When the likes of this man and his other colleagues starts to hand-out proper jail terms instead of fines for the most serious of crimes,(this is what will keep the prison population down, longer terms) then we will take him serious on this matter. Until this happens, stay in your ivory tower your Honour and dream on!

Ray Morgan, Liverpool, Merseyside

"Sir Stephen said reducing the database would be a mistake". Well, he would, wouldn't he. Why is the default position always one of MORE gov interference, rather than less ? (I appreciate the comment is from an "independant" judge)

Would YOU trust the authorities to keep YOUR information secure, & free from both illegal access & Govt Mistakes ?

Richard, Kent,