British Government and terror lists

It's hard to think of polite the right words to say about this :-

UK Government backs Islamists in battle to remove their names from terror list

The Government is secretly supporting an attempt by UK-based Islamists to have their names removed from an international terror blacklist

The seven men were placed on the United Nations list because they were suspected of having links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

As a result they have been barred from leaving Britain and their assets have been frozen by the Bank of England and HM Treasury.

They include individuals who were:

* convicted of involvement in the 2003 Casablanca bombings and of possessing terrorist documents in the UK,

* accused of assisting the 1998 bombings of two US embassies in Africa and of being an associate of Osama bin Laden,

* found guilty by a military court of plotting terror attacks.

But an attempt by the men to have their names removed from the UN list has now won the backing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).

The FCO has insisted that it is acting because it has reviewed the men's cases and does not think they are dangerous.

Well, the secret's out now!

Other countries, it would seem, disagree with this request - the article explains why, and also tries to explain FCO's position.

One of the reasons given for removing the names from the list is that :-

... the UN is forcing the UK authorities to impose draconian restrictions on individuals.

Which sounds a bit like, "The big boys made me do it", but using a far more adult vocabulary. So the detention, freezing of assets etc was nothing to do with UK authorities, nothing at all. They had no choice, which is why these individuals now have government support.

Whatever happens next, and Mrs R hasn't a clue what it might be although she does know we really and truly can't afford to break friends with USA, she wonders if this request sets a precedent.

Some people who have been convicted of crimes can get government support to have their names removed from a list that says how bad they've been or how bad they might be.

So surely those who have not broken the law - people like this, or this, or those mentioned here - will be able to get their DNA and the analysis removed from the UK DNA database very quickly and very easily, because government will help them.

Is that likely to happen?

There are about five and a half million DNA samples, and their analysis, in storage within the UK database but :-

 just 377 profiles were deleted in 2009 after appeals to police chiefs.

ECHR mentioned something about storing DNA, it said that :-

... keeping innocent people's DNA records on a criminal register breached article eight of the Human Rights Convention, covering the right to respect for private and family life.

In response UK said :-

 ... that other states have "not yet achieved the same maturity in terms of the size and resources of DNA databases."

(our DNA database is the biggest in the world, so we're better than everybody else.)

But the ECHR said that :-

... the Government had a special duty for that reason.

Maybe "UK" is hoping the rest of the world will catch up and get their own DNA databases, but it will take a very long time because some countries have rather more pressing things on their minds.

One such country is Haiti, where the earth moved quite dramatically only a few days ago. The people there haven't got water to drink, they have no food to eat and no houses to live in - so freeze-storing DNA samples will be very low down their list of priorities.

Finally, let's compare the two sets of data.

Are there any differences?

• A long list of names of either known terrorists, or carefully profiled potential terrorists. The list is held, maintained and controlled by either UN or USA.

• A large collection of named, labelled, analysed, personal, DNA samples (many of which have been taken from children, witnesses or bystanders, or those never charged with an offence) that is held, maintained and controlled by UK.

The Queen's Speech.

The elements of The Queen's Speech are outlined here at the BBC.

Mrs R doesn't think many of the ideas will make the statute books, but she has a feeling that one might, and it's this one :-

Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

Repeals legislation limiting protests around Parliament. Generally extends to whole UK.

Why does Mrs Rigby think they will make sure this legislation is repealed?

Mrs R wonders if some people think the best time for some protests outside Parliament and other city centres will be after a general election - after an election that will probably see Labour lose office - to show how dissatisfied people are with the result, and demonstrate to the world how much ordinary people hate the Tories/LibDems/BNP, or whoever manages to take seats from Labour.

If this should happen, Mrs R hopes the media will be sensible, will report things properly and explain how it's like a fizzy bottle exploding after it's been shaken, because she knows some people who are very fed up with "the way things are going" but haven't felt they can speak out in case they get into trouble and have their DNA taken and stored by the Police, even if they haven't been found guilty of any offence.

After all, if you have your name on that DNA database you can lose your job, as Lorraine Elliott discovered when, during a routine employment check, her name was found to be on the list - so she was sacked, from her job on the government's national identity card scheme. She plans to appeal to have her name removed, as a special case.

Maybe they'll change that too, and follow the EHCR ruling regarding storage of DNA, but then again, maybe not - it wasn't included in the speech.

High Fructose Corn Syrup, bees and humans.

.
Mrs Rigby always liked the idea of having bees in her garden, because she and all the other Rigbys eat quite a lot of honey. Like so many good ideas, nothing ever came of it, but it doesn't mean she isn't interested in what happens to honey bees.

Bee-keeping seems to be beset with problems these days, with whole colonies being wiped out by the nasty little varroa mite, but there were other things going wrong.

Some clever scientists in America think they might have worked out another reason for bees dying - it's the food they're being given by their well-meaning keepers.

Mrs R spotted an article in a newspaper and promptly lost the link, so spent a couple of minutes searching the net to find it again. She's managed to tracked down the source, which is the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. This is what it says

... high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) has become a sucrose replacement for honey bees and has widespread use as a sweetener in many processed foods and beverages for human consumption. It is utilized by commercial beekeepers as a food for honey bees for several reasons: to promote brood production, after bees have been moved for commercial pollination, and when field-gathered nectar sources are scarce. Hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) is a heat-formed contaminant and is the most noted toxin to honey bees. ....

There's more of the article, but unfortunately Mrs R isn't a special enough person to be able to read it, so she looked somewhere else and found this

The scientists measured levels of HMF in HFCS products from different manufacturers over a period of 35 days at different temperatures. As temperatures rose, levels of HMF increased steadily. Levels jumped dramatically at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit.

Yes, that's all fine and dandy, they've found something that kills bees. It's a solvable problem because they can be given something else to eat. Sounds like good news to bee-keepers and good news for honey-eaters too, because it might mean that British honey is safe after all.

There's a extra bit

Because HFCS is incorporated as a sweetener in many processed foods, the data from this study are important for human health as well,” the report states. It adds that studies have linked HMF to DNA damage in humans. In addition, HMF breaks down in the body to other substances potentially more harmful than HMF

So we're eating this stuff too? And it can alter DNA?

Where are the banner headlines telling us all about the health risks? There were some only a few days ago telling us that ham sandwiches might give us cancer, but zilch, zero, nothing at all about this - so mebbe it isn't really dangerous at all, unless you're a bee.

Mebbe, though, if you eat some hot High Fructose Corn Syrup and then give a DNA sample ...?

Nah! Silly idea!
.

A question of DNA

From Hansard here
debate 18th May 2009

T3. [275737] Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): Following the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) about DNA samples, may I ask whether the Minister really thinks it appropriate to keep samples for six or 12 years, given that the European Court of Human Rights has lauded the Scottish model in which no samples from innocent people are kept except samples from those who have been acquitted of a sexual or violent offence, which are kept for three years? Why do we not adopt that model?

reply

The Minister for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing (Mr. Vernon Coaker): The hon. Gentleman’s question gives me another opportunity to put on record the Government’s categorical statement that we will not
18 May 2009 : Column 1202
retain samples, which are genetic material, for longer than six months. As for profiles, to which I think he is referring, we know that keeping the profiles of those who have been arrested will enable us to solve crimes in the future. That is a proportionate approach.

If the hon. Gentleman reads what was actually said in the European Court judgment, he will find that the objection was to the indiscriminate, blanket nature of our policy, and that keeping DNA from those who had been arrested was not considered necessarily to be wrong.

Well, actually, Mrs R isn't impressed by that, not one little bit.

Her impression was that the European Court judgement said they should not retain DNA of those who are either not guilty or who were merely profiled because they happened to be somewhere where a crime had been committed, and needed to be excluded from possible suspects. Children's DNA has been collected and stored, simply because they live in houses that have been burgled.

Throwing away the DNA and keeping details of the genetic profile- presumably for ever - isn't good enough. It might comply "in spirit" with the ruling, but for goodness sake, an analysis can be wrongly labelled and it can be wrongly assigned - and it can be tampered with. This decision might be even worse than retaining the DNA itself.

This is yet another case of innocent until found guilty, and ties in neatly with ACPO's thoughts that everybody is a potential villain.