http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8611323.stm

If you can't be bothered to watch, it is Gordon Brown talking about how the DNA database was used to catch the killer of a child.  I don't remember the kid in question being in the news, but she probably was.

In this case the guy was arrested for some bar fight apparently, and not charged (Why he was not charged is a completely different question).

I don't like the DNA database.  I don't like any database really, but the DNA is one of my least favourite.  I don't like the idea that if I am mistakenly arrested my DNA remains forever on some big government database.  Now in this case it probably did some good, but that does not make it right for such a thing to exist.

If it is okay to keep the DNA of every person who have been arrested then surely it is okay to keep the DNA of every person in the country?  Our legal justice system is such that being arrested means absolutely nothing until you have been tried and convicted by a jury of your peers.   I am sure keeping the DNA of every person in the UK would solve many many more crimes, but how many mistakes would be made?  how many civil liberties would be destroyed?

You may say that if you have done nothing wrong you have nothing to worry about.

If you have done nothing wrong why object to putting your DNA on file, just to rule you out.

If you do nothing wrong why not have all of your conversations recorded and stored for future reference, just to rule you out of any investigation in future?

If you do nothing wrong why not have your movements constantly tracked and stores, just to rule you out of any future investigation?

Then there is the Future Government argument.  This government may be benevolent for the most part and believe in civil liberties and so on, but what about future governments.  What if the BNP gain power in a decade's time and decide that everyone who is not of UK heritage should be shot.  What if Hitler had such a database in 1940, or any other leader that developed a desire for racial purges.

It is a very dangerous precedent, and I really don't care how much good it does I still don't like it.  I want to be free.  there are already far to many ways of tracking you throughout your life and I don't think we should be adding another one to that list.

Freedoms are not free.  This one, just like any other, has a cost.  And that cost is sometimes murders are unsolved where they would have been if such a database existed.  I don't like the cost, but I feel the benefits outweigh it.

I had kind of hoped that this sort of thing would go away when the Republicans were no longer in power in the US.  Along with warrant-less wire-tapping and so on.

Now, I am somewhat conflicted over this.  I don't like the death penalty, and I am very glad we do not have it over here, state sponsored execution is far too final, far too prone to mistake and as far as I am aware there is no evidence it works as a deterrent.  Also I imagine it is very expensive, how it compares to life imprisonment I do not know.

However I do not have too much of a problem with killing as a whole, as long as it is justified.  Killing another man in self-defence, or in defence of another is perfectly acceptable.  However that happens very much in the moment, it is never planned and there is absolutely no doubt in your mind what you are doing is necessary at he time.   And that is what is worrying me in cases such as this, it is done in advance, there is the chance that it is not necessary and there is doubt in my mind.

It is really a question of morality, if killing this man saves the lives of a thousand people is it justified?

What if the man did not know his actions would have the consequence of killing a thousand people and he is just in the wrong place at the wrong time?

What if it were not one man but ten men?  Would it still be justified?

What if it were ten 5 year old girls who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but if there were killed a thousand other people would live.  Would that still be justified?

You may have noticed that I did not answer, and that is because I do not know.  It is a difficult question, and one that would take more than 20 mins to think about.

We are living in a different kind of world now, and there are something that need to be decided upon by society.  Wars are no longer black and white, there are no evil invaders storming the beaches, the enemy tends to be a small minority surrounded  by innocent people that look very similar.

There may be times when assassination is necessary, there many be times when torture is necessary, there many be times when killing many innocent civilians to get to the people you want is justified, but who decides when it is?  I don't like the idea of one man deciding these sort of thing on his own, wielding this power over peoples lives.

Perhaps the rules of war and the Geneva conventions need to be rewritten to more accurately reflect modern conflicts, so that at least it is written down somewhere, so that the rules are known to everyone.

Don't even get me started on the American helicopter killing kids in Iraq.

I will probably talk more about then when I write abut the Digital Economy Bill, in relation to Wikileaks.

I am beginning to start to sympathise with the 'terrorists' and the 'insurgents'.  After almost a decade in Afghanistan and 7 years in Iraq, what has been achieved apart from disruption and destruction.  If a member of my family, my sister for example, were killed by an invading force, or taken captive by the invading force for reasons I saw as unjustified, there would not be a force on this earth that could stop me taking my anger out on the invading force.  If I lost my family and friends and I saw it to be the fault of the invading force, flying an plane into a building would only be the beginning.

Not to trivialise the loss of lives in terrorist attacks around the world, but I try to take a step back and imagine things as if you were on the other side of all this.  Not sitting comfortably reading about it on-line, but living there with soldiers patrolling and bullets flying around night and day, constantly terrified of death.

Just what a company about to go under needs.*

I really don't understand unions sometimes.  They can be fantastic things, ensuring worker safety, decent working conditions etc. etc.  However they seem to pick the worst time to strike, which in the end will only make the company they work for worse off, making less profit and able to employ less people in the long run.  For example see Royal Mail strike just before Christmas and BA attempted strike over Christmas (now on for Easter I think I have heard).

An honourable mention has to go to the RMT and TFL for going on strike so many god damn times that even if there were a legitimate safety concern or a legitimate and serious grievance no one would ever believe them.

Even people with the best intentions can be stupid sometimes.

*I have no idea how Corus are doing financially now, however a year ago they were laying thousands off and shutting just about everywhere down, it is probably a small miracle they still exist at all.

Is it just me or is this a bit sudden?  I have heard very little about this recently.  There was a fair bit of noise around the time of the expenses scandal last year, but nothing specific.  And only the occasional news story in the past week or so.

I think I am a fan of AV, but I have not really thought about it too much.  I have not really read anything about it in too much detail, possible shortcomings etc.  So I am slightly worried this is being rushed.  The first past the post system has worked quite well so far,  I am sure it can handle things for a while longer while this is though about and discussed a bit more.

Also, is this not the sort of thing there should be a referendum on?  That way we, the people, would get the choice.  And by being given the choice the reasons for it would have to be explained and debated.

Hang on, there do appear to be plans for a referendum.  Good.

So why do this now?  Apparently it was  a 1997 election pledge, which was brushed to the side (by Gordon Brown according to Paddy Ashdown), and it has been attributed by the Prime Minister to the need to act to help parliaments reputation after the problems last year.  But does the whole expenses kerfuffle really warrant this much of a shake up?  Sure it was a terrible thing to allow to happen, but surely just better accounting, better regulation and much more freedom of the information to the public would be enough to prevent it in the future would be a better idea?  I would like to think that there are more sound and thoughtful minds behind this, rather than politicians being reactionary and trying to win votes.

However I do like the idea of open primaries that were proposed a while back though, and I believe there have been quite a few seats whose future party candidates have already been chosen this way.  It is at this stage that I feel democracy and more openness would help, to try and remove the idea of a 'safe seat'.  That along with a better method for removing an MP.  Public selection and possible public removal can only make MPs more accountable, it could make their lives more difficult, but then again do we really want people running the country who were only doing it for an easy pay-check?  I would like to think that it is something that the decent ones would be willing to give up to make the whole system better.

Anyway, I am yet to decide my views, just a few half formed thoughts as I have though of them while waiting for chicken to defrost to make lunch for tomorrow.