Despite the DNA database storing of thousands of samples being declared illegal, the government intends to carry on storing them for years. Six years as standard, rising to 12 years if taken in connection with a serious violent or sexual offence.

But these people are innocent! They have either been cleared by a jury or not even charged with a crime. So why should their DNA be kept on a database for criminals?

There is an “official estimate” that

4,500 fewer offences [will be] detected on average each year – rising to 26,000 if the proposals are extended to the policies on retaining fingerprints, as planned.

Frankly, if the police aren’t capable of catching these people in the traditional way, they’re really not very good at their job, are they? This isn’t a justification for keeping innocent people’s DNA – just the first step down the (yellow paved?) road to a police state.

Watching Question Time last night, this question came up. Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray’s reponse effectively amounted to “all your DNA are belong to us” (as I tweeted at the time). Maybe that will form the core of their next manifesto, as he was suggesting that the Scottish limits should be set to match the current UK ones – or, as some moronic audience members suggested taken from us all (QT was in Brown’s constituency, natch).

The question of “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear” as always comes up. The simple fact here being that there is no need for there to be a database with our DNA in at all. Name one good one, go on I dare you. Because there isn’t.

DNA of innocent people must be removed from the database immediately, not six or twelve years later. It is for criminals, not the law-abiding public.