Monday, 25 February 2008

A National Genetic Database

Last week saw the conviction of Mark Dixie, 37, for the rape and murder of model Sally Anne Bowman, 18, in September 2005. I say rape and murder; it could have been murder then rape since Dixie offered to the jury the defence that he chanced upon Sally Bowman’s corpse and copulated with it, thus explaining the presence of his DNA in her body. The jury rejected this defence and unanimously found him guilty of murder. One of them shouted, “Rot in Hell, Pervert!” after he was sentenced. He will serve a minimum of 34 years in jail.

Mark Dixie: Murderer and Pervert

Sally Anne Bowman: Killed and Defiled

This isn’t another “hang ‘em high” post, although Dixie is fortunate the BNP is not in government at this time since otherwise he would be soon be dangling from a noose.

The topic I wish to address is DNA, and specifically, the collation of a national DNA database.

Mark Dixie escaped detection of his crime for eighteen months. The police had DNA evidence but no matches in the database. The breakthrough came when Dixie was arrested as a result of a pub fight in Sussex. Although that incident was minor his DNA was routinely swabbed, as is the DNA of everyone arrested in this country – excepting senior Labour politicians - and five hours later detectives were rushing to arrest him for murder.

So the Bowman murder case was cracked only by luck, and the stupidity of the murderer who got himself arrested on a trivial matter and was forced to hand over some saliva, and then double stupidity for not leaving the country as soon as he was released.

This has led the police officer who led the investigation into Bowman’s murder, Det Supt Stuart Cundy, to call for a national genetic database to which every citizen would be forced to supply a sample. Many crimes, apparently, could be solved at a keystroke. Other senior officers have endorsed the idea. It would presumably be quite simple for every newborn baby to be swabbed and the sample sent off to the National Forensic Laboratory. Adults could be called into police stations on some sort of rota and get swabbed there. The process is simple. An officer scrapes a cotton wool bud across the inside of the suspect’s cheek, puts the sample in a small plastic bag which he keeps in the station fridge until it can be sent off to the lab. There it is codified, effectively converted in a long number, and the original sample is stored in a large refrigerated room. There are four and half million samples in this room. It must be quite large. (We are talking England and Wales here. Provisions in Scotland are different.)

The current national DNA database is comprised of samples from everyone arrested, whether subsequently convicted or not, in the last few years. A small number of intrepid individuals have managed, after being exonerated in the courts, to get their samples destroyed. But almost always the sample is kept. This wasn’t always how things were done. When the database was first established the rules were that a sample would be taken from a suspect and if that suspect were later acquitted the sample and the matching computer record would be destroyed. That’s not how it worked out though. There were a number of detections (leading to convictions) based on samples that had supposedly been destroyed. It is clear that even back then the authorities were not keen to let go of data once they had it. And in fact there is no guaranteed way of deleting a computer record. Computers are backed up to safeguard against damage; those backup records are taken offsite as a precaution against major disasters such as building fires. Sometimes the backup data is again copied and the copy of the copy is saved elsewhere. Other copies are made to lend to foreign police forces and who knows who they pass the data on to.

Although it’s not technically feasible yet, one can well imagine in a few years’ time a disaffected official or computer technician simply emailing the entire UK national genetic database to all his friends. Doubtless he’d be sacked but there would be no recalling that data once it has escaped.

When data is transferred through networks it hops from computer to computer until it arrives at its destination. You’d be amazed at where a little packet of data has been just to get from your PC to a friend you’re emailing. Try this command from a command prompt:

C:\> tracert

See how many stops each data packet makes. (For me it’s ten hops and the BBC’s server can’t be more than 20 miles away.)

And guess what, each of those computers is also being backed up on a regular schedule.

This is where brain-dead liberals start bleating about: if you’ve nothing to hide you’ve nothing to fear. (Can you tell which side of the fence nationalist opinion falls yet?)

Well let’s look at what you have to fear. What can DNA tell us? It can tell us your sex, your race, your hair colour, your eye colour; in conjunction with other records it can tell us whether you are the legitimate offspring of your parents, and also how likely you will be to suffer heart disease or various forms of cancer. There are even genetic markers which indicate Jewishness. In the right hands this database would be scary; in the wrong hands – lethal.

Your propensity to commit a crime may also be encoded in there. With a national genetic database the authorities could start watching the likely suspects from the nursery onwards.

And of course, how long before someone suggests that since we can tell in advance who will commit a crime, how about doing something about it? Perhaps we can stop those evil genes from expressing themselves. Roll on compulsory mass medication.

Criminals are already adapting their behaviour to thwart DNA evidence.

Crime scene: Girl raped and "cleaned" with drain cleaner

In the above incident a 16-year-old girl was dragged off the street on Wednesday January 9th, into an unoccupied house in Anthill Rd, Tottenham, North London. There she was raped by what police describe as a “teenaged gang”. When they were done, her ordeal became even more gruesome. In a bid to destroy the DNA evidence the gang poured drain cleaner over her body and down her throat. She may have been scarred for life; the upper portion of her alimentary canal may have been destroyed.

So it seems likely that DNA evidence will be less useful in the future than it has been in the past as criminals become more aware of it and take steps to avoid leaving traces at the scene of the crime.

There is a natural revulsion among nationalists when it comes to treating the citizenry as a herd of cattle to be tagged and catalogued. We oppose ID cards, and oppose a national genetic database.

Of course there can be no objection to collecting genetic evidence from crime scenes since this DNA has no association with an individual. And we can accept that arrested individuals should have their DNA compared with that recovered from unsolved cases. However, unless the arrested person is subsequently convicted their sample and all computer records should be destroyed. The same applies to fingerprint records. Only if a person is convicted of a crime should biometric data be retained; and then only for a period proportional to the gravity of the offence. (These days every offence is “arrestable” and keeping a litterbug’s DNA on record for the rest of his life would be disproportionate.)

Most crimes are committed by people who have previously committed crimes. The “first time offender” is a tiny fraction of those coming before the courts. So the benefit of “tagging the herd” by requiring every citizen to submit to DNA swabbing is negligible. Compulsory screening might yield 100 new convictions at most. And more likely far fewer than that since it would take years to implement and allow plenty of time for guilty parties to leave the country.

A system of screening on arrest and deletion of records on acquittal would provide for the needs of criminal justice and yet protect the privacy of the ordinary citizen.

This would require a more robust deletion methodology. There must be a means of proving this data has been destroyed.

Until such time as this is implemented, I, for one, would refuse to supply a DNA sample if arrested.

Friday, 22 February 2008

Steve Wright: Death by hanging

"You will be taken from this place to another place, where you will be hanged by the neck until you are dead! May God have mercy on your soul."

These are words that Steve Wright, convicted yesterday of murdering five prostitutes in Ipswich, Suffolk, in December 2006, will not be hearing when he returns to court for sentencing. Instead the judge will be choosing between a 30 year minimum with the possibility of parole after that, or, as the Americans would say, mandatory life, ie a whole life tariff.

Steve Wright
Steve Wright: Murdered five women

Can anyone really say he doesn't deserve to be hanged?

How about this fellow?

Ian Huntley

Ian Huntley: Murdered two schoolgirls in Soham

This is Ian Huntley, 29. He was convicted in December 2003 of the murder in August 2002 of the 10-year-old girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman. (See image below.) He is currently serving 40 years in prison.

Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman

Holly Wells (L), Jessica Chapman (R)

What about the ugly sextet below?

Ugly sextet

Indrit Krasniqi (top left), Adrian Thomas (top right), Jamaile Morally (centre left), Joshua Morally (centre right), Llewellyn Adams (bottom left) and Michael Johnson (bottom right)

These repulsive individuals raped, tortured over several hours and then murdered 16-year-old Mary-Ann Leneghan and raped, tortured and attempted to murder her friend who cannot be named in May 2005. (Incidentally the one who can pass for white and given pride of place at the top-left in the BBC's image above is an illegal immigrant from Kosovo.)

Mary-Ann Leneghan
Mary-Ann Leneghan: 16-year-old murder victim

As a little indicator as to how the BBC likes to massage public perception of the news you might like to compare and contrast the above photographs of the ugly sextet with the drawing the BBC previously produced during the trial. See below.

Drawing of ugly sextet

Ugly sextet as seen by the BBC

Strangely grey, aren't they? Not brown skinned at all! All except the Eastern European who has turned rather sallow; perhaps the stress of a murder trial did that to him. Or perhaps the BBC doesn't want inconvenient facts getting in the way of its message that immigrants are wonderful and so are their descendants.

However, that's a distraction from the point of this post - which is simply that all the above murderers should have been sentenced to hang by the neck until they are dead. Anything less isn't justice. Why should they continue to enjoy their, admittedly circumscribed, lives in jail; enjoy their comfortable cells, their three square meals a day, their association times, their recreational facilities, their gyms, their evening TV, when they have denied life itself to their victims?

And why should the taxpayer be expected to pay out the £1 million it will cost per individual to keep them inside for the rest of their natural lives?

Rope is cheap and closure is complete.

Of course the death penalty is not something to apply lightly. The case against it is that there is no coming back from a wrongful conviction. The innocent man cannot be unhanged. Safeguards would be needed.

First, a higher standard of proof should be required: guilty beyond all doubt, rather than the current guilty beyond reasonable doubt; second the jury must be unanimous (note as an aside that Ian Huntley's conviction was by a majority verdict, one juror demurred. So under these rules he would not have hanged.) Third the murder must have been committed by the murderer himself - no "let him have it" to confuse the issue; fourth, the crime must be in cold blood and without pity: mercy killings and scuffles-gone-wrong with blame on both sides need not apply. And lastly there must be an automatic appeal to a court otherwise completely independent of the judicial system in which the forum is open to the appellant to introduce any facts in any manner he likes - nothing can be ruled out of order from this court because there is no chance to correct a mistake in any subsequent hearing.

Subject to these safeguards, murderers should hang.

(A note on terminology: when someone is executed they are "hanged" not "hung". They are only "hung" if they survive the experience. Hence someone is hanged by the neck until they are dead, but hung, drawn and quartered, because, if the executioner is competent, they are still alive when the quartering starts. Many people seem to get this wrong.)

There is another issue. Often when a mass-murderer is finally convicted there are other unresolved killings on which he might be able to shed light. This information is currency for the convicted murderer in jail. Distraught relatives appeal to him for information on the fate of their loved ones. Are they missing or dead? Where lie their remains? The murder can favour these questioners with an answer if he is so inclined, or can choose to remain silent. Any time he wants he can summon police officers with the suggestion he might be prepared to let drop a titbit of information.

Steve Wright is suspected of involvement in the disappearance and presumed murder in 1986 of estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, 25, who was lured to a house viewing by one Mr Kipper and was never seen again. Wright apparently worked on the cruise ship the Queen Elizabeth II at the same time as Lamplugh. If it was him it was an incredibly audacious crime - she could have recognised him at any time.

Suzy Lamplugh

Suzy Lamplugh: Missing estate agent

A death sentence would concentrate Steve Wright's mind quite wonderfully. His sentence could be stayed while he provided significant information, or, if he has nothing to add he could be executed with despatch. (He should not of course be allowed to escape the noose in return for information, merely delay it.)

Thursday, 21 February 2008

First post

There has to be a first post, and this is it, so please don’t expect anything too interesting in it!

It seems I've been posting all over the 'net for years now and because it's always on other people's sites I lose track of what I've written and control over it as well of course. Sometimes they even edit or delete it, when I overstep the line of what they consider acceptable. Cheek! I’m rarely saying anything quite as extreme as they imagine – but reading the actual words is beyond some people; especially people employed as moderators it would seem.

So what’s this blog going to be about? Well, not me for starters. Ha! I know blogs are supposed to be autobiographal (spellcheck says that’s not a word, what does it know?) but why bore you with the minutiae of an ordinary life when secretly I’m working for the Revolution. And I’m not alone, lots of us are. Every passing day sees another convert to the cause. But don’t worry; it’s not a violent revolution we plan – not yet, anyway – but rather a revolution in thought, an over-throwing of the established order, a change in the essence of society itself. Basically, this country has gone to the dogs and I, and others, want to fix it.

Perhaps I should be clearer. Although the blog title, “British Nationalist” should be sufficient really. It comes in two words: British – which I am, and Nationalist, which is a political stance, generally considered “far right” by everyone except nationalists themselves, who accept there may be some rightwing-ness about it, but see also some leftwing-ness and quite a lot of middle-of-the-road-ness as well. Nationalists simply want full self-determination the British peoples in the British nation.

So in this blog I aim to show you the world as seen through the red, white and blue-tinted spectacles of a beyond-the-pale, racist, fascist, goose-stepping Nazi. Well that’s how the Sun would put it anyway. Actually, us nationalists aren’t generally racist or fascist or Nazi. Some are. But most aren’t. And I’m certainly not. (Would you believe it? There are whole organisations out there that look down on us non-racist nationalists as being wimpy sell-outs!) So in future posts when I stick the knife into black rapists or muslim asylum-seekers don’t think it’s because I hate the colour of their skin; I hate them for what they do, not for some accident of birth.

Anyway, what I plan for this blog is plenty of politics, news analysis, lots of statistics showing how we’re all being robbed blind by the government, the occasional rant, some political-incorrectness running riot, not much about me as a person, since that would be pointless and you probably aren’t interested, and basically all the posts I would have scattered all over the ‘net will get deposited here instead. And frankly it will be as much for me as for any reader, to keep my thoughts clear, my facts marshalled and my enemies in the crosshairs.

Toodle-pip for now. I think I’ll try for one post a day, so check back tomorrow. (No posts on Sundays though – us nationalists keep Sunday special.)