UK

Put young children on DNA list, urge police | Society | The Observer

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain's most senior police forensics expert.

Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.

'If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,' said Pugh. 'You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won't. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.'

Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database - the largest in Europe - but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. 'The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,' Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling - everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database - is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.

Civil liberty groups condemned his comments last night by likening them to an excerpt from a 'science fiction novel'. One teaching union warned that it was a step towards a 'police state'.

Pugh's call for the government to consider options such as placing primary school children who have not been arrested on the database is supported by elements of criminological theory. A well-established pattern of offending involves relatively trivial offences escalating to more serious crimes. Senior Scotland Yard criminologists are understood to be confident that techniques are able to identify future offenders.

A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13. Julia Margo, author of the report, entitled 'Make me a Criminal', said: 'You can carry out a risk factor analysis where you look at the characteristics of an individual child aged five to seven and identify risk factors that make it more likely that they would become an offender.' However, she said that placing young children on a database risked stigmatising them by identifying them in a 'negative' way.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, denounced any plan to target youngsters. 'Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,' she said. 'The British public is highly respectful of the police and open even to eccentric debate, but playing politics with our innocent kids is a step too far.'

Chris Davis, of the National Primary Headteachers' Association, said most teachers and parents would find the suggestion an 'anathema' and potentially very dangerous. 'It could be seen as a step towards a police state,' he said. 'It is condemning them at a very young age to something they have not yet done. They may have the potential to do something, but we all have the potential to do things. To label children at that stage and put them on a register is going too far.'

Davis admitted that most teachers could identify children who 'had the potential to have a more challenging adult life', but said it was the job of teachers to support them.

Pugh, though, believes that measures to identify criminals early would save the economy huge sums - violent crime alone costs the UK £13bn a year - and significantly reduce the number of offences committed. However, he said the British public needed to move away from regarding anyone on the DNA database as a criminal and accepted it was an emotional issue.

'Fingerprints, somehow, are far less contentious,' he said. 'We have children giving their fingerprints when they are borrowing books from a library.'

Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent.

Concern over the issue of civil liberties will be further amplified by news yesterday that commuters using Oyster smart cards could have their movements around cities secretly monitored under new counter-terrorism powers being sought by the security services.

Imagine that

25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'

25 years murder-free
in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate plummeted after law
required firearms for residents

Solar Company Says Its Tech Can Power 90 Percent of Grid and Cars | Wired Science from Wired.com

Solar Company Says Its Tech Can Power 90 Percent of Grid and Cars

Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government

O p e n J e s u s . o r g » Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government

Top 10 Reasons to Overthrow Your Government

Good Read

Individualism, the Collectivists' Nemesis

It is individualism that the American Founders elevated into political prominence and it is individualism that most politicians and governments, including America’s, find most annoying because it is the bulwark against arbitrary power.

If, as the Declaration of Independence states, individual human beings have unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, no one may violate these rights. Every adult individual is sovereign, a self-ruler and not subject to the rule of others. (This is why Americans are referred to as citizens, not as subjects, like so many around the globe.)

Karl Marx was among the many political theorists — like Hegel and Comte — who realized that if individualism becomes prominent, their dream of ruling others in the name of whatever “higher goal or power” is over and done with.

So they worked tirelessly to discredit individualism, to establish that no one is sovereign and we all belong to some group — the nation, the tribe, the race, the class, the ethnic group, whatever.

Today some of America’s most powerful mainstream politicians have gone on record denouncing individualism and they are joined by a great many academicians, even some scientists in trying to besmirch the idea. Instead of each person having the free will to guide him or herself in life, each of us is said to be but a cell in the larger organism that is humanity.

There have been many who laid out this idea in forceful ways — just read what the French “father of sociology” said about this: “All human rights then are as absurd as they are immoral. This [“to live for others”], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.” Marx put it even more succinctly: “The Human essence is the true collectivity of Man,” and referred to human beings as “specie beings,” meaning they are part of the larger organism or body of humanity. The book, by Lewis Thomas, Lives of a Cell, defended the idea in the mid-20th century!

Most recently the highly honored Canadian philosopher, a recent recipient of the prestigious Templeton Prize, has argued for “a principle of belonging or obligation, that is a principle which states our obligation as men to belong to or sustain society, or society of a certain type, or to obey authority or an authority of a certain type” in contrast to John Locke’s idea, those laid out in the Declaration, that there are unalienable rights every individual possesses simply by virtue of his or her humanity. These rights are definitive claims against anyone who would intrude upon one’s life, who would rob one of one’s liberty and moral autonomy, who would deny one’s freedom to choose and to pursue happiness.

In our current political climate it is the philosophy of entitlement that undermines the Lockean idea, which is the philosophy of the Declaration, by insisting that people have a right to take from others what they need or badly want — be this health care, retirement funds, opportunities for purchasing goods and services at lower cost than what some favorite group wants, land on which to build important shops, etc. And the idea of such entitlements, namely, that they are to be legally mandated, enforced, is backed by the philosophy of communitarianism, one that takes us all to belong to society, belong to a larger and more important entity than ourselves.

Yet, of course, it is always some individuals who make these claims and insist that they be the ones to decide what everyone’s obligation is to others, to the country, the nation, or the racial group. It is these individuals, after all, who try to secure power for themselves with the phony claim that we all belong to society and thus must be made to pay up what they decide with our lives and labors.

This anti-individualism or communitarianism then comes to no more than the special privilege of certain individuals to run the lives of other individuals, to live off the lives of others who may very well have perfectly justified goals of their own that could be supported with their lives if they were left free to decide about such matters.

Whenever you hear or read attacks on individualism, these attacks are nothing more than efforts to wrest power from people so that only a few select individuals can legally enforce their will on the rest of us, the will of those with whom they disagree.

Communitarianism — or collectivism — is false. Individualism is true. And even communitarians know this perfectly well.

I thought this was well done...

Justice Letters » Blog Archive » The Necessity of Guns

Dear Anti-Gun America,

Every day I see an editorial about the dangers of firearms. Every day I hear the media distort the truth in an effort to further their crusade against guns. Every day I read a story detailing the murder of innocent people. You, anti-gun America, twist these tragedies into proof of your cause. You claim that these lives would have been saved, if only we enacted more laws barring the possession of guns. If only we enacted more laws banning the ability of law-abiding citizens to carry guns. If only firearms were illegal, violence would cease to exist.

But, anti-gun America, do the facts really support your cause? Why does the District of Columbia, where virtually all firearms are banned, have some of the highest crime rates in our country? Why are high school and college campuses, where all guns are prohibited, so frequently the scenes of mass murder? Why are firearm related crimes so often committed in “gun free zones?”

Criminals are well aware of the laws, and are obviously not concerned about breaking them. A disturbed man, intent on killing his classmates, is not going to be deterred by a sign in front of his college campus that says “gun free zone.” An armed criminal is not going to be scared of a potential martial arts enthusiast. A determined criminal is not going to have respect for the law, nor does a suicidal criminal have any fear of armed police officers.

Criminals are well aware of the limitations of police. They know they will have free reign of the campus for at least five minutes before police will even get to them. In virtually all cases of mass homicide, the gunman took his own life in the end. Seung-Hui Cho knew it would be minutes before authorities would reach the Virginia Tech campus, and he knew he could kill many in that time. Under state and federal laws, Seung-Hui Cho was prohibited from even owning a weapon. Yet, he was not deterred.

So, anti-gun America, why do you suppose more laws would have stopped him? The only people gun laws affect are those willing to abide by them. Quite obviously, criminals have no respect for the law. The only effect restrictive gun laws have is negative. They either make it difficult or completely impossible for law abiding citizens to obtain a means of defense.

An eighteen year-old girl is unable to defend herself from an assailant intent on rape, because she is not old enough to carry a handgun, and too small to defend herself without one. A single mother of two, living in Illinois, would be helpless to an attack in the supermarket, because of the restrictive laws in her state. In many states, an armed man is not even allowed to shoot an intruder, even to save the lives of his wife and kids.

Why do I own a gun? Why would a poor college student, such as myself, spend his hard earned money on a gun? Why would a man who lives in a nice home, in a nice neighborhood sleep with a loaded gun next to his bed? Because I, like many others, refuse to be a statistic. I refuse to put myself in a situation where I would be helpless. I refuse to allow harm to come to me or my loved ones. I refuse to allow criminals free reign. I own a gun for the same reason I wear my seatbelt, not because I plan on needing it, but because the situation may arise where it will save my life.

Sincerely,

A Law-Abiding Gun Owner

LITANY AGAINST FEAR

LITANY AGAINST FEAR
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.

MKULTRA

Witness: Wendy's shooter was tall man in business suit

Two killed in shooting at Wendy's near West Palm Beach

MKULTRA

I couldn't have said it better

Chilling Thoughts Amid Questionable Circumstances

With an unconscious witness/victim/homegrown terrorist the police were able to find evidence in the hotel room that is too convenient to be true. Let’s look at the timeline of the story first, because it makes no sense, but is told in the style of Rumsfeld so that it isn’t immediately apparent it makes no sense.

Authorities say that on Sat Feb 22 a friend or relative of the rooms occupant reported to the hotel that there are pets left in the sick mans room.

So first off we are to believe that pets had been left unattended and unnoticed in the room for 10 whole days! One of the animals, a dog was found barely alive, and had to be euthanized. How many more animals were in the room and what kind were they? How did they survive unheard all that time? A hungry animal would be howling and whining. Surely in a hotel that would have been heard by someone.

Then we are told that on Tues. Feb 26 the hotel’s management notified police they found “weapons” in the room.

Tuesday? If the friend reported the animals Fri the 23rd why is it the “weapons” were not discovered until five days later? A Las Vegas hotel room left untouched over a weekend let alone for 5 whole days? A room whose occupant lay dying in a hospital due to Ricin poison. People in and out of the room to take the dying dog out, to remove the other unknown number of animals and to clean.

Call me a conspiracy theorist, but according to Capt. Joseph Lombardo

“Firearms and an anarchist type textbook” were found in the room.

He said at a news conference late Friday Feb 29 that the book was marked where there was information about Ricin. However test results on those items were negative for the substance.

Police also said they “found castor beans possibly used to make the substance (Ricin)”.

An "anarchist type textbook"? What the hell is that? Can someone say “HR1955”?

Read the whole thing. I may be crazy but I sure as hell ain't the only one.

I don't buy any of this.

Anarchist manual, firearms found in motel room with ricin - CNN.com

Call me paranoid. This was staged to give more credibility to the coming war on "domestic terrorist" and "homegrown terrorism."

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the guy lives to tell the story. I doubt he will though.

Ricin

Will Ricin be the first false flag operation aimed at "domestic: or "home grown" terrorism? We'll see.

My wicked pissa easy creamy potato soup recipe

2 medium potatoes washed not peeled diced
2 carrots peeled diced
2 medium onions diced
2 tablespoons healthy oil (olive, canola...)
Seasoning. I use a dash of Cavenders Greek Seasoning.
Can of stock. I use chicken but any kind will work well.

Nothing is exact. You can fuck around with ingredients and amounts and still come out with something really good so don't sweat it. It's only fucking soup.

Heat the oil in a sauce pan over medium heat.
Throw all the vegetables in the pan and stir fry until the onions are transparent and the potatoes are soft. A little brown is fine. Maybe even good. What do I know?
Pour in can of stock and bring to simmer for about 5 minutes.
While its still hot pour it all into a blender. (It may be dangerous to pour hot shit into a blender. I have no idea. Don't fucking blame me if you fuck up your blender or burn yourself. Use your judgment.)
Blast that fucker until it's liquefied and creamy.
Pour it back into the sauce pan with very low heat and season it to taste. It will come back to a simmer very quickly. It doesn't need much seasoning so don't over do it you hard on.
Garnish it with grated cheddar and maybe a few croûtons.
Pour out a glass of something malty. A nice Scotch ale or double bock is nice.
Have some fucking soup.
You'll be surprised how good it is.
I don't know people feel you need to use cream or milk to make creamy soup. You don't. You'll see.



----------------
Now playing: Motorhead - Stay Out Of Jail
via FoxyTunes

SWAT team was training at time of shootings

I wasn't aware of this. Interesting.

SWAT team was training at time of shootings - Cleveland Metro News – The Latest Breaking News, Photos and Stories from The Plain Dealer

SWAT team was training at time of shootings
Posted by Gabriel Baird October 12, 2007 11:53AM
Categories: Impact, School shooting

Cleveland police's SWAT Team was training patrol officers to respond to school shootings when they got word that a student was on a rampage at SuccessTech High School.
• Review complete Plain Dealer coverage of the shooting.By the time they reached the school, the shooter was already down and patrol officers from the 3rd District already had secured the building. And that is exactly how it is supposed to happen under the department's training, said Lt. Bernard Barabas, the long-time SWAT leader.

The training, Barabas said, is specifically designed for school shootings and even begins with lessons learned from the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

The department, however, has not addressed Cleveland Police Patrolmen's Association President Stephen Loomis' complaint that the SWAT Team was not called to the scene until nearly an hour after the first 9-1-1 call. Loomis said this decision put officers in danger. He points back to last year when Detective A.J. Schroeder was shot and killed while serving a warrant. Loomis argues that if SWAT officers had been there with their heavy body armor and shields, Schroeder would still be alive.

Barabas said most of those 3rd District officers had already been through the training and used it as they searched for the Success Tech shooter -- a search that ended with them finding the body of 14-year-old Asa Coon, who had committed suicide after shooting two teachers and two students.

Cleveland police, like those from other departments around the country, have changed the way they respond to active shooters since Columbine, said Sgt. Dan Galmarini, a SWAT leader and former police spokesman.

The old training was to form a perimeter before going in. However, law enforcement has concluded that any delay in the response gives mass-murderers time to take more lives. Now, the first officers on the scene are directed to go after the shooter immediately.

The training the SWAT Team is giving the department's officers teaches them how to use safe tactics when engaging such a threat. When the team arrived at SuccessTech Thursday, the shooter was dead, but police were not sure that there was not another shooter inside.

SWAT Team member Jose Delgado was part of the heavily armored crew that went room to room in the school. Well over an hour after the shooter was dead, they were still finding students and teachers hiding in locked rooms.

When they opened one room, the teachers were in front of the door with their bodies between their students and any shooters that may have tried to threaten the kids' lives.

"I told them that they did an excellent job," Delgado said.

Go Ms. Howell!

LewRockwell.com Blog: Governments Should Show Us the Spending

February 22, 2008
Governments Should Show Us the Spending
Posted by J.H. Huebert at February 22, 2008 06:38 AM

Carla Howell and Michael Cloud -- the two great Massachusetts anti-tax activists -- recently had another great idea: make their state government reveal every last cent it spends, and whom the money goes to, in an easily accessed, easily understood online database. That way citizens can identify waste (and it's all waste) and find new ways for their government to cut spending.

In today's Columbus Dispatch, I recommend the same for Ohio.

You might want to let your state government -- and the people who pay taxes to support it -- know of this idea as well.