Travel Anonymously By Rail

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

Why is this idea important?

1. Eurostar tickets bought in the UK have to, by law, have your name printed on them. (Although not if purchased on the more freedom-respecting continent.)

2. London Transport tracks your whereabouts, if not any longer by CCTV camera, certainly still by computer every time you enter or leave a station or board a bus.

This should be abolished.

NO U-TURN ON ANYONYMITY FOR RAPE ACCUSED!!!

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Why is this idea important?

It is totally outrageous that after the Coalition government promising to give anonymity to (almost entirely MALE) ALLAGED male rapists it has now CAVED IN TO PRESSURE from FEMINIST EXTREMISTS.

According to the BBC News – the grounds for this u-turn have been "Labour and women Tory MPs said it could send a negative signal about women who accuse men of rape."

Could you tell us please what kind of "signal" gets sent about MEN WHO GET FALSELY ACCUSED OF RAPE?

Pretty negative I'd say.

And just WHO is running this country? Labour feminist MPs? Feminist women who have sneaked into seats in the Conservative party now that there's little point them infiltrating the Labour party any more AS THEY DID, I watched it happen since the 70s, as there's no POWER in it for them.

So the partly Liberal Coalition gets elected, but it still does what it is told by a bunch of shrieking feminist activists, who endlessly criticise it simply because there aren't enough (in THEIR opinion) women in the cabinet???  What an IMPOTENT excercise of "power" by the Coalition, first making a decision which was a FAIR, JUST ONE, properly acknowledging the EQUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of men and then caving in at the first sign of protests from shrieking, deeply unjust, feminist women.

It's THESE kind of people, largely a feminist government we've been living under in the Blair era, with their hypocrisy, more interested in their job titles, their salaries and perks, and their reflections in the mirror, and fiddling their expenses, who have got us in this mess in the first place – our disrespectful, crime ridden, badly behaved, debt ridden, teenage pregnant,m dryg addcuted, unsafe to walk the streets, etc, society  -, and now they have not been ELECTED as a government ,  they are simply INTIMIDATING/BULLYING to get what they want by shrieking propaganda at the government who have!

And of course, the great irony is that ACCUSERS (almost entirely women), THEY get anonymity, but the men ACCUSED don't!

Astounding!

i.e. a man can be FALSELY accused on any petty, malevolent whim of a woman who is upset with him, and HE gets publicly shamed, made a leper in  his community and maybe even subject to attack from gangs of yobs who are always looking for an excuse to attack some innocent person, while SHE hides laughing in the shadows, as he gets tortured and publicly ridiculed, and maybe never trusted again by other women in the community where he lives, even if found totally innocent of the crime.

So a case was given to justify this shrieking protest from the feminists, of a taxi driver who raped 80 women (so THEY tell us, I wasn't there), and until his name was published, all the other women who had been raped didn't come forward.

Yes – well, what a TOTALLY ERRONEOUS ARGUMENT. Once the guy had been CONVICTED his name would have been published ANYWAY. So THEN they would have had their opportunity to come forward.

And in any case, this is no grounds to lift anonymity from accused men, because what the government should be seeking to do is to PREVENT RAPE rather than all the emphasis being on CONVICTING RAPISTS.

Because these feminists are apparently too stupid to realise that once a woman has actually been raped (if it REALLY happend that is, and it's not just a malevolent false accusation) it's actually TOO LATE.

Sure, if he is caught and convicted, it will (for a time) prevent him raping other women, but that won't ever make it right for the woman who has been raped ALREADY.

So let's take the example of this taxi driver rapist. Firstly, women have to start taking FAR MORE RESPONSIBLITY for their own actions. If a drunken woman is going home from a nightclub or party and  she goes home ALONE in a taxi or even car driven by ANY man she is not "asking for it", but she is TAKING AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Men in general are not saints, as no more so are women, and x percent of men will feel tempted when a woman's defences are down like that, knowing that due to drink she might not even REMEMBER who he is.

So the solution to preventing women being raped, is not to keep printing the names and pictures in Newspapers or showing on TV men who just MIGHT have done a rape, but it's not proven, but to educate women to take more responsibility for their own actions, and also put in place practical steps like WOMEN ONLY TAXI SERVICES with women only drivers.

Or you know, why don't we give the feminists what they REALLY want? Which is to basically have every man wear a warning sign on him wherever he goes, hanging around his neck, that says RAPIST UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT, and there should be a big database of EVERY  male over 10  giving  his name and address, and a photo of him, and if a woman doesn't like a particular man, all she has to do is email in (ANONYMOUSLY OF COURSE) a rape accusation, and then minutes later, the police will be kicking in his door, and hauling him off for interrogation, assuming him guilty until proven iinnocent.

I assure all the men and sane non-feminist women, that if the feminsits had their way, the above scenario would be pretty much a reality, and I am not joking.

Because think about it logically, and it's easy to see such a publicly accessible database of men that women could search through, would surely make it much easier to find any man they believe has raped them, so surely if it would prevent ONE SINGLE WOMAN getting raped, that justifies it being done?

No, IT DOES NOT.  That's ALWAYS the excuse.

e.g. why not take EVERYBODY'S DNA at birth? Surely that would make ALL criminals easier to catch?

Why? Because we've got HUMAN RIGHTS, the rigbht to lvie in freedom unless it's PROVEN we are some kind of threat to society.

The feminsts are interesting only in  WOMEN'S RIGHTS, not MEN'S RIGHTS, and not only that, they are shrieking endlessly about women's RIGHTS, but what they DON'T talk about, is women's RESPONSIBILITIES. E.G. to take care of their children properly, or be fair to men, or to not act stupidly getting drunk and going home in a man's car alone or going back to the flat/home of a man they hardly know, and expecting there to be no risk in such an unwise course of action.

And I'm appalled that so many men are so mute and meek on this subject, because they foolishly imagine  a false couldn't happen to THEM.

(well yes, just hide in your home, never go out, never be anywhere near the company of women, never answer the door to a woman caller (let alone let her in – NUCLEAR ALERT!) don't go anywhere near your daughter, sister, mothers, grandmothers, aunt, girl cousin, sister in law,  a mixed sex work place, bar, public park, cinema, concert, theatre, shopping centre, or place of worship, and you just MIGHT be in with a chance that you'll NEVER be accused of rape/sexual aasault).

Whereas the fact is, that women are routinely accusing men of all kinds of things, and using the police against men, just to get their own way, or to "punish" a man who displeases them in some way, make his life a misery, it's not only rape accusations.

It could be because IN HER OPINION he is disciplining a misbehaving child in a way SHE doesn't agree with, and because she uses the law to stop him controlling the child, we end up with a society of out of control children, who become vandals, hooligans, violent thugs, gang members, and yes, even RAPISTS, because she used the feminist controlled law against a man who was trying to keep a child in hand, teach it to have RESPECT for other human beings.

So few men are really THINKING what a serious issue this is: it's not just about rape, it's a whole flotilla of infringinments and inequalities against men's rights, and this is just the most obvious example.

One more REAL LIFE example of someone I know, what happened to him recently to illustrate the point. He allowed a woman to share his flat, the relationship failed and he told her to leave. She then reported him to the police, accused him of kidnapping and raping her and the police came to take him away. He was saved ONLY by the fact there were messages from her on his mobile phone which showed they obviously had an ongoing CONSENSUAL relationship.

So without that slender but VITAL evidence, only available incidentaly since the mobile phone era, he would likely have been imprisoned until trial, and possibly even sentenced to many years as a convicted rapist and kidnapper, and his life would have been over, all on HER MALEVOLENT WHIM and FALSE ACCUSATION.

And all the while SHE would have (and as far as I know, still IS) remained TOTALLY ANONYMOUS and able to do exactly the same to any number of future male victims.

As is usual, with the feminists, we only ever here ONE HALF of the story, only about men's crimes (alleged) against women, but NEVER about  women's  numerous crimes against men in all kinds of ways, false accusations to police, social workers and other authorities being a very favourite one at the present.

That this Coalition is continuing the DISCRIMINATION AGAINST 50 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION (Ii.e MEN) started mainly by the New Labour Feminists, is a totally appalling injustice, and failure of them to uphold CIVIL LIBERTIES as they have promised, the very thing this website is supposed to be about.
 

 

Continue to allow anonymous pre-pay credit cards

A Labour MP, Geraint Davies, wants to effectively ban anonymous pre-pay credit cards via a Ten minute rule bill.  He apparently has 40 MPs supporting this (shame on them).

I don't want this to happen

Why is this idea important?

A Labour MP, Geraint Davies, wants to effectively ban anonymous pre-pay credit cards via a Ten minute rule bill.  He apparently has 40 MPs supporting this (shame on them).

I don't want this to happen

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Unequal Rape Laws

Remove the right to anonymity of women who accuse men of rape or extend the right of anonymity to alleged male rapists. It may be the case that when a male is accused of rape, other women come forward with similar allegations, often in an attempt to cash in on any compensation, but when a serial liar tries to ruin another man’s life then why shouldn’t male victims have an equal opportunity to come forward with the truth about serial liars? We know Harriet Harman genuinely hates men but this law is simply wrong and unfair.

Why is this idea important?

Remove the right to anonymity of women who accuse men of rape or extend the right of anonymity to alleged male rapists. It may be the case that when a male is accused of rape, other women come forward with similar allegations, often in an attempt to cash in on any compensation, but when a serial liar tries to ruin another man’s life then why shouldn’t male victims have an equal opportunity to come forward with the truth about serial liars? We know Harriet Harman genuinely hates men but this law is simply wrong and unfair.

Stop protecting the anonymity of teenagers convicted of violent crime

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

Why is this idea important?

Amend the law which grants the right of anonymity to young offenders so that it does not apply to those aged 13 or over convicted of the most serious crimes, such as murder, attempted murder and grievous bodily harm.

The law should be protecting the victims of these crimes, not the perpetrators.  What is more, the public should have the right to know the identity of someone who has been convicted of committing a very serious crime in their community.

By the age of 13 someone should be well aware that such crimes destroy the lives of the victims and the victims’ families and should thus suffer the full consequences of their actions.  The perpetrators of these crimes are violent thugs, not sweet, innocent ‘children’ who need mollycoddling and protecting, and the law should reflect this.

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by extended the right to anonymity to those accused of rape or sexual assault, as it is to those making the allegation

Rape or other sexual assault against a woman, man or young person is something which rightly, society finds abhorrent. However, we continually see cases where the accused is found not guilty, or the case is dropped before any trial, because it has been established that the complainant had made up the allegation. Because of the way such offences are viewed our society, people wrongly or falsely accused lose their employment, home, family and the stigma of having been accused often makes it impossible for them to regain their normal life.

Why is this idea important?

Rape or other sexual assault against a woman, man or young person is something which rightly, society finds abhorrent. However, we continually see cases where the accused is found not guilty, or the case is dropped before any trial, because it has been established that the complainant had made up the allegation. Because of the way such offences are viewed our society, people wrongly or falsely accused lose their employment, home, family and the stigma of having been accused often makes it impossible for them to regain their normal life.

That the Government restore freedom and liberty by removing from the DNA Database any records relating to innocent people

The immediate removal of all details of innocent people from the DNA database and restricting any Police DNA database to consist only of people who have been convicted of a crime, and even then for a maximum period of 5 years following release from prison. On arrest of course a suspect’s DNA can be taken to be matched against unsolved crimes, but should then also be destroyed once checked.

Why is this idea important?

The immediate removal of all details of innocent people from the DNA database and restricting any Police DNA database to consist only of people who have been convicted of a crime, and even then for a maximum period of 5 years following release from prison. On arrest of course a suspect’s DNA can be taken to be matched against unsolved crimes, but should then also be destroyed once checked.