YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties

snowflake5 Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:04:12 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

74% support CCTV, 51% think police should be able to build up the DNA database so that eventually they hold DNA on every citizen and 61% support detention of 42 days



YouGov have done an opinion poll for the economist - which you can see here.   However David Davis benefits from his quioxtic "independent stand" with plenty of people supporting him simply for doing something unusual. And he has been the sitting MP for Haltemprice and Howden since 87, so should romp home for non-civil liberties reasons.

There is danger for the Conservatives however in that he has forced them to adopt policies they wouldn't otherwise have done so, and which the public at large wouldn't vote for in a general election.  It is therefore in labour's interests for David Davis to win and win big, so that he is a "big beast" in the Conservative party, forcing Cameron and co to pledge to abolish CCTV, 42 days and the DNA database.  

Here's some of the questions that were asked:
 
Britain has more closed circuit TV cameras (CCTVs) than any other country, monitoring streets, stations, shopping centres, offices etc

Do you think…

This is broadly a good thing, as CCTV cameras help to deter criminal behaviour and catch offenders
74 

This is broadly a bad thing, because these cameras allow the state to 'snoop' on people and invade their privacy
22 

Don’t know
5

Police are relying ever more heavily on DNA to solve crimes. Britain now has the largest DNA database in the world. It includes data on people who have not been convicted of any crime Which of these statements comes closer to your view?

‘DNA data should be held only for convicted criminals. Data on everyone else's DNA should be destroyed'
43 

‘In order to be able to catch more criminals, the police should be able to build up their DNA database, so that eventually they hold DNA data on every citizen'
51 

Don’t know
7 

Currently, the police may detain suspected terrorists for up to four weeks before charging or releasing them. The Government wants to extend this period to six weeks. Which of these statements comes closer to your view?

These days it can take some weeks to analyse all the evidendence against suspected terrorists; it is right to be able to detain them for up to six weeks'
61 

It is a long-established principle of British justice that suspects should either be released or know the charge against them within days; the proposed six weeks detention period is far too long'
33 

Don’t know
6



David Davis, formerly shadow home secretary, has decided to resign as MP to campaign for re-election on the issue of civil liberties. He says that the Government's policies on ID cards, DNA and biometric databases, and the time allowed to question terrorist suspects, together threaten our civil liberties.

Do you think…

He is right; and he would do more to protect our civil liberties if he were home secretary
23 

He is right; but he would NOT do any more to protect our civil liberties if he were home secretary
26
 
He is wrong: the measures proposed to tackle terrorism, crime and identity theft will enhance, and not undermine our civil liberties
38 

Don’t know
14




tags: , , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties | 9 comments (9 topical)

Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#1)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:27:20 PM GMT

The framing of the context on 42 days in terms of "suspected terrorists" introduces a clear bias. The precise question, with its preamble "These days it can take some weeks to analyse all the evidendence against suspected terrorists" introduces further bias - and is unproven - it's an invitation to support the proposal.

I suspect if you asked whether it is right to hold somebody without charge and without knowing what they are being held for, for a period of six weeks, then you would get a different answer.

The point is that (as the Menezes shooting and other cases like Forest Gate unfortunately show) anybody can be a "suspected terrorist". Anybody.


Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#2)

by snowflake5 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 03:44:29 PM GMT

YouGov arn't known for their anti-Tory bias. I think other polls have also shown the public is in favour of 42 days. The Liberty bunch make an awful lot of noise, and if you went by a noise-meter you would think they had a lot of support. But am not sure the public at large buy it.

Labour's best bet here is to remain completely silent on the Davis by-election from now on, and hope he wins very very big in order to be able "force" Cameron down certain policy routes. Here's hoping that the Conservatives go into the next election pledging to abolish 42 days, abolish all CCTV and abolish the DNA database! 


[ Parent ]

Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#3)

by Floating voter on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM GMT

I would be interested to see the outcome of a poll that asked the following two questions

1. Is it ok to lock up someone for 6 weeks who has never been convicted of a crime?

 

2. Is it ok to lock up a suspected terrorist for 6 weeks even if they've never been convicted of a crime.

 

It's the same question, but I suspect you would get a NO for the first version and a YES for the second.

 

The question asked matters - it can determine the answer. 


[ Parent ]

Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#4)

by Free Radical on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:11:45 PM GMT

Snowflake

But, at the end of the day it is not opinion polls and narrow party advantage that really matter - it's whether these things are right or not, and whether civil liberties matter. 

So, tell me where you would draw the line on civil liberties?

And, would you be willing to follow any policy as long you thought it was popular?


[ Parent ]

Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#5)

by AngryVoter on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 04:44:52 PM GMT

The thing that always boggles my mind, even with the YouGov polls on freedoms etc....

Well, to be honest guys I've come across some who think CCTV is a good thing, that's fine. Largely because our town doesn't really have any due to low-crime rates, so CCTV to do the role instead of dedicated officers makes monetary sense.

But on 42 days... I really haven't found anybody in support of it yet from people who consider themselves Labour, Tory or "undecided". It seems a bit off that there's all this public support, but people swung in behind Davis' principled stand. That Rachel from North London found herself surrounded since Davis resignation with people in cafes talking about the issue of freedom and she didn't insitgate the conversation.

I think, perhaps, it's always going to be a love/hate relationship with CCTV etc.


[ Parent ]

Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#6)

by NorthernMonkey on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 06:00:35 PM GMT

To be honest, I don't really have a problem with CCTV or the DNA database (although I'm not entirely convinced that those who were not convicted should be on it). Similarly, I can't say I'm totally opposed to ID cards but I can't see them going ahead.

But 42 days detention is a step too far and I can see why it's a thread to civil liberties.


Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#7)

by FreedomAndTruth on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 09:50:33 PM GMT

I agree with some of the comments here.

The wording of the questions is going to lead to distorted results, e.g. one question starts with,

"Police are relying ever more heavily on DNA to solve crimes."

This immediately plants the idea that DNA evidence is vital for the nation's safety and the old 'if you've got nothing to hide...' fallacy comes into play and hey presto! People vote for their own enslavement under the pretext that the government will keep them safe from the terrorists, etc.

Like climate change, the 'authorities' are milking the terrorist threat for all it is worth. I'm not saying there is no threat obviously, but we have been trained like Pavlov's dogs, to react to the words, "terrorist" and "global warming" with fear instead of using critical thinking to evaluate the evidence and determine the risks for ourselves.

This phenomenon of a conditioned public plus the weighted questions are bound to lead to rather bizarre results.

It is even more incredulous when you think of the way the police and judiciary have been reprogrammed to treat the baddies with kid gloves while hammering law-abiding citizens with petty authoritarian legislation.

If you haven't seen my article which reminds us of Walter Wolfgang's mistreatment at the 2005 Conference. This is very much the future the way we are going.

The bottom line is, with CCTV, DNA database or ID cards, you cannot trust those with access to the information, especially when natural justice is being shown the door and criminals often have more 'human rights' than the innocent parties.


Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#8)

by DDave3 on Sun Jun 22, 2008 at 11:49:29 PM GMT

For a significant period of time, I never had a problem with CCTV. I always took the argument that says increased surveillance could enhance your personal freedom. The vast majority of CCTV in this country is privately owned and operated, and nothing to do with the Government. The increase is to do with how the public perceive the world and not because the Government makes them install this technology. If you look at where CCTVs are often installed by the State, it is usually the case that they are installed by local councils after pressure from residents.

Where I have my real concern with is the lack of empirical evidence to suggest that they are at all effective. The first official joint government and police assessment of our national CCTV strategy was published last year and had some pretty shocking conclusions. More than 80% of cameras produced images of such poor quality that they were of no use for detection purposes, and that the majority were positioned in the wrong places. The report also highlighted that there are no statutory safeguards on CCTV and that, because anyone is able to set up a network, the authorities have no accurate figure on how many are in operation.

Perhaps the most significant thing about this report is that it exists at all. In a country with at least 4.2m cameras, one for every 14 people as mentioned, estimated to comprise 20% of the world's allocation, where the Home Office, principally under Michael Howard, spent 78% of its crime prevention budget on installing these systems in the 1990s, and has invested £500m of public money in CCTV over the last decade - the lack of authoritative research into the efficacy of surveillance is troubling, to say the least. What actual impact do they have on crime levels?


Re: YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties (#9)

by Snowy on Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM GMT

Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela were imprisoned and called 'terrorists' by the powers that imprisoned them.

An 82-year old labour party member was arrested under the Anti-Terrorism act in the UK for saying "Nonsense!" to Tony Blair.

John Charles Menezes was shot in the face 7 times on a London train for being a suspected terrorist.

These laws are dangerous and open to abuse and enough to make people who realise what's going on, vote against Labour. 


YouGov poll for Economist - Civil Liberties | 9 comments (9 topical)