High Backing For Britain's Terrorism Measures (shocking poll)

[Lori Price CLG]

High Backing For Britain's Terrorism Measures

Many adults in Britain back the principle behind their government’s proposed anti-terrorism regulations, according to a poll by YouGov published in the Daily Telegraph. 76 per cent of respondents believe it may be necessary to take action against people who have not yet committed any offence, if the intelligence services have evidence that they are planning an act of terrorism.

<snip>

The bill also seeks alternative forms of punishment—such as house arrest, curfews and restrictions on the use of telephones and the Internet—for people considered a threat to national security. 58 per cent of respondents believe it is sometimes necessary to restrict the civil liberties of suspected terrorists even though there is not enough usable evidence to charge and convict them, while 32 per cent disagree.

Lori Price
http://www.legitgov.org/

[LynnTheDem]

1. Dear Britain; when you need liberating from your oppressive regime

that jails people who haven't done anything...SUFFER, BABY, SUFFER, and DON'T CALL US.

[lenidog]

2. If you know British history

you wouldn't find that shocking at all Brits have always accepted the Government curtailing civil liberties during time of war or crisis with very little problem. Then there is the fact that there is no written British contitution the liberties they enjoy are more tradition than actual law. So that may also be why they are willing to accept this especially if it is posed to them as a temporary thing as in the past.

[sweetheart]

7. The human rights act supercedes some of what you say

With the adoption of the human rights act, britain has now a basic
bill of rights, and the "unwritten" concept must be updated. This bill
of rights has been used to challenge all sorts of areas of law that
are out of line with said rights... so indeed all of britain benefits
from a closer relationship with a modern europe.

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-rights/the-human-rights-act/index.shtml
http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/19980042.htm

[Enquiringkitty]

3. I certainly hope that doesn't happen over here.

Of course, They have the experience of pausing civil liberties during WWII during the bombing of London and the coastal areas. We have never been in a situation where we were bombed time and time again for a long time and so they know that liberties will return after the crisis is over. We have the fear that picking out people and taking civil rights away before there is any evidence that they are a threat, might become a habit, plus we have seen times where a mistake was made be government officials both recent and past. Remember the people a while back whose property was taken and others had their door kicked in falsely because an address or social security number was wrong? Still, I hope we never have to experience that type of fear and suspicion.

[arcos]

4. Are people inherently fascist?

What causes this? Fear?

:scared:

[saigon68]

5. They are SHEEP

BAA BAA BAAA

[sweetheart]

6. This is understandable

Britain is much more on the frontline than the US is, as it has
relatively huge populations of people immigrated or asylumed from the
very regions of the world that are troublesome... as consider that all
of these wars are happening in former british colonies.... and the
"old" empire is clearly a target for enemies with a long view on
history.

Consider that in the northern ireland troubles, lotsa people were
imprisoned for similar concerns, and this created a real problem in
the long run, if you recall the bobby sands hunger strikes and the
emnity imprisoning citizens creates.

So, rather than go the prison route, as in the past, the tagging and
preemptive use of policing would be much "softer" and shoehorn in the
concerns with the reality of modern living.

As well, british police are "our" police, not "them" as in the US. The
sense of the police being members of the community who are not at odds
with the people, offers this element of trust in the government's
ability to not overpolice, and to be fair, as 1000's of years attest,
britain has learned to police itself rather fairly these days.

My biggest concern is "scope creep" that these terrorism laws be used
to pursue recreational drugs users, or people with too many speeding
tickets, or violent football hooligans, who's crimes warrant no such
draconian police powers. That said, we'll see how far the house of
lords lets this get. Likely with a HOL veto, we've yet to see the
final version of this legislation.

Tony bliar timed the introduction of this legislation with the
apprehension of a chap who has admitted to planning to blow up an
airplane, even though he never did it... he had the explosives and
the detonators in his house... and tony stirred up the "FEAR" saying
that there are "hundreds" of such people in britain... and given
that suave war criminal's way of selling, popular opinion would
indeed be swayed as this poll indicates.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. Your arguments may explain why a lot of British people accept the new laws

but I don't think they give much justification - they just show they're playing to the majority's complacency and mild racism/xenophobia.

The British police may still seem like "us" to those of us who are white and born in the UK; but to those who are likely to be targetted by the 'guilty until proved innocent' approach of this new law (eg immigrant Muslims), they're still very much "them". And I don't trust the police, and MI5 (who are definitely "them" even to me - they bugged Labour MPs, for goodness' sake!) to be fair in their evidence gathering (or manufacture). The suspects don't get a chance to defend themselves properly - even if a judge makes the decision, rather than Fungus the Bogeyman (aka Charles Clarke), people can get fitted up very easily this way.

I think Clarke purposely started out with outrageuos proposals of him putting people under house arrest solely on his on decision, so that he could present what is still a massive decrease in civil livertiers as a 'compromise'.

As you say, the Northern Ireland internments show how counter-productive removing the presumption of innocence can be in the long run. Blair doesn't care though, because he'll have retired before the shit hits the fan. It's more likely to be Brown who ends up neck-deep in the similarly-coloured stuff.

[sweetheart]

9. I hope they make the law temporary

Then the erosion of civil liberties will not be permanent, and if the
powers turn out to have been abused, the public won't be stuck with
the result.

The xenophobia about foreigners is really getting stirred up by the
media, ALL foreigners, and as one of them, i find it a gross deriliction
of duty on behalf of the government and media. As i've no direct voice
in british politics, along with the rest of "us" foreigners, i can
only shake my head in dismay.

I agree that this is no victory for decency. They should legallize
the use of phone taps as evidence in courts, and charge people with
real crimes, so they migth defend themselves... this use of obtuse
legal structures to avoid the courts is becoming a bad habit of labour.
Asbo's are being handed out like candy, and this is no comfort for
the rule of law. Given that precedent, if they start tagging alllll
immigrants that we are permanently guilty until proven innocent, they'll
only create a 2 tier society... which begs the question of what party
is in power. Labour is supposed to stand for equality under the law,
so what gives?

[MSgt213]

10. If I were a British citizen I wouldn't trust this poll unless I could get

some independent verification of its data and methods. Just like in America I wouldn't put it pass the government to produce bogus polls and numbers at this time in history. Even if the poll is found to be valid I then would not trust any mentions of temporary because once your government enjoys total control over you they are loathed to give it back or up. For an example goggle Patriot Act and America.

For argument sake lets say that the current government officials pushing the regulations have nothing but the best intentions and wouldn't stand for anyone abusing them. What control do they have over the people actually charged with enforcing them? If every thing is done essentially in secret, with no review and oversight what's to really stop abuse? What's going to stop some prosecutor or police chief from going crazy under the guise of terror regulations?

[natrat]

11. what's really behind this?

Are they scared of anarchy in the UK when food becomes scarce and there is no heating oil? Do they need a way to curb masses of rioting starving people?

[Merlin]

12. Isn't UGOV an on-line "poll" ?

In which case, this doesn't in any way whatsoever represent a true sampling of opinion, merely the opinion of respondents who may easily be manipulated (as we DUers do when we say "DU this poll").

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. It's a polling organisation with which you register

giving your basic demographic details (which they have to take on trust, but that same goes for details in a phone poll as well, with the possible exception of gender).

They then send you an email inviting you to take part in particular polls, and balance the responses to get the average demographics right. Once you've answered a few polls, you get a little money from them.

If, right from the start, you lie about your circumstances so that your answers appear to come from a different type of person, you might be able to influence it a bit. Exactly what you would lie about (higher or lower income? Different age group?) I'm not sure - remember that you only get one chance, whatever the subsequent polls are about.

[Merlin]

17. But lying about demographics is only a small part of the problem, it's ...

Since it's one where you register, the character and interests of the participants are way, way out of the ordinary. There is no way these polls possibly reflect the views of the typical person.

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Why?

Admittedly it demands that you have an internet connection, rather than just a phone line, but that's not that unusual these days. Like any phone or street poll, you need to be someone who's willing to answer questions (though the fact that you can get a little cash for doing it may make you actually more 'average' than someone who'll help a commercial polling company for free). The difference here is that you register and give your details once, and then get asked questions at a future date, rather than giving your details and opinions at one go.

When you give your details, you have no idea what questions they're going to ask you (though you can guess that sooner or later you'll be asked how you intend to vote).

[Merlin]

19. Because of same thing they blamed exit poll errors on -- non-respondents

Non-respondents (e.g. in this case non-registrants) will have an entirely different typical mindset than tech-savvy, cultural in-crowd that would be representative of the registrants.

The typical bloke in the pub would have no idea what UGov is.

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. So are you saying all polls are useless?

As I said, I think the fact that you get paid 50p for answering a YouGov poll may make it more accurate than polls that depend on people giving up several minutes of their time for the primary benefit of a polling company and their (typically commercial) client.

The important thing to realise is that this is not a poll which can be 'DUed', 'freeped' or anything.

If you think that the YouGov poll will over-represent tech-savvy people, then I fear that the percentages of the country that are willing to restrict people's liberties without trial will be even greater.

[Merlin]

21. No I'm not. I'm saying polls of volunteers are non-representative.

It's similar to the old life insurance problem: life insurers never want to sell life insurance to somebody who is shopping for it. They want to sell it to people who don't necessarily want to buy it. Why? Because those who are shopping for it are probably thinking they're going to die soon.

In this case, those who volunteer to be part of a permanent poll sample do so because they have strong opinions they want to share and they want to be able to influence outcomes.

In the typical polling situation, respondents are chosen at random by the polling firm, and each poll involves a different randomly selected group.

Further, professional pollsters always sample the non-respondents to try to see if they represent a certain strain of opinion which--when left out--skews the outcome away from the truth.

That's exactly what happened in the '04 election. Non-respondents tended to be Republicans because the exit pollsters tended to be young people and college professors and were perceived by Bush voters as favoring Kerry. In that case, they didn't sample non-respondents until very late in the day. (Or at least that was the explanation Mitofsky gave.)

The classic case was the 1948 election where "Dewey Defeats Truman" headlines were the result of a famous Reader's Digest poll conducted by Gallup, I believe, via telephone. It omitted a huge percentage of people who didn't have phones and who were Democrats.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. How do you sample non-respondents?

By their very nature, aren't they unknown (apart from their appearance, I suppose)?

[Merlin]

23. You very deliberately pursue those who don't respond the first time.

You appeal to them by saying you would like their opinion as to why they didn't respond to the original poll. In the vast majority of cases, they will give you an answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. Thanks - I never realised pollsters did that

and I can see that, if successful, it would help get more reliable results.

[Merlin]

25. You're welcome, fellow night owl!

I thought I was the only fool on the internet at this hour!

:-)

[djack23]

13. Here Here

"Many adults in Britain back the principle behind their government’s proposed anti-terrorism regulations, according to a poll by YouGov published in the Daily Telegraph. 76 per cent of respondents believe it may be necessary to take action against people who have not yet committed any offence, if the intelligence services have evidence that they are planning an act of terrorism"

I though it was a crime to plan a terrorism act? Simple solution of it is not already a crime to plan a terrorist act then make it a crime to plan one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. Normal courts demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt

In these cases, it doesn't even have to be the balance of probability - just some evidence - the kind of thing that might get you put under police surveillance in a free society.

[Toots]

16. I think that is why we left England in the first place

And Created our own Constitution.

[sweetheart]

26. When did you leave england to write a constitution?

"we" did nothing of the sort. We are the fat and lazy inheritors of
a set of white-superiority invaders to the americas, people who left
their homelands for a variety of reasons, many intertwined with the
english civil war.

Just as well, people came for economic reasons, to get out of poverty,
as america once was a nation of social mobility.... and nowhere in any
of the plethora or reasons was legislated home-arrest with satellite
tags, replacing imprisonment... a reason.

[Swamp Rat]

27. HAHAHAHAHA!!!! "...fat and lazy inheritors..."

I know it's serious and all, but thanks for the laugh! :D

Now for something completely different: I just heard Ray Taliaferro tell a RW nut job to get the pretzel outta his mouth! HAHAHAHA!! :D