I mean there is some sort of symmetry in the irony that this government struggles to encourage political participation while seeking to repress all political protest as criminal terrorism (and then engages in behaviour like the ‘tory toff’ campaign in the C&N by-election).

Legislation frameworks must be seen as existing in conjunction with the organisational framework in a symbiotic relationship.

This Labour government sees its constituency in providing additional support for the ‘weak’ (whoever they may be), so any expression of power is a challenge to their superiority. So it has exhausted it’s budget and legislative timetable on minority concerns in an attempt to create their inclusion, albeit by artificial means. Conservatives use a similar logic matrix, constructed from the opposite standpoint of power relationships.

The bubble of their logic is popped when extreme conditions or events prevail and, for example, members of minority religious groups develop into suicide bombers or a universal flat-rate poll tax is implemented. Under such conditions their logic becomes exposed as contradictory, seriously impractical and/or unpopular, and the regime unravels as the instability created by its inconsistent policy approach is exacerbated – a policy U-turn might temporaily stave off complete collapse, but confidence is permanently damaged.

The excessive amounts of money thrown at the NHS after 1997 might easily have procured a beefed-up police force more able to respond to the demands of criminal investigations, but Labour didn’t consider this their overriding priority at the time and are suffering for their lack of foresight in this area. Would additional police officers on current pay scales using existing powers have been a better answer than similar numbers of PCSOs on lower pay scales to supplement the additional powers and resources ‘needed’ by existing forces to deal with evolving ’special’ situations?

As a country we face a political choice, and what we’ve got is the consequence of our choices. Personally I blame those who fail to underline the real choices we are offered. Too often we hear that ‘they are all the same’, or that a new orthodoxy/paradigm has been created, when this is just a bland generalisation allowed all too often to go unchallenged – we are not the same, so why do we think our politicians will be/ought to be?

I’ve been reading a number of counterfactuals recently, and I’d love to see some discussion on how we can retrospectively analyse policy choices. We can decry Thatcher all we want, but I’m completely certain that today even less people would have prefered Michael Foot than they didn’t back then.

But ultimately, if there is no admissible evidence, how likely are you to be charged (say at 28 days) and detained for a further 14 days being questioned? Cheers for the other information so far.

You cannot be charged at all if there is no evidence that either is or will be admissible at trial.

Or, “Three out of five people held for over 28 days were innocent and released without further suspicion, surveillance, or made subject to control orders. How long would you be prepared to [etc]?”

Half of terrorism prosecutions in recent years have proceeded from “threshold charges”. A threshold charge is one based on reasonable suspicion the individual committed the offence. 92% of such cases have resulted in convictions.

You need admissible evidence for both types of charge. Note that an arrest may result from inadmissible evidence.

Your right to silence does not always remain intact. Adverse inferences may be drawn in some circumstances.

The important thing is to get people to realise that the world is staggeringly safer and more stable today than it has been for well over a hundred years.

The current crop of terrorists are nasty, ill adjusted criminals but they present no existential threat to this or any other democratic country (apart from Pakistan).

This is not to denigrate the suffering of those who have been affected by terrorism any more than it denigrates the suffering of those who suffer from rare diseases to point out that the disease is, well, rare. The Government’s reaction to the terrorist threat is about as sensible as ordering a national vaccination programme against denghe fever.

I also thought, maybe Unity said it, that ultimately you still won’t be able to force someone to answer questions. Your right to silence always remains intact?

If anyone wants to clarify these things

The economist:

“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.”

The question gives no background, and cements the idea we’re talking about terrorists who are suspects to the police.

“‘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’”

Or: The police need this time because it is a fact that these days it can take the six weeks to find and analyse the evidence, do you agree?

‘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’”

Or: Never mind if they are guilty or not, we have british history to defend and that is more important than actually charging a terrorist.

Hmm, yeah…REAL good background information there…

The other poll…(I assume you mean the daily telegraph poll)

“Currently, the police may hold suspected terrorists for up to 28 days
before having to charge or release them. The Government wishes to
extend this time limit in exceptional circumstances to 42 days.
Do you support or oppose extending the time limit to 42 days? ”

It again frames the question as if the police are running out of time at 28 days, that terrorists can be released at 28 days if the police don’t have enough to “get them”. It also doesn’t give any meaning to exceptional circumstances, which is eroneous given that Jacqui Smith doesn’t have to give any reason when she brings it up in parliament. Hardly exceptional.

The question with this is, of course, when talking about terrorists potentially being let free, who is not going to support it? Only 24% of people according to that poll.

So one poll asks people to either support or oppose keeping terrorists in detention for long enough to get a charge, the other asks if you put some lofty principles ahead of putting a terrorist behind bars. This most recent poll asks you to consider that every person arrested could be innocent or guilty, and to keep that in consideration when thinking about detention times. This is how people SHOULD be thinking.

In the end, I agree that at least we can generally agree it shows that government claiming support is spurious given how different these polls have all been from each other.

It is a general rule of all arguments, both good and bad, that if you are able to make sure that people hear your side of the argument and not the other side, support for your position will increase. I can’t think of any liberal way which might make that possible, however

The other polls on this issue try a bit harder (though aren’t perfect) to make sure that the people they are polling are representative of the general public, either by asking people a question about a subject without giving them background information, as YouGov did, or which gives information on both sides of the argument, as the Economist’s poll did.

As an analogy, if the trade unions were to commission an opinion poll which started off by reminding people about some of the good things that the Labour government has done and is doing, and then asked people who they intended to vote for, the poll would undoubtedly show a much higher level of support for Labour than recent opinion polls have.

Labour supporters could well argue that this shows that when there is a proper debate about policies rather than personalities, support for Labour increases. But it wouldn’t increase our understanding about who was likely to win the next election, or how popular Labour actually is.

This is essentially, in a different form, what the poll does. If that’s “biased” or “leading” then I’m afraid we have a very perverse and warped way of viewing what a balanced argument is.

It is interesting, is it not, that when words change, reactions change too?

The first set of polls was just as biased, in their own sweet way, as the second set of polls.

Both polls fail any reasonable neutrality test, I think. All either proves is that the framing of a question can get you the result you want. Which is a trifle scary.

Especially with the evidential weight that is being placed on uninformed opinion.

Which, I think we’d both agree, was the point of David Davies stand. To inform, to educate, whatever….

Both reviews of public opinion can be viewed as push polling. It is a dog whistle question to ask the general public if they think terrorists should be locked up for 42 days. The key word being terrorist. That being an assumption of the pollster.

I am not at all clear what principle is being defended in refusing to use intercept evidence. Modern technology is, after all just another form of communication. A witness that overheard a suspect in a pub would be allowed, what is the difference in an intercepted mobile phone conversation?

Ukliberty makes a fundamental point. Which I think deserves to be taken up as a theme here. Why is it that law is not explained to us at school? That idea ought to run and run. We are expected to make a judgement out of ignorance, on a subject the state deliberately refuses to educate us on. That makes no sense whatsoever.

But in terms of obtaining results, that is no different to asking specific questions worded in particular ways (’terrorist suspects’) or commissioning a poll after a big event.

Both are inherently biased methodologies. So in that sense this poll is no WORSE than the earlier poll, which I also believe asked leading questions.

And to be honest, the context offered in either polls is roughly the same. It comes down to how you word the question. Of course I prefer the wording of this poll over the previous one.

This poll does all three, and so can’t be compared with other polls which just ask the question and offer the options of ’support’ or ‘oppose’.

and that poll worded its questions in a particular way that would obtain a particular response. It doesn’t make that poll any more right.

The only surefire way to track any change would be to ask the same question over a period of time. Clearly that hasn’t happened here. And furthermore its difficult to obtain a true answer on 42 days especially when the legislation is so complicated that even ‘high information’ westminster watchers are confused by it.

In that context saying that the public supports 42 days is silly because the public doesn’t know what ‘42 days’ actually means.

So this poll is really as valid as the previous negative one – meaning both are just snapshots which illustrate the public doesn’t know what is actually at stake.

With regard to Unity’s point about “lack of information in the public domain”… well when I was at school we had no lessons in law at all, we had to opt to learn GCSE or A level law, for example. There was no ‘basic course’ if you like. Likewise for the traditional and sound principles such as habeas corpus and fair trials etc. I have no idea what it’s like nowadays but I suspect it is the same.

If it is, that’s a fault in the system.

2. And how do people know which is the headline question? I’d say that it’s much better to ask questions, regardless of the order, that range the subject to ensure clarity of thought on the subject.

3. I know about this, however the result don’t show any regard for this worry, especially as the support for different lengths of time changes with the context given. This shows that people have considered their answers.

To me the poll isn’t meant to be a direct contradiction to other polls, it is to show that with a little bit more thought and a little more perspective people come to a different conclusion. I think the stance taken by some is a little disappointing given there is no way that you can prove the public’s stance on 42 days without taking a broader view and giving more relevant information, as was done with relating the length of time to a comparable sentence for a crime.

1. Provide background information which supports a particular point of view before asking any questions, priming people to be thinking about the issue in a particular way

2. Ask questions about other issues before the headline question

3. Offer five options, with the option that you don’t want people to pick being at one end of the options given.

This poll does all three, and so can’t be compared with other polls which just ask the question and offer the options of ’support’ or ‘oppose’.

Sir Humphrey explains it here – http://users.aims.ac.za/~mackay/probability/survey.html