Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

Sky News / YouGov Survey Results Sample Size: 2014 Fieldwork: 4th - 5th November 2005

Which of these statements comes closer to your view?

The threat to people in Britain from terrorism has fundamentally changed, partly because some terrorists are willing to commit suicide during their attacks, and partly because of they way they use modern technology - such as mobile phones and the internet
- 71%

Terrorism is nothing new, and the task of preventing attacks and catching and prosecuting people suspected of terrorist offences is not fundamentally different from the task that the police and intelligence services have faced in the past - 24%

Don't know - 4%

Since when exactly have things "changed" ? Since the invention of the internet, of mobile phones or since September 11th 2001 or since July 7th 2005 ?

Why the weasel word conflation of "suicide attacks" with the "use of modern technology" ? One is not directly linked to the other.

How exactly would the September 11th 2001 or the 7th or 21st July 2005 attacks been prevented by holding anybody for 90 days without charge ? All of those involved were not considered to be terrorist suspects or were not under police or security service investigation before these attacks.

Currently suspected terrorists can be held by Britain's police for up to 14 days. After that they must either be charged with an offence, or released. The police want to extend this time to 90 days, because it can take up to three months to analyse material such as computer files in order to obtain the evidence needed to charge suspects.

No evidence that 3 months is the correct time period has been presented to the public.

It might only take 24 hours to analyse computer files or it might take several years, or it might be impossible.

Even according to the Home Office and the Police, most people held between 7 days and 14 days under the existing scheme have been charged either with terrorist offences or with other offences e.g. conspiracy to murder or yo cause explosions, under existing legilsation.

Even in complictated mass murder investigations, the Police do not have to wait until the very last pece of forensic evidence has been analysed from all of the victims, in order to charge a suspect with the first murder, with subsequent charges to follow later.

Which of these statements comes closer to your view?

The police genuinely believe that the current 14-day rule is not enough to protect Britain from terrorist attacks - 76%

The police don't really need the extra time; they are simply using the debate about terrorism to extend their powers to hold people without being charged. - 16%

Don't know - 8%

Critics of the 90 day proposal say that it would be bad for civil liberties, and won't in practice help the task of catching, arresting and convicting suspected terrorists.

Which of these statements comes closer to your view?

Critics of the police are genuinely concerned with the need both to protect civil liberties and also reduce the threat from terrorism - 31%

The critics are more concerned with the civil liberties of suspected terrorists than the rights of everyone else to be protected from terrorism. - 61

Don't know - 8%

This the most worrying part of this poll, the NuLabour idea that somehow those of us who are critical of the Governent's attempts to find the difficult balance between security with freedom, are somehow less concerned with the rights and freedoms of the majority.

It is the "collateral damage" that ineffective bureacratic jobsworth security legislation does to innocent people, without actually hindereing real terrorists, who pose an actual danger, which we object to.

It is the principle of locking up innocent people without charge , with no sanctions against officious police or intelligence agencies, nor any financial compensation for false arrest which we object to.

Which of these options would you personally support most?

The present 14-day limit for holding suspected terrorists without charge should be increased to 90 days. - 31%

The 14-day limit should be increased to 90 days - but only in those cases where the police can persuade a senior judge that the time is needed to gather evidence against the suspect(s). - 41%

ALL SUPPORTING 90-DAY DETENTION - 72%

The present 14-day limit should be extended, but only to 28 days. - 16

The present 14-day limit should be kept as it is - 5%

The present 14-day limit should be reduced to 7 days - 1%

ALL OPPOSING 90-DAY DETENTION - 22%

Don't know - 6%

The second option, involving a "senior judge" is not what the current Terrorism Bill is offering - there is no mention of "a senior judge" e.g. a High Court Judge,
There were plenty of Opposition and Labour backbench MPs calls for such a change in the Bill during the Committee stage, but such a Government concession has still not yet emerged. as an amendment or concession.

To claim that 31 + 41 = 72 % is "support for the government's policy" is wrong i.e. only 31% agree with the Governmemt's policy as written on the face of the Terrorism Bill 2005..

Technorati tag: Terrorism Bill 2005