Some UK poll results

February 4th, 2014 at 7:00 am by David Farrar

Been doing the monthly polling newsletter, and in reading the results of the UK , noticed some interesting questions this month. results include:

The Labour Party has announced that if it wins next year’s election it will increase the top rate of income tax to 50p for people earning more than £150,000 a year. If Labour does come to power and does increase the top rate of income tax, what do you think will happen in practice?

16% say it raise a significant amount of money and 71% say rich people will find ways to avoid paying the tax and it will raise very little extra money.

Currently people are allowed to use “reasonable” force to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder. Some people have suggested that the law should be changed to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder. Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder?

An astonishing 75% support no limit on what force can be used to defend a home with only 17% against. And specifically on lethal force:

Do you think it is or is not acceptable for someone defending their home to use force that causes the death of a burglar or intruder?

60% support lethal force and only 26% against. Even Labour voters are 55% in favour and 30% against.

The Channel 4 news presenter Jon Snow recently said he always thought about sex upon meeting a member of the opposite sex, saying ‘Sex comes into every evaluation of a woman, there’s no doubt about it. It’s there,’

When you meet a member of the opposite sex, do you think about what they would be like to make love to?

36% say they do and 60% say they do not. But broken by gender it is 56% of men do and only 18% of women!

If a referendum were held on the UK’s membership of the European Union with the options being to remain a member or withdraw, how do you think you would vote?

52% say they would vote to leave and 34% to remain. 62% of Conservatives favour leaving, 40% of Labour and 36% of Lib Dems.

Tags: ,

35 Responses to “Some UK poll results”

  1. nasska (10,880 comments) says:

    ….” Would you support or oppose changing the law to allow people to use whatever force they see fit to defend themselves and their home against a burglar or intruder?”…..

    Somewhere, sometime the CCCP has published a proposal to, “Change the focus for criminal law on protecting citizens, not protecting criminals”.

    There’s no shortage of Kiwis with a gutsful of the way the police interpret the laws concerning self defence never mind protection of one’s own property. Mr Craig could find pushing this policy more fertile ground for growing support than backing chem trails & legalised child bashing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    An astonishing 75% support no limit on what force can be used to defend a home with only 17% against. And specifically on lethal force:

    The right to defend yourself is the most fundamental human right. Closely followed by the right to defend your family and others.

    In this country the police have fought long and hard to reduce our right to self defense, as they bash, taser and shoot anyone who poses a threat to them. They are trying to build a body of case law to weaken what is clearly allowed in legislation, by constantly bringing those who have defended themselves before the Court.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (7,922 comments) says:

    “the police have fought long and hard to reduce our right……”

    Parliament,is the culprit and has been incrementally increasing its powers at the expense of the law abiding citizen.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. redqueen (518 comments) says:

    Hardly surprising. The UK has gone down the path, as has NZ recently, of ‘reasonable’ meaning ‘limited’. Previously, an intruder (who was hardly going to be an enfeebled child) was considered fair game, not in that you had the right to mutilate them for your own enjoyment, but you’re reasonable belief in harm was sufficient to justify, for instance, a nice wack over the head to render them unconscious and, if they were actually menacing you, then deadly force was possible. Now, the police take the view, as do certain political elements, that you’re violating someone’s ‘human rights’ and ‘Why did you hurt them? There was no need for that!’ The burden has been moved from realistic scenarios (a dangerous person, who may inflict severe harm to yourself, those around you, and your property, has broken into your home) to flights of fancy (a person who has been socially disadvantaged, and was no real threat based on all available police records, was simply attempting to redress the social inequalities of our society based on a difference in cultural background and approach). Unsurprisingly, people are feeling ever less interested in the rights of criminals, particularly when we’ve moved from ‘abuse’ by the State (which is a serious concern) to ‘abuse’ by other individuals (who are attempting to defend themselves, others, and property).

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Ashley Schaeffer (441 comments) says:

    The Police do themselves no favours when they bring charges against someone for defending themselves, their family or their property against an intruder. It only serves to erode support for the Police from law-abiding citizens. I would welcome the Castle Doctrine being introduced into New Zealand.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (2,798 comments) says:

    I think there should be limits on how much force can be applied when protecting your home.

    The limit should include the use of rocket propelled grenades (or less if you are a wuss).

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    50%!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RRM (9,638 comments) says:

    Welcome to chateau RRM.
    Trespassers will be shot.
    Survivors will be shot again.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The right to defend yourself is the most fundamental human right.

    Humans don’t have any real rights. All they have is the be fictions that are allowed by the state.

    Originally lethal force was condoned so long as the intruders came by night.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. freethinker (685 comments) says:

    The state & its agencies – Police/Council Bailiffs etc consider it OK to use force and require citizens to aid Police under attack but citizens are at least discouraged from using the same force against those intruding their homes – a clear duality of standards.Perhaps making it mandatory for all Police charges against citizens who use force in defence of the property or person should be by jury trial and any not guilty verdict resulting in a miniumum payment of compensation paid out of Police budget – perhaps $10,000 plus a published Police apology in the local newspaper would encourage the application of common sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kowtow (7,922 comments) says:

    stephen franks is excellent on this topic.

    http://www.stephenfranks.co.nz/an-old-man-with-a-slug-gun/

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Nigel Kearney (915 comments) says:

    Has anyone in NZ been prosecuted for actions taken against an intruder in their home? Probably they have and I am not aware of it, but I don’t think it is common.

    The main problem with taxes on high income earners and spending on low income earners is not that it doesn’t raise revenue. It is that it reduces growth and is inflationary, hurting the standard of living of middle income earners. The wealthy will have lower net worth but their standard of living will not change as they will just reduce investments and charitable donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Peter (1,663 comments) says:

    “An astonishing 75% support”

    I’m astonished it wasn’t higher.

    A house is a model to separate the occupants from the outside world. From weather, from involvement, from people. In our houses, we are the rulers, not the abstract idea which is government.

    Someone coming into our house with bad intent is an invader. There are kids in the house. It’s dark. He may be armed. The perfectly understandable, and deeply ingrained response, is not flight, certainly not a committee meeting – it’s fight.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. davidp (3,556 comments) says:

    So what happens if you encounter a burglar of the opposite gender in your home? Do you think about having sex with them before or after you shoot them?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (6,723 comments) says:

    Some excellent comments here…I am a very firm believer in the “castle” doctrine: as Peter puts it more eloquently than I can, your house is “a model to separate the occupants from the outside world”. The only people who have any business in it are those you have invited – and I guess, the Police, if they come lawfully.

    I think the “in your house” distinction is very important. Every now and then tragic cases from the US make the news where some child or other person – perhaps selling Girl Guide biscuits, or looking for refuge from danger or even just asking directions – is shot through the front door by the occupants of the house. It is quite easy to imagine tragic scenarios like that, which is why I should not have the right to shoot the little scrotes who rifled through my car outside my house a couple of nights ago.

    I would actually be interested to hear from someone who DISAGREES that any person unlawfully in ones house – especially at night – must be prepared to take whatever the householder sees fit. I’ll wager any such comments will be from people using a pseud.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Psycho Milt (2,363 comments) says:

    One of the Americans I worked with in Kuwait had killed an intruder in his house back in the States. No “Hands-up” bullshit, just heard someone in his house, picked up his gun and went and shot the guy dead, then called the cops. The cops didn’t find anything to reproach him for and I couldn’t either.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. David Garrett (6,723 comments) says:

    I have been told by a cop – strictly off the record of course – that the “warning shot” should always be off to one side of the villain, not into the ceiling…otherwise the dust from the ceiling found on the body will prove the warning shot was fired AFTER the fatal shot, not before…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gazzmaniac (2,319 comments) says:

    I would welcome the Castle Doctrine being introduced into New Zealand.

    Tell ‘em they’re dreamin!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. labrator (1,846 comments) says:

    Oscar Pistorius.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,723 comments) says:

    labrator: That’s why he is on trial

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    There are good reasons for preferring the police to retain a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Our legal rights and protections do not and should not depend on our personal ability to exercise physical force. Thus, saying “use as much force as you like” is all very well to a large, fit householder who knows how to use a weapon and is therefore likely to be effective in confronting an armed intruder, but where does that leave the frail elderly lady who doesn’t and isn’t? Do we really want to escalate the relationship between householders and would-be intruders to the status of armed conflict? Do we think the household side likely to win in an arms race against criminals?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross,:

    1. Police do not have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. They have no more right to use lethal force than anyone else. That is the law and not an opinion. Check the Crimes Act.

    2. Are you suggesting that some people should not be allowed to defend themselves because others lack the ability to ? That takes the PC equality nonsense to a new low.

    3. If a potential burgler thinks they may be harmed then they will be less likely to invade the frail old ladies house in the first place.

    4. You sound like you are more concerned about your fuzzy feel good ideology than actual people.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    “kowtow (6,242 comments) says:
    February 4th, 2014 at 7:51 am
    “the police have fought long and hard to reduce our right……”

    Parliament,is the culprit and has been incrementally increasing its powers at the expense of the law abiding citizen.”

    No mate. It is the cops. The legislation has not changed and gives us all the right to use reasonable force.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    What the law actually says:

    ——————————————————

    Crimes Act 1961

    Self-defence and defence of another
    Every one is justified in using, in the defence of himself or another, such force as, in the circumstances as he believes them to be, it is reasonable to use.]

    ———————————————————————
    Some legal commentary:

    Section 48 justifies the use of defensive force in the service of any person and against almost any form of attack or threat. The availability of the defence depends on a combination of both subjective and objective elements, with the subjective inquiry effectively providing the threshold test:

    Self-defence involves three questions:

    (a)Did the defendant use force for the purpose of defending himself or herself or another?
    (b)What were the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be?
    (c)Was the force used reasonable in those circumstances?

    [Brookers]

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ashley Schaeffer (441 comments) says:

    Sometimes the best defence is a good offence. And that’s where it gets complicated when trying to determine what is reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Ashley Schaeffer, yes and the Police keep dragging self defense cases before the Court hoping the Court will interpret the definition of “reasonable” in a way that limits a citizens rights beyond the clear intent of the legislation.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. nasska (10,880 comments) says:

    Kea

    On a previous thread you opined that policing wasn’t dangerous work & you may have been onto it. The proposed 2014/2015 base work levy rate for Sheep & Beef farmers is $2.54/$100. If I was a commercial fisherman it would be $3.71 & working in a forestry logging operation would attract a rate of $4.26.

    If I wanted a really safe career Police Services sounds good…..their base rate is 63cents.

    Ref: http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/groups/external_levies/documents/papers_plans/wpc119365.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    nasska, yes my opinion was informed by facts, not propaganda and urban myth. Of course I was not thanked for mentioning it lol ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Albert_Ross (270 comments) says:

    Kea, do you really believe that a frail old lady with unlimited rights to defend herself and her home would be anything of a deterrent to a burglar – who is already outside the law, and so has no restrictions whatsoever on the weapons he might take with him or the amount of force he might use against her? Isn’t he /more/ likely to target her, and go armed when he does so, if he thinks burgling a house means he might be required to get into a fight with the occupant?

    No, the right being advocated here might help the strong, but could only make matters worse for the most vulnerable. The whole point of having laws is precisely to avoid a society where physical strength and willingness to use violence determines an individual’s rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. nasska (10,880 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross

    Your theory only works for those who live in the shadow of a police station. For those of us who live in the country it would take cops maybe an hour to respond yet we are hamstrung by the same idiotic interpretation of the law.

    Do you think we should bleed to death so you can feel good about how much force is proper? If so…get stuffed!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (6,723 comments) says:

    Nasska: You make an excellent point..What is even worse for us rural dwellers is Police policy is to keep a 111 call line open UNTIL THE POLICE GET THERE…that means you or I cannot call our neighbours to come to our aid if attacked if we have already called the scuffers…

    This is not a fanciful example: exactly this happened to a guy called Peter Bentley (IRRC) about 10 years ago…He had made the mistake of calling 111 first …the cops said they would take a good while to get there…he asked them to clear the line so he could call his neighbours – the villains were still about – and the Police refused to open the phone line…Be a little different now I guess with cell phones, assuming you have coverage…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. nasska (10,880 comments) says:

    David G

    The salient point is that when such a case involving self defence gets to court there’s a good chance that it won’t succeed. The problem is that the person who defended himself will have probably spent his retirement fund on lawyers to make sure that he gets off the charge.

    In the NZ I want to live in the cops will treat self defence with the same urgency as they do for burglaries….turn up next day to count the bodies & take notes for the coroner.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    The problem is that the person who defended himself will have probably spent his retirement fund on lawyers to make sure that he gets off the charge.

    Against that background we have the police wanting more and more weapons to protect themselves based on the claim society is increasingly violent. Though we have already seen how safe police work is and many crime statistics suggest less violence not more.

    All I ask is to protect my life and that of others, without fear of persecution/prosecution from those who claim to be protecting us. (Though really they are there to enforce the laws made by politicians and serve the government in power)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Police Oath:

    [I, [name], swear that I will faithfully and diligently serve Her (or His) Majesty [specify the name of the reigning Sovereign], Queen (or King) of New Zealand, her (or his) heirs and successors, without favour or affection, malice or ill-will. While a constable I will, to the best of my power, keep the peace and prevent offences against the peace, and will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, perform all the duties of the office of constable according to law. So help me God.”]

    There it is folks. Of course I am a “troll” for pointing it out. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    Albert_Ross @ 5:38

    You seem to be suggesting further restrictions on self defense, on the rather idiotic basis that some people can not defend themselves. I see your point though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.