Research and rubbish

James Morton looks at the accuracy of war polls and criminal research while questioning the viability of recycling proposals in the local government bill

Sometimes I wonder from where pollsters obtain their samples.

Do I not talk to the right people? In recent weeks I have spoken to a considerable number of people from different walks of life, of different political persuasion and of all ages, and I have yet to find anyone actually in support of the war in Iraq, now to be hoped in its last days.

I suspect it all depends on how the question is put and how the samples are composed.

It would be interesting to see how they are broken down.

In a way, it seems to show the difficulty of coming up with meaningful statistics of any sort.

Are people now supporting the war because Lord Goldsmith said it was legal? If so, I fear that is a very dangerous way of demonstrating support.

I have little doubt that five equally eminent lawyers could be found within the hour to say his Lordship is wrong.

Is it perhaps the seeming abuses of the Geneva Convention which hardened the public's resolve? That would seem to have more force had the Americans stuck by the convention in their treatment of their apparently non-prisoners of war from the Afghan fall-out.

As for weapons of mass destruction, it is difficult to argue how it is all right for the US and Britain to use them but not for others.

It is hardly surprising that the troops were not given a wholehearted welcome everywhere they went.

From time to time I have wished to be liberated from successive British governments, but I would not have wished to be liberated by a coalition from China and the Maldives.

Is it the case that now the war has gone 'well' the public has leaped on a winning bandwagon? Perhaps we could have another poll to see what influenced the change.

Tony Blair now rides sky-high in the opinion polls and there is many a politician who has benefited from a short and successful war.

However, the present looting and involvement of opposing internal interests who are going to squabble for control over the coming weeks and months does show the difference between conquering and liberating.

I have no doubt that a number of interesting questions of international law will appear from the present situation.

I suppose one good thing is the enthusiasm our prime minister and George Bush presently have for liberating others may have been appeased, at least temporarily.

***

Criminologists love data that is designed to show that one or other group is more or less predisposed to commit criminal acts and, again, much depends on the way in which questions are constructed and the variables inherent in the discounted.

For example, are single mothers more likely to have children who will commit crime? Are children with fathers who have been in prison more likely? Are children who are named Darren and Tracey...

etcetera? I am sure that one could put together a good case for arguing in the last example that they are more likely to commit crime in general than those named Nigel and Sarah who, in turn, might be more disposed to commit white-collar crime.

However, it would present a wholly false picture.

Nevertheless, perhaps I shall apply for a research grant to test my thesis.

***

A friend of mine has recently fallen foul of central London's recently implemented congestion charge.

He had paid before he entered the zone and sensibly had retained a receipt number; nevertheless he was charged 80.

When he produced the evidence of his payment, he received a letter saying that on this occasion, there would be no fine.

No apology.

He reckoned that as a self-employed person it had cost him about 50 in time, effort and postage to defend himself.

There was certainly no question of getting that back.

Another opportunity to promote unworkable legislation is in the offing.

It comes with the suggestion in the Local Government Bill currently before Parliament that those who do not recycle sufficient rubbish each week will be liable to prosecution.

Who are to be the arbiters of this? How is it to be monitored? By a sub-species of meter maid? How much weight is required each week? What will happen if there is some anti-social person who does not drink and does not read the newspapers and so cannot put up the weekly weight? Must that person go out and purchase waste from the neighbours?

It so happens that I have a great number of newspapers a week and (I hasten to add) rather fewer bottles.

I take these to the banks in the supermarket car parks.

Must I leave a proportion behind to give the refuse collectors something to weigh? Or shall there have to be timed and dated photographs of me grinning while shovelling papers into the bin, so that when I am prosecuted I can mount a successful defence?

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist