Despite ministerial claims during the passage of the ID Cards Act through parliament that there was widespread public support for the multi-billion pound plan, the opinion survey shows a country split in two on the issue. It also indicates growing public concern at the encroachment of the so-called "surveillance society", with large proportions suspicious of the Government's intentions.

While people appear to accept measures like CCTV cameras, which they believe help tackle specific problems like crime, they increasingly resent the rapid expansion of databases collecting information about everybody.

Overwhelmingly, the public is unwilling to trust Government promises not to misuse personal information and fears the national ID database will contain inaccurate and unreliable information about them.

Although half of those questioned said they still support the idea of national identity cards, this represents a big fall from the 80 per cent backing claimed by ministers a few years ago.

Many still do not associate the card with the national ID database that will accompany it. When pressed, a majority were unhappy that their personal details were to be recorded and worried that inaccurate information could cause them harm, denying access to services or jobs.

Most worrying for the Government is that a large proportion of those interviewed would accept a penalty rather than be registered. Half those opposed to the ID scheme would pay a fine or risk prison by refusing to hand over their details. Fifteen per cent said they would go to prison.

Even if a large proportion of these "refuseniks" eventually fell into line, the potential exists for a huge popular backlash. If just two in every 100 person over 16 refused to sign up, the Goverment would be pursuing one million people.

The ID Card Act deliberately did not make refusal to register a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment because ministers wanted to avoid the creation of "ID martyrs". The main penalties are a £2,500 fine for not registering and a £1,000 fine for failing to inform the authorities of a change of address. However, if people decline to pay their fines, the prospect then arises of going to prison.

The Act also does not make it a requirement to carry an ID card, again to avoid the so-called "Clarence Willcock effect", named after the last person to be prosecuted for refusing to show his wartime ID cards in 1952, leading to their abolition.
advertisement

People will either have to produce a card at a police station if required or will simply have their biometrics, which will be stored on the national database, checked by special readers.

The poll is the first major test of opinion since Tony Blair sought to revive public interest in the ID scheme last month. Writing in The Daily Telegraph, he said: "We can't ignore the advances in biometric technology in a world in which protection and proof of identity are more important than ever. . . it will enable us to cut delays, improve access and make secure a whole array of services by giving certainty in asserting our identity and simplicity in verifying it."

However, the YouGov poll shows that many people, aware of the Government's poor record on IT, do not believe this. Substantial numbers think the database will contain inaccurate and unreliable information. Two thirds said they did not trust the government to keep the information confidential despite safeguards built into the legislation.

Support for the ID cards was strongest among Labour voters and weakest among Tories and Liberal Democrats, whose parties have said they would scrap the scheme.

There is also compelling evidence that Mr Blair is wrong to assert that there is no civil liberties issue at stake, merely an argument about cost and practicality. Of those unhappy with the database, 70 per cent object in principle.

Phil Booth, national co-ordinator of the NO2ID campaign group, said the survey confirmed a continuing decline in support for the ID scheme that would grow when people saw the costs involved and had to submit to giving their biometrics by visiting one of a network of ID centres being set up across the country.

"From next year, people as young as 16 applying for their first adult passport will have to attend their nearest centre where they will be subject to background checks, questioning to test their story against official records, photographs, and, before long, fingerprinting," Mr Booth said. "When that starts happening, public support will slide away even more. The vast majority of people do not want to be treated like numbers or common criminals."

Negative views of the "war on terror" were strongest in Baghdad (98%) and Rio (92%).

Asked if they "would consider taking action that could result in innocent people dying if they felt very strongly about a cause", 17% said they would. The figure was highest in Baghdad (34%), followed by Jakarta (31%) and London (25%).

Religion figured strongly in the teenagers' lives, with 86% saying they believed in God or a higher being. Although 66% thought religion a force for good, a significant proportion - 20% - viewed it as a source of conflict. In Baghdad, 64% considered it so.

Just over a third (34%) said they were prepared to marry someone from a different religion. That figure was highest in Nairobi (52%) and New York (50%), and lowest in Baghdad (4%).

The teenagers also took a favourable view of immigration, with 79% saying people should be able to live in whichever country they choose. Sixty-four percent said they would emigrate to secure a better future and 14% said they would risk their life to do so.

Oddly, the largest numbers of those who had no intention of emigrating were found in the troubled city of Baghdad (50%).

Opinion was divided as to whether those who move to a new country should keep apart to maintain their own beliefs and culture (38%), or integrate and adopt the culture of their new country (49%).

Only 51% of respondents said they had heard of climate change and understood what it was, and among those only 34% have changed their behaviour as a result. A majority (52%) said they would not lower their standard of living to reduce the effects of climate change.

The vast majority (85% overall) thought crime was generally increasing in their country, but only 6% said they would consider stealing if they really wanted something and could not afford it. Sixteen percent said they would commit a crime in order to become an instant millionaire if they knew they could get away with it - a figure which rose to 37% in Nairobi and 31% in London.

Overall, 17% said they would consider cheating to get into university.

The poll, for the BBC World Service, was conducted by research agency Synovate in October, with 300 or more interviews in each city. Questions about religion and terrorism were not permitted in Egypt because of government restrictions.

More than 200,000 Poles have registered to work in Britain since the EU expanded, and the actual number now working here is thought to be much higher. Many have found that employers try to pay them lower wages than British workers and take advantage of their ignorance of employment laws. Now unions, particularly those that recruit from the catering, security and building trades, are reporting a sudden growth in membership and involvement.

"This is very significant for the trade-union movement," says Brendan Barber, the TUC's general secretary. "It's not enough any more to think only about traditional workplace organising. We have to see what unions can do to reach out to vulnerable workers and find out how well they get their rights enforced."

It is not hard to see why some Polish workers might be examining the new Polish-language sections of union websites as they compare their payslips to those of British colleagues. Once the exhilaration of earning five times the average wage in Poland has abated, many of them realise that the cost of living here eats up most of their pay packet and the agencies that have found them work take their own handsome slices.

In the 1990s California witnessed an enormous upsurge in union membership and activity when the predominantly Latino janitors and cleaners in Los Angeles realised that their only hope of challenging their employers was in an organised fashion. Strikes and lively demonstrations shamed corporate LA into paying them more. Last week London got a little taste of how things might go here when cleaners staged their own protest about pay and conditions at Goldman Sachs.

"People have a feeling of being lost when they arrive," said Paulina Tomasik, the 24-year-old secretary of the new Polish-speaking GMB branch in Southampton. Ms Tomasik, who moved to Britain from Radom, sees the union as playing a crucial role in helping Poles adjust to life in Britain: "It's not easy when you don't have a place to live and you don't speak the language very well. Some agency workers are paid £120 a week and then told they have to pay £80 in rent. When one person objected to this he was sacked by text message."

Many Polish workers in the catering trade are also realising that they can easily be taken advantage of. One Polish waiter in Southampton recounted how his management took a percentage from all the tips paid by credit card and were refusing to pay them extra for working Christmas Day or bank holidays.

Ross Murdoch, a GMB project coordinator, said that when a public meeting for Polish workers was held a few weeks ago in Southampton, "we were expecting around 20 to come and were amazed when 130 arrived". The Polish branch was swiftly formed and similar projects are planned for Swindon, Slough and Brighton, where there are large pockets of Polish workers.

The experience has been mirrored around Britain. Groups in Bristol, London and East Anglia have contacted unions for advice and help. In Glasgow the Transport and General Workers' Union set up a Polish branch after holding a meeting attended by 150 Polish workers. "We have recruited several thousand into the union nationally," said Andrew Brady of the T&G in Glasgow. He described the influx of Poles into the union movement as "a shot in the arm".

Links have also been established with Polish unions, and the North West TUC brought over a national organiser from Solidarnosc to give advice on employment rights. The TUC now attends job fairs in Warsaw, and many unions have Polish-language websites and application forms. Discussions are also under way about whether to allow Poles to join unions before they arrive in Britain and pay dues when they have started work.

Trade unions were formed because employers were otherwise able to threaten individual workers with the sack if they complained, to divide and rule and to exploit the weakest parts of a workforce. When Solidarnosc first flexed its muscles in Poland in the early 80s, it was seen in Britain as an emblem of anti-communism and applauded by newspapers that usually vilified union activists. Poles are bringing many skills to this country. One of the most valuable could well be their much-needed involvement in the union movement and the part they play in providing just the kind of solidarity that many employers had hoped was now unfashionable.

There is very little crime in Dawlish. True, a burglary was reported in October and there is always the slight possibility of a serious crime taking place, as one PC Carter told a meeting of the town council: in the event of a murder being committed in Dawlish, the cameras would be equal to the task of identifying and locating the murderer. The town clerk, John Winchester, helped this doubtful - I hesitate to say dishonest - case for CCTV by saying that he was fearful when traversing a local park known as the Lawn.

The council undertook a consultation exercise involving about 1,000 people - 800 residents and 200 tourists. Of these, less than 5 per cent actually mentioned the fear of crime and an even smaller percentage talked of CCTV cameras. But on the basis that cameras would allay fears - fears that had not found expression previously and we may reasonably conclude did not exist - the town council went ahead with the system, overriding planning laws and without seeking the consent of the landowner - Teignbridge District Council. One man, a retired writer named Keith Sharp, has done everything in his power to stop the system because he believes it threatens privacy, freedom and the quality of life in his town but after a long and articulate campaign he has lost: the hysterical Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors have got their way and the cameras are going up to change forever this corner of England.

Security cameras do have their value and in the centre of big cities they are often responsible for identifying criminals. Country towns and villages do not have big city problems, as the Dawlish official website makes clear.

Dawlish is not alone. In towns and villages all over Britain you will find cameras popping up, both official and private systems trained on public spaces. In the village where I grew up a camera has been nailed to an old chestnut tree in order to monitor the traffic on a quiet country road.

We are suffering a collective failure of nerve, which as Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on home affairs, pointed out last week is relentlessly encouraged by the government. Though non-violent crime has declined and levels of violent crime are lower than three years ago, we have got ourselves into a panic. Naturally, I agree that violent men such as the killers of the Tom ap Rhys Pryce are out there, and that CCTV is essential to catching them. But we must get a sense of proportion, and more than that an understanding of the likely effect of these surveillance systems on our society.

In this climate of fear, Britain is changing faster than most of us understand. What is compelling and worrying is the barely scrutinised extension of police power that is being allowed. On this, the last few weeks have brought much disturbing news.

If you want to hire a car at Stansted airport, you must first give a fingerprint, which will be stored by the car hire company and handed over to the police on demand. In Luton, police have begun a pilot scheme to randomly demand motorists' fingerprints. If they protest they may be arrested, on some unfathomable suspicion, and conveyed to a police station where their fingerprints, photograph and DNA are taken.

The police and the Home Office have announced that they are looking at ways to enable every CCTV camera in the country - publicly or privately owned - with visual and behaviour recognition software that will allow an individual to be automatically identified in a crowd and his conduct analysed for criminal intent. Suddenly Dawlish's new cameras seem a lot more menacing.

It is no longer what a person has done, it is what he or she may do. Taking the lead from Tony Blair's announcement of a super Asbo, which is designed 'to harry, hassle and hound' suspects, the police have set up a database to identify high-risk individuals and are constructing profiles based on statements of former partners, private information from mental-health workers and details of past complaints.

There is a fine line between good police intelligence and deciding someone's guilty without a court of law being involved, and this crosses it. But you see almost no comment in the press, no reaction from judges and hear little from our Parliament of narcolepts.

One of the most worrying developments followed a story last week that police and councils are considering the use of high-powered, long-range microphones attached to CCTV cameras. These would alert the authorities to trouble on the street by measuring pitch, level and speed of speech. The microphones can be used to bring evidence to court in criminal cases and, of course, to monitor conversations of, for instance, people involved in legitimate political protest. The police deny that this would be their purpose.

The story presented this as a mere possibility, but with a reader's help I discovered that Westminster Council has carried out two unannounced experiments with street microphones in central London, one in Soho Gardens.

The council insist that the system is simply measuring noise levels to alert police to trouble on the streets, but my information is that specific conversations were inadvertently picked up and listened to in this pilot project. The council denies this. The project is now being rolled out across Westminster; we will probably not learn the truth until all our streets are wired for sound and vision and it slowly dawns that liberty and the ordinary human experience in Britain has been incrementally curtailed to a point where we may no longer consider ourselves a free and independent people.

I do not apologise for returning to this subject over the last year: it is not some Orwellian nightmare but a fast-developing reality. Everything in this column, apart from the Westminster experiment, has already appeared in the public domain.

Why we seem to care so little about this drift into the unknown horrors of a controlled society is a complicated business. It is partly due to what Nick Clegg said about the climate of fear which has paralysed our reason with the finality of a deep brain seizure. We are not thinking straight, not seeing what's before our eyes; that's for sure. But it also has a lot to do with the new tone in government, which in the recent mid-term policy review suggested that the people of Britain owe the state something more than paying their taxes and obeying the law. What more is expected of us is as yet undefined, but we may assume that the government will make greater incursions into the sphere of personal choice and behaviour, on the lines that we have seen about smoking, drinking and eating fatty foods.

The implication of these systems and databases is that we all have something to hide. It follows that a condition of the new citizenship that New Labour has dreamed up for us is that innocence must be routinely demonstrated in a process of daily positive vetting, and if this entails the loss of freedom and privacy, well, that is just the price we must expect to pay for security.

Let me just state that the people owe the state nothing more than taxes and obedience to the law. And that is for a simple reason. The supreme authority in this country is not the Queen, the Executive or Parliament: it is the people and we should never forget it.

Channel 2 cameras were rolling when police left Jonesboro Middle School with what appeared to be a male student handcuffed in the backseat.

School officials confirm that an 11-year-old, 6th grade male was tasered by a school resource officer. They say the boy was physically assaulting a female 6th grader and refused to listen to verbal commands to stop. As a last resort the officer tasered the boy twice - once to get the students separated and a second time when the boy tried to attack the girl again.

The male student was taken to juvenile detention - the female was treated by emergency personnel and released to her parents.

Opinions are split on whether this kind of force should be used a school.

"I would tell them if my child got out of hand and they couldn't control him they would have to taser him," said one parent. "I know what it is and it doesn't scare me - so long as it's used properly it's not serious."

"No, it is not necessary...school is a safe place, right?" said parent Syeda Nessa. "They don't need that, they don't need that in the school."

Channel 2 tried to speak with Jonesboro Police but they refused to comment pending an on-going internal affairs investigation into the incident.

"My grandmother went out of her way to lay away a toy and paid on this thing for months," said the boy's mother, Brandi Ervin.

"It was only to teach my son a lesson. He's been going through life doing things...and getting away with it."

Police did not release the boy's name.

The mother said her son was diagnosed in the last year with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder but his medicine does not seem to help.

Details of the plan, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, show how the Prime Minister is so frustrated at his failure to persuade voters that the EU is a good thing, he is to spend a fortune from public funds in a final attempt to brainwash them before he resigns next year.

They include banning Ministers and officials from referring to unpopular EU institutions like the European Commission, places such as Brussels and Strasbourg, the euro currency, terms like 'Eurocrat' and 'EU directive' and controversial policies such as the Common Agricultural Policy and the EU constitution.

Instead they have been ordered to try to promote the 'EU brand' by linking to popular European events and institutions such as the Eurovision song contest, the Cannes Film Festival and the UEFA soccer organisation that runs the Champions League tournament - even though none of them has anything to do with the EU.

Every Whitehall department is to appoint a spin doctor responsible for promoting the EU. And Downing Street will draw up an 'EU Grid' to make sure stories portraying Brussels in a good light are leaked to the media on a regular basis.

The leaked plans state that propaganda must be tailored to win over all groups by encouraging them to think that 'as a tourist, as a mother, as a birdwatcher, as an entrepreneur... the EU is relevant and can make a difference.'

More controversially, it suggests Ministers should not waste their energies trying to win over the elderly and people with few academic qualifications.

It says the 'young and educated' have much more appetite for learning about Europe than 'the old and uneducated'.

The plans were drawn up on Mr Blair's instructions by Whitehall's £180,000-a-year head of communications Howell James, a close friend of EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson.

Mr James had a relationship with Mr Mandelson's partner, Brazilian Reinaldo da Silva, before Mr Mandelson met him.

Mr Howell's links with Mr Mandelson are thought to have been a factor when he was appointed as Whitehall's first permanent secretary in charge of media relations two years ago.

At last week's Cabinet meeting where the EU propaganda campaign was approved, Ministers were told it was needed because of a growing expectation that Brussels would revive plans for an EU constitution, further reducing Britain's ability to govern itself.

The constitution was abandoned last year after it was rejected by voters in France and the Netherlands.

They will shortly receive a 'new core script and toolkit' suggesting that issues such as climate change, Blue Flag beaches, cheap flights and cheap mobile calls when abroad should be emphasised with the EU downplayed.

The paper presented to the Cabinet by Mr James complained of the continuing 'negativity and euro scepticism' among British voters, adding: "Indifference and apathy remains significant." Ministers must claim victories for Brussels, not Britain. "There is a risk of overplaying the UK's role and achievements at the expense of the EU,' it stated.

The new pro-EU message will be dumbed down, using a 'reframed and compelling narrative with accessible and "friendly" themes, wherever possible steering away from institutions, politics and legislation'. And pro-European politicians should be replaced by pro-European celebrities with a 'range of non political voices'.

In one of the most controversial sections on 'rebranding the EU', the Cabinet paper provides a chart showing the most unpopular aspects of the EU: the constitution, the commission, Brussels, Strasbourg, the Common Agricultural Policy, Eurocrats and the euro, described as issues towards which the public feels 'cold'.

They are contrasted with popular - or 'warm' - aspects of Europe, including UEFA, the Eurovision Song Contest, the Cannes Film Festival and Liverpool, Europe's "Capital of Culture' for 2008, though none have EU links. The best-known 'warm' EU topics were its Pet Travel Scheme and the EU-sponsored "Blue Flag' clean beaches.

Titled Reframing The Debate, the paper says Ministers must use 'themes with a "natural" European dimension to maximise impact and increase familiarity with Europe'.

The objective is to 'realign the EU brand via alliances with familiar, trusted organisations and brands'.

A new network of Whitehall spin doctors with orders to promote the EU has been created, with one senior "Press co-ordinator' in all 23 Government departments.

They will help No 10 draw up a 'rolling grid of upcoming EU issues' to ensure British voters are fed with a constant diet of pro-EU news.

Mr James told Ministers Press releases about the EU must be censored, removing references to the EU and its directives.

Instead they would refer to 'Europe' - which Mr James describes as 'a European sub brand' which people warm to.