The sharpest No argument was also the most self-implicating: “Looks like I just made StaCU’s burn book.” No won overwhelmingly, and its strongest case treated the database not as routine administration but as a warning that criticism might be made legible to the state.
That case connected Prevent’s record to the legitimacy of scrutiny. One of the most-respected No voices said the programme “bins the vast majority of its own useless referrals”; another insisted, “No government should be free from scrutiny and critic.” The concern was not only what officials might do with a list, but the chilling signal sent by compiling one.
The most-respected Yes argument drew a boundary: “In cases of extremism, threats, hate then yes it absolutely should be used.” A second Yes voter called it “a spreadsheet” and routine Home Office work. Those defences left the central distinction unsettled: when does monitoring criticism become monitoring a threat? No voices repeatedly separated dissent from violence; the Yes case asserted that the categories can overlap.
The wider argument was about surveillance and civil liberties, but the most specific dispute was over Prevent itself: whether criticism of a counter-extremism programme could be gathered as open-source information without making dissent look suspect. Even No voters who allowed that context might matter did not endorse a blanket database of critics.
The Yes case offered a limit; the No case heard the list as a warning.
45 Opinions
A government that’s not open to criticism is leaning towards totalitarianism
I'm not at all happy with the idea of little books full of names of those who don't agree with government. On the other side, there are those who need to be watched, for security reasons. Having their names in books is better than not. If this happens, those books are going to be extremely full, considering the remarks seen on social media, about politicians, by those who are simply letting off steam.
In cases of extremism, threats, hate then yes it absolutely should be used. Some comments I've seen suggest it's just a new government thing, but the ref says its been government policy like past governments.
It's quite obvious to most that these are their lists of dissenters who they must get rid of to be able to govern their way more effectively.
It's extremely concerning that this question could even be on the cards. Sadly this Labour government somehow feels justified in trying to alienate those who disagree with it's misguided Communist/Fabianist beliefs, using it's standard toolset of lies, gaslighting and general repression
This has to be one of the most totalitarian ideas from Labour yet. They want to control everything and everyone, a dangerous thing to be implemented.
This government has a dangerously intolerant and authoritarian streak. This should not even be a question. We need to stand up for free speech and allow criticism.
The fact that this is even a question shows how far our supposed democracy has fallen. Our grandparents who fought in WW2 would be ashamed of the weak & spineless leaders we have now.
NO We don't live in China, Russia or the USA!
A person commits a barbaric crime, seemingly out of the blue. It turns out they were referred to Prevent 3 times and each time, in the early stage of investigation, the case is closed. I think criticism is deserved and should be welcomed.