Ed says:

Having been a professional researcher, I find both the original article and the subsequent comments , particularly the above by Mr Jones very funny. (..and bit worrying , that a senior Officer of the Crown should be so mathematically challenged…in an area on which he should be expert..ascessing the dependibility of research data?)
But then again perhaps he is.. and his comments have been “spun” to make headlines..Lol

For the statistically uninitiated.. and that seems to encompass the vast majority of the public, and the media..notwithstanding Mr Jones..the absolute random sample size required to have confidence in a 75% result from a population of 1.5 million, with a 10% confidence level ..is 96. LoL

I think the confusion and mistrust here is completely misplaced in criticism of the sample size. Indeed, the result may be rubblish, but if so, its because of flaws in the survey design, sampling technique and methodology employed..all perhaps more technical than makes for tidy sound bytes?

If there is irresponsibility to be apportioned.. I believe it should be apportioned to the Telegraph who provided no evidence that they had done any due dilligence on verifying these technical issues,and indeed your good selves, in not contacting MoneyCorps Mr David Kerns to quiz him for those details before republishing.

But Heck..who cares..My own.. completely subjective impression is that Fred has it nailed..LoL
Sometimes you dont need a depth sounder on a boat to tell you are on the rocks. You can see them by looking over the side..LoL