Don't think this has been discussed - it is not new...
Read in the shooting Times that an apparent deal between the Home Office, shooting organisations and the police to increase license renewal fees was vetoed by the Prime Minister. What surprised me was not the veto, but the suggestion by Diana Johnson MP that money currently set aside for firearms licensing “could put hundreds of police officers back on the beat” and the ST statement that if the licence fee did increase, it has not been stated how the current firearms licensing budget would be re-distributed within police forces.
ST article David Cameron vetoes increase in licensing fees - Shooting UK
Sunday Times article Deerstalker PM shoots down police over rise in firearms fee | The Sunday Times
So my question is really what is going on? Assuming the reporting is correct (big assumption), how have the shooting sports organisations managed to agree a proposal to increase license fees without getting it set in stone that the increase would be used to increase licensing service efficiency (not general policing efficiency) ?
If this is really what is behind the PM's veto, then good for him! Or is it actually the case that the "Senior government sources" referred to in the ST article were actually misrepresenting the shooting organisations' position?
Anybody care to comment? I am sure there is more to the story that these two reports suggest...