An explanation would be appreciated.

kes

Well-Known Member
We had suggested a judicial review of the police/medical/Home Office decision which various police forces have decided to apply, based on the 'Scottish Experience' and no effective English/Welsh opposition. I received this on another item of interest, Press Freedom. The process is set out and the reason why a judicial review was allowed is based on the possibility that a challenge to a public body has a chance of success. It is really the only effective way to hold a public body to account. Here, individuals are seeking the judicial review and prepared (no doubt with suppoprt) to underwrite it.

Victims of press abuse Christopher Jefferies, Kate and Gerry McCann, and Jacqui Hames, and investigative journalism website Byline, are taking the Government to court over the cancellation of the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.

Last month the High Court officially gave the go ahead for a judicial review to take place. In other words, a judge found that the case would have a reasonable chance of success.

But what exactly is a judicial review? And on what grounds has this case been brought?

Judicial reviews are a mechanism by which the legal system can scrutinise decisions made by public bodies and the government to ensure the lawfulness of a decision. Rather than review the rights and wrongs of the decision made, the Court’s role is to ensure that it was made in the ‘right way’.

This judicial review of the decision to cancel Leveson Part Two has been sought under several grounds.
The most significant being that cancelling this public inquiry was contrary to a substantive legitimate expectation held by the claimants, victims of press abuse.

The evidence for this includes the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, making a commitment to complete the second half of the Inquiry on the day the Leveson Report (Part One) was published.

And the irrational decision to reject the views of the Chairman of the Inquiry, Sir Brian Leveson, who told ministers he "fundamentally disagrees" with scrapping the second half of the Leveson Inquiry.


It would be nice to know, as Members, why the QC thought the conditions for judicial review were not met - maybe in a confidential e-mail to all members but to have no information about this decision suggests too convenient a loss of what seems to be a convincing case of abuse of public office.
So I ask BASC as a member to publish the reasoning why a Judicial Review would have failed in these circumstances, to satisfy Members of their supportive intent. Otherwise it is confirmed as a case of "we will all do as we (BASC) say we should and you (Members) must simply accept all that we say.
If others agree I will transmit this to BASC as a formal Member request and ask for it to be placed on the Council agenda for the next meeting - time for some answers I feel.



 
Crack on feller , but as most if not all in power feel that we ( the cash cows) don't /should't have a say ? sadly this may be the reply :popcorn:
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately you're wasting your time, you know as well as I that all you'll get is some waffle and it will all be swept under the carpet. It would appear they're too busy counting the takings to actually do anything that may upset their relationship with the powers that be. Just my opinion, hope I'm wrong.
 
As I have said before, use the contact form on the BASC web site if the answer I have given to this question on another thread does not satisfy you.
 
As I have said before, use the contact form on the BASC web site if the answer I have given to this question on another thread does not satisfy you.

Answer David ? You just said the QC's advice was to give the political route a try so whats happened? More importantly, my question was why did he give this advice ?
Since so many people are interested why not precis it so we can all understand ? As for sending a request, aren't you concerned I would post it on here, because I would. So just post what he said of such import that judicial review was effectively ruled out following his advice . Please !

I don't think my membership has run out yet, August I think.
 
Dont forget, basc is a business, not an non-profit organisation set up to protect your interests and lobby for you, they like to make you thank the former of course,,bit like Holts charging you premium prices for junk on a fancy Range Rover website...wool,,eyes...
 
Use the contact form, how much clearer can I be?

And how much clearer can I be, just post the answer here - or explain why not if you wouldn't mind.
I now wonder whether my shoot membership has expired and this is the way to avoid an answer - I will check my membership first and then post again, unless you decide to answer first ?
 
And how much clearer can I be, just post the answer here - or explain why not if you wouldn't mind.
I now wonder whether my shoot membership has expired and this is the way to avoid an answer - I will check my membership first and then post again, unless you decide to answer first ?

Check post number three ;)
 
Gentlemen. If you're not happy with David's input on BASC's response to the matter, or any other matter, and you are a member then do what I did. Leave.

Elsewise the man is on here just to get brickbats thrown at him? That's not fair. Me? I'm in SACS now...they weren't effective in preventing the medical certification when it was imposed in Scotland. But I get membership and insurance for myself and my son and accept that SACS didn't stop these measures being imposed in Scotland but at least their membership is cheaper. Nobody is obliged to join BASC. Not happy then don't renew.

Give David a break and if you are a member put forward a motion at the AGM like I did in 1988 or thereabouts to expel Sir John Farr which led to him resigning his from BASC before the AGM.
 
Last edited:
I don't think David would get half the hassle if he replied with an answer instead of smoke and mirrors.

Perfectly reasonable request by Kes asking for it to be posted on the thread.
 
Enfield you do David a disservice he's by no means lacking in savvy. It would appear my membership lapsed on 31 May, ten days ago, so David no longer has to answer my questions.
I'm off to NGO probably - a bit nearer the start of the season.
I shall post no more on BASC failings since its members clearly think its worthy of their money and choice is all. I just hope BASC stops its triumphant, egotistical romp from failure to failure for the sake of the sportmen who have given it life but seemingly have no expectation of success.
 
I look forward to u being iust as critical with NGO as i don't think they've even done a juduical review yet. See if u can drive there spokesperson 'offline', oh thats right they don't have 1

Basc have been very poor of late BUT are still doing more than every other org
 
I look forward to u being iust as critical with NGO as i don't think they've even done a juduical review yet. See if u can drive there spokesperson 'offline', oh thats right they don't have 1

Basc have been very poor of late BUT are still doing more than every other org


Probably proportionate to resources - NGO also dont claim to be the "voice of Shooting". When I was previously a member, I had one to one support from one of their "do it for free" stalkers. However thanks for your input, as they say.
 
As the sign on the motorway services said: ''Welcome Break'' :eek::thumb:

They have either gone bust or are no longer active under that title where I am so its an appropriate parallel for my last post on BASC. Thanks for the sarcasm it perhaps says more about you than my concern to get value for my £70 membership fee. I take it you are one of the many undiscriminating membership ? Please dont bother to reply.
 
They have either gone bust or are no longer active under that title where I am so its an appropriate parallel for my last post on BASC. Thanks for the sarcasm it perhaps says more about you than my concern to get value for my £70 membership fee. I take it you are one of the many undiscriminating membership ? Please dont bother to reply.
:rofl:
 
Kes......

I seriously doubt you can stop posting about BASC ! 😂😂😂😂😂


Oh and like you I’m NOT a member before you ask ...


Paul
 
Give it a break Kes, attack our enemies not your allies, even if they do appear ineffective at times.
Surely any issues that you may have with BASC would better be discussed in private rather than be aired on a very public forum giving meat to our enemies. (I do not use the word enemy lightly for that is what they are.)
 
It is not usual to disclose legal advice to the opposition, unless of course it says they haven't got a case.

Here the advice doesn't appear to support an application for JR. Therefore putting the advice on here would be something of an own goal.

However it it might be worth BASC getting a second advice just to make sure. Again usual practice in high value cases.
 
Back
Top