Time to vote with my feet. The CA position on the medical certification looks very positive. Perhaps they do not have the membership clout yet, but I am now certain that BASC membership will haemmorage in the face of ongoing ineffectiveness on their part.http://www.countryside-alliance.org/campaigns/fairandconsistentlicensing/
BASC opposes new proposals for medical fees
- Thread starter David63
- Start date
The man who proposed BASC/CA amalgamation was Richard Tice, now very active in Brexit matters. For the record, I queued to get in with the late Colin Greenwood who was opposed to the merger, essentially on the grounds that shooters would be used by the foxhunting side. I was not able to identify people at the meeting as wildfowlers or pigeon shooters as they were not labelled. I also had a chat with Mr. Tice afterwards. He was philosophical about the failure of his motion and understood the arguments for both sides.
So what has the CA done about it?
The policy as stated is all good stuff. Especially:
The Countryside Alliance rejects any and all attempts to abuse this process to provide a new income stream for GPs. There is clear evidence of GPs demanding exorbitant charges and costly annual reviews that form no part of the Home Office Guidance. This process must be about public safety, nothing more.
But what is missing from both organisations is an unambiguous declaration that shooters' rights will be rigorously defended in the courts as a matter of principle. And then establish a track record.
These rights, and it comes down to natural justice, are being assailed by police forces making up the law they wish to follow, ministers changing the rules without consultation, FLDs not following HOG, deliberate snail pace renewal and grant processes, fabricated and unreasonable conditions of certificate grants. Gone are the days when all the BASC had to do was phone up on behalf of a member to get his application bumped up the inbox. There is a concerted effort by police and ministers to frustrate the process and tolerate inertia and inefficiencies. The BASC missed a trick a few years ago when HMIC came out with a finding that delays in licensing could posed a risk to public safety. A series of quick judicial review wins would have put the powers that be on notice that the BASC had grown a pair and the voice of shooting needed to be listened to.
Unaffected by a member's income or wealth? IE no excess payment, like most insurance policies.
Most insurers impose a test requiring greater than a % chance of success. If it was simply a matter of claiming on insurance for legal assistance, then it would have been done in Scotland by now, and on the cards re Lincolnshire. The situation of no medical report no ticket is going to affect ALL SHOOTERS and this is why a test case by BASC, SACS, CA, NGO etc. is the only way. The BASC counsel will no doubt spell out the risks and chances of success for a judicial review. The NGO have been successful over the raptor control licence. It is possible to win these cases.
The merger of associations is severely affected by the cloth cap versus top hat attitudes of people that think that they will be unaffected by the banning of others' activities. Just read some of the comments on PigeonWatch. CLASS, CLASS, CLASS.
Allowing a situation to develop whereby someone/something can be banned because a vociferous minority doesn't like you/it, will mean that one day you will get banned yourself.
Allowing a situation to develop whereby someone/something can be banned because a vociferous minority doesn't like you/it, will mean that one day you will get banned yourself.
Details of the legal expenses policy is here - but one case of appeal will not set president https://basc.org.uk/join-basc/basc-members-insurance/
Yes its very disappointing that the proposals will see the Home Office renege on the agreement reached in 2016, but BASC will not stop lobbying and will fight for the best possible outcome
Yes its very disappointing that the proposals will see the Home Office renege on the agreement reached in 2016, but BASC will not stop lobbying and will fight for the best possible outcome
David, every case decided sets a precedent for a lower court, it is simply the variation in circumstances which mean one precedent can not be applied unless the case is precisely the same point of law.
Does this response of yours above indicate we have legal advice yet on the issue of changing the process and charging for first medicals.
Perhaps both BASC and the CA should talk and take a joint case to challenge the interpretation being put on this 'policy' given the previous agreement by all parties at the MWG. At least CA see that agreement as binding. Consistent and 'across the board' opposition would wake some of these police people up. What is the new CE's view ? Council's view etc or does one statement cover all?
Please do let us know as soon as the legal opinion is available -I'm still a member.
Does this response of yours above indicate we have legal advice yet on the issue of changing the process and charging for first medicals.
Perhaps both BASC and the CA should talk and take a joint case to challenge the interpretation being put on this 'policy' given the previous agreement by all parties at the MWG. At least CA see that agreement as binding. Consistent and 'across the board' opposition would wake some of these police people up. What is the new CE's view ? Council's view etc or does one statement cover all?
Please do let us know as soon as the legal opinion is available -I'm still a member.
Forgot to suggest that maybe the NGO could offer advice on legal cases pursuit, since their support for a gamekeeper who was refused a licence by Natural England to kill buzzards, was as professional as they come - and surprise, surprise, they won for us all.
I wonder if anyone has followed up by FOI request whether NE has subsequently issued any licences after that date, or on badgers, since the culls? Maybe we need a Country Pursuits Intelligence Unit, which all of the main organisations could use and then comparison would be eloquent one feels.
I wonder if anyone has followed up by FOI request whether NE has subsequently issued any licences after that date, or on badgers, since the culls? Maybe we need a Country Pursuits Intelligence Unit, which all of the main organisations could use and then comparison would be eloquent one feels.
Doesn't affect me, but might affect a few SD members.
"The doctrine of judicial precedent involves an application of the principle of stare decisis ie, to stand by the decided. In practice, this means that inferior courts are bound to apply the legal principles set down by superior courts in earlier cases. This provides consistency and predictability in the law."
8x57
Distinguished Member
Probably well off at a tangent but Michael Ryan murdered 16, Thomas Hamilton murdered 17 and Derick Bird murdered 12 in total that makes 45.
Dr Harold Shipman is estimated to have a total victim count of 250, and they want shooters to be signed off by doctors! Who is going to sign off on the doctors? Half of the ones that I have met are stark raving mad.
Dr Harold Shipman is estimated to have a total victim count of 250, and they want shooters to be signed off by doctors! Who is going to sign off on the doctors? Half of the ones that I have met are stark raving mad.
Probably well off at a tangent but Michael Ryan murdered 16, Thomas Hamilton murdered 17 and Derick Bird murdered 12 in total that makes 45.
Dr Harold Shipman is estimated to have a total victim count of 250, and they want shooters to be signed off by doctors! Who is going to sign off on the doctors? Half of the ones that I have met are stark raving mad.
Officially Harold Shipman is only accredited with 15 murders because that is all he was charged with, at the time of his conviction it was said in many circles that he was not charged with more murders because the authorities wanted the records to show that the biggest mass killings in Britain were carried out with firearms.
Ian.
Similar threads
