.
Mr Graffius' letter to Mr Hurd, which David posted earlier and which I have now managed to open, still seems quite sanguine about these extra-statutory fees.
It alludes to Mr Graffius' ongoing belief in 'common aims' between BASC and HO - a concept which I hope will be examined by BASC at a high level before any further negotiations occur.
It ongoingly supports the bizarre idea that the HO Guide should become even more enforcible - a concept superficially attractive until we note that the Guide is written by the Home Office and the Police, without any approval from Parliament. Essentially it appears to mean that the whatever finds its way into that Guide will have the authority of statute. That does not sound to me particularly desirable.
It seems to suggest that the HO would benefit from BASC's help 'to avoid errors'. I suppose it might appear to BASC that the HO are prone to making errors in this area - but given their agenda with respect to firearms licensing it is hard to see how any of this so far could have turned out better for the HO. It has cost the public nothing, the FLDs have another means to incovenience shooters, and certificate numbers are likely to drop as cost rise unpredictably. I can almost hear a 'Yes, Minister' script in my head.
On the up-side, Mr Graffius point out that firearms certification is for the public good, so the public should expect to pay - so perhaps the important princple to which i keep alluding might be dragged back off the table.
Mr Graffius' letter to Mr Hurd, which David posted earlier and which I have now managed to open, still seems quite sanguine about these extra-statutory fees.
It alludes to Mr Graffius' ongoing belief in 'common aims' between BASC and HO - a concept which I hope will be examined by BASC at a high level before any further negotiations occur.
It ongoingly supports the bizarre idea that the HO Guide should become even more enforcible - a concept superficially attractive until we note that the Guide is written by the Home Office and the Police, without any approval from Parliament. Essentially it appears to mean that the whatever finds its way into that Guide will have the authority of statute. That does not sound to me particularly desirable.
It seems to suggest that the HO would benefit from BASC's help 'to avoid errors'. I suppose it might appear to BASC that the HO are prone to making errors in this area - but given their agenda with respect to firearms licensing it is hard to see how any of this so far could have turned out better for the HO. It has cost the public nothing, the FLDs have another means to incovenience shooters, and certificate numbers are likely to drop as cost rise unpredictably. I can almost hear a 'Yes, Minister' script in my head.
On the up-side, Mr Graffius point out that firearms certification is for the public good, so the public should expect to pay - so perhaps the important princple to which i keep alluding might be dragged back off the table.
. Reading the purpose of a judicial review, it seems perfect for the medical debacle. A postcode lottery, unfair charges and/or refusal to participate etc, rendering it impossible for law abiding people to comply with just seems a low hanging ripe fruit for easy picking.
. That applies to all the organisations including NRA, NSRA...…. All have been pathetic to date.
