BASC statement on Home Office proposals

[kes]

[FONT=&amp]L[/FONT][FONT=&amp]awyers acting for Blackman are said to have written to Anthony Berry QC, described by legal directories as a “veteran of murder cases”, and his junior barrister Peter Glenser, both of 9 Bedford Row chambers, warning that the former sergeant is considering suing them for professional negligence.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Ms Hogg and Mr Glenser co-authored an article in a legal journal months before Blackman’s court martial, which stated that they “both specialize in military law and have a particular interest in post traumatic stress disorder” and would be “particularly alert” to soldiers’ psychiatric problems.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]The lawyers who defended Royal Marine Alexander Blackman, who was accused of murdering a wounded Taliban fighter in Afghanistan, made a string of mistakes that made his conviction unsafe, according to the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...on-unsafe-says-review-body.html#ixzz5DiyVrbAp

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook



This Mr Glenser, Chairman of BASC ?
If this is the eminent opinion of, (as quoted) a junior barrister (who has cornered the firearms legal market - his quote) why, can anyone tell me did it take 4 weeks for him to be briefed, examine the case and advise, against previous suggestions of blackmail by GP's, that it was 'considered' advice to get a political solution.
This is not BASC bashing its simply a matter of finding the truth of when and how he was asked, maybe who paid him what, and why it took 4 weeks for him to 'unveil' his wisdom.
Would you not have excluded yourself, (not being a QC), payment issues, and the good of your members ?
I only ask because even though the last article is the Dail Mail (above) it raises some questions, given the CCRC being involved.

However I am sure you are all correct and the worthy advice is not anything sinister (or of questionable veracity) as previously mentioned. Oh dear, for me another reason to move on.

 

[User00025]

As said before, whatever BASC etc do, other than an all out attack on behalf of shooters, we are .....d totally.
We have governments of every persuasion committed to taking arms of any sort away from the General Public.
Rather reminiscent of the introduction of FAC's after WW1, and the Russian revolution, when they were worried about revolution here.
Sorry lads but your enjoyment will not continue much longer, unless there is an all out challenge over fees and 10 year certs. I can only see our representative bodies taking the easier way and as they have always done capitulate to Gov't and police pressure. (eg Ten bob gun licence to shotgun cert etc,etc,etc.)

 

[Greymaster]

Quite good advice actually becase you can't legaly challenge "guidance".
What you could challenge is a refusal to grant a SGC/FAC 'because the individual did not pay his doctor to sign the form' as there is no statute covering this.

So you need is a volunteer to step forward and not pay the Doctors fee and have his certificates refused ..... the volunteer would need to be squeaky so that the "only reason" his certificate was refused was because he refused to pay the doctors fee.

There are 3 issues:

1/ Lincolnshire's (and Scotland's) "no medical report, no certificate";
2/ HO seeking to impose additional fees on shooters to pay GPs for reports, and giving the GPs a veto in the process of a shooter-patient getting a certificate;
3/ Hurd seeking to impose licencing fees increases while not delivering on the basis of the previous increase, i.e. efficiencies based on the Marsh Mirage of E-Commerce solution.

1/ Will take a test case involving a Lincolnshire deprived of his renewal on the basis of Lincolnshire police inventing its own law on the matter - hence the need and strong invitation from BASC for such a person to come forward for this matter to be tested in court;

2/ and 3/ seem perfectly to fall within the realms of a judicial review of administrative decisions.

1/ can be decided in a succession of courts up to the Supreme Court and will be a very long process.

2/ and 3/ can't be decided until the fees (GP and Licensing) have been imposed.

In the meantime, the threat of going to law should facilitate a political compromise.


Well, the NPCC have their volunteer in Lincolnshire, pushing the envelope.

 

[patrickt]

Kes,

Mr Glenser QC, is the QC.

Smullery are you saying that the QC BASC obtained their opinion from is the chairman of BASC (Peter Glesner)?. If so are you able to say where this information came from.

The reason I ask is, that if this is indeed true, he is hardly likely to be independent, and in a professional conflict. Further if this is true, we as members of BASC would surley be entitled to a copy of his opinion upon request, after all we are paying his salary. But I suppose David, or some other person from BASC will be able to help us on that matter

I look forward to your reply

Patrick

 

[User00006]

Smullery are you saying that the QC BASC obtained their opinion from is the chairman of BASC (Peter Glesner)?. If so are you able to say where this information came from.

The reason I ask is, that if this is indeed true, he is hardly likely to be independent, and in a professional conflict. Further if this is true, we as members of BASC would surley be entitled to a copy of his opinion upon request, after all we are paying his salary. But I suppose David, or some other person from BASC will be able to help us on that matter

I look forward to your reply

Patrick

If it turns out it wasn't Glenser, I am sure Smullery and Kes will do the decent thing and apologise - won't they?.

 

[patrickt]

Whitefront (a wonderful goose!). Iam sure you are correct. If I make a mistake I say sorry, as does everyone else, then move on. Unless you are in Politics, then you want the person who made the mistake sacked "Let he without sin cast the first stone" comes to mind

Patrick

 

[smullery]

If it turns out it wasn't Glenser, I am sure Smullery and Kes will do the decent thing and apologise - won't they?.

I read the statement by BASC to allude to the Chairman plus Peter Glenser plus the political team.

Stan

 

[User00006]

I read the statement by BASC to allude to the Chairman plus Peter Glenser plus the political team.

Stan

I am surprised you didn't take the very basic precaution of checking your interpretation before making a statement of fact which was then used as the basis for personal attacks on the professional integrity of an eminent lawyer. Whether those attacks can be defended will depend on whether your statement is true. I suppose we shall just have to await clarification from BASC.

 

[kes]

I am surprised you didn't take the very basic precaution of checking your interpretation before making a statement of fact which was then used as the basis for personal attacks on the professional integrity of an eminent lawyer. Whether those attacks can be defended will depend on whether your statement is true. I suppose we shall just have to await clarification from BASC.

What I have QUOTED is in the public domain some of it from Mr Glensers website. The CCRC is their view not mine. I have taken someone else's (Smullery's) suggestion that it was Mr Glenser who gave the 'opinion'.
If this is not Mr Glensers 'opinion' we are talking about then naturally, my comments about 4 weeks are unjust and I would gladly apologise for making that comment. However, The CCRC made the comment about 'Junior Barrister' and I am sure they will apologise if that's incorrect as for the rest of their comment but personally, I think they will have checked. As for the 'cornered the market on firearms' comment - that is Mr Glensers advert for himself - anything more you think I might apologise for ? Have you checked the references?
I dont make these comments for any stupid reason - it is explicitly to comment on what BASC HAS DONE, or NOT DONE, on the basis that facts speak for themselves. You pays your money and makes your choice - I have made mine.

 

[User00006]

I am not interested in stuff irrelevant to the process of medical checks. It's the BASC context of your allegations (as identified by Patrickt) that I question. And you base all this on your assumption that Glenser was the QC instructed by BASC. Any assertion made or passed on by you is your responsibility, in law. The mere fact that you think 4 weeks is excessive is bizzarre (one normally has to brief a solicitor, who then instructs the barrister). A quick check shows that you are a obsessive BASC basher. If it turns out that Glenser was not the QC in question, then your own currency will be further devalued. That's all.

 

[C Graffius]

The QC consulted by BASC was Alan Maclean QC.

 

[Sinistral]

[FONT=&amp]BASC is considering potential legal remedies if legislation that damages shooting is enacted. The current legal advice from a QC, the leading expert in his field, is that political action rather than legal is the best route at this stage.

What was the cost of this 'do nothing' advice from learned counsel?[/FONT]

 

[Greymaster]

The QC consulted by BASC was Alan Maclean QC.

https://www.blackstonechambers.com/barristers/alan-maclean-qc/

Not to be confused with Alan McLean QC

http://www.hastiestable.com/advocates/senior/Alan+McLean+QC,+MCIArb

 

[enfieldspares]

What was the cost of this 'do nothing' advice from learned counsel?

I think that is harsh, somewhat, the advice most likely won't have been "do nothing" but, rather more likely "if you do it may not workout as you hoped".

However if that is the case and we'd would lose by inaction the case we fight we are better to fight it and fight it now. Even if we do lose. We still be arriving at the same destination the joourney is taking us on but at least we'll KNOW for certain that we cannot stop the bus and get off. For as there is "nothing to lose" but an outside chance of "everything to gain" BASC has failed its members. The funds it has...what else is the point of them? Having them for the sake of it or having them to use? To fight a case that might actually if even remotely go our way. Many a time a "forlorn hope" has stormed the rampart and against all odds won the day.

 

[reloader54]

[FONT=&quot]Alan Maclean QC, the barrister who represented Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell during the Hutton Inquiry. "This Alan Maclean"??[/FONT]

 

[enfieldspares]

Bottom line is that BASC, with its much more costly annual membership, isn't prepared to spend that money on a Judicial Review then, in truth, why do we pay it? For does it not really indicate that the only benefit of BASC is a shooting insurance that other organisation offer but as part as a cheaper annual membership. This is the crossroads for BASC. If all it ever is, in reality, a body offering insurance then I think that many will vote with their pocketbooks as their renewals come up. Why pay the guinea price if all you get back in return, on the night, is the same half crown seat as everybody else?

 

[User00025]

Bottom line is that BASC, with its much more costly annual membership, isn't prepared to spend that money on a Judicial Review then, in truth, why do we pay it? For does it not really indicate that the only benefit of BASC is a shooting insurance that other organisation offer but as part as a cheaper annual membership. This is the crossroads for BASC. If all it ever is, in reality, a body offering insurance then I think that many will vote with their pocketbooks as their renewals come up. Why pay the guinea price if all you get back in return, on the night, is the same half crown seat as everybody else?

Unusual for me to agree with you my friend but . Not having been a member of BASC for many years I looked at their web site. I was astounded at the number of "Senior" staff, who will not be on low salaries. This besides the normal "workers", for goodness sake you could run a multi million pound project/company with less people , and there are perhaps 150,000 members paying for that lot. It's almost as scary as the Gov't.

 

[timbrayford]

[FONT=&amp]BASC is considering potential legal remedies if legislation that damages shooting is enacted. The current legal advice from a QC, the leading expert in his field, is that political action rather than legal is the best route at this stage.

What was the cost of this 'do nothing' advice from learned counsel?[/FONT]

Presumably considerably less than potentially having to pay the other sides costs in a failed legal action. If the expert advice was to pursue political options then it wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

 

[enfieldspares]

Presumably considerably less than potentially having to pay the other sides costs in a failed legal action. If the expert advice was to pursue political options then it wouldn't make sense to do otherwise.

Don't agree. And it assumes Lincolnshire would fight it. What if their PCC refuses to fund it?

As we will ALL...yes that is ALL of BASC's 100,000 members pay more because we haven't fought this now. So that £50, £60, £70, £80 x 100,000. Every five years. Makes a Judicial Review look cheap.

Legal opinion is just that, opinion. It is not a cast iron guarantee that the outcome of a case may be X or Y. Sometimes the outcome...as it may have been here...is that is health condition A, B, C applies to an applicant then X applies. But if ONLY health condition E through Z apply then Y applies. And if health condition D applies then whilst the Chief Constable may want it then HE must pay.

A Judicial Review gives certainty.

This retreat by BASC doesn't even give that...it just allows shooters to be further bullied...

 

[David63]

As the statement clearly reads, political action is the best route at this stage. And that is exactly what we will do, building on the work that has already taken place and developing this further, and calling on shooters to join the political campaign and do their bit along with BASC, more details will be available of course and I will post on here when I can