Part 1
Here in the United Kingdom we supposedly live in a
democracy, but far too often this system is under mined by those that would suppress
or remove the “rights” of the populace. At present politicians are debating the
removal of organisations right to lobby government. This system is a tried and
tested way for small groups, as well as large groups, to get their voice heard
on a subject matter that is the heart of their organisation.
For example, the gay rights movement spent many years campaigning
and lobbying in all areas to make its case heard. Under the proposed new
rules their voice would have been silenced. In addition, the proposals go
further, organisations would not be allowed to take part in any political
events or make what could be discerned as political statements, 12 months prior
to any national election. This is the point when these groups do their best to
remind you just what was promised last time and how much of what they said they
would do they have actually done.
One slightly bizarre thing has emerged from this, in the
un-intended consequences category, old enemies have, and are agreeing to put
their differences aside, and work together on this one issue. Once again the
adage “my enemies, enemy, is my friend” finds a home with the un-likeliest of
partners. You will be hard pressed to find a group that is not calling a truce
for the duration on this issue.
So where did this removal of an accepted right emerge from,
some dictatorship in a far off land, well no, dictatorships do exactly what they
say, so this would be part of the normal running of any dictatorship. What you
have here is a group, elected by the people, trying to suppress that same
electorate in order to proceed with its own agenda. This masterful piece of
thinking has its roots in the United States of America. The administration, in
an effort to stop certain groups, was prepared to remove the rights of all its
citizens with the exception of one group. To be able to comment during any
election period all you needed was a media outlet, a newspaper, radio station
or T.V. network for example. Now given that the mass media in the U.S. is
predominantly supportive of the Democratic Party, this left any group that was
opposed to or un-supportive of their ideals, pretty much without a voice.
There was however one group that that was not going to take
this abuse of power lying down. So with much haste, the National Rifle Association
cobbled together an ad hoc radio and T.V. station, much to the chagrin of the incumbent
administration. It would appear that no such loophole will exist in the current
bill being put forward, as only the current media, with a history in the field will
be permitted.
Part 2
To borrow from part 1, “Here in the United Kingdom we
supposedly live in a democracy...” but there is a group of politically
motivated, un-elected, by the populace, or from within their own organisation,
individuals who are working tirelessly to remove the rights of the individual
and groups. This organisation is the Police, or more precisely, the Association
of Chief Police Officers, here after called ACPO.
This autonomist group of un-elected individuals have, over
the last 20-30 years, gone from a group liaising with politicians and informing
them of how the police are managing the civil population, to an organisation
making policy recommendations, amendments to laws and making new laws, were
they feel the current legislation is lacking. Or, put another way, a lobbying
group, ACPO will also be exempt from the current proposals should they become
law.
ACPO is currently in the process of debating the current “occupier”
definition applied to land where people shoot. They are contemplating proposing
that for an individual to be an occupier that person should either own the land
or rent the land, with official, legally binding contracts. In short you either
buy the land or lease it and register that leasing with the land registry
office. Apart from the paper work involved, the cost to the average shooter
would be prohibitive. This is just one of many areas that ACPO has set itself
up as the law maker regarding firearms ownership, laws and shooting.
I am not so naive as to expect that there should be no governance
of firearms, but ACPO and their political allies in this matter have slowly and
systematically eroded the system in their efforts to make it almost impossible
for someone to enter the sport now, and with every subtle amendment to the
guidelines a little more gets eaten away.
The police should do the job for
which they were created, the upholding of the law of the land, and leave the
creation of those laws to the duly elected officials. After all, the elected
individuals can be removed every four years or so if the masses deem it necessary,
these self appointed individuals are there until they decide to leave.
