You could dismiss one report in the Guardian this morning as being of minor concern. It says:
The prime minister, himself a pheasant shooter and deer stalker, is understood to have intervened in December to stop a rise in the cost of a gun licence, which has been frozen at £50 since 2001 — just over a quarter of the £196 that it costs police to issue the licence.
But that's not a minor concern; it is indicative of what is happening in a government that has lost all touch with any reality but that of the self interest of that tiny proportion of society whose interests it serves.
We cannot, apparently, find money for a great many essential services in society and yet we can subsidise the granting of gun licences to the tune of £17 million a year because the vast majority of the holders of those licences are either in the 1% or work for them.
Yet again, this is indication of government captured for the interests of a few when what we so desperately need is government for the interests of the many.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
No you are wrong. This is about the countryside. Yes some people do enjoy the odd spot of sporting on the country estates. However there is still a huge number of people who work on these estates. I appreciate you are a townie who buys your food from Tesco. But there is and always has been a world in the country.
I find that quite amusing
I was born in the country, and live in the country. When out for a walk with my dog this morning I had a chat with the local gamekeeper, who I call a friend. I am well aware of the reason why he, and others of my acquaintance own guns, and I have no problem with them doing so. They are a necessary part of country life, but let’s also be clear, the licences are paid for by businesses, or by the landowners who require these people’s services
I am well aware of what I’m talking about
I would dispute the idea that a ‘huge number’ of people work on such estates (unless you are counting tenant farmers). These utopias of the rich employ a small number of people. The way they make money is by charging fees for other rich people to have access to areas cleared of human beings. If you wished to have more people employed in these areas you would turn them into national parks and charge ‘commoners’ to go out on the these newly liberated commons. Large landowners are hypocritical scumbags and don’t deserve any consideration. First they steal the land, then they clear the people, they allow only their rich pals to enter their restricted areas, and then they trough public money to maintain the deserts they created, whilst offshoring their businesses to avoid contributing to the society they prey on.
Large landowners tend to be townies…what’s your point?
Clearly a case for outsourcing to a new Agency, in order to free up the hard-pressed police. Cost of licence would then become at least £400 once shareholder profit is added.
(Where’s the irony font?)
What about poor people who own guns to hunt etc? Isn’t this like assuming all boat owners are rich and forcing fishing hobbyists out of marinas?
“the vast majority of the holders of those licences are either in the 1% or work for them.” Do you have a source for this.
Most poor owners are in the ‘work for the 1%’ but, I think
Taking your “facts” at face value- is there any reason why the rest of us should have to subsidise someone else’s sport? If they are hunting they can sell some of what they shoot to recoup the costs. I enjoy walking, but I don’t see anyone subsidising the cost of my walking boots.
Since most ‘poor’ hunters would not have access to any legal hunting grounds either for fish or game (land ownership being as defined as it is in UK) one wonders who or what they could possibly hunt and could they afford the ammunition?
One has to ask: why the hell were gun licences frozen at £50 since 2001 anyway? I’m amazed Nu Labour was capitulating to the gun lobby in this fashion. They should at least have covered costs. Maybe that’s the way to close the deficit – raise gun licences to £1billion each and rely on multi-billionaire pheasant shooters to fill treasury coffers. Sorted!
Good question
“Maybe that’s the way to close the deficit — raise gun licences to £1billion each and rely on multi-billionaire pheasant shooters to fill treasury coffers. Sorted!”
Couldn’t agree more with that! The thing is though, until the system is changed systemically and the many have more of a voice than the corporate lobbyists and the business interests, it will be ever thus.
So you desperately need http://www.agile-democracy.net ?
You could always ask why the cost of policing the licence is £196.00.
A look at PNC data solves character references.