Attrition of Public Rights

A rather unusual case which has the potential to spiral into one of those small Internet obsessions where everyone has to have their say.

Paul Clark has been found guilty of possession of an illegal firearm (such as assault rifles) after apparently discovering the gun in his garden and taking it to the police station.

However, either his lawyers had not interpreted the legislation correctly, or this is an exceptionally good example of the court system forcing Parliament to make a change in the law.

It is illegal to be in possession of a firearm. Either an illegal firearm or to possess one without a licence. This of course means that anyone discovering a gun, the moment they appropriate contact with the gun, is guilty of a triable either way offence.

The judges are not allowed to change the law, merely interpret it. Therefore by applying the law as rigidly, and ludicrously, as possible, this is done with the intention that they will cause a public outcry that will force Parliament to change the law.

Whether or not Labour, with their fixation on gun crime that is continuously promoted by the media, will see it necessary to implement an amendment to the Firearms Act 1994 that states something along the lines of "it is illegal to possess a firearm unless you are transferring it to the police", is another matter.

In spite of living in a democratic country, is becoming vastly clear that petitions, publication of articles and demonstrations against government policy, legislation and illogical and irrational persecution, has little or no effect. We're then reminded of countries where oppression of the people is terrible, such as Iran, and made to feel that what we have is good so why should we protest against it.

We need to challenge this mentality as much loss will and increase the remit the freedom of speech in order to force governments and force publicly elected bodies to respond to public disquiet and dissatisfaction. until we do this, ludicrous indication of legislation by one of the third executives is unlikely to have any effect.