A rare victory and a rare consultation process

Here I wrote about a request by Royal Mail to Postcomm to allow them to ban the transportation of 'firearms' within their normal postal network. These were the reasons for the Royal Mail request:

Firearms cause significant disruption to Royal Mail and the police when they are found in the letters network.

Prohibiting the carriage of firearms in the post would help the police with firearms control.

The ease of access to Royal Mail’s pipeline and the anonymity of the senders make Royal Mail’s letters network the target for the transport of illegal firearms.

It would have been a disaster if Poscomm had allowed Royal Mail to go down this route.

There was a consultation period during which Postcomm invited people to make submissions in order that they could better understand the situation and come to a decision.

The result of this consultation process is that Postcomm has completely rubbished the Royal Mail request on the basis that there is no actual evidence to support the foundations on which the request was made.

Here is their report [pdf] and it is well worth reading if only to see how an organisation that bases its consultations and decision making on principle and evidence should work. This is just a small section:

The Gun Control Network’s (GCN) submission is lengthier and more concerned with the criminal element of Royal Mail’s application. They note increasing concern regarding the use of guns and imitation guns, argue that society as a whole would benefit from a reduction in the number of firearms transferred and traded for criminal use.

They further argue the interests of the few who shoot must be balanced against public safety and] the efficient running of the postal service’ and that the impact customers wishing to transport guns would be minimal.

Postcomm appreciates the GCN’s concerns, but still feels that it has been provided sufficient evidence to prohibit the carriage of firearms these grounds. There is little evidence as to how many illegal firearms transported and put to criminal use, so it is difficult to gauge the effects prohibition will have. What is certain is that for many firearm dealers individuals the prohibition would cause real hardship – in this Postcomm disagrees with the assessment by Postwatch, the DMA and the GCN -- that Postcomm cannot impose that hardship without evidence that prohibition on firearms would truly benefit a larger section of society.

This is a significant victory against those that would expect us to live our lives on the basis of knee jerk reactions made by those who would wish to be seen to be doing something instead of actually doing something.

Posted by John at July 4, 2005 08:28 AM | TrackBack