November 15, 2005
Not on your terms minister
So there I am in Sainsbury’s, no more than twenty minutes ago, and I catch sight of a number of people loitering around the newspaper stands. ”It’s unbelievable” I hear, ”Just let them try getting in” says another, ”Graffiti on the wall” it continues. I wander up and notice this particular story on the front page of the Telegraph:
The disclosure follows the revelation that John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, is planning to charge higher tax on homes with patios, multiple bedrooms, conservatories and scenic views.It seems that Prescott and his jackboot minions are after more cash and want to enter our homes so that they may evaluate how much spare cash we might have, or something.The Valuation Office Agency sought the advice of the office of the Surveillance Commissioner on entering homes. The commissioner replied that inspectors taking photographs of properties would not contravene the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act or the Human Rights Act, even though those laws were intended to protect citizens' privacy.
This is something that I can never allow to happen, certainly not for the purposes of raising more tax revenue when I feel so heavily overtaxed as it is.
If this comes to pass I will never give permission for these individuals to enter my home. If the law states that they are allowed to do so then I will insist that they carry out whatever action that is permissible for them to take to legally carry out their task. I will not personally open that door. Never. Not under any circumstances. Ultimately this will lead to coercion by way of legal threats, a court order perhaps and ultimately, I guess, forced entry into my home. This will be their doing though, not mine. I will have had no part in it.
Perhaps it will mean me paying even higher taxes than I might otherwise end up paying. Charging at the top end for homeowners that do not allow entry would come as no surprise and would, perhaps, save court time. If that is the price I will have to pay then so be it.
No doubt they will argue that an individual such as myself behaving as I describe is in some way irresponsible. They will fly their vindictive colours and insist that I am not worthy of the privilege of owning shotguns. I must be forced to give them up, they will in all likelihood demand. And that is where it will hurt the most because clay shooting is the last of the truly enjoyable shooting disciplines that I have left open to me.
It will be a sad day but a day that I will allow to pass if it means that I can look at myself in the mirror.
I have noted discussions in the past between shooters who gave up their pistols to the authorities and received “compensation” from the government for doing so. Some regret ever having taking this course of action preferring, if they could make the decision again, to send their property abroad and pay the costs of the storage involved. Others would, in retrospect, have rather destroyed their own property than have taken the money. They have been left with a bad taste in their mouths. A feeling that they have, in some way, belittled themselves and their principles for having accepted the destruction of their property on someone else’s terms.
Not here. Not ever.
