quote:

Dear Editor,

In 1988, after Hungerford, our so-called "National Rifle Association" was totally worse than useless in its defence of civilian service rifle shooting and the civilian possession of self-loading rifles was banned.

In 1997, after Dunblane, this same body also abjectly failed to protect civilian pistol shooting from being prohibited and the private ownership of modern handguns was banned.

It is worse. For despite its official grand title and the aims of its founders, from 1st January 2008 under its new rules the N.R.A. shooting facilities now serve only the interests of its direct and limited membership. The licensed civilian rifle owner who is however merely a member of the public at large can now no longer turn up make use of its ranges for individual marksmanship practice.

So if the Woolwich Facility, paid for by public money, were re-located there on a permanent basis either before or after 2012 would these also be closed to all but "the limited few" of what most shooters ouside Surrey now regard as little more than "the Bisley Rifle Club"?

To entrust that infrastructure to the stewardship of to a body that has failed twice in defence of its claimed constituency is folly. To entrust it to a body that by its own rules now denies open general public use of the Bisley Camp ranges is disgraceful and if applied to a now or later re-located Woolwich Facility probably contrary to the Olympic Charter.

The material legacy of the 2012 Olympic Range deserves better than the guardianship of the N.R.A. There are also better candidates than Surrey Heath for the relocation of it before or after 2012.

So may I suggest either on the site of the now seemingly redundant national football training facility at Burton-on-Trent or even Northern Ireland, where, exempt from Michael Howard's notorious 1998 Firearms Act handgun ban, legitimate licensed civilian pistol shooting has continued to be allowed to flourish?