The Social Licence.

​What is meant by the phrase ‘the social licence’? Yes, it refers to opinions held by Joe Public, yet as many people in this country object to having their television viewing dismantled by I.T.V. or B.B.C. in favour of football or rugby coverage, as clap their hands in joy in the change to regular scheduling, why is the ‘social licence’ not used by complainants? 
A poor analogy, you might say. And perhaps you are right. But people will complain on social media to this afront to their personal pleasures and the favouritism given to sports fans. People whose complaints are conducted civilly, without riot and disruption, should have the greater right to be listened to and respected. Yet that is not the case. Unfortunately, and perhaps to our personal cost, we have a government more easily manipulated by the tyranny of the few than silent discourse of the majority.
A growing number of people are dismayed by how our government is performing and the consensus ‘social licence’ the Labour Party gained at the General Election no longer seems to exist. This phrase ‘social licence’ can have its definition stretched in any direction and used to mean whatever is convenient to either side of a disagreement. I believe horse racing owns this particular ‘social licence’, whereas the B.H.A. are of the opinion that it is owned by those outside of both horse racing and the likes of Animal Rising.
It seems to be the ‘social licence’ can be acquired through illegal activity and not by passive debate. Animal Rising broke the law and yet they seem to be the defenders of the ‘social licence’ in the debate on whether horse racing should be allowed to continue, even though they are very much in the minority when it comes to the numbers of people who support the sport or have no opinions either way.
If a horse dies in a high-profile horse race, as happened in the Arc on Sunday, and a poll is conducted on-line or on the streets of London into whether horse racing should be allowed to continue, which results in a high percentage of people siding with the view of Animal Rising, even though the poll was conducted in areas of the country favourable to a negative response, with the questions asked slanted in favour of Animal Rising’s position, is this the manifestation of the ‘social licence’ that might topple our sport?
I believe we, the sport, are holders of the ‘social licence’ as society has supported the sport of horse racing for over 200-years. All classes of society, indeed, have supported the sport and continue to do so. Our sport, perhaps more than any other sport in this country, is of great benefit to the Exchequer and with tax levied on betting the sport benefits the country, too. 
Racecourses are also green spaces in an increasingly urban environment, an oasis of fresh air amongst the sprawl of human occupation of towns and cities. The sport of horse racing is a reminder of days of old, when the horse was the only transport in peacetime and war, when man and horse were evidence of daily life.
All that said, the sport must listen, not to Animal Rising, terrorists hiding behind a shield of ‘caring’ about the plight of the horse, but to those who through being ill-informed believe our sport to be ‘cruel’, who believe ‘we’ only use the horse for our entertainment, to gain financially from that entertainment.
It is why funding a vibrant after-care programme for racehorses should be accepted by the B.H.A. and its stakeholders as the main priority, a matter of greater urgency than prize-money, even. We must not be led by other countries in this, we must set standards that other countries, countries of far greater wealth than our own, will find hard to replicate. Money must be found where there is an abundance of money, and that resource is the sales ring.
Over the coming weeks, yearling sales will generate millions upon millions of guineas as the wealthiest in the world compete with one another to acquire the bluest of blue-blooded horses. I remain wedded to the proposal that 1 or 2% of all sales from every thoroughbred auction in Britain could fund both a rise in prize-money, which would benefit everyone in the sport, including consigners and buyers, and provide the revenue stream to fund an after-care programme which would be the envy of other countries and dent our opponents claim to the ‘social licence’.