I've been asked to publish this by Marting Gay:

Barrie Rickards is unable to access web pages at present and asks me to send the following statement on his behalf with the request, please, that it is published.

"In a recent long letter partly about Blithfield Ray Farrell stated that the Scottish PAC Committee had my "full agreement" when they expelled some members from PAC. In one sense this is true: I believe that the Committee of the time has the power to make all decisions and I would never in public question what they do. In private, of course, I would often, as Chairman make suggestions to Committee members which they could act upon or not, as they wished. In the same way they can take note any members views but do not need to act upon them: or to be more exact, they can act upon them entirely as they wish. The present Committee have made some difficult decisions recently, and were I a member at this precise moment of writing, I would support them in public. And, as it happens in this case, in private too".
Barrie Rickards
18 January 2001.


Thank you
Martin Gay

------------------
Elton Murphy
Go-Fishing.co.uk
The UK Gateway To Worldwide Fishing

COARSE FISHING OFFERS
CARP FISHING OFFERS
FLY FISHING OFFERS
SEA FISHING OFFERS

Guests - this sponsored link will vanish when you log-in. Click here to register for free.

Barrie, I read your statement and feel compelled to comment.

I was one of the so called Scottish Commitee which made the unanimous decision to expel the Blithfield Four. At the end of said meeting Frank Gibbons, the then PAC secretary, phoned you, in the presence of the Commitee, and told you of the outcome. You agreed with our decision and at no time in public, and more importantly in private, say to any COMMITTEE member then or after that you did not agree with our decision, although I am aware you did to others. You like everyone else Barrie are entitled to their opinion, and yours was that we were wrong in the decision we made. Fair enough.

But what about the shameful and VERY public ramblings of Neville which proceeded his expulsion ?

I am well aware of your commercial concerns with Neville's Lucebait business but surely a few pounds doesn't cloud your judgement so much that despite you being the founder of a club which has been repeatedly criticised and jepoardised by the actions of one very sad individual you can still publicly state the current Committee have made the right move ?

Perhaps a scan at the bold man's latest offerings in the Pike and Predator magazine just out would be beneficial to you and anyone else who believes Neville should be welcomed back into the fold with open arms.

The PAC deserves better than this.

I'm pleased that Barrie thinks that "In a sense" what I put in a recent posting on the loathsome Blithfield repercussions subject was true. Although, at the time, he might have privately thought otherwise this did not come across in his conversation (heard by the committee over the speakerphone) in which he said that the committee had "no other option" than to expel Neville and co. No misgivings were voiced. Barrie had been called so that the matter could be discussed BEFORE the final step of expulsion was taken, so I felt that I could, in all honesty, state that he was in "full agreement".

The statement that Barrie refers to has a strange history. When the news of Barrie's resignation was becoming public, it was learnt that this was probably going to used as another stick with which to beat the PAC. I hasten to add, not by Barrie. Sick of PAC having to react to accusations, it was felt that a simple ABC of what happened be put forward to avoid yet another bitter slagging match. It was further felt that someone who 'bridged' the cross-over from the old committee to the new should do it as it would protect the new committee from any fall-out. In other words, a lightening conductor. I have a strong enough back and I took that job on.
After consulting with Frank Gibbons and members of the previous committee and having what I put sanctioned and in some cases changed by Mark Leathwood of the current committee, I posted the statement.
So, if Barrie or others had felt it unfair, they could rail against me as the messenger but not against PAC. I felt that was OK.

From my point of view, it's all a bit academic now anyway. As a result of the present PAC drift towards self-destruction, I and Bill Little resigned from the club a week ago. I still believe in a PAC that exists for the welfare of ALL pike and ALL pike anglers - I resigned from a club that had lurched away from this. I stayed for a while after Frank, Mac and John Campbell resigned hoping that sense could be made of it all. But when a committee flies in the face of a vote and says that it discounts that vote because it was a mistake to call for one - what can you do? And that's only one reason for going!

Sadder still, as I've been writing this, I had a phone call from one of the PAC RO's who is resigning today.

Ray Farrell

Barrie,

With all due respect, Ray's recent post was not the first time that your support for the committee's decision has been alluded to, check Pikelines. In addition, it was stated by the then Secretary at the last Working Dinner. I have seen no rebuttal at any time since January 2000 when the decision was made to expel...till now.

Any misgivings relative to the Committee's decision on this matter, of which you were allegedly a part, should have been stated to the Committee at that time. It would appear by your own statement that you did not make any such misgivings known to them. Hardly constructive or helpful given the gravity of the matter under consideration.

To bring it up now I feel is both too late and unhelpful to all who were charged with dealing with this matter and involved in it in any way, including those who fished Blithfield, and the current Committee.

A little more than mildly dissapointed.

Mac

(Ralston McPherson)

[This message has been edited by Mac (edited 20 January 2001).]

What has occurred has occurred now, whether the correct decisions were made at either time is open to the feelings and thoughts of the differing committees at the time. I have the upmost respect for nearly all those whom have resigned and feel that the PAC is going through a hard time at the moment, that may well explode in the present committees face in time. I hope not because I get on well with several of the new committee and know they are trying to look forward and not back.
However, reading the above statements from Ray and John, they seem to have not attended the same meeting when the decision was being made. John says that Frank phoned Barrie up at the end of the meeting, and told him of the outcome. Ray says Barrie was phoned up before the decision was made. Am I the only one to see this slight deviation of what occurred. Clarification would be much appreciated.
For the record I think the Scottish lads were right to make the decision they did. I also believe that the new committee are right to allow Nev back again, albeit I think he should have been given a sentence to serve and should have apologised, in writing, without interference from other quarters. He does appear to have been pardoned, when, I am sure, if it had been a less well known PAC member who had been involved that they surely would have been 'out' for longer and only allowed back in under certain laid down criteria.
I would like to state here and now that Neville did in fact apologise in public and in front of the PAC representatives in attendance at a SACG meeting, which I think was the crunch SACG meeting of January 23rd 2000. (This was the meeting that was called due to Tim and Chris saying they had resigned from the SACG.)
I know that Frank and Ray were in attendance at that meeting, (I think that Mark Leathwood was as well?)All I can say is that when Neville apologised for what he had done there was no response or acknowledgment from the PAC lad's. I was not the only person to notice this in the room, in fact I was surprised that Neville came out with it there and then on the day.
Some of the above posters were present at that meeting and should recall this happening.
I just wish that all the members who have resigned re-thought out their decisions but considering their positions now the recent committee has decided to about turn so easily, then I sympathise with their stance. They are good men and each has their own credibility to uphold. After all, they did no wrong in coming to the original decision. If they had not evicted the few, then I am sure that many of the membership would have spoken with their feet or slaughtered the committee for seeming to bend to the well known.
Maybe those of us who were not involved from the off should consider that they may well be cases for both sides and for those who have been caught up since the whole sorry affair took place.
Steve.

I was gonna comment but i've only been fishing twice this week! and i may get accussed of being sad an vegitating in front of the PC!!!! i apologise to those of you who don't understand that comment!!!

Cheer up Paul, we understand...just keep taking the pills, you know it makes sense!

After all, it has now been ensured that "The future is bright, the future is Blithfield"!

Mac

(Tongue firmly in cheek)



[This message has been edited by Mac (edited 19 January 2001).]

Mac, that made me smile!!!! but it made the missus roar, her miserable ole ****** has just started a course of tablets that will last for life!!!! nice one.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elton:
I've been asked to publish this by Marting Gay:

[b]Barrie Rickards is unable to access web pages at present and asks me to send the following statement on his behalf with the request, please, that it is published.

"In a recent long letter partly about Blithfield Ray Farrell stated that the Scottish PAC Committee had my "full agreement" when they expelled some members from PAC. In one sense this is true: I believe that the Committee of the time has the power to make all decisions and I would never in public question what they do. In private, of course, I would often, as Chairman make suggestions to Committee members which they could act upon or not, as they wished. In the same way they can take note any members views but do not need to act upon them: or to be more exact, they can act upon them entirely as they wish. The present Committee have made some difficult decisions recently, and were I a member at this precise moment of writing, I would support them in public. And, as it happens in this case, in private too".
Barrie Rickards
18 January 2001.


Thank you
Martin Gay
Dear All,

I can state quite categorically that Dr Rickard's did support the Scottish Committee's decision in relation to expelling those involved at Blithfield from PAC. Indeed, at no time did Dr Rickard's approach any committee member to give us the benefit of his private opinion.

However, following the announcement by Mr Fickling that he had secured Dr Rickard's services as a dead bait consultant - the committee had heard that Dr Rickard's had a 'new' or 'private' view on matters. However, I'm sure the the new role and new opinion were entirely unconnected.

I told the Scottish Committee that Dr Rickard's would not attend the Working Dinner in May 2000 and no one in PAC was surprised with his subsequent resignation.

Why Dr Rickard's, as non-PAC member, was sent a 'Change in Policy' document by the present committee no longer remains a mystery. The Liaison Officers also recieved a copy in November 2000. It's just a pity that Ralston McPherson was not issued with his document until the 19th of December 2000! However, I enjoyed the manner in which Dr Rickard's delivers an almost passive observation that he supports the present committee's decision to welcome young Neville.

I bet Dr Rickard's was as shocked as we were with Neville's readmission! Nice to see Martin is still backing-up Barrie - there are some things in life you can always rely upon.

Salute

Frank

Re Ray Farrel,s and Frank Gibbons posting on Barrie Rickards statement. That they should suggest that a commerical interest would some how alter the position Barrie has taken beggers belief. I too was a founding member of the P.A.C. , and having no commerical interests in any thing ., I rather think that Ray Farrel and Frank Gibbons are not telling us the full story or the truth on what realy went on . THE Truth will out , one day. I know who i believe on this matter and it is not two ex P.A.C. members who are trying to cover their tails. Malcolm Bannister

Yea, Yea yea....yawn!

Mac

I have always respected Barrie Rickards for his high principles and his intellect. Nothing has changed that. I feel it totally distasteful to suggest that Barrie's opinion and support could be bought by the gift of a few dead fish! For heavens sakes, the matter should be history by now.

It was on the way to being just that...until his posting.

Mac

Fair comment! Peter

Mr Eeelcatcher, young Sir,

Many thanks for your comments, Steve - very fair.

The discrepancy that you raise is not really that at all. What I meant as 'before' was that Barrie was involved and agreed with the committee before we went ahead with expelling Neville and the others. Although the committee were agreed it wanted to discuss the intended action with him before it took place. The discrepancy arises due to my clumsy way of saying things rather than anything else. Also, contrary to popular belief, the committee consulted with as many officers and members as it could to get their input. The committee did not act in the insular, draconian way that some would have people believe.

Onto Neville's apology at the SACG meeting - the one that Mark, Dave Lumb, Frank and I sat impassively through. What apology? If you remember the nearest he got to saying sorry was stating "I might regret a lot of this in a year or two." Do you think that Mark and the current committee wouldn't have pointed to this if it had been an apology - it would have helped their case for readmission no end. Not only that, why did Chris and Alan of SACG think it so important to get Neville and PAC round a table, issue a statement that was supposed to be an apology from Neville if he had already given one. No, that apology was another bit of Neville speak.

Cheers Steve,

Ray

Why can't all PAC members just pull together for the sake of the club? Leaving is not going to do the club any good in the long or the short term. The decision has been made to readmit Neville and like it or not, it is better for the club that he is in rather than out, because if he is out he could cause the club long term damage by his continuing rants in p+p etc.

I know many members don't like(to put it mildly!) Neville at the present time, but you can't argue about the immense work he has done for the pike and zander scene in the past 25+ years. The fact of the matter is the PAC need people like him and Barrie Rickards, Martin Gay, Mick Brown etc. The club will be in a much weaker position without them.

The new committee have made a decision, and they should be respected for it, just the same as Frank & co should be respected for the decision they made last year. I still think Neville should write a letter of apology to the committee, admitting his mistake which would at least go some way to helping us move on and put this whole Blithfield thing to bed for good.

Cheers

Could we get a few things clear. I know when people are trying to smear Barrie Rickards that they are desperate. Barrie's big deal with lucebaits consists of one large poly box full of smelt, mackerel, lampery and pollen. That is it! No £1000 consultancy cheque! For the benefit of Frank, Mac, Ray and John, who have not been around quite as long as some of us. Barrie and I ( Martin Gay as well ) have had some pretty robust debates over the years. You could hardly say we have ever been in each others pockets.

As John Cleese said to the Germans about World War II, "You started it" I'm doing my best to end it. I have apologisedto Ray, Frank and Alastair for my personal remarks ( no apology was ever forthcoming from them for the initial Blithfield press release. )
I certainly regret having to defend myself in the way I did. With people like Frank and Ray involved you tell me what other option I had? You've all resigned I regret that, but even though you've resigned you still want your own way? If you were as honourable as you all claim you'd shut up for the benefit of PAC. In the meantime I hope with a lot of effort from my part to win back some ofthe lost PAC members. As for Barrie Rickards, an apolgy is due, disgraceful behaviour on your parts.

This is an unprecedented posting on my part, I agree with NF wholeheartedly and unreservedly over the vast majority of his comments on this matter, especially re Barrie Rickards. The slight reservation is that NF states that he 'regrets having to defend himself' as he did. That small word 'having' beggers belief! If, Nev, you were to say 'I regret defending myself as I did,' rather than 'having to defend myself as I did' then I, for one, would consider the matter as amicably settled. At no time did you 'have' to defend yourself in the style that you did. It is noticeable that NONE of the other Blithfield gang chose to defend themselves as you have. Blithfield is long behind us, it's your 'defence' that has, largely, caused the problems.

Actually Mick Brown is 100% in agreement with how I dealt with the matter. He decided that he would not respond in detail to how the last committee behaved.

ET and Kev Shaw the same.

Just ask yourself in the light of how the old committee are behaving whether "going quietly" would have improved my situation?

What's this then, the pot calling the kettle black?

Had the original post re this thread not been posted, no one would have had any reason to say anything! If people really want this thing to go away as they say they do, don't start related threads that only ensure a response.

Think about it.

Mac

What a shambles!!!!!

As an ordinary angler that lurks on this site on a regular basis, and occasionaly posts I sit back and wonder what fishing has become.

I have seen these squabbles so many times within small clubs with everybody throwing there toys out of their prams and resigning on a point of principle then regretting it or starting a breakaway club, which only in the end dilutes the following.

Arne't you lot supposed to be a/or the representative body of Pike anglers in this country. There would appear to be so many personal battles going on within this so called body that it is in danger of losing total credability. What really p***** me of is that this is amongst named anglers that the ordinary person has for years looked up to and admired. Reading these postings amongst yourselves and it is quite obvious that you all know each other and the majority have fished together for years as friends, then over one incident BLITHFIELD it destroys all the years of good work and comaraderie that has been built up.

OK! lets look at Blithfield situation and there are two viewpoints. If I go back in time and I am sure you will all correct me if I am wrong. When Pike Fishing was first introduced to Trout resevoirs all pike had to be killed or moved, if I remember correctly Pike fisherman were queing up to get tickets, I am not saying this is right but it happened.

Now lets relate this to Blithfield the anglers in question could have followed the guidline of the PAC and not fished, but if I remember correctly a lot of the so called Trout reserviors that have been opened to Pike anglers over the years were only opened over a period of time when the riparian owners realised that there was another source of income when they were getting nothing from the Trout anglers. The majority of these were started as so called experiments, So in this new found sense of rightesnous were these people just supposed to turn there backs on the chance of another venue or to participate with a good chance of changing Blithfield policy.

I am sure that all of the people that have resigned have done so because they thought it was the only option left to them. this I can fully understand and sympathise with, as I have done the same in the past, but, and it is a big but you were there in the first place because you wanted to get involved and the membership as a majority voted you in to that postion and don't lets lose the wood for the trees, it should be the majority that you represent, not your own personal ambitions and petty squables.

You can not represent the best interests of the membership sat in your armchair,or on the phone to those that agree with your viewpoints or slagging of those that are trying to pick up the pieces left behind from your resignations on a point of principle, so you have two choices rather than trying to justfy your actions on here the only other way is to rejoin and fight from within or give your support to those that are trying to pick up the reins and restore some semblance of order so that what was once a great society and led the way for other societies to model themselves on.

Keith

[This message has been edited by Gaffer (edited 20 January 2001).]

Well said Keith!

Tight Lines - leon

In February 2001 edition of P&P Mr Fickling accuses Mark Leathwood of having a poor grasp of the English language. Perhaps he should evaluate his own understanding of the language and read Mr Rickards statement once again.

Mr Rickards clearly states that he did support the Scottish Committee's decision to expel members. However, he also indicates that privately he let it be known that he did not. The Scottish committee were not privvy to his private opinion on the matter.
In most parts of the UK this type of communication is deemed 'two faced' or at best 'underhand'. Hence, we did not expect to see him come face to face with the Scottish Committee in May 2000 and were not surprised to hear of his subsequent resignation.

Why Mr Rickards was forwarded a copy of the Change of Policy document, by the present committee in mid November 2000, remains unanswered? He was not a PAC member. I also question why the L.O. for Scotland did not recieve this document, circulated in November, until the 19th of December 2000? I am sure that Rob Murray, Dennis Moules, Paul Sanderson, Jon Cotton and the rest of the L.O.'s would not appreciate this type of treatment. A life of serving PAC - Ralston, did not deserve to be treated like this and I am sure most L.O.'s would agree.

In addition, in the Change of Policy reference was made to the fact that Neville Fickling had apologised for personal attacks in Pikelines. However, the General Secretary and some of the L.O.'s know this apology was written by Mr Rickards.

I apologise to all PAC members that I cannot accept that 'unity in angling in the UK' is dependant on the admission of any individual angler to PAC. I'm sorry, Mark. I also apologise that I was bitterly disappointed that Mr Fickling was not asked to submit an apology to the membership as a condition of his readmission. I know that John Milford is desperately disappointed with Mr Fickling's so called efforts to date - so am I.

Indeed, the vitroilic attack on PAC in February 2001 P&P demonstrates just how much Neville had reformed his views in December 2000.

The Scottish committee stood by PAC principles with regards to Blithfield. With the Angling Times and all the big names involved it was never going to be easy to defend the ordinary pike angler - or the ordinaruy pike for the matter. However, we stood firm and were not intimidated, bullied or broken by the **** that was flung at us.

I also apolgise to Mr Rickards but to be fair even the bannister was not going to break his fall when he embarked on the staircase of playing two sides against the middle. (No pun intended with the bannister).

There are some involved in Blithfield who try to sculpt an epitaph that reads: "There goes 7 members of the Scottish Committee. A bunch of lying ********, swindling their way through the destruction of pike to enhance their reputations and conning PAC members".
The sad thing is that PAC also appear to be structuring a similar epitaph on the basis that it lends credibility to Neville's readmission.

However, it must be a ******* that the financies, membership numbers and correspondence on Blithfield do not hang well with the epitaph. The truth has a strange way of saving people's reputations.

Salute


Frank




[This message has been edited by Gaffer (edited 20 January 2001).]

Please refrain from swearing and remember that this is a public forum.

Many thanks,

Gaffer

Another addition,

I would also like to add that your comments are more likely to be taken seriously if you give a contact email address.

In 'single species group' arguments like this it's also best if you don't assume that people know who you are or what the background of the argument is.

This thread is getting close to being locked. Can we please keep it civil.

Just remember that this is a free service and not a 'right'. Kids maybe reading what you have to say.

TIA

Ian.

Apologies Gaffer/Elton

Hadn't realised I had untill i saw your edit.

Keith

Nod, Nod, wink wink, say no more, know what I mean....

Mac

Well,Well, have you ever heard the like,its about time time that "THE BLITHFIELD INCIDENT" was Brought to an end,all those involved Know the part they have played in this handbag swinging soap opera,you have done nothing to promote the Pike Anglers Club,Well not in my eyes any way and I suppose in a lot of others also,Iam just an ordanary bloke who goes fishing,Iam sick to death of the whole saga,you all know what you have to do,get on with it,we have enough problems out side of angling,without scoreing own goals,there Ive said,I feel better,Rant Over.
david platt

As an angler who likes fishing for Pike, and is doing more and more piking as i get older.
The PAC was an obviuse group to consider joining.

NOT ANY MORE

You have made a complete abortion of this saga and put off any new members ever considering joining

As a non member who knows none of the party's involved there seems to be a lot of hidden agenders in the back ground.

In my opinion the PAC should be closed, and those who have a genuine interest in the welfare and protection of pike should start again.

And not with such a close minded and dictaor like commitee.

This is only a personal opinion of somone who knows nothing about the PAC and is making asumptions on all the dirty washing you have hung on the line over the last few months.

------------------
dave kennedy

I know I will get slated for what follows, but here goes anyway.

Things have obviously gone too far for some people to ever forget, let alone forgive what has occurred over the last year or so. However, I genuinely believe that it is time we all turn this particular page and begin to write a new chapter in the PAC’s history on a fresh sheet. A new chapter based on unity, tolerance and understanding.

Dave Lumb

Pity you did not consider the above sentiments immediately prior to December 2000.

However, better late than never.

For what its worth, I wish you well

Mac

[This message has been edited by Mac (edited 21 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Mac (edited 21 January 2001).]

OH DEAR

Jesus, I thought we had problems in the CHUB STUDY GROUP, in trying to find a venue large enough to hold our AGM's.
Lighten up, If you want to squabble join the Tory party.
I dont know about the rest of you, but I go fishing because I enjoy it.


------------------
JOHN HEPWORTH(CSG)

I think the general consensas is that this/these PAC/Nev F topics are getting a little, yaaaawn, repetative to say the least.
OK, we all know what went on or at least think we do with all these claims and counter claims.
Can we now leave the PAC to get themselves (what's left of them!) back into shape and get on with our own fishing?



------------------
All the best,

Gaffer