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

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