Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.
Posted 20 March 2005 - 09:15 PM
We have read the evidence from my learned friend for the defence who says;
"The CA is sustainably funded. FACT is not.
But itís working on that at the moment."
No its not. What its doing is "TALKING" about the possibility. Just like it did in every failed attempt before. What makes Peter Waller believe it will be any different this time? FACT? Faith? Fiction? The CA "IS" sustainably funded. FACT is "NOT". Talk is cheap. The CA remains sustainably funded no matter what my learned friend "hopes" will come to pass.
ďThe CA has individual members. FACT does not.
But individual membership is available to folk who join member groups of FACT"
Ma Lord. This is rhubarb. Individual membership within "SOME" of the orgs in FACT just about covers the running costs for the individual orgs and nothing else. The FACT is ladies and gentlemen of the jury, FACT have NO individual members and will NOT be having any either as well Peter Waller knows. The CA "DOES" have individual members and anyone individual or group can join the CA. FACT remains another quango set up by a handful of orgs with a long history for disunity. A long history of having no individual membership available in the quangos either.
"The CA has a professional website. FACT does not.
Yes, I have looked at the CA site! Professional you say?! But then so do a number of FACT constituant members have web sites, but yes, FACT need's its own. Doubtless it will get there."
FACT does "NOT" have its own website PERIOD. The CA does PERIOD. Membership orgs in CA membership also have ďtheirĒ own websites. A lot more than does the orgs in FACT!!! FACT has no funds to set up a professional website NOR have the personnel to run one effectively. NO PAY NO SAY as Mr Bird says. BUT the reality is, NO DOUGH NO SHOW. FACT is just another poor attempt that is going to remain poor in financial terms.
"Doubtless it will get there?" What influences my learned friendís confidence? Realistic history? Or some type of newly found blind faith? The CA has managed to do what itís done in a few short years. Progressed in a professional, self sustaining way. Itís actually achieved everything Peterís new friends HAVEN'T and they've actually been trying for HOW MANY LONG YEARS???
"The CA has a regional structure. FACT does not.
FACT has a national network of constituant members."
Hogwash Ma Lord. FACT has NO regional structure and I put it to the jury that very few within the FACT org memberships actually know whatís going off either!! A damning trait is the FACT that very few grass roots anglers either in or out of FACT know what FACT is anyway!!! But they all know what the CA is. So does the rest of the UK populace. Now thatís a REAL network at work that turns membership expectations into reality.
"The CA has full time employees. FACT does not.
Not yet. But I expect it is working on that."
Expects?? Expects?? Doesn't my learned friend actually KNOW? Without sustainable funding, FACT cannot begin to consider the prospect of full time employees. In reality ladies and gentlemen of the jury, FACT is no nearer this goal than it was in NAA, thingmy jig in-between or in any of the unity attempts it made before them. The Countryside Alliance leaves FACT-NAA before that standing on all fronts.
"The CA has fund raising events. FACT does not.
No, but its constituant members do."
Do they indeed Peter Waller? Perhaps you might like to list all those constituent bodies fund raising events whose intent is/was to provide funding for FACT, NAA or any other quango before these?? A full list if you please detailing who was involved and how much money they raised? I will keep going back to this one Ma Lord as I feel this is not the case at all. This will be your chance Peter Waller to substantiate this claim?
"The CA represents the interests of a wide range of rural pursuits.
Exactly. Angling is riding just one horse.
It doesn't try and hide its real agendas behind other sports."
Nor does the CA. Look at their website and see what the FACTS are. I put it to the jury that itís "others" that constantly slake the CA that has the hidden agendas?
The CA has a factual position in as much as itís totally united. NAA wasn't. Nor was anything before that.
ďIt is a fact that FACT has a long way to go. It has only just got itself off the drawing-board."
More hogwash Ma Lord. Those heading up FACT are the same people either in or very close around the fringes of NAA before that. What is FACT? Itís basically a rehash of all the other quangos with a different name meeting in a different place. The faces around the table are pretty much the same faces. Big change then? Big expectations more like but nothing to compare it to the successful Countryside Alliance.
" Lee, your history and dabbling in angling politics leads me to wonder at your agenda, it really does."
Then he said;
"Lee, well, mischief with a capital M! Seems to me that he enjoys playing political chess with angling politics. A shame, for me that devalues his obvious ability."
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Is this the face of familiar slur in the face of defeat in debate? I have no agenda. I am NOT a member of anything in FACT "OR" a CA member either. I merely give my opinions based upon FACTS as I see them. Because I retain an opinion, am I to be branded by Peter Waller as carrying an agenda? And does holding an opinion mean I am behaving mischeiviously? Peter Waller is free to hold the variety of opinions he does but anyone else?
I don't list a long line of membership orgs after my posts. I merely post as myself and don't carry the baggage of org memberships that bring constraints.
The Countryside Alliance Ma Lord dwarfs anything FACT can offer in terms of proven, undefeated, unwavering unity within its whole membership.
Again I predict that FACT will fail. No hidden agenda, just an opinion based entirely on historical fact.
I predict that the Countryside Alliance will still be here long after FACT has gone. Just like I said it would be long after the NAA was gone. Was I wrong??
On the unity front, the PR front, the sustainable funded front, the professional front, the Countryside Alliance leaves angling's quangos way behind. Thatís a FACT.
Or you could choose to believe the likes of Peter Waller with their FACTUAL representations of anglingís future based upon what? FACT? FICTION? Or a history of angling that tells us all otherwise.
Posted 20 March 2005 - 09:18 PM
Not on the ethos front it doesn't, my friend..
Posted 20 March 2005 - 10:08 PM
But, once again, what is your agenda Lee? Seriously now! Like you I have a long memory.
Graham, no names this time. Don't want this one closed down too. Shame about the other one though, I was rather looking forward, with baited breath don't yer just know, to Argy Bargie's reply since you were rather unfair on him in the last one.
[ 20. March 2005, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]
Posted 20 March 2005 - 10:56 PM
Mr W, all I can see is a lot of factual comparative evidence to 'wade through' and respond to. A mere 'Oh no it isnt' is not an acceptable reply, neither will be vague references to 'agendas' unless you dont really want to debate the issue, or unless of course you dont have the ammunition. Even a grudging acceptance that Lee has several good irrefutable points would count in your favour.
I wouldnt count on your ally either, he's only good for a bit of girly name calling. See you're doing that now.
Sorry I wasnt able to join in earlier, I was fishing. You all remember what that is, dont ya?
Posted 20 March 2005 - 11:51 PM
FACT is a very recent organisation that deserves a chance to fulfil its brief. Comparisons between the two are unjustified and nothing more than mischief-making.
It seems to me that infanticide is a pasttime practiced by some on here as well as their angling.
Perhaps they want to ensure that any new organisation lasts as short a period as some of their own failed attempts.
Posted 21 March 2005 - 01:41 AM
As an SAA member but not neccesarily a FACT supporters club member, would I be included in the count of FACT members? What beats me is that I initially joined the SAA after having had the idea sold to me that this would become the 'unified' all encompassing body that would represent all of we 'concerned(?)' anglers. I mean, 'Specialist Anglers', shouldn't that term be umbrella enough to shelter all forms of caring anglers?
For me personally, each time we undergo this 'regeneration' our message becomes all the more diluted.
Speaking impartially, I don't think there's the slightest doubt that the machinations of the CA are infinitely more impressive than that of our existing angling political heavyweights. An effective web-site, a co-ordinated support and, one would assume, inherantly generous levels of funding. They also have an unquestionable track record in mobilising that support.
Unfortunately though, in terms of how effective it might be as the champion of modern angling, the Alliance has that big nasty monkey, in the shape of hunting with dogs, clinging firmly to it's back! Will there still be an organisation left to support us once Hunters have finally accepted the inevitable? I'm not so sure.
Another question I find myself asking is, how can we expect the CA to fix it's attention on protecting the future of angling, or campaigning on the various other rural issues they claim to have an interest in, when all of the campaigns energy and resources are seemingly focussed firmly on attempting to overturn the hunting ban?
'We should be fishin'
Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:12 AM
And all of this might is directed at promoting and defending angling?
Or is it one bloke putting out the odd press release?
The funds of the CA, generously donated by their passionate supporters.
Do those donors want to see their donations spent on the effective promotion and defence of angling?
Does the majority of them want to see that?
A substantial minority?
Many at all?
Or is it a case that some anglers see that huge gleaming pot and optimistically think that it's all going to be for their benefit, rather than a few quid spent flying the CA flag in the face of anglers hoping that they will lend their support to the cause?
Over the last couple of years I've been involved in preparing a number of proposals to government, and a number of responses to government department consultations on behalf of several angling organisations.
And I've been to quite a few meetings with politicians and officials, often talking to them alongside a number of organisations.
Stuff that's taken a lot of research, committee involvement, financing and hard work.
Most of those proposals, responses to consultations, meetings etc are on public record, and it's been interesting to go through them and see which other organisations have responded, and what they have had to say.
Responses from NGOs, individuals, angling associations etc etc.
I've never seen anything from the CA!
Nor come across them at any of the important meetings that I've attended or heard about.
So, gaze at that organisation with its impressive resources, its mountain of gold and dream the dream.
But it's not there for angling, well not enough to make any difference.
You can have a few crumbs, but at the heart of the CA there is not the passion for, nor the dedication that you'd expect to find in an organisation that is devoted to the cause of promoting and defending angling.
You'll find that much closer to home.
Tight Lines - leon
[ 20. March 2005, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]
Posted 21 March 2005 - 04:46 AM
Sometime ago a reporter friend of mine interviewed Jardine for a local paper. Following that he told me that he thought that once the fox hunting ban was finally accepted then the CA would fold.
The following was posted on 11/3/05 on one of the gamefishing forums that I sometimes kick about in. I haven't met the man concerned, but have exchanged views with him on many topics on various fishing fora in recent years. For me -- knowing how (or so it seemed to me) that for him it was almost a case of "My Alliance, right or wrong" -- his words were almost shocking.
"Coincidentally, this came as I was on the point of emailing Charles Jardine about another issue relating to fishing on which I think the Alliance has been dragging its feet. The email has now been sent, with an brief paragraph added asking about this.
Although I am a CA member of some years standing, and a supporter of hunting, I regret that am finding their claims to represent angling interests increasingly hollow.
Two friends of mine who are/were involved with the organisation and management of the Alliance, in salaried as well as voluntary capacities, recently told me that if the hunting ban is not reversed they think the Alliance may implode, as it has become focussed almost exclusively on that single issue. On this showing it's hard to disagree. If it is to have a future, it's time they looked to their other supporters' interests a bit more."
Basil Fawlty to the old bat, guest from hell, Mrs Richards.