northern mark

Got snow on Teeside, about 2"

Good stuff gents

Also have a look at the poll supporting the ban on hunting.

Graham Angling could quite easily be banned, enforcing the ban would be a different matter altogether. How could you police a group of folk out on horseback, perhaps running some dogs perhaps not. What if no animal was chased, wouldn't this be a gross waste of police time and money. Or maybe not after the apple eating incident.

For the horse to be eligible to enter the point to point it has to have taken part in some ( I can't remember the number off the top of my head ) hunts throughout the hunting season. They probably wont bother with this eligibility anymore otherwise they would lose the point to point.

Graham The ban would be policed the same as the hunt ban will be. Practically impossible for hunting impossible for angling. Peter Last week you could still buy land with hunting and shooting rights. Ok I'll bite. Which crap? This seems to be turning into a hunting verses fishing thread now. I don't hunt foxes but I do fish. I object to peoples civil liberties being taken away by goverments supposedly acting on behalf of us. This hunting ban affects more than just hunting. How can point to point continue? To qualify the horses had to have been on hunts a minimum number of times throughout the season.

Thanks Leon. I hope it works.

Who are they and what are there aims please?

OK You don't like Charles Jardine and the CA BUT He does get publicity and alright he does claim to get things done but if wasn't taking the credit for these things would we all be as aware of them. Angling has some very good people working in the background but we need to push angling and it's benefits out to the general public. Tell them about how much we pay to the EA to improve water quality, ask them if they are willing to make up that shortfall if angling gets banned or restricted. Show them angling is getting kids off the streets and giving them some respect for the enviroment. But as usual anglers will do nothing because angling will never be banned because ............ And anyone saying different is scaremongering.

Graham If I a misinformed scaremonger where did the article in the Independant comparing angling and fox hunting come from? Ok so your angling is not a country persuit, I choose to fish in the country so mine is. Sorry but you lost me there. I am not trying to stir up trouble wherever I go either. I would just like anglers such as yourself to understand that angling is going to be targeted and the possibility of some ban or limit to the type of fishing we do is very real. It doesn't matter how much money is made from angling or if the waterways go to ruin, these people will not care. Angling needs a unified voice maybe not the CA but if not them then who. Please tell me you do have another body in mind to represent us, and one that we have heard of please. JS never said you did anything wrong. I too go fishing because I enjoy it.

And you go fishing why? I have just caught this thread and a lot of it is comes across as the misinformed cr@p that the antis spout all the time. The CA is for all country pursuits and believe or not angling is one of them. Yes it is associated with fox hunting at the moment because fox hunting is banned and they are trying to put pressure on the right people to overturn this ban. The turnip people of the UK are quite happy that this ban has happened and will also be happy as the antis turn there attention to shooting, killing animals for pleasure, and fishing, hurting animals for pleasure. You have seen the fox getting ripped to shreds, screaming in agony but have you seen the Eel getting cut in half as it wriggles about or any of the other supposedly everyday occurences on every fishing trip. The CA have a loud voice, we need a loud voice not some whisper that can't agree with itself. For those that use the "I don't want to be associated with fox hunting" too late in the eyes of many of the public we already are.

Fiddling while Rome burns comes to mind.

I was sent this the other day This was in Sundays Independent Newspaper, by Christopher Hudson. 13 February 2005 Extract Nevertheless, I have a modest proposal to make. It has been demonstrated that fish feel pain. Experiments carried out on rainbow trout, involving the injection of bee venom into their lips, showed that the fish have pain receptors which make them react like mammals. This supports the findings of the RSPCA that "current practices in angling do involve the infliction of pain and suffering on fish". This was always the criterion that counted. In the 18th century Jeremy Bentham observed the question to be asked about animals was neither "Can they reason?", nor "Can they talk?", but "Can they suffer?" Anglers have ducked the cruelty issue by arguing that the brains of fish are too primitive for self-awareness. But this, too, seems to be a delusion. Four months ago the Royal Society reported that tests on fish in aquaria at Oxford University show they possess cognitive abilities which outstrip those of some small mammals. What difference is there between foxes and fish? None in law, only the difference which ministers won't admit: that Labour backbenchers would fight as fiercely to protect the working-class killing of fish as they fought to ban the upper-middle-class killing of foxes. The symmetry is underlined by the two tests that No 10 wanted to apply to hunting: that it could be licensed only if it served a useful purpose and was carried out in a way to cause least suffering. Angling is a pastime, not a necessity. As for cruelty, the practice of livebaiting, in which anglers impale fish on double or treble hooks through their lips and body in order to catch predatory fish - letting them struggle in agony until they are eaten by another fish or left to die of their injuries - is at least as nasty as what happens to foxes. Those tests of "utility" and "cruelty" were rejected by Labour MPs precisely because they would have applied in equal measure to angling - and there are three million coarse, game and sea anglers in Britain. So here's my proposal. If a human rights appeal succeeds, pro-hunt campaigners should then join with the RSPCA in mounting a legal challenge against angling, on the grounds that in all respects it matches the criteria used to ban hunting. Faced with banning three million anglers, the Government might suddenly discover that, after all, hunting constituted an infringement of human liberties. Still think angling is safe? [ 18. February 2005, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: northern mark ]

I used to have hair

Leonberger

Herr Blair Mark

No problems for me so far.

In an age when most people are becoming famous for how badly they can behave or who they are laying it is great to see somone doing something that takes determination and skill. To those that want to put her down, try doing it first then tell everyone how easy it is. Well done Ellen

Its ok Ken thanks. I was just wonering if it affected the type of work I could do or if it changed any of the working practices like health and safety.

Thanks Ken

I have been assessed by the Industrial Injuries Disability people and they have decided I am 14% disabled. As some of you may know I have been asked to return to work, after seeing the works doctor, on light duties. My own doctor has advised that I return to work on the provision that if my knee gives me more pain than usual to cease the work and go home. My solicitor has advised me the same as not returning to work would go against me in my claim for loss of earnings. Does anyone know what this 14% disablement means other than as entitlement to benefit. I have informed my employers and they don't know if this affects anything but they will find out, I have looked on the net but I can only find out about disabled living allowance and Industrial Injuries Benefit. Thanks

Snake?

skunk?

Is it a ferret?