Leon Roskilly

AAAAAaaarrrrghhhh! I'm three years older than I was back then. This can't go on happening to me!! Well done Elton Tight Lines - leon

Hi Alan, Sorry your emails haven't been getting through to me. Elton's server where the *.go-fishing.co.uk email addresses are hosted was attacked by a spammer. The result is that until Elton gets it sorted (or the go-fishing addresses are abandoned), anyone emailing to a go-fishing address won't get through Any emails to me in the meantime should be sent to Leonrosk@aol.com or FishSense@aol.com The study you are looking for is at: http://www.nautilus-consultants.co.uk/pdfs/wales.pdf Tight Lines - leon

Sorry Danny, I didn't know how to go about catching mullet in the days when we kept our boat at West Mersea. They sure did torment us when we lay at anchor, out in the estuary, on calm warm summer days. Big fish, and big weals on the water, with absolutely no idea about how to go about catching them. I'm sure that there would be plenty of places along the creeks and moorings where mullet would feed. Getting them educated to bread without a few days pre-baiting would be the problem Er, Bob Cox's son is into mullet in a big way. It might be worth giving him a call (sorry, I don't have his number). Tight Lines - leon

I once wrote to the (once upon a time) director of the League Against Cruel Sports, praising his pro-angling stance in the letter column of a national newspaper. In his reply, he pointed out that he had been an angler in his youth and could see no connection whatsoever between coarse angling and an animal being ripped to pieces by hounds. Unfortunately he moved (or was moved?) on Tight Lines - leon

I once wrote to the (once upon a time) director of the League Against Cruel Sports, praising his pro-angling stance in the letter column of a national newspaper. In his reply, he pointed out that he had been an angler in his youth and could see no connection whatsoever between coarse angling and an animal being ripped to pieces by hounds. Unfortunately he moved (or was moved?) on Tight Lines - leon

The letter below was delivered by the European Angling Alliance to all MEPs. What we need now is for every angler to send a copy to their MEP, MP, Newspaper etc. The more noise that anglers can make now, the more fish we will be catching in the years to come, and the more the authorities and politicos will take notice of us in future. Tight Lines - leon Sea Anglers' Conservation Network (SACN) http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn ------------------------------------------------ OPEN LETTER to the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi Brussels, 25 April 2002 Concerning the delay of the CFP reform and the removal of Steffen Smidt, Director-General, DG Fisheries Dear Mr President, We were shocked to learn of the telephone discussion between Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar and yourself last weekend which resulted in the postponement of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This was reported in the Agence Europe newsletter on Wednesday, 24 April, taken from the Spanish newspaper El Pais. We were further shocked to discover CFP architect, Steffen Smidt was removed from his post as Director-General of DG Fisheries on Tuesday evening on your direct orders as stated by the press bureau Ritzau. From Agence Europe and El Pais we know that Mr Aznar, supported by the French, Portuguese Irish and Italian governments, is opposed to the adoption of the proposals by Commissioner Franz Fischler in their current form. Your spokesman said the proposals will be "discussed in coming weeks". By your interference you make it difficult for the Danish Presidency to finalise the CFP reform during the second half of 2002 as planned. Instead Greece -member of “Friends of Fisheries” group- will have to deal with it during their EU Precedence first half of 2002. This is not promising! Millions of anglers, sport-fishers, the tackle industry and angling tourism sector and millions of common European citizens want changes now after having experienced the well known damages from more than 20 years with a non-sustainable and mis-managed European Fishery policy. By your latest actions, Mr President, you send us all the very poor signal, that our opinions and hopes for a better CFP don’t count at all if we are not in line with some minor group of members of the Council dubiously calling themselves “Friends of Fisheries”. Last year, on the request of the Commission DG Fisheries, hundreds of stakeholders took part in last year’s CFP Green Paper consultations in the hope that this would change the European Fisheries policy for the better. But it seems like one telephone call from Spain is worth more than thousands of peoples hard work and commitment in this matter. So much for “bringing the Union closer to the Citizens”. Another public consultation concerning the Commission’s EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE – A WHITE PAPER, ended three weeks ago. In this White Paper the Commission states (p.7): “The Union is built on the rule of law; it can draw on the Charter of fundamental rights, and it has a double democratic mandate through a Parliament representing EU citizens and a Council representing the elected governments of the Member States. Yet despite its achievements, many Europeans feel alienated from the Union’s work.(..)Finally, many people do not know the difference between the Institutions. They do not understand who takes the decisions that affect them and do not feel the Institutions act as an effective channel for their views and concerns.” Dear Mr Prodi, the citizens are not to blame! The EAA and EFTTA call for:  an explanation of the President's conduct  the Commission’s CFP proposals published now  and the immediate reinstatement of Steffen Smidt to his position. Yours sincerely, Harm Minekus, President of EAA Louis Tchertoff, President of EFTTA Jan Kappel, Secretary General of EAA EAA * 82 Rue F. Pelletier * B-1030 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (0)2 732 0309 * Fax: + 32 (0)2 736 2858 * Mobile: + 32 0498/840523 * E-mail: eaa.aepl@skynet.be

Used to catch flounder and eels from the beach, and 'coarse' fish for eels in the dykes. You really need to get out in a boat for the best fishing. Used to take plaice in the creeks. Cod and whiting out in the estuary during the Winter, and tope and thornbacks during the Summer. Tight Lines - leon

My understanding is that you are not allowed to fish for coarse fish on rivers during the close season. But you are allowed to fish for sea species. There is an area on all rivers where both coarse and sea fish mix. The salt water, being more dense, flows beneath the fresh (well that's the theory!) Fish will move between the layers, some more than others. It's up to you to convince the EA that the method and bait you are using is targetted at sea species. Live-bait a pouting for bass, and you could hook a pike. Stick float bread for mullet, and you might hook a carp. This time of year, I'm fishing the Medway estuary with bread for mullet, but with the same tackle and techniques as I'd be using for chub upriver. (A friend landed a 10oz roach last year, not very far upriver from where I fish!) A couple of years or so ago, someone in the EA caused a furore amongst sea anglers, when they said that fishing from the beach for eels without a freshwater licence is an offence, because eels are officially classified as a freshwater fish! Tight Lines - leon

My understanding is that you are not allowed to fish for coarse fish on rivers during the close season. But you are allowed to fish for sea species. There is an area on all rivers where both coarse and sea fish mix. The salt water, being more dense, flows beneath the fresh (well that's the theory!) Fish will move between the layers, some more than others. It's up to you to convince the EA that the method and bait you are using is targetted at sea species. Live-bait a pouting for bass, and you could hook a pike. Stick float bread for mullet, and you might hook a carp. This time of year, I'm fishing the Medway estuary with bread for mullet, but with the same tackle and techniques as I'd be using for chub upriver. (A friend landed a 10oz roach last year, not very far upriver from where I fish!) A couple of years or so ago, someone in the EA caused a furore amongst sea anglers, when they said that fishing from the beach for eels without a freshwater licence is an offence, because eels are officially classified as a freshwater fish! Tight Lines - leon

There was a prophetic article in The Guardian Newspaper on April 19th: http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journa...,687359,00.html (There's plenty more articles about the state of our fish stocks etc at http://www.guardian.co.uk/fish ) The ‘Friends of the Fisheries Group’ seem to be bringing heavy pressure to bear, to wreck all that is good which is contained in the proposals for the CFP review, and are seemingly attempting to delay proceedings until Greece takes over the EU presidency, when they will have a much greater influence on events. Today, this was issued by the EAA: Dear all, This letter was delivered to Commission President Romano Prodi and released to the press today (and distributed by hand into 626 MEP's mailboxes in the European Parliament). Jan Kappel, Secretary-General, EAA 'European Anglers´ Alliance' EAA Office: 82 Rue F. Pelletier B-1030 Brussels Belgium Tel: +32 (0)2 732 0309 Fax: +32 (0)2 736 2858 E-mail : eaa.aepl@skynet.be -------------------------------------------------- OPEN LETTER to the President of the European Commission Romano Prodi Brussels, 25 April 2002 Concerning the delay of the CFP reform and the removal of Steffen Smidt, Director-General, DG Fisheries Dear Mr President, We were shocked to learn of the telephone discussion between Spanish Prime Minister José Maria Aznar and yourself last weekend which resulted in the postponement of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). This was reported in the Agence Europe newsletter on Wednesday, 24 April, taken from the Spanish newspaper El Pais. We were further shocked to discover CFP architect, Steffen Smidt was removed from his post as Director-General of DG Fisheries on Tuesday evening on your direct orders as stated by the press bureau Ritzau. From Agence Europe and El Pais we know that Mr Aznar, supported by the French, Portuguese Irish and Italian governments, is opposed to the adoption of the proposals by Commissioner Franz Fischler in their current form. Your spokesman said the proposals will be "discussed in coming weeks". By your interference you make it difficult for the Danish Presidency to finalise the CFP reform during the second half of 2002 as planned. Instead Greece -member of “Friends of Fisheries” group- will have to deal with it during their EU Precedence first half of 2002. This is not promising! Millions of anglers, sport-fishers, the tackle industry and angling tourism sector and millions of common European citizens want changes now after having experienced the well known damages from more than 20 years with a non-sustainable and mis-managed European Fishery policy. By your latest actions, Mr President, you send us all the very poor signal, that our opinions and hopes for a better CFP don’t count at all if we are not in line with some minor group of members of the Council dubiously calling themselves “Friends of Fisheries”. Last year, on the request of the Commission DG Fisheries, hundreds of stakeholders took part in last year’s CFP Green Paper consultations in the hope that this would change the European Fisheries policy for the better. But it seems like one telephone call from Spain is worth more than thousands of peoples hard work and commitment in this matter. So much for “bringing the Union closer to the Citizens”. Another public consultation concerning the Commission’s EUROPEAN GOVERNANCE – A WHITE PAPER, ended three weeks ago. In this White Paper the Commission states (p.7): “The Union is built on the rule of law; it can draw on the Charter of fundamental rights, and it has a double democratic mandate through a Parliament representing EU citizens and a Council representing the elected governments of the Member States. Yet despite its achievements, many Europeans feel alienated from the Union’s work.(..)Finally, many people do not know the difference between the Institutions. They do not understand who takes the decisions that affect them and do not feel the Institutions act as an effective channel for their views and concerns.” Dear Mr Prodi, the citizens are not to blame! The EAA and EFTTA call for:  an explanation of the President's conduct  the Commission’s CFP proposals published now  and the immediate reinstatement of Steffen Smidt to his position. Yours sincerely, Harm Minekus, President of EAA Louis Tchertoff, President of EFTTA Jan Kappel, Secretary General of EAA EAA * 82 Rue F. Pelletier * B-1030 Brussels, Belgium Tel: + 32 (0)2 732 0309 * Fax: + 32 (0)2 736 2858 * Mobile: + 32 0498/840523 * E-mail: eaa.aepl@skynet.be -------------------------------------------------- Please put pen to paper and support Jan and the EAA by contacting your own MEP as soon as possible. You will find contact details of your MEP by starting at: http://wwwdb.europarl.eu.int/ep5/owa/p_mep...g=EN&iorig=home Tight Lines - Leon Roskilly Sea Anglers' Conservation Network (SACN) http://www.anglersnet.co.uk/sacn/

er Phone, Chips are French fries !! What you call chips, we call crisps!! http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99992213 Tight Lines - leon

er Phone, Chips are French fries !! What you call chips, we call crisps!! http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?...p?id=ns99992213 Tight Lines - leon

Superglue breaks down in water after a while. If you are tying a rig, and using it again and again, don't rely on the superglue to hold it together. When tying spade end hooks, I routinely apply superglue to the knot, just to be sure, but I don't use the same tied hook for more than one session. Tight Lines - leon

Superglue breaks down in water after a while. If you are tying a rig, and using it again and again, don't rely on the superglue to hold it together. When tying spade end hooks, I routinely apply superglue to the knot, just to be sure, but I don't use the same tied hook for more than one session. Tight Lines - leon

My most successful lures for bass have to be Rapala CDJ-18s (or smaller). (The CJD stands for Countdown Jointed). Most people use plain J- Rapalas, but I find that the CJDs have a slightly different, and more successful action. They don't cast too far but, at least where I fish (mostly from the concerete apron of Folkestone Warren, over the rocks) most strikes come almost under the rod tip. If there is an onshore wind, then a Dexter Wedge punches out into the wind. Although a heavy lump, the shape of the lure planes it up toward the sea's surface and you can skip it through the waves if your work it fast. They seem to be less of a problem when there is a lot of weed in the water. When the conditions are weedy, I'll replace the hooks with a single hook with a 'wreck guard' (that's a piece of light wire from the eye to the point which guides weed away from the gape). The bass seem to prefer hunting in the surface layer, perhaps so that they can dive down onto their prey when they are actively hunting (rather than scavenging, or rooting for crabs on the bottom - they seem to do that when the water is colder and will ignore lures). However, on occasions I've also used a Fat Rap when shallower lures haven't attracted much interest, but not on all occasions by any means. Poppers are also an effective bass lure, especially at night, though I must admit I haven't used them much. At night, the bigger bass come close inshore, but beware showing any lights. Also look for an incoming tide where the water sweeps over sun-warmed mud/sand as darkness approaches. That too seems to bring them in. If you are giving bass a go with pike tackle, give preference to the long minnow shaped lures. Don't forget to rinse your gear and lures in freshwater, after use in slatwater, and spray your lures and reels with WD-40, both before and after the trip. Tight Lines - leon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4376203,00.html Tight Lines - leon

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/...4376203,00.html Tight Lines - leon

Have a look at the Greater London Council election results for 1970 http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcwf.html Yes, that's me (down near the bottom of the votes cast ) It was that year when I quit party politics, and for a while became involved in direct action. No, not because of my poor showing (I mean I was standing as a liberal candidate! and I was last in alphabetic order, and I forgot to show up for my motorcade - I'd been to a party the night before and there was this Young Liberal lady who made me forget all about the next day, until my agent tracked me down and called the phone at her flat!!) No. The election results had been a foregone conclusion in that borough - Labour would walk it!! Except they didn't!! It was hilarious, at the count. All those Conservative party members, persuaded by the local party officials to allow their name to be put forward. 'Don't worry, you won't have a chance of getting in!' Talk about shock results!! There were a lot of shocked (now GLC councillors), wandering around that night, muttering 'But I don't have the time to be a councillor', 'My employer will never let me have time off for council business - we're far too busy'. No, what really got to me was the injustice of theat night. Labour councillors, who had put so much into being a good councillor, so many hours, so much effort for the community, swept aside and replaced by an unknown (and largely unwilling) quantity. Had the voters been aware of what a good councillor they had been? Did they have any idea who they were voting in to power in their place? No, they simply voted for the party label. Not what had happened locally, what was important locally, but for protest at the policies of the government of the day. I realised that most voters don't even know the name of their councillors. Do you? Or their MEP. Do you? Maybe not even their MP (please say that you do know that one!) How could I represent the interests of such a constituency? I began to realise just why party politicians often put the interests of their party first. Why the electorate is so often held in contempt. Democracy? Informed electorate? Tribalism? For democracy to work, voters and represented have to take a real and informed interest. Tight Lines - leon (now only slightly bitter and twisted with the passing of the years!! )

Have a look at the Greater London Council election results for 1970 http://www.election.demon.co.uk/glc/glcwf.html Yes, that's me (down near the bottom of the votes cast ) It was that year when I quit party politics, and for a while became involved in direct action. No, not because of my poor showing (I mean I was standing as a liberal candidate! and I was last in alphabetic order, and I forgot to show up for my motorcade - I'd been to a party the night before and there was this Young Liberal lady who made me forget all about the next day, until my agent tracked me down and called the phone at her flat!!) No. The election results had been a foregone conclusion in that borough - Labour would walk it!! Except they didn't!! It was hilarious, at the count. All those Conservative party members, persuaded by the local party officials to allow their name to be put forward. 'Don't worry, you won't have a chance of getting in!' Talk about shock results!! There were a lot of shocked (now GLC councillors), wandering around that night, muttering 'But I don't have the time to be a councillor', 'My employer will never let me have time off for council business - we're far too busy'. No, what really got to me was the injustice of theat night. Labour councillors, who had put so much into being a good councillor, so many hours, so much effort for the community, swept aside and replaced by an unknown (and largely unwilling) quantity. Had the voters been aware of what a good councillor they had been? Did they have any idea who they were voting in to power in their place? No, they simply voted for the party label. Not what had happened locally, what was important locally, but for protest at the policies of the government of the day. I realised that most voters don't even know the name of their councillors. Do you? Or their MEP. Do you? Maybe not even their MP (please say that you do know that one!) How could I represent the interests of such a constituency? I began to realise just why party politicians often put the interests of their party first. Why the electorate is so often held in contempt. Democracy? Informed electorate? Tribalism? For democracy to work, voters and represented have to take a real and informed interest. Tight Lines - leon (now only slightly bitter and twisted with the passing of the years!! )

But Phone, as explained before, it was the British who won the war!! Think about it for just a second or two. British colonists fighting against mostly German mecenaries, hired by a german king who had no knowledge of the English language, and all over excessive duties that he was trying to impose on the importation of TEA!. Of course it was the British who won!! Tight Lines - leon

But Phone, as explained before, it was the British who won the war!! Think about it for just a second or two. British colonists fighting against mostly German mecenaries, hired by a german king who had no knowledge of the English language, and all over excessive duties that he was trying to impose on the importation of TEA!. Of course it was the British who won!! Tight Lines - leon

Phone, Sorry for the confused post. It happens when you are trying to gather complex thoughts, help to cook the dinner, iron the teenager's shirt, them drive him to pick up some friends and drop them all at the nightspot....... What I was really trying to illustrate is how and when information is delivered can affect your future political stance. The MOU!! When the signing of the MOU was presented at the SAA meeting, it was presented along with all of the reasons and arguments as to why it had been signed, which after some debate led to a reluctant consensus. Those not present at the meeting received just the information that the MOU had been signed, but none of the reasons for it's signing, and in the absence of other supplementary information and argument, naturally leapt to conclusions. The way in which the information (and attendant information) was received, defined the starting points of the two distinct camps. If those at the meeting had not been there, then I'm pretty sure that they would have been part of the anti camp. Equally those that weren't there, if they had been, would have joined the reluctant pros. Once the initial positions had been taken by parties in both camps, it was inevitable that they would dig into the trench that they found themselves in further, rather than cross no man's land to the opposing argument. I guess that some of the attendant argument about 'joining in' was all about the (maybe)subconcious recognition of some in the pro camp, that the side of the argument you fell upon was all to do with whether you had been there, and had benefit of the 'full' information when making up your mind. And that once a side had been taken by those not there, the same information presented after they had taken a decision to oppose (based on less information at the time), would not be as convincing as when it had been received with an 'open' mind (or lets say a blank mind!). Only uninformed democracy's make "popular" decisions. The predominate key to democracy is homogenious education beginning at a young age. That's very true, and relates to the earlier point by Mike, regarding 'Sun readers'. (The Sun being one of our most popular daily newspapers, aimed toward the lowest common denominator, and read by all hot bloodied males for the sports coverage and the scantily clad models. Great political issues are usually summed up by catchy one liner headlines! ) However, regardless of education, those represented, usually don't have the same information immediately available as those who make decisions on their behalf, and will sometimes come to a different initial conclusion, which then becomes entrenched when the additional information does come to their attention. By then, they are much more ready to reject an argument contra to their already formed opinion, than to change their mind. So a divide opens between the representers and represented, all as a result of what information and arguments were presented when the decision about which way to jump was initially made. So, 'arrogant' ministers go one way, and 'ignorant' Sun readers the other. Perhaps one day a computer will run the world more effectively and sanely Tight Lines - leon

Phone, Sorry for the confused post. It happens when you are trying to gather complex thoughts, help to cook the dinner, iron the teenager's shirt, them drive him to pick up some friends and drop them all at the nightspot....... What I was really trying to illustrate is how and when information is delivered can affect your future political stance. The MOU!! When the signing of the MOU was presented at the SAA meeting, it was presented along with all of the reasons and arguments as to why it had been signed, which after some debate led to a reluctant consensus. Those not present at the meeting received just the information that the MOU had been signed, but none of the reasons for it's signing, and in the absence of other supplementary information and argument, naturally leapt to conclusions. The way in which the information (and attendant information) was received, defined the starting points of the two distinct camps. If those at the meeting had not been there, then I'm pretty sure that they would have been part of the anti camp. Equally those that weren't there, if they had been, would have joined the reluctant pros. Once the initial positions had been taken by parties in both camps, it was inevitable that they would dig into the trench that they found themselves in further, rather than cross no man's land to the opposing argument. I guess that some of the attendant argument about 'joining in' was all about the (maybe)subconcious recognition of some in the pro camp, that the side of the argument you fell upon was all to do with whether you had been there, and had benefit of the 'full' information when making up your mind. And that once a side had been taken by those not there, the same information presented after they had taken a decision to oppose (based on less information at the time), would not be as convincing as when it had been received with an 'open' mind (or lets say a blank mind!). Only uninformed democracy's make "popular" decisions. The predominate key to democracy is homogenious education beginning at a young age. That's very true, and relates to the earlier point by Mike, regarding 'Sun readers'. (The Sun being one of our most popular daily newspapers, aimed toward the lowest common denominator, and read by all hot bloodied males for the sports coverage and the scantily clad models. Great political issues are usually summed up by catchy one liner headlines! ) However, regardless of education, those represented, usually don't have the same information immediately available as those who make decisions on their behalf, and will sometimes come to a different initial conclusion, which then becomes entrenched when the additional information does come to their attention. By then, they are much more ready to reject an argument contra to their already formed opinion, than to change their mind. So a divide opens between the representers and represented, all as a result of what information and arguments were presented when the decision about which way to jump was initially made. So, 'arrogant' ministers go one way, and 'ignorant' Sun readers the other. Perhaps one day a computer will run the world more effectively and sanely Tight Lines - leon

After years of campaigning by anglers, the Fisheries Minister (convinced by the arguments put forward by anglers, through many meetings and much correspondence) is shortly to go to a European Fisheries Summit and win the argument that commercial fishing for bass must cease, in order to allow the greatly more beneficial exploitation (in both social and economic terms) of bass by the Recreational Fishing sector. Unfortunately, before the summit, there is a general election, which has been fought on the basis of which party is best able to provide a properly integrated Transport policy. Welcome the new Fisheries Minister. ‘Er, Sir John, what is a bass?’ ‘I’m certainly not going to Brussels to implement the policies of my predecessor, tell those recreational chappies, whoever or whatever they may be to go take a…… er, further consultation is needed…… er…’ And all around Whitehall, so much hard fought policy founded on much more than Integrated Transport concerns is trashed Except that mostly, our elected representatives are by and large figureheads. The business of good government continues almost seamlessly in the corridors of power, by those who have walked the corridors for most of their careers and know where the files are kept. Democracy? Maybe. But that isn’t the way of it in angling organisations. We don’t have a civil service. When we get rid of Joe (because we don’t like the way he has taken the decision upon himself to cut back on stocking still water gudgeon) he walks - and takes with him all that is in his head. He takes all of his files on the many, many issues that he’s addressed over the years (actually, they remain in his garden shed where the wife insists he keeps them), and he keeps his address book with all of those telephone numbers. The new guy doesn’t even know where he must go to buy more still-water gudgeon, or how much to pay, or what’s happening about the contract to resurface the car park. Democracy? Maybe. Except, I’ve never known someone like Joe being voted out of office. Of course everyone moans and moans, but not many are prepared to step forward to take on the job. No when Joe goes, it’s usually because he’s had enough. He’s had enough of the carping and sniping (and he needs the space in his garden shed) – so he take the decision, and he walks, and he’s replaced by someone who in all probability will not do the job half as well and will have to learn all over again to put up with the moaning and carping. Democracy? No, but the reality of angling politics Tight Lines - leon

After years of campaigning by anglers, the Fisheries Minister (convinced by the arguments put forward by anglers, through many meetings and much correspondence) is shortly to go to a European Fisheries Summit and win the argument that commercial fishing for bass must cease, in order to allow the greatly more beneficial exploitation (in both social and economic terms) of bass by the Recreational Fishing sector. Unfortunately, before the summit, there is a general election, which has been fought on the basis of which party is best able to provide a properly integrated Transport policy. Welcome the new Fisheries Minister. ‘Er, Sir John, what is a bass?’ ‘I’m certainly not going to Brussels to implement the policies of my predecessor, tell those recreational chappies, whoever or whatever they may be to go take a…… er, further consultation is needed…… er…’ And all around Whitehall, so much hard fought policy founded on much more than Integrated Transport concerns is trashed Except that mostly, our elected representatives are by and large figureheads. The business of good government continues almost seamlessly in the corridors of power, by those who have walked the corridors for most of their careers and know where the files are kept. Democracy? Maybe. But that isn’t the way of it in angling organisations. We don’t have a civil service. When we get rid of Joe (because we don’t like the way he has taken the decision upon himself to cut back on stocking still water gudgeon) he walks - and takes with him all that is in his head. He takes all of his files on the many, many issues that he’s addressed over the years (actually, they remain in his garden shed where the wife insists he keeps them), and he keeps his address book with all of those telephone numbers. The new guy doesn’t even know where he must go to buy more still-water gudgeon, or how much to pay, or what’s happening about the contract to resurface the car park. Democracy? Maybe. Except, I’ve never known someone like Joe being voted out of office. Of course everyone moans and moans, but not many are prepared to step forward to take on the job. No when Joe goes, it’s usually because he’s had enough. He’s had enough of the carping and sniping (and he needs the space in his garden shed) – so he take the decision, and he walks, and he’s replaced by someone who in all probability will not do the job half as well and will have to learn all over again to put up with the moaning and carping. Democracy? No, but the reality of angling politics Tight Lines - leon