Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.

[slodger]

'FACT is an Angling organisation, Lee, the CA only uses Angling'

 

That's just an opinion Peter, not neccesarily an accurate one though.

[Jim Roper]

slodger:

 I get the impression the, 'I don't agree with fox hunting' blinkers are preventing some people from being objective regarding the CA.

More like they don't like the people who do it.

People in Metros don't like people in 4x4s. It's to do with being looked down on.

[Alan Stubbs]

slodger:

'FACT is an Angling organisation, Lee, the CA only uses Angling'

 

That's just an opinion Peter, not neccesarily an accurate one though.

I'd say that it is an opinion based upon the evidence

[argyll]

....and the evidence is ?

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

....and the evidence is ?

The obvious lack of accrued benefit to angling from any alliance to the CA.

 

The CA and their protagonists (on here in particular) have signally failed to make any case for throwing our lot in with the CA.

 

If someone from the CA would like to make an unequivocal argument for angling joining forces with them, I will open my mind again as and when a credible and persuasive argument is offered. I won't hold my breath.

[argyll]

'The obvious lack of accrued benefit to angling from any alliance to the CA'

 

So obvious that only you can see it. I haven't seen any accrued benefit from throwing in my lot with anyone else. At least the CA are visible and active.

 

'The CA and their protagonists (on here in particular) have signally failed to make any case for throwing our lot in with the CA.

 

..nad if they did, you'de ignore it.

 

 

'If someone from the CA would like to make an unequivocal argument for angling joining forces with them, I will open my mind again as and when a credible and persuasive argument is offered. I won't hold my breath'

 

..and at what point was your mind open, because I see no evidence of that and what single issue closed it again.

 

 

It matters not really since this is once again 'opinion' not 'fact' Hardly evidence.

 

[ 25. March 2005, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Peter M]

Argyll and others you wanted evidence for not throwing our lot in with the CA. Below is an extract from a post from Leon Roskilly from earlier in the thread please read it again as maybe you missed it before.

 

"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!"

 

 

Evidence enough for you? well it will do for me.

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

'The obvious lack of accrued benefit to angling from any alliance to the CA'

 

So obvious that only you can see it. I haven't seen any accrued benefit from throwing in my lot with anyone else. At least the CA are visible and active.

 

'The CA and their protagonists (on here in particular) have signally failed to make any case for throwing our lot in with the CA.

 

..nad if they did, you'de ignore it.

 

 

'If someone from the CA would like to make an unequivocal argument for angling joining forces with them, I will open my mind again as and when a credible and persuasive argument is offered. I won't hold my breath'

 

..and at what point was your mind open, because I see no evidence of that and what single issue closed it again.

 

 

It matters not really since this is once again 'opinion' not 'fact' Hardly evidence.

'At least the CA are visible and active.'

 

And have achieved precisely what for the benefit of angling? I notice you didn't answer that. Fact - when you as a supporter are pressed to justify your claim, you can't. That isn't my opinion, it's fact.

 

'..nad if they did, you'de ignore it. '

 

Quite ignoring your obvious illiteracy, you're totally unqualified to make an assumption like that. You don't know me from Adam - it makes your argument hard to sell to anyone other than a half-wit. Did you buy your own argument?

 

'..and at what point was your mind open, because I see no evidence of that and what single issue closed it again.'

 

Perhaps I could have worded my point of view better, and I apologise for not having made myself clear.... I have never had a closed mind to the CA. I just do not feel that they are in it for anyone other than the fox-hunters (and that view is based upon the various public utterances of Charles Jardine and supporters on here like you and Lee Harris)- I have heard nor seen anything to the betterment of angling uttered by the CA or their acolytes.

 

Leon Roskilly's post earlier in this thread made a very eloquent point concerning the CA's commitment to angling. I quote:

"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!"

 

That's hardly a ringing endorsement of an organisation trying to sell itself to angling and I'd say it was a reasonable justification of my comments.

[slodger]

'The obvious lack of accrued benefit to angling from any alliance to the CA.'

 

 

At the end of the day we're both anglers and as such I guess we both want the best for angling,I know I do. I'm not trying to catch you out Alan, but how about qualifying that statement?

 

I'm genuinely interested to understand why so many people are so against what appears, on the face of it, to be a powerful and well organised action group?

 

I've been visiting this forum for several weeks now and I honestly haven't seen a single posting that offers a remotely coherent argument for not supporting the CA, other than the abhorrence some people feel towards hunting with dogs. Well there are plenty of practices within angling that compromise individual anglers standpoint's the most obvious example probably being the live-bait issue.

 

The SAA hasn't adopted a stance against live-baiting, yet I'd wager there are many within their affiliation that would find this practice falling outside of their own moral code. What worries me is that we are prepared to 'Cut off our noses to spite our faces'.

 

The irony of the situation is that it's been frequently stated that the CA are intent on using we anglers for their own singular benefit. Presumably the reasoning for this view is that they require our 'bumsonseatability' to empower their campaign to have hunting reinstated? I use the term irony because the bottom line is that aint gonna happen! It's as simple as that. The greater majority of the voting public will, if required to do so, come down on the side of a continued hunting ban. So conversely what we actually have in effect, if you like, is the opportunity to use them.

 

Surely no one believes that the CA are foolish enough to think that they can recruit support under one agenda and then, once that support has been rallied, that they can change that agenda to include only hunting? The days of 'Shanghai' enlistment died a couple of centuries ago. Do you really think that they would maintain support if they deployed such tactics?

 

I'm far from being the 'sharpest knife in the box' and I may well be reading the situation wrongly, but let's drop the entrenched mindset that sees people shutting their minds to the alliance on the grounds of class, political persuasion or the single issue of hunting with dogs. PLEASE somebody, set out some clear reasoning for not supporting the CA, alongside our own political groups?

[slodger]

Bloody hell! Don't you just hate it when that happens??