Countryside Alliance and FACT in the dock.

[Alan Stubbs]

slodger:

 

 

I don't think it's fair to level criticism at the FACT concept yet, though, taking into account the past history of our angling lobbyists, I'm mildly sceptical that they will achieve unity amongst us.

Slodger, that has been my point all along - the people criticising FACT and entreating us all to throw our lot in with the CA haven't made the case. All they have done is said that FACT hasn't done anything - they haven't done so because that particular baby being so neonatal that the umbilical cord is still attached.

 

At least one of the pro-CA contributors to this thread has a background in angling politics which doesn't bear close examination and for that reason I distrust both their word and their agenda.

 

As for the name calling, I am as guilty as other people, although in mitigation I did no more than retaliate. I do regret my choice of words, but until that person apologises, the sentiment remains.

 

[ 26. March 2005, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: Alan Stubbs ]

[Cranfield]

Firstly, let me say that I am not trying to persuade anyone to join the Countryside Alliance, that is a matter of personal choice.

 

My point is quite simple, why should we allow a non Member acronym to appear and claim to represent all Anglers, albeit through other acronyms, some of which have paying Members (which I assumed they polled to seek their agreement),or others that have non paying, or no Members. ?

 

The question was asked, "what has the CA done for Angling" ?

It would be fair to ask, "what have these acronyms done for Angling" ?

 

I appreciate they are staffed by committed individuals (normally the same few faces), but they still haven't achieved the "single voice for Angling" that is needed.

 

All of the individual acronyms that are part of FACT appear to be continuing to exist separately, giving plenty of opportunity for the alleged in fighting, that has ruined previous attempts at complete unity.

 

Until one main acronym appears and totally absorbs all the others, unity is a pipe dream.

[Alan Stubbs]

Cranfield:

Firstly, let me say that I am not trying to persuade anyone to join the Countryside Alliance, that is a matter of personal choice.

 

My point is quite simple, why should we allow a non Member acronym to appear and claim to represent all Anglers, albeit through other  acronyms, some of which have paying Members (which I assumed they polled to seek their agreement),or others that have non paying, or no Members. ?

 

The question was asked, "what has the CA done for Angling" ?

It would be fair to ask, "what have these acronyms done for Angling" ?

 

I appreciate they are staffed by committed individuals (normally the same few faces), but they still haven't achieved the "single voice for Angling" that is needed.

 

All of the individual acronyms that are part of FACT appear to be continuing to exist separately, giving plenty of opportunity for the alleged in fighting, that has ruined previous attempts at complete unity.

 

Until one main acronym appears and totally absorbs all the others, unity is a pipe dream.

Brian - the only problem is that those who argued against the same few faces were out-voted and when they left the various groups in high dudgeon and in turn started their own group it failed in double quick time. It is these people that are advocating we throw our lot in with the CA - who I recall lost their latest battle.

 

That to me, is hardly a recommendation.

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

'But that's the point really - you seem quite pro the CA without selling viable reasons for anglers to go along with it. I don't always agree with Peter, but in this he does have a point.

 

And your last sentence smacks of an invitation to 'come outside if you think you're hard enough!'

 

And you thought my arguments were weak? Get real'

 

 

Show me all of this past hypocrisy that you rather vaguely alluded to and I'll deal with your dishwater weak response. Must make it clear that I dont make threats on forums. I dont take kindly to people that do. No exceptions.

 

Something about you is beginning to concern me Alan, another agenda maybe ? Trying to provoke a bit of a do between PW and myself ?

 

But anyway... my hypocricies please before we go any further. No answer....no debate.

Your stance about the Fearon issue and the BBC is a case of hypocrisy - it's OK for other media organisations to 'buy' a story yet not the BBC according to you. Hypocrisy / double standards, the same thing in my book.

 

I accept your apology in advance.

 

[ 26. March 2005, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Alan Stubbs ]

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Alan,

 

"Brian - the only problem is that those who argued against the same few faces were out-voted and when they left the various groups in high dudgeon and in turn started their own group it failed in double quick time. It is these people that are advocating we throw our lot in with the CA - who I recall, lost their latest battle."

 

I'd like to know who were "out voted" as a result of "what" arguments who left "what" various groups to start "their" own group that failed in double quick time? You see, I can't remember such a thing happening?

 

Which latest battle did the CA loose by the way? If it’s the only argument you've got against the CA, fox hunting-again, you might like to notice that not one single hunt has closed down and every single one is continuing to hunt in legal ways. The CA organised this approach and continues to organise. Hardly a loosing stance by any stretch of the imagination. The CA keeps on fighting.

 

What did the NAA do for the live baiters in the North West? That was just a ripple of a campaign in comparison to the battles that CA fights. The whole nation knew absolutely diddly about predator angler’s rights on that occasion because the NAA failed miserably to mobilise the massive numbers they claimed to represent in a surge to support their predator angling brothers and sisters. That’s the "TRUE" face of angling unity within the NAA-FACT quango. When the crunch finally comes to defend angler’s rights and freedoms, as it did in the live baiting issue in the North West, the NAA type quango FAILED to rally its "massive numbers" in support for the predator anglers. There were no ground swelling of support, no major interviews on national TV, no cries for help heard in parliament.

 

So please Alan, don't come here telling us all about the great advantages gleaned from blindly following these self appointed quango's when the reality actually DOES speak for itself. And if you want to talk about loosing, talk to the North West predator anglers who had their fishing rights and freedoms ripped from them! They thought they were safe and that a million would come to their side when the crunch came.

 

These guys were left to fend for themselves matey. Their only allies transpired to be a good slice of those in the PAC and a large percentage of the NAC who at least had the courage to stand with their angling brethren. From memory, those who supported live baiting in the North West via official campaigning numbered between 5-600. Not nearly good enough is it Alan when NAA were supposed to be representing how many???

 

The Countryside Alliance stands together solidly united in defence of one another’s rights and freedoms. CA angling is 100% solid, 100% united. For them, running away to leave a section of its ranks fighting alone is unthinkable. Indeed the "WHOLE" of the Countryside Alliance is 100% united with its WHOLE membership staunchly defending each others rights to exist.

 

All I keep hearing over and over again is how fabulous the NAA "was", how great the FACT will "be". But the reality is nothing like the propaganda. For how many years now Alan has these efforts failed? What exactly inspires your faith that these quango's will get it right one day? Look at "their" history.

 

Based on their history, I fear for the future when angling finally has to fight its corner. Fearful because I fully expect the quango's will run for cover to protect their own little corners when crunch time comes. Isn't that the reason why so many angling quangos have failed to date?

 

The Countryside Alliance is strong. A staunch bastion for 100% unity amongst its members. And instead of crumbling like so many forecast when hunting legislation was made law, its growing, not falling apart. More people are starting to realise that the CA stands its ground and fights for the rights of its members. More people are starting to see that the Countryside Alliance is "NOT" all about fox hunting. It’s genuinely about the rights and freedoms of ordinary folk to carry on with their pastimes.

 

So Alan. Join FACT by all means if you could. Be a part of something with a history for unity and defending each other if you could find such a thing.

 

I myself am looking for a way of contributing towards the future of my sport in a way that actually makes a difference long term. Bumbling along waiting for yet another quango to fall on its bum is not for me old love.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Alan Stubbs]

Dear Lee,

 

So fox hunting with dogs wasn't outlawed?

 

Your comment on this is a politician's take on reality if ever there was. No matter what the CA and the hunt groups are doing now, they failed to prevent the law from being passed.

 

And I suppose the RSSG, of which you were a leading light, lived long in the annals of history to achieve what? erm... dissolution.

 

Your inability to see that, old love, is why I can't take your entreaties seriously. I would still rather live in optimistic hope of what a new, amalgamated body may achieve, than an organisation that has yet to show what it will do or has done for angling, without other campaigns to divert its attentions from angling.

 

You have been long in telling us about what the CA is doing - very commendable. What you have not done, and I am sorry if I am repeating myself, is to tell me what it is doing or will commit itself to doing for angling. In which case, the failure of the various angling bodies to unify the sport is of dubious relevance. You are asking anglers to throw their lot in with an organisation showing no commitment to angling whatever - and I, for one, won't buy a pig in a poke.

 

Regards,

Alan

[argyll]

Alan Stubbs said 'Your stance about the Fearon issue and the BBC is a case of hypocrisy - it's OK for other media organisations to 'buy' a story yet not the BBC according to you. Hypocrisy / double standards, the same thing in my book'

 

'yet not the BBC according to you' .....and just about everyone else on the planet, or had you not noticed. Thats why the Beeb dropped it. Sorry no prize Alan, not even a 'nice try'

 

 

For the record, heres what I actually said.

 

'The fact that the newspapers made folk heroes out of the Krays and the train robbers does not condone the BBC's dealings with Brendan Fearon. It doesnt make it OK in my book. Two or three wrongs still dont make a right. Giving any crook a reward for simply being a crook, is simply offensive'

 

I made it abundantly clear that I was not happy with any section of the media paying crooks for their stories.

 

[ 26. March 2005, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: argyll ]

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

 

I made it abundantly clear that I was not happy with any section of the media paying crooks for their stories.

But you complained long and hard about the BBC - and not in equal measure about other media.

 

Whether or not the BBC dropped it is irrelevant. You were still advocating that they should not have been allowed to use similar methods to those widely used in the media. That IS hypocrisy or at best another of your hurriedly formulated views.

 

 

My opinion of you stands.

[argyll]

'Giving any crook a reward for simply being a crook, is simply offensive''

 

Where's the selectiveness in that. No sorry, still no prize.

[Alan Stubbs]

argyll:

'Giving any crook a reward for simply being a crook, is simply offensive''

 

Where's the selectiveness in that. No sorry, still no prize.

He wasn't being rewarded for being a crook - he was being rewarded for giving his version of events.

 

Keep trying.