These Forums Are Not Indicative Of Opinion

[dutch1862]

I have to confess to being disappointed that the Anglers Trust doesn't have the same set-up as Supporters Trusts in football. For anyone who doesn't know the board are democratically voted in and certainly in the case of Notts County's Trust (of which I'm a member) you have to stand for re-election every 2 years.

 

That's not to say that it's without issues. And of course there is still an element of allowing the board to make decisions that are in the best interest of the trust, but it'd probably be a better approach than the current dictatorship (for want of a better word). If the majority lose faith in the organisation/leadership then they can soon cast their vote.

 

Notts County's chairman, who was elected/appointed by our Trust, recently slated one of our most popular messageboards. Probably because he doesn't get a good press on there or doesn't agree with their collective opinion! Seems similar to this situation in some respects.

 

And here was me thinking that fishing was free of politics and disagreements

[Bob Bradford]

Don't you think you get YOUR facts right

before spouting off. Where have i said that my opinion are FACTS there are just my opinions

and i am entitled to air them on this public forum until the owner say's otherwise

 

If you think internet forums are not worth a damm and are dodgy......

Then why the hell are you posting on this one and others.

Me smells a troller i am sure the Angling Trust must cock a hoop over your methods of drumming up support talk about alienating your core target group..keep up the good work

you might end up as the trusts president.

 

 

 

You stated as FACT I should step down from my role within the Angling Trust, without asking if I actually held a post in the AT, which I do not! that is what I mean, and why are you so angry with me?

 

I think this thread would have been better worded like this,

 

Replying to these forums is not indicative of INFORMED opinions.

 

Over the weeks since Angling Trust's launch, I have read just about every lame and feeble excuse there is for an angler with an "opinion" not to join, as Smudger keeps illustrating, these "opinions" are based on not bothering to find out the facts for themselves, even Budgie is at it, Budgie asks what have they done?, well a simple look on their website will inform anglers of yet another victory in the courts re; pollution, so they are battling for anglers, they certainly are not anti angling! although judging by some of the comments one could be forgiven for thinking they are.

 

Angling Trust are currently recruiting for a professional spokesman and recruiter, so they are trying to address that issue too, again a simple look on their website will provide the facts.

 

Why do I try to counter the negative posts on forums such as these?

Because I believe in fair play, Angling Trust get a bad press, unfairly in my view, to date they have done nothing wrong, yet still anglers ,with no better alternative on the table remember, put the boot in indiscriminatly........just because they can ,and largely because they are not made answerable for it by Angling Trust, I will continue to pull people up if I feel they are unfairly negative or factually wrong about Angling Trust, that may be seen as me being bloody minded to some, but it is no more bloody minded than some that are anti Angling Trust just because they can be.

[Dick Dastardly]

Bob Ive been supporting the ACA for a considerable time now.They have a proven track record and when Im asked about their badge that I proudly wear I can give other anglers definate examples of what they have done. I cant oyther than by association do the same for AT. Come on Bob surely you canv see how AT has made a cock up with their opinions statement?

 

Im not kicking them to keep/put them down but kicking them to get back up and get it sorted.We ALL want a one covers all body we can support and believe in............but we just aint going to hand that to any one.Come on I say win us over we could be very helpfull but even more important dont pi$$ us off before we have had a chance to see what you cant do AND DONT try and ride home on some one elses back ie the ACA's.

 

Oh and on a personal note Bob believe it or not your not the only angler that cares!

[Bob Bradford]

You make some fair and constructive points Budgie, but as I keep saying, the fact is ,Angling Trust have only been around for a matter of weeks, and like it or not, the old ACA are one and the same thing now in the form of Fish Legal, I will be the first one at the front if AT do not deliver believe me, but it is unrealistic to expect radical change in such a short space of time, all the old organisations had over 100 years to deliver and failed us anglers miserably (with the exception of the ACA) there is no doubt in my mind Angling Trust have taken the bad with the good from the various organisations, but I believe these will be weeded out over time, I trust Mark lloyd in this respect, as a shareholder, I will get to vote who stays and who goes, as a non member (shareholder) I will be unable to vote, it is a chicken and egg scenario, but what is the worse that can happen? I lose £20 and they lose a member. loads of members in fact and they will cease to be, if that happens ,then what? they MUST succeed, and I believe they will with Mark Lloyd at the helm, give the bloke some time is all I am saying.

[Alan Roe]

"Replying to these forums is not indicative of INFORMED opinions."

 

Here again I find myself taking issue with the above statement as I find it personally insulting as it happens I have been a long standing member of the ACA in excess of twenty years it was Allen Edwards that signed me up. Indeed I still have a direct debit to pay my subs to the ACA and I have yet to get round to changing it in favour of the new organisation assuming I do so.

 

I have been following much of the debate around the forming of the angling trust and still recieve the SAA updates.

I have read the available information on the website and I still have some huge concerns about AT.

 

The first of these is inclusivity, any group that relies on voluntary membership is only ever going to be representitve of the membership of that group.

Groups relying on a voluntary joining structure contain within them the seeds of their own destruction as sub groups who can be seen to contriubute more in terms of membership are able to demand greater influence in policy making inevitably this leads to schisms and breakaways over time thus weakening the original whole.

 

If AT is going to be the organisation that represents the whole of angling then all anglers need to be in some form of membership.

 

Anglers are notoriously careful with their money which is why even the ACA could only boast a comparitivly small membership despite it being probably the most well known and largely respected of all angling organisations.

 

The only way for AT to claim to be representitive of all anglers is to use the Canadian system of a levy on licences and to bring Sea anglers into the license system and yes I am a sea angler as well!

 

The old truism must stand 'No Pay No Say'.

 

I would also venture to suggest that once membership became automatic with all anglers paying their dues you are likely to see an increase of interest in the activities and running of their orgaisation which may well be a good thing if more talent is unearthed.

 

I am well aware of the counter argument that the EA doesn't want to play but this can be overcome.

 

My other and some may see it as a lesser concern is the change of name of the ACA to 'Fish Legal'

The ACA is and old and well respected name known and feared by polluters and had a certain ring to it one that was improved when we changed it from co-operative to conservation.

The change to Fish Legal is in PR terms the equivalent of the switch from Royal Mail to Consignia!

 

All of the above does not mean that I am not joining the AT but I am giving it deep thought and my decision with be an informed one.

[greg long]

Has no one ever noticed how often opinions that vary from that of one group/individual are often described as "non indicative of opinion" by that same group/individual!

 

Looks to me like the Angling Trust is going down that same path as all the other self proclaimed to represent all angling/anglers organisations have

 

Budgie, here is your answer:

Propaganda

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

 

Assertion: Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question.

 

Examples of assertion can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.

 

Bandwagon: Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results.

 

Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.

 

Card stacking: It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.

 

Glittering Generalities: Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in "defense of democracy" they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words.

 

Lesser of Two Evils: The "lesser of two evils" technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy. One idea or proposal is often depicted as one of the only options or paths. When confronted with this technique, the subject should consider the value of any proposal independently of those it is being compared with.

 

Name Calling: It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.

Pinpointing the Enemy: This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy.

 

Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.

 

Plain Folks: The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. The propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes. This technique is usually most effective when used with glittering generalities, in an attempt to convince the public that the propagandist views about highly valued ideas are similar to their own and therefore more valid. When confronted by this type of propaganda, the subject should consider the proposals and ideas separately from the personality of the presenter.

 

Simplification (Stereotyping): Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.

 

Testimonials: Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.

 

Transfer: It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or

proposals.

 

Bibliography

The Science of Modern Propaganda. http://www.propaganda101.com/

Lee, Alfred McLung; Lee, Elizabeth Bryan. Propaganda Analysis. http://carmen.artsci.washington.edu/ (subdirectory).

Dorje, Carl. Propaganda Techniques. http://serendipity.magnet.ch/more/propagan.html

[Dick Dastardly]

Alan Edwards to me was the ACA and will be a nigh on impossible act to follow.

 

Bob I have to agree with your lasy post.Most were (Ishould have thought) despite the sceptisism history has taught us sat back waiting and hoping that at last a body (in the form of AT) had come and would be the one we could all get behind.

 

Its just nocked that confidence that they will be "the one" when they came out with that statement.As a groupm in its early days looking to gain support it was a very silly thing to have done! Yes they definately need a PR manager/adviser! Be a shame if this does scupper their chances before theyve had a chance to prove them selves/do something but I harp back to the point that we have seen others come (and go) who have had the same attitude so tend not to be so forgiving.Im afraid that the guy responsible for the statemnt needs to hold his hands up and do some serious back peddling or for the sake of AT's future step down! In fact if the rest of them are worth a tommy tank then they should have also shuddered at the comment and be seriously re evaluating the geezers position any way.

Edited February 9, 2009 by BUDGIE

[Dick Dastardly]

Budgie, here is your answer:

Propaganda

 

Marketing/promotion/propaganda are all remarkably close arnt they Greg!

[yorkio]

Its just nocked that confidence that they will be "the one" when they came out with that statement.

It wasn't exactly a statement though - it was from a private email written in response to another private email.

[Dick Dastardly]

That in itself shows to me the guys true feelings on the matter rather than an "engineered" statement.