A Pro-active Angling Trust....

[barry luxton]

I'm afraid the levels of the managing bureaucracy are streets ahead of you.

 

You talk suits and pensions, OK.

 

You are very silly, naive and at 1st base.

 

 

 

 

Nice to see your on your soap box talking down. I don't doubt there are many of the opinion that the rsa have had a sucessful period of non-management based on what the rsa have put into the economy and the suits now want part of it.

 

It ain't broke, so why fix it. naive, don't think so. When the suits do gain control for no reason other than control, who is going to pay for it, yup, the rsa and also the ratepayers. So i am of the opinion that it's not required, however like you say, the to@@ers want to take over in any event. They are shaking your hand, they also have thier hand in your pocket, so these are the men to negotiate with are they. Don't agree with that, whats required is someone to tell them thanks but no thanks.

[Steve Coppolo]

Nice to see your on your soap box talking down. I don't doubt there are many of the opinion that the rsa have had a sucessful period of non-management based on what the rsa have put into the economy and the suits now want part of it.

 

It ain't broke, so why fix it. naive, don't think so. When the suits do gain control for no reason other than control, who is going to pay for it, yup, the rsa and also the ratepayers. So i am of the opinion that it's not required, however like you say, the to@@ers want to take over in any event. They are shaking your hand, they also have thier hand in your pocket, so these are the men to negotiate with are they. Don't agree with that, whats required is someone to tell them thanks but no thanks.

 

Amen to that. The trouble is, it doesn't seem that anyone in the position to, is willing to do it. And they obviously aren't taking any notice of what the anglers are saying because they are pushing ahead with the RSA strategy.

[barry luxton]

Amen to that. The trouble is, it doesn't seem that anyone in the position to, is willing to do it. And they obviously aren't taking any notice of what the anglers are saying because they are pushing ahead with the RSA strategy.

 

When defra first started pushing the strategy, one of the pretexts was to enhance the rsa experiance, no i ain't seen any of that. If defra could demonstrate anything at all that would be to the rsa benifit i might just take note. Until that time all i can consider is what they are going to make out of it. Being naive all i can think of is jobs for the men in suits. Might be wrong but who knows...............

Edited March 18, 2009 by barry luxton

[H.A.]

The trouble is, it doesn't seem that anyone in the position to, is willing to do it.

 

Foot Disease Mouth ...

 

re-arrange into a well-known saying, with free use of a couple of conjunctions.

 

I never talk down to friends or other anglers; but wake up and fight the bureaucracy.

 

You have no idea how it works or you wouldn't spend so much time codling each other.

 

PS ... they don't wear SUITS anymore!

 

Maybe that's why you don't recognise the civil servants.

 

 

 

 

They mostly look like this and know nothin'.

They're from Bartholona (wherever that is?).

 

Use 'em; don't blame them.

 

Most buy a lottery ticket each week.

 

[barry luxton]

I never talk down to friends or other anglers; but wake up and fight the bureaucracy.

 

 

PS ... they don't wear SUITS anymore!

 

Maybe that's why you don't recognise the civil servants.

 

Use 'em; don't blame them.

 

 

Beg to differ. There is a big difference between fighting bureaucracy and using bureaucacy.

 

They are using the ratepayers and shortly the rsa, with the gravy train, that has been helped by brown and co. Have you forgotten so quickly all of the monies that they on our behalf have given them. Our 7 bill per year rebate has now gone, don't you care about that. And you wish to give them a further platform by negotiationg, making them feel that they are needed, wanted, use them. No, i don't agree with that. I will agree to fighting bureaucracy though. Look at the plight of the common eel topic for example. These buropratts are so full of there own 'p' and importance it's taken many many years of paper shuffling to even agree a plan. In the mean time, the stock is down the pan. Work with them, your having a laugh. They are the easy ones to recognise, they walk funny holding all the money they have taken from the ordinaries for doing ziltch and you want it to continue.

Edited March 19, 2009 by barry luxton

[Bob Bradford]

I for one, am at a complete loss as to what this thread is all about now or where it is leading. I originally posted what I considered a good piece of news, Angling Trust showing just what anglers will/can get for their membership fees, I thought this may help to sway the ditherers, fence sitters and naysayers....or at least some of them, into joining Angling Trust.

 

Angling Trust was only launched on January 6th 2009, but I believe the Trust are making significant changes and showing they are the organisation anglers can be proud to be a part of, of course there is much to do, but I believe if anglers join and then as members, communicate with the Trust in the proper manner voicing their concerns and problems much can be achieved, squabbling and petty point scoring on here or elsewhere will achieve nothing.

Of course these are only my views as an individual member of Angling Trust, but at least I know my £20 membership fee is helping the cause.

[Bob Bradford]

I posted this thread on Fishing Magic, here is a reply from a retired Solicitor on that forum, it makes interesting reading and explains how the two thieves got away so lightly;

 

"You're both confusing the criminal jurisdiction courts and their powers with the civil court's jurisdiction and powers.

 

Criminal courts can only do what they are empowered to do by way of sentence for the offence brought before them. They have no general power to start 'automatically' banning people from particular waters.

 

They would however have had the power to do so if someone had had the bright idea of tacking on an application for an ASBO in conjunction with this prosecution. Then such conditions could have been applied to any ASBO order made. Hopefully someone in the right place at the right time will think about adding an ASBO application to any such prosecutions in future.

 

Your Lordship, you can't 'prosecute' for damages. Damages are a civil remedy not a criminal penalty - that's why the old 'Trespassers will be prosecuted' signs always were and still are inaccurate.

 

While the malefactors could be sued for damages in a civil court the costs are likely to be wholly disproportionate to the exercise and the outcome academic, as the Defendants are unlikely to be good for the money or easily enforced against.

 

What the AT have done here is quite clever and cost effective: instead of launching into the expense of injunction / restraining order proceedings both feet flying they have asked the Defendants for voluntary undertakings to stay away.

 

If they give these undertakings and abide by them then they are one more problem eliminated from those waters.

 

If they give these undertakings and then breach them then a civil court will frankly throw the book at them.

 

If they refuse to give such undertakings then the question has to be asked 'why not ?' - it is after all only an undertaking to abide the law. If refused the inference therefore liable to be drawn is 'because they want to be free to go back to the river and resume their wicked ways'. In which case an application to the civil court for a restraining order becomes an absolute shoe-in as I believe the modern phrase is.

 

Good to see the AT using quality and effective legal advice and not just chucking money around on reflex issue of expensive proceedings using our contributions. One up for the good guys.

[barry luxton]

Nature of the beast on the intenet forums Bob. Don't be too much at a loss though. Nothing significant as far as i'm concerned was for the good of the rsa when the old nfsa was around when dealing with defra and also the eurocratts. Until i see some positive action from the trust regarding what is on the table to be dealt with at present, i am undecided. My own opinion.

 

I don't have a problem with what i have posted as i'm looking for a positive responce from the guys who are the trust or know of their dealings with defra etc, regarding my concerns. Haven't seen any robust exchanges yet, am i expected to see any is what i am ultimatly asking. This new guy, is he the chosen one?

Edited March 19, 2009 by barry luxton

[Steve Coppolo]

Hello Bob

Did you know, that sea anglers don't even know who the Angling Trust have tasked with representing us? O.K, we know we've got Stuart McPherson as the Marine director, now, but we don't know who is on the Marine Conservation Group/team/wing, or whatever they are called. This is no small detail, but there is no information out there. Someone out there knows, but no one is saying. Why do you think that might be?

Edited March 19, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[steve pitts]

Hello Bob

Did you know, that sea anglers don't even know who the Angling Trust have tasked with representing us? O.K, we know we've got Stuart McPherson as the Marine director, now, but we don't know who is on the Marine Conservation Group/team/wing, or whatever they are called. This is no small detail, but there is no information out there. Someone out there knows, but no one is saying. Why do you think that might be?

 

Hi Steve

 

With hindsight - 'Who are the members of this group?' would have been an ideal question to put to Mark Lloyd at the BASS AGM last Sunday.

 

As someone with the ability to inform significant numbers of RSA readers via your monthly piece in BFM, how about contacting Mark Lloyd or Stuart McPherson for an answer.

 

A quick phone call or email to either of the above gents should clarify things.

 

Cheers

Steve

Edited March 19, 2009 by steve pitts