Jump to content

A case against the CA / NAA 'agreement'.


Peter Waller

Recommended Posts

What have I learned

1. a decision was made that those making it were not happy with

 

2. people not present at a certain meeting but were members of an organisation were not consulted but feel that they should have been.

 

3. the reason that those who made the decision did so was because they felt that there was a greater benefit to be had by agreeing.

 

I may have missed something out there, but I feel that these are the points as they are made.

 

What would they do if the question was asked again?????

 

No i don't want an answer. people do end up in a position where difficult decisions are made. The wrong decision can be made for all the right reasons, or, the right decision is made and yet the truth of that can only be seen some years hence.

 

My point is that the decision was made, in circumstances which appear clear, for reasons which appear good.

 

Hanging out the dirty washing on here for all to see is interesting but probably not helpful.

 

We all have a right to speak, we can all do our own thing, we can work within a group or outside, we make decisions and life carries on.

 

I only hope that those who made this decision, whether it ends up being right or wrong, feel that they can make other decisions without going back to others, as otherwise matters will proceed at too slow a pace and course angling may be left behind.

 

I am a coward, I would have run to committee, run to the members, and then been able to blame them if it was all wrong. But there is rarely time to do this on every issue I am glad that some people feel that they can make decisions where those decisions have to be made, and I take my hat off to them.

 

phil

 

[ 08 April 2002, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: phil dean ]

phil,

JOIN ANMC TODAY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 117
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

When I read of highly principled man resigning over this issue, of so many angling politicians who were opposed to the link that is not a link, then I am ammazed that the agreement was ever reached.

 

Who were the NFA, SAA etc. actually working for when this agreement was signed? Working for unity I suppose, certainly not for angling.

 

May I respectively suggest that the route forward, a route that would, perhaps, reunite coarse angling, would be for the SAA to take a brave step forward. To stand and be counted.

 

Quite simply to withdraw the SAA's support of the Memorandom. This way the NAA still has its majority support for a link, sorry, understanding with the CA.

 

The SAA can then hold its head up high as having maintained the principals of the clear majority who are obviously less than impressed with the present situation.

 

Should the NFA etc. go with the SAA by withdrawing support then so be it.

 

Why on earth the sea angling sector gains by their support of the CA baffles me. I live on the coast & I've yet to speak to a sea-angler who actually has a good word to say about the CA.

 

Coarse angling is coarse angling. Its political representatives are there to speak on our behalf.

I don't believe that any of them, apart from DCB, have done this. Spineless is a word hovering in the background. Not wishing to be the 'odd one out' perhaps.

 

As I said, many posts ago, my view was that a reasonable response to the Memorandom would have been an abstention. Whilst not opposing the motion, the SAA would not have been supporting it either.

 

Now I'm suggesting that the SAA withdraw its support. I am not suggesting that they oppose the memorandom.

 

I would like to see the SAA say 'hey fellows, we don't agree with you, we don't want to oppose the motion, but we can't support it. We want you to understand that we are NOT puppets, we are a force to be reckoned with. However we will, for the sake of unity, not oppose you, this time. For that we shall expect a favour in the future.'

 

If, as I have read, so many influential people were against the memorandom, that they must have been aware of the general bankside opinion, then I would have expected them, as men of principle, to have atleast abstained, now I'm asking them to withdraw our support for the 'understanding'.

 

The hot air and 'spin', and seemingly a reluctance to come clean over the NAA/CA agreement, altogether leaves me wondering for OUR future. This matter certainly will run and run until one of our representative bodies has the courage to stand by its membership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mpbdsnu:

I shall also stop asking questions on this thread. As Steve has already stated, no actual answers have been forthcoming! What a waste of time.

 

I have learnt one thing, that a number of you would make good polititions!

Well said Malc!....and they wonder why a lot of us can't be arsed??????
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

As Steve Richardson and Malc rightly said, there remains little point of airing this issue on here. All we are getting is the same old trot from those who are seemingly not quite happy about this MOU but are willing to go along with it in the interests of angling unity?

 

Well my dears, we shall see what this MOU with the CA has done for angling unity in due course.

 

Leons quote;

 

" Maybe things would have been very different if he had been there, maybe he would have had the arguments to have changed the course of angling history – but he wasn’t."

 

No Leon, I wasn't there. And because of that probably, I was unable to change the course of angling history. Whatever that means. But; Thats a shame. Because those that were there, undoubtedly did. Or perhaps thought they did.

 

My "combative" comments were just that Leon and mean't to be. That's just how strongly I feel about all this and state clearly in open honesty for all to read, there will be no compromise from those against the MOU now, or in the future.

 

We are totally against it and thats that.

 

So, out of respect to all, because of the deapth of my feelings, I will not post on this thread again leaving to deal with this in its proper place elswhere. So for now, in combative talk. My sword is sheathed.

 

We are in the clearing. And await your arrival.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just guessing Peter, but I wouldn't be surprised if the initial proposal leading up to the eventual MOU was to join forces with the CA (remember that there are many anglers who cannot understand why other anglers refuse to stand alongside their country pursuits brethren, against a common deadly enemy, that wants to ban both hunting and fishing) .

 

The Memorandum Of Understanding (I would guess)is the eventual compromise position which has finally been negotiated (did someone mention that there were seven drafts of the MOU?)

 

I would find it incredible that we ever got as far as agreeing the memorandum, without an awful lot of politicking leading up to it, a lot of determined debate, and hard compromises being made on both sides.

 

I cannot believe that anyone rolled over and died at the first whiff of disagreement, not in a million years!

 

The MOU isn’t the start of a process, it’s damn near the end of a process.

 

It’s what we have ended up with.

 

Its what we have agreed to keep a careful eye upon, and watch how it develops from here on in.

 

But as I say, I don’t know this.

 

My first contact with the MOU was during a meeting with an agenda stuffed full of items, many of them of great importance, as happens at every quarterly meeting of the SAA committee.

 

If there is a lesson to be learned here, it is perhaps that those that can attend should attend.

 

Leave it in the safe hands of others, and who knows what may be agreed in the absence of your appointed representative!

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

ps I'll go along with Lee. This will be my last post on this thread too.

RNLI Shoreline Member

Member of the Angling Trust

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Paul Williams:

Well said Malc!....and they wonder why a lot of us can't be arsed??????

Equally Paul it makes me wonder how so many essentially decent people can be bothered to get involved...... To those that do I am very grateful, as it is nice to know that there are so many people who despite their disagreements, have the good of angling at heart.

 

To those who are involved please accept my thanks.

 

I hope that I haven't offended anyone during the course of the above discussion.

 

I hope to see many of you at the May SAA meeting.

 

[ 08 April 2002, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Alan Roe ]

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical

minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which

holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd

by the clean end"

Cheers

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it that the SAA should be the butt of all the anger and discord shown on this posting, and not any of the other members of the NAA?

 

Alan.

 

P.S. and by the way it is only a MOU and NOT an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.