The Dreaded M.O.U, at last!

[Alan Pearce]

miasma:

....Mr David Stocker,CA North Western Regional

Public Relations Officer.....now thats what I

call a very bright and educated gentleman......

Be Lucky!...miasma..

Don't know the chap, why what has he had to say and when?

 

[ 08 May 2002, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Alan Pearce ]

[Peter Waller]

My problem, Alan, isn't so much with the MOU, which seems reasonable, but with the way it was arrived at, and the reasons from a CA perspective. I have letters from prominant angling politicians, seemingly I am not alone in that concern. Basically the MOU seems quite reasonable. I have posted the MOU, knowing that it, in itself, is a fair enough document.

 

As a matter of interest I have a well worded letter from the NAA. I will quote one sentence, read into it what you will.

 

'I will bring your letter to the attention of the N.F.A., our colleagues in the NAA, who are responsible for coarse fishing in England.'

 

No mention of NAFAC or the SAA.

 

I will also quote from a letter received from NAFAC.

 

'The meeting agreed that NAFAC had to support its colleagues in the NAA, but the impact of the Memorandum and of the CA's involvement with the NAA had to be closely monitored'.

 

Newt, my concern is also that the NAA Chairman, in being invited to sit on the CA Board, has been 'bought off'. Only time will tell.

 

I still remain deeply suspicious of the CA motives.

[chesters1]

'I will bring your letter to the attention of the N.F.A., our colleagues in the NAA, who are responsible for coarse fishing in England.'

are they realy ,i though it was just a clique set up in competition to other qliches ,they can only represent their members surely? :confused:

[phonebush]

Chesters1,

I am pleased to announce, You will be hung with a new unblimished rope.

Silly boy! They don't even represent their members, they represent coarse fishing. Doesn't that word, coarse, mean lacking in delicacy or refinement.

 

Actually, I am with Newt on this one. I have followed the issue of the MOU carefully. Printed each opinion and justification.

 

First Peter W. and others,say MOU is no good as drafted. Now, today, it's OK but the path to the MOU was no good.

 

Peter, no matter how roundabout they arrived at the MOU it's either OK or not OK? Your position seem only argumentative as to the conclusion.

 

Phone

What goes around comes around. We shall see issues like this in the US someday.

[Leon Roskilly]

chesters1:

'I will bring your letter to the attention of the N.F.A., our colleagues in the NAA, who are responsible for coarse fishing in England.'

are they realy ,i though it was just a clique set up in competition to other qliches ,they can only represent their members surely?   :confused:

Each 'sport' has a governing body, recognised by the the government as representing that sport.

 

The National Federation of Anglers are the recognised governing body of coarse angling.

 

(The Salmon and Trout Association are the governing body for game fishermen, the National Federation of Sea Anglers for our saltwater friends)

 

With three governing bodies representing angling, the government was sometimes a little confused about what they were supposed to be doing for anglers (each body seemed to want conflicting things at times).

 

So we have 'unity' in the form of the National Angling Alliance (NAA).

 

As there was some contention within angling as to whether the three recognised governing bodies was truly representative of all anglers, some other players were also invited onto the NAA (eg the Specialist Anglers Alliance)

 

I could go on and on here, but that's enough!!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[chesters1]

who do these govening bodies govern???? if a chap from the naa,nfa,cba,cbi,nfu,csa,and all the rest of so called bodies ,came to me and said dont do that theyd end up swimming ,i obey the club rules ,if the club is a member thats up to them ,i`m not.there are too many little people out there made to look grand by inventing a clique to govern ,it still reminds me of life of brian and the peoples front of judea ,all talk .

[Zinky]

Hells Bells I thought I had trouble with the FDA and MCA this lot looks far more involved?? :confused: :confused:

[phonebush]

Dragonbat,

I partially know what you mean. What's the MCA. I have several medical device patents.

Phone

[Leon Roskilly]

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesters1:

[QB]who do these govening bodies govern???? [QB]

---

They govern the 'sport' and (as I understand it) are responsible for the rules governing the sport.

 

Note, I say sport and not pastime.

 

So, unless you are a match angler they won't bother you much.

 

And even if you are, and you are fishing a match not run under NFA rules, you needn't be too bothered

 

Think of it like cricket. If you want to play a match on the local green, using two sticks instead of 3, as a wicket, as long as everyone is happy to play to those rules on both teams, who cares.

 

But if you want to play at Lords, or against a county team, it's cricket's governing body who are responsible for the rules (er, laws actually!) you will play under.

 

The problem is that being a governing body, they are recognised by the authorities as the official representatives of the 'sport' at the highest level, and it is their advice to government etc which might affect you in some way.

 

You can moan about it, who cares?

 

You can join them and add your tiny voice to all the other members seeking to influence them.

 

Or you can step forward and play an active role (for little thanks, a lot of criticism, and very little time for fishing).

 

Like it or not, that's the way of it!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[chesters1]

plausable explanation but i remain unmoved