Now let's ban fishing

[AberdeenAngus]

Waterman,

Your response is a shining light among reams of paranoia and diatribe.

 

I have read with incredulity some of the posts on this topic, where conspiracy theory has been taken to new lengths. Are we sure that it is not Al Quaida (!?) who sent the letter in order to distract attention from sept 11.

 

I was not going to join in this thread which seems to be going nowhere, but which is a breeding ground for animosity. However, Waterman's response, deserves praise, and demonstrates commonsense thinking, and measured response

[Dunk Fairley]

i agree,

 

mike, i would praise you, but people might accuse me of being biased.

 

Dunk

 

SAA Life Member

[Andy_Davies]

Cambridge Evening news has a message board at

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/msgboard/b.../board.asp?id=1

 

A little slow but well worth airing your views.

 

Andy

[Peter Waller]

The reply from Mike (SAA) is right and proper. The reply from Peter Sharpe is equally valid. In total they cover both trains of thought. Should both be published in response to Mss Thom's letter then non anglers can judge for themselves. Both responses are appreciated, and supported, atleast by me.

 

I can see the logic of a CA supporter sending Mss Thom's letter off. It is in keeping with the CA's scare tactic advertising. But it certainly hasn't helped their case at this time. For an 'anti' to attempt to galvanise anglers into a response, also at this time, hardly helps their cause either. As Jim has said, there are idiots on both sides of the arguement, present company excepted of course! Jim's response deserves a great deal of respect. By the way Jim, I'm not anti CA on principal, just anti CA hijacking Angling.

 

In all, of the three factions involved, perhaps angling will come out of this one better than the other two.

[Gaffer]

Has anyone had any replies from the e-mails sent?

[Alan Fawcett]

Once again Mike you jump in both feet first.

 

Time & again you have proved you worth within the angling "politics" world & i for one am gratefull we have someone like you so willing to "enter the affray".

 

How you & those like you find the time for all this, your own job & fishing beats me!!

 

Thanks again Mike

 

<edit> Just in case anyone needs it link will let you find out where a url is registered & who its registered to.

 

I've used it myself plenty of times so i can vouch for it.

 

[ 05. September 2002, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: ALAN FAWCETT ]

[Peter Waller]

poledark:

I have to say that it stretches incredulaty too far to think that the CA can gain anything by trying to ban angling.

 

Peter Waller, keep up the good work on the Broads,

 

Den

Just perhaps, Den, in upping the apparent threat to anglers, the CA is hoping that anglers will be drawn to them as a means of gaining protection, and thus shielding fox hunting.

 

I don't think anyone has actually suggested that the CA wants to ban angling.

 

Yes Den, I'll keep working for the Broads. Some nice bream around yer know !

[Peter Sharpe]

Whoever is behind the original letter to the newspapers, their choice of wording easily catches them out, and shows them to be quite remarkably stupid.

[poledark]

Waterman, Mike, Nice work, some of us, me included, sometimes forget how "instant" the internet is.

 

Many people posting in a very short time.

 

I would like it put on record how quickly you have responded,

Thanks,

 

Den

[Polly]

Jim Roper:

I think I've said enough on this subject within other threads but Cambridge, with it's past reputation for intellectual revolutionaries, might seem a suitable hunting ground for abolishionists.

 

Cue Peter R Waller

 

Jim Roper

 

http://www.flatcoat.co.uk

http://www.flatcoat.com

http://www.flatcoat.net

http://www.kennelclouddancers.com/engels/index.htm

http://www.chflatcoats.com

http://www.lakefell.co.uk/flattery/index.shtml

http://www.mafcrc.org

Bring 'em on!!!

OOOPs, sorry folks I'm sure my opinions about societies "DO-GOODERS" are not welcome here either, better keep my views to myself on this one as expressing my thoughts and standing up for the sport I love, may, in the minds of some make me appear to be a nasty, horrible old thug. I'm sure the softly softly approach will eventually overcome the antis that decry out sport so.