NFA

[Leon Roskilly]

poledark:

Naive Question (another one Leon )

 

Why can't all the Specialist groups/bodies work within the NFA.

Den,

 

The PAC and various other specialist groups are members of the SAA.

 

The SAA is a member of the NFA.

 

Tight Lines - leon

 

[ 12. September 2002, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: Leon Roskilly ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Leon Roskilly:

Leon Roskilly:

Naive Question (another one Leon )

 

Why can't all the Specialist groups/bodies work within the NFA.

Den,

 

The PAC and various other specialist groups are members of the SAA.

 

The SAA is a member of the NFA.

 

I doubt that anyone will ever be able to persuade the NFSA to join the NFA!! (NFA is probably wrongly named, it has conceded that both game and sea anglers have their own governing bodies, and that they have no jurisdiction there).

 

A more accurate title would be NFCA (National Federation of Coarse Anglers). That would end the confusion seemingly caused to many here, that their current title engenders, that they are the recognised governing body of all anglers.

 

Like it or not, the NAA is the 'body' chosen by all the other relevant bodies (including the NFA) to be the combined voice of all angling disciplines.

 

Hopefully, my reply to DCB will clear up what is and isn't a 'governing body'.

 

Again, like it or not, that's the world the way it is, not how some choose to interpret it.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[lyn]

Hi Phil long time since we 'debated' together!!

 

I have read with interest this thread about the different angling Governing Bodies and yet nowhere is there a mention of the JAGB (Joint Angling Governing Bodies)

 

Now according to a letter sent to Les Webber of Angling Projects from Malcolm Hanson S&TA Development Officer, he states that Quote " The problem for Sport England was the notion that angling was a sport with not one, but three Governing Bodies. To address the anomaly the three governing bodies, the NFA, the NFSA and the S&TA came together as the JAGB. This was a voluntary liason requiring no electoral procedure." (Les had ask in a letter when & who had elected the members.)

 

Now according to the letter for the past 2 years JAGB has set about delivering the 'National Angling Development Plan.' If they have been going that long how come they are not mentioned on the Sport England site as a recognised GB???

 

In this development plan the 2 issues that concern me and will many others no doubt, well one of the 2 as I, personally would like to know what the 'Ethics' are to women in angling!

 

My main concern is the coaching as it clearly states that unless you are a licensed, qualified coach then you are NOT permitted to teach juniors.

 

(It is quite long & if anyone would like a copy please email me and I will send you one. )

 

Now as some of you are aware I organise a few junior events to encourage juniors into our sport.

 

Angling Projects has around 2000 youngsters though it's gate each year. Les and his team run the centre on a voluntary basis, no one is paid, the kids stay and fish there for free!

 

Now Les is considering closing the gates over this whole issue. I must add that this has nothing to do with the new 'Child Protection Policy.' Projects Team have always been police checked and work very closly with the police and social services. As a parent I have no objection to it.

 

What I have to find out is if I can still run junior events. I can not afford to go through the coaching scheme. I do it all for nothing other than the love of angling.

 

What has really got my back up over this letter is the final paragraph, quote" However, initiatives that do not commit themselves to that plan will, with the support of Sport England, be exposed, and the reasons for non-endorsement will be publicy announced" un quote.

 

What the hell are they going to public announce Les for??? doing what he has done for over 25 years, get kids off the streets and fishing!!!

 

If this is angling governing bodies tactics than I am sorry but I am NOT impressed.

 

I shall be writing to Malcolm Hanson to try and see where I stand. I had kids at the open day I ran for Farnham AS this month, fishing and catching fish. One lad about 12-13 yrs old had just caught as I walked up, the look on his face said it all and the "That was wicked!" I smiled as I had achieved what I had set out to do that day.

 

I had got a kid 'hooked on fishing'

 

These kids and many more are not going to be given the chance to try as so many in my opinion will not bother to help juniors if the JAGB are going to adopt that sort of attitude.

 

Is there anyone on here that is on the JAGB that could answer questions, according to the letter it is made up from members of the other 3 GBs?

 

Over to you Phil

 

lyn

[chesters1]

i see no mention of C.R.A.S

chesters1 recreational angling society

[Peter Waller]

Morning Lynn, excuse me butting in. First of all most of us are not aware of the JAGB. My first impressions are, why not? It does seem a logical set-up. Basically it means that ALL the worthwhile representative bodies work together, without all the hangers on. Simplification without complication. Seen from afar it does seem to be where angling ought to be. Each major discipline has one representative voice at the top. We can all join the NFA, either via our clubs, or as individual members and have our say. The NFA is elected, anyone of us can stand. Seems ideal to me, cuts out all the middle men, the self important, the dross and the hangers on.

 

As for coaching. I am involved with ACANS, that should puzzle Chesters !! Den Willis, an NFA coach, is our secretary. I shall be seeing Den at a committee meeting shortly. We have already discussed the implications and ramifucations surrounding the present social and political issues surrounding helping kids take up angling. I have to say that the only problem Den has, and foresees, is getting enough people to help. He doesn't seem to see other major problems at this time. Will keep you posted.

 

[ 15. September 2002, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Peter Waller:

Seems ideal to me, cuts out all the middle men, the self important, the dross and the hangers on.

One people, one state,one government, one party.

 

Seems fine to me Peter, what shall we do about the dissenters?

 

'Hangers on' Those who take the benefits without doing any of the work.

 

Yes, we must really rid angling of those people.

 

Especially the self important.

 

Tight Lines - leon

[lyn]

Hi Peter, you are not butting in at all Now I may be wrong here so I am sure someone is going to correct me if I am

 

Now I was under the impression that the NAA was set up to be our one joint angling voice, if so why have we now also got the JAGB?

 

If the JAGB have been 'our' voice with Sport England and government and in existance for 2 years how come someone like yourself has not heard of them. Who are they?

 

After a press release Les wrote to Paul Knight (Secretary of NAA, I believe, please someone correct me if I am wrong!) His letter was then passed to Malcolm Hanson.

 

Now if all three GB's contributed to this new Angling development plan, with the NAA already in there why is there a need for yet another joint body??

 

Bruno???

 

lyn

 

[ 15. September 2002, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: lyn ]

[Peter Waller]

Leon, one state etc, no. Let me explain the obvious! We have a system in this country where people form parties and these parties stand for election. We end up with one party in power, one party in parliament. Not so in angling.

 

Dissenters are burnt at the stake! Or, if they survive that ordeal, they form their own party. As for angling, we don't have one 'parliament', we have several. I suppose you could claim that the NAA is our 'parliament' but if it is, it doesn't seem very effective.

 

In times of war we have formed coalitions. Seems, from afar, that the JAGB could be seen as that, a coalition. Notable that the three major groups have left the minor organisations, and hangers-ons out of their set-up.

 

In an ideal world my personal opinion is that the NFA should be our 'parliament'. Dissenters are fine, its just that when they can't get their own way and go out and form yet another group that they can become a real pain in the bum.

 

We still, despite having the NAA, have groups going their own sweet way rather than working together. The NFA did not inflict itself upon angling, there are political groups out there that have. Atleast we agree on the issue of the 'self important'.

[chesters1]

sorry peter we vote for individuals ,not parties (well in an ideal world) people that are supposed to live in your area and represent the areas veiws (a great number own houses in the area but dont actually reside there) this is how it works BUT power comes from the party not from the individual ,so the individual`s agenda (concerning the local issues ) thate you VOTE for are swallowed up into the parties agenda (even if its contary to the individuals ideals that the voters elected him on),every year and decade we see the same old faces (whether in opposition or in power) now and again they swap,

the party in power suggest a new law (or whatever)

the opposition apose it (thats their job) so nothing happens (unless you have a huge member advantage as at the moment) unless the parties forget their core values (party politics) sit round a table and present a fair judgement FOR THE PEOPLE not for their party then decent laws will come from it , the party system should be abolished and people from all parties should form groups skilled in the subject they are discussing not haggling to points score for their party.

why am i talking about politics not angling well its exactly the same ,large groups bullying smaller ones for self intrest purposes ,each shouting louder than the other ,chuck out these groups (and initials) untill they all amalgamate into a group not promoting self intrest then nothing will happen

promote a angling license users group that represent all anglers ,forgetting if they fish for barbell or carp or match fish etc ,get back to basics ,we all fish who cares what we fish for or where we fish ,one voice? as with politics NEVER

are we getting back to block voting where if something that annoys one group (maybe through jealosy etc) stops another getting something seemingly benifitting another group (although benefitting us all eventually) gets shouted down :confused:

 

[ 15. September 2002, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: chesters1 ]

[Leon Roskilly]

Peter Waller:

We end up with one party in power, one party in parliament.

That's intersting Peter, I always believed that parliament consisted of MPs elected from any number of parties, representing the many diverse views of the electorate

 

i.e Labour, Conservatives, Liberals, Unionists, Independents etc.

 

I didn't realise that Mr Blair had taken 'control freakery' to such an extent that ther is now only one party in parliment!

 

er, do we still have a constitution?

 

Tight Lines - leon