Whats happening at the ACA ?

[Brian Crawford]

Jim Roper:

Can somebody tell me who Bob James is?

Watch "A Passion For Angling".

 

Brian

[Brian Crawford]

Peter Waller:

No Brian, I don't know half of it. Its not Jane I want to see getting the order of the boot but I can't see her staying and Bob going.

Peter,

 

I expect there will be a big cover-up by ACA Council and Committee; no consultation or input by ordinary members; no EGM; a new financial donation or donations from unknown benefactors, to get back into the black; Bob & Jane given early retirement (on convenient ill-health grounds - on very much reduced pensions if the ACA can fix it - and probably MBE's), and a new Director appointed (without consultation of ordinany members) on very much reduced salary than that enjoyed by Bob & Jane - if "they" can find a suitable "mug". Then it's back to business.

 

Remember the ACA Committee and Council are self-appointed and only they attend AGM's.

 

All members get for their money is a bit of plastic and copies of the ACA Review with no say in the affairs of the ACA - or have things changed in the last 10 years?

 

Oh yes, members do get protection for their waters, don't they?

 

Brian

[Peter Waller]

Seems to me Brian that you should rejoin so that you can attend this blessed EGM.

 

The ACA has done stirling work, does do stirling work and acts like a deterant. It could be usefull in the future for fighting angling's corner. It is established and is widely respected as part of angling.

 

Like you I see faults, I do object to the ACA financing certain individuals life-style, it appears less than transparent regarding its money. But the plus side is greater than the minus.

[Vagabond]

As an individual member, I received a letter from the ACA a few minutes ago ("frist" post, but we won't go into that here)

 

It was a "holding" letter, saying investigations were nearly complete, watch the website.

 

However, one thing I wondered about for the first time - triggered by the present crisis, is, what is the legal status of the ACA?

 

They are not a limited company, nor are they a registered charity as far as I can see from their literature.

 

Can one of our legal eagles spell out what is implied by the title "Association" and who the ACA are accountable to ? Members? Some official body ? or ?

[Peter Waller]

V comes before W so I suspect I'll get a letter next week!

 

Atleast the ACA is waking up to the fact that the membership wants to know what is going on. Come on ACA, for all your faults we do care for you!!

[PeterK]

Brian Crawford,

 

You have been very busy.

 

Do you really have any idea what you are talking about?

 

I'm not going to answer all of your posts they don't deserve answers, but I can tell you that I'm looking at a copy of the 'ACA Report of Directors and acccounts' for Dec 2003. They really aren't that hard to get a copy of.

 

Missing million? How can you post like that without the facts?

 

I have reported your post, you have gone too far.

 

Peter Waller wrote :-

 

''Like you I see faults, I do object to the ACA financing certain individuals life-style, it appears less than transparent regarding its money. But the plus side is greater than the minus.''

 

Peter Who's lifestyle? what are you trying to say? Do you have any REAL PROOF that the ACA finances anyones lifestyle?

[Peter Waller]

No Peter, just a gut feeling. But in reality anyone who is salaried by the ACA is having their livestyle paid for. The question on my mind is whether the ACA gets good value for money from all its staff? I remain open minded on this issue.

 

The trouble is, in my honest opinion, is that the ACA, bless its cotton socks, is perhaps not as transparent as it might be, or thats how I see it. Unfortunately this leaves us members out in the cold and having to make guesses, sometimes without much foundation.

 

I have to say that your postings leave me wondering on which side of the fence you sit.

 

As far as Brian's comments are concerned, has he really gone too far? Most of his statements are about facts already in the public arena. It does seem that by his past history with the ACA he is in a good position to know what he is talking about, isn't he?

 

I have always had great faith in the ACA. I shall certainly continue to support it irrespective of the outcome of the 'investigation'.

 

I also have a great deal of respect and liking for Jane. She has always been entirely straight with me.

 

But I am listening to Brian, and your goodself, because nothing much has come out of the ACA! In telling the media before the membership I believe the ACA has scored a bit of an own goal.

[PeterK]

Peter,

 

Having your lifestyle financed does not sound like getting paid for a job, well not to me anyway.

 

I don't have anything to hide regarding which side of the fence I'm on. I fully support Bob and Jane James and my opinion is that they have been treated badly. I also fully support the work of the ACA but not those currently running it. I have serious concerns regarding this matter and it's future generally

 

[ 22. November 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: PeterK ]

[Elton]

If people would like this thread to continue, please stick to published facts.

 

Cheers,

 

Elton

[wearyone]

'Published Facts'

The problem is Elton, there has not been any fact's published, except that Bob and Jane James were suspended.

The length of time the 'Inquiry' is taking is both worrying and unprofessional.

 

[ 23. November 2004, 07:28 AM: Message edited by: wearyone ]