Whats happening at the ACA ?

[Peter Waller]

Coincidently no, although I've seen your posting since! Shared humour. I was looking for the ACA site on Explorer. Loads of alternatives, that one appealed !

[Steve King]

Funny that Peter! Everybody else please look at FM and note the time and date stamp on my post.

 

Copycat or coincidence?!

 

[ 28. November 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Steve King ]

[Peter Waller]

Funny that Steve, I don't look at FM every day. So lets go for coincidence shall we.

 

[ 28. November 2004, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[fenboy]

At the risk of getting hit in the crossfire by a handbag, does it really matter, lads?

[Peter Waller]

Nope, not a jot!!

[Newt]

Steve King - welcome to AN.

 

It's been my experience that Peter Waller can stir things nicely without help but on the rare occasion when he borrows an idea, he gives credit to the originator.

 

Since a google search for aca uk gives the following results in the listed order, it does seem possible to me that others might have stumbled on to the adult diaper site and found it funnier than the Consulting Actuaries one. I certainly did and I can state for the record that while I think I have visited Fishing Magic in the past, I can't remember when.

 

1. www.aca.uk.com/

2. www.aca.uk.com/acap_page.php?pagetoprev=22

3. http://www.aca.org.uk/

(Association of Consulting Actuaries' (ACA))

 

The fact that "our" ACA is further down the google search list than Abyssinian Cat Association might give us an idea of just how much in the public eye the organization and it's activities are.

 

[ 29. November 2004, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Bruno Broughton]

With respect, Newt, that is not the issue, nor is it the problem; it is playing to the 'peanut galley', the voyeurs who post on here in a thinly disguised spirit of schadenfreud.

 

The ACA acts on behalf of its MEMBERS, a job it did and still does do superbly well. It has an envious and unrivalled record of achievement for bringing polluters to book by making them pay for their obscenity, and the proceeds are delivered to members to restore and reinstate their fisheries. There is not another organisation in the WORLD that can boast of that honorable record of achievement. Not one, never mind that the whole lot is paid for by its members, anglers, and fishery owners/tenants. Voluntarily.

 

Many of those who have 'contributed' so far to this thread are so up their own backsides that one has to wonder: what is their motive? To bring down the organisation? To smear anyone, and everyone, who does not agree with their particular, partial view of the current problems? Some of the 'knowledgeable' posters seem to have quit ACA membership. For goodness sake - do you know the difference between cartiledge and bone? Lord save me from allies like that when the real battles are in progress and you are asked to actually do someting positive in favour of unpolluted fisheries.

 

No doubt some wag will see fit to play with this posting, or to twist my words in the way that at least one poster has so despicably, dishonorably and offensively done so already. So be it. But don't you EVER try to claim to be pollution fighters.

[wearyone]

PW's post.

Does it REALLY matter?

I'm sure many are p'ng themselves at this latest allegation

 

[ 29. November 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: wearyone ]

[Peter Waller]

Bruno, I do think that Newt has a very valid point re the public perception of the ACA.

 

I recently received a mail-shot for the RSPB. Brillient! The ACA is to fish what the RSPB is to birds, but the ACA does not come over that way, regretfully.

 

When all this hoo-haa is over and settled perhaps the ACA will be able to work rather harder at its PR. Clean water isn't just about angling. Sailors and canoists, for example, benefit from clean water, especially those of us who occasionally capsize!

 

Like Bruno I do wonder at the agenda of one or two posters on this thread.

[Jim Gibbinson]

Any organisation that depends on voluntary contributions needs to be perceived as being totally trustworthy and highly efficient; if would-be contributors start to have doubts there is every likelihood that they will withdraw their support. If the ACA is undermined by current events, it is likely that it will have been dealt a mortal blow.

 

The reasons for the suspensions of Jane and Bob James have not yet been made public, so Bruno and others who have adopted a defensive role are correct - "innocent until proved guilty", and all that - but the trouble is, these suspensions have come on the back of concerns and reservations that a number of us already had. Perhaps our concerns were/are unwarranted, but when doubts are harboured and suspensions subsequently occur, it's very difficult to maintain a completely neutral stance. This isn't schadenfreude, nor having "cartilage rather than bone", but a natural - although, admittedly, possibly unjustified - tendency to think that one's doubts and reservations possibly had substance.