Jump to content

The six page limit, baaaaaa, the CA continued!


Recommended Posts

Dear Peter,

 

So you are totally unaware of all the anti-CA comments you have publicly made then? Not that I’m complaining as you have every right to air your views but the swathe you have left in the wake of your onward anti-Countryside Alliance campaign can probably be seen in space!

 

What did "YOU" think about the NAA's performance Peter over the live baiting ban in the North West? Or like many other pro FACT'os will you skirt around the issue or make no comment? I draw your attention to the North West live bait issue as being the first one the NAA should have risen too seeing as it DID represent a direct attack on one of their "own"? The threat of loosing a legal angling method "should" have been a number one priority for the NAA to have displayed its "mettle". You know Peter, game, sea and all forms of coarse angling coming together in a "massive" effort to side with the predator anglers. Did that happen Peter? Did the umbrella organisation you hold dear way above the Countryside Alliance as one "speaking for angling" actually speak as "ONE" voice for predator angling rights? Did all those anglers the NAA were supposed to be representing send in their objections?

 

Yes Peter. The NAA did speak on that occasion. Spoke volumes.

 

And you openly blame the Countryside Alliance for defending “ITS” own membership rights? Isn’t that what you constantly do? Find reasons for laying blame at the Countryside Alliances door for defending the rights of its membership? You call this “causing divisions within angling”. How exactly are they doing that? They have a 25,000 angling membership and have every right to speak on their behalf. If this proactive Countryside Alliance work on behalf of its angling membership coincides with NAA/FACT efforts then that’s just tough. FACT nor this government own the sole rights for defending angling or angling memberships. And if we start to talk about the numbers NAA/FACT are supposed to represent? BIG DEAL. If they can’t even join together to defend one of their own then two million or two, it makes no difference how big they are “supposed” to be if they can’t stand together when the crunch comes?

 

The Countryside Alliance stand firm and have demonstrated time after time that they won't leave anyone behind. They are totally united.

 

Not speaking for the CA, I'm fairly certain they would have no objection to FACT joining them provided once in CA membership they actually acted like CA members. There would be no place for disunity inside the CA as there’s remains a 100% unblemished record for solid unity.

 

Another question for you Peter.

 

You are a SAA member yes? Would you like to tell all here exactly "WHO" in top notch SAA membership, nay, top officer position and founding member of SAA is a staunch supporter of the Countryside Alliance???

 

This game of trying to bowl out the Countryside Alliance is being played with a set of sticky wickets methinks.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 234
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dear Dave,

 

You said;

 

"The main reason the PAC/I didn't openly go with the majority was that the PAC had no official stance on the matter (the topic never having been raised within the club) and for me to make one up on the spot on its behalf would have been unfair on the club and its members."

 

I never implied that your vote against retaining the rivers close season was a PAC one. Quite the opposite. On that occasion your vote was your own surely? Mark actually voted in favour of retaining the rivers close season at the same vote. Was his a PAC vote? No. It was his own.

 

Did you not vote against the retention of the rivers close season twice Dave? Both times as an individual? And what was the reason you gave for not supporting the rivers close season? Its all in the minutes Dave.

 

I take no exception what so ever with your none supportive stance back then Dave. My continued support for predator angling rights confirm this? Your opinion, your choice, does not sway my own.

 

Did the NAA whole strength come to the aid of the predator anglers? Or were the predator anglers in the North West crushed totally offering only a token resistance given the NAA numbers?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

 

I don't remember voting against the retention of the close season - even though I probably did state that I would be happy to see it abolished. I don't see what that has to do with unity though.

 

If you want the sort of unity that demands individuals have to publicly deny their beliefs you can forget it pal....

 

As for the NAA and the NW byelaw change, I think that writing as a unified organisation to DEFRA showed a united front. Maybe not highly effective, but I'm not sure what more they could have done.

 

Perhaps you have some ideas what more the NAA could have done to change the outcome. Or what the CA could have achieved in their lieu. The CA didn't stop the hunting with dogs bill, did they? No matter how unified, well funded or organised they may be.

 

Don't forget that DEFRA gave us very little time to organise any response at all.

Dave

dlstsig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Dave,

 

Did all the orgs within NAA instruct its members to write to the NW region in support for the predator anglers? Yes or No.

 

"If you want the sort of unity that demands individuals have to publicly deny their beliefs you can forget it pal...."

 

What!! So thats it then? Any angling practise isn't safe within NAA or FACT because individuals might have to publicly deny their beleifs?

 

Take special note Dave that a great many Countryside Alliance members don't hunt foxes. Take extra special note Dave that a lot of Countryside Alliance members don't like fox hunting either! Thousands of these members publically deny their beleifs in favour of supporting the wider picture. Did you honestly beleive that all Countryside Alliance members support fox hunting? Blimey.

The thing is Dave these people stand totally united in total support for country ways no matter what they might think of others passtimes. Unity. It actually exists in the Countryside Alliance and CA members take not one single step back when their members rights are threatened.

 

Is the stark reality Dave is that the PAC are aligned to NAA and FACT via the SAA? Are they CA members? If not, why should the CA have faught NAA battles? Did the NAA hand over the NW issue to SAA so they could fight the battle? (wasn't this documented as such?)

 

If so, not much unity there surely Dave? More like pass the buck?

 

And if the SAA did take on the PAC battle, where were the 10,000 petitions seeing as the SAA claims to represent 10,000 single species anglers?

 

Why, were there only around 550-600 names on the official protest list then Dave?

 

The thing is Dave, if the NW issue HAD have been a CA one, they would have sent out the supportive message via the regional structure right down through the veins of the Countryside Alliance. The campaign would have appeared on the CA website and in its quarterly news magazines and via its "Grass E-Route". Within hours every CA member would be made aware of the threat posing predator anglers.

 

Any similarities with NAA?

 

Website? News magazine? Email campaigns to individual members?

 

Or a few politicos high up in their ivory towers that no one ever hears or knows about?

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee, you are asking loaded questions to which you already know the answer. I really can't be bothered to get my head round them either! Sorry Lee, you'll have to be content with the only answers that you'll agree with!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear All,

 

Just some smallish point's.

 

Anyone read the Tories;

 

'Action for Farming and Rural Communities' leading up to the GE?

 

Well what do you know? The Conservative document repeats their pledge to bring forward a Government Bill to repeal the Hunting Act and thankfully they have also dropped their proposal to abolish the rod licence.

 

And they said fox hunting is finished. Seems not if the right government gets in.

 

Labour brought out its 'Charter for Shooting' before its official release last Thursday but has since disappeared. No new date has been set for its re-launch and questions are starting to be asked about the validity of the document seeing as its been drafted by an MP instead of a Minister! Apparently, the document hasn't had any public support from the government or the labour party hierarchy. Very odd.

 

Oh, and you can buy your fishing rod licences on line at the Countryside Alliance website.

 

They might have been obtainable at the FACT website in your dreams, but they haven't got one.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Peter,

 

I'm quite happy to agree with you providing you admit you are completely wrong almost all of the time on almost everything you say?

 

Then again by perhaps a billion to one odds I might be wrong in which case I will instantly call for a re-count. Massive majorities breed nutters.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The thing is Dave, if the NW issue HAD have been a CA one, they would have sent out the supportive message via the regional structure right down through the veins of the Countryside Alliance. The campaign would have appeared on the CA website and in its quarterly news magazines and via its "Grass E-Route". Within hours every CA member would be made aware of the threat posing predator anglers."

 

All well and good letting all its members know of the threat.

 

I ask again, what could the CA have done to actually stop the ban that NAA etc didn't?

 

Ooh, I know. Organise a march in London like the one that stopped hunting with dogs getting banned....

Dave

dlstsig.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...