PAC (only those interested please)

[Guest Ray Rogers]

Bruno,

 

As per my reply to Dave Lumb, the message is loud and clear, upon reflection the PAC Club and the Committee attacks, serve no constructive purpose and will cease forthwith !!!!!

 

From Ray, Whopps ! I've done it again, Roy Rogers the Essex Cowboy. Yeee Haaaa.

 

Originally posted by Bruno Broughton:

Ray

I don't think you and I know each other. Nevertheless, I hope you will accept some friendly advice. Please, please: stop posting on this subject because you are coming across as a complete and total doughnut. Sadly, it will influence how others treat you in future, not just on AN but in the general angling fraternity.

 

As I said, just some friendly advice.

 

[Guest Ray Rogers]

Nev,

 

O.K enough is enough, attacks cease forthwith.

Does this mean cheaper baits from the shop ?

 

Ray.

Originally posted by Nev Fickling:

I really, really hate to say this, but has Ray Rodgers flipped?  Look if it will make you happy, come up here for a day and find out the facts. If not shut up!

[Guest Ray Rogers]

Steve,

 

All postings that were over the top have been deleted, non constructive postings also in the future cease forthwith !!!

 

Ray.

 

Originally posted by pikelines editor:

Ray,

 

Doubtless, the reply is here...

 

The echo still reverberates, more supposition penned by the mis-informed.

 

You really are clutching at straws broken by sad people intent of stirring it and wrecking not just PAC, but angling as a whole.

 

They've sucked you right in I'm afraid...

 

Very sad replies to my positive points

and not one of them is true.

 

Tell me, will your last postings dissapear as well?? Ugh.

 

No doubt you will respond!..

 

 

Best,

 

[Guest Nev Fickling.]

To Ray, The answers no!!!!!, but I'd prefer to be on reasonable terms. The offer to come up here and discuss it sometime stands.

I was sorry so few turned up at the Sunday meeting. I have found that face to face meetings are the best way to discuss things. This forum is fine in it's own way, but you cannot beat face to face. After ten years of non politivcal involvement I feel the need to get involved again so I will be at the ROs working dinner in May. If anyone out there wants to take me to task, there's your chance. Regarding Ray Farrel, it's a bit late looking for sympathy and fair treatment now. I remember reeling out a long list of what I had done for the PAC. It didn't do me much good did it! You and Frank in particular believed your were doing the right thing for PAC by using any available opportunity to get at people like me, Mick Brown, Derek Mc and others who make a living or a bit of a living out of pike fishing. By your actions you caused the biggest rift we have ever seen in PAC. This does not cancel out the considerable contribution you two made to PAC. In my case fishing Blithfield under terms which should not have been accepted does not cancel out any contribution I have made. I have to warn you though, if you keep going the way you are going you might become the Edward Heath of pike fishing. Give it up now and rejoin PAC, give it 6 months and the worst of this will be forgotten.

[Guest waterman1013]

Ray

 

You accuse me of saying that you and Frank were “not considered able enough” for EA meetings. I said no such thing.

 

To quote “but people will continue to miss the point when they fail to grasp it. It was one of the reasons that SACG felt unable to put you or Frank in the firing line with EA,”. I was not smearing you or Frank, simply stating a fact of history. That SACG, for whatever reason, was concerned about the clarity of the message being received by EA. Your current posting reinforces the problem we faced in making such a difficult decision. I really do object to your constantly putting words into my pen. You continue to infer things from what I write, but that does not mean they were implied. Your inferral does not change the words I chose to carefully use, in order to avoid just that which you accuse me of.

 

I have posted elsewhere on the important work both you and Frank did within PAC and that you did within SACG. If I intended to slag you off I would have done so in private by e-mail to you and certainly not in public. If you feel slighted, then I apologise, but if we cannot have a discussion on the particulars of the case, and the personalities involved, then why did you and Frank start this thread again.

 

Instead of two pages, try giving us;

1. what you want,

2. how you want to achieve it

3. and what benefits it will bring - in bullet points.

 

Then there can be no more confusion and PAC members will be able to see for themselves and make their own minds up.

 

Even better re-join PAC and work from within to achieve the changes you seek. We have all worked together in the past and I am sure that for angling we can all do so again, regardless of the recent past.

 

Mike

[Guest pikelines editor]

Two things...

 

Thanks for the sensibility Ray, we all have our own beliefs, we will all have to just get on with it I'm afraid.

 

As I said earlier, Time to move on...

 

Thing two...

 

Re: A.P.A.Thee (unregistered)

 

"The matter is being discussed today at a special meeting called for by members at 2pm at the Comfort Friendly in Manchester, as informed. Those wishing to state their views on the matter must do so here and not at the working dinner.

Steve Ormrod."

 

PAC can now hold their head up high and say we fully discussed the NJF affair, case closed. Out of the 1200 members we consulted with all EIGHT, now remember you are not allowed to bring it up again.

 

Long live the dictators....

 

This is a cowardly reproduction of a mail sent to those concerned re: the new Scottish club rumouring.

 

For the unknown senders' information...

 

The meeting on Sunday was set up for ALL to attend and get things off their chests and discuss, it was mentioned in Pikelines for all to take note.

 

The working dinner is not an AGM, it is there for the PAC Committee to report on financial matters and runs to an agenda,

otherwise, we would be there all week!

 

The special meeting on Sunday addressed the matter of Neville's re-admission. Those who did attend including Neville himself, gave up valuable weekend time to sort this matter out, not everyone could make it, I am not so naive to ignore that.

 

However, in these days of high-tech communications, those with opinions could have sent a communication to the Committee to be aired and discussed

in their absence, non were made I'm afraid.

 

The boat then sailed...

 

The PAC Committee will not see funds squandered at the working dinner over matters that have been specially discussed beforehand.

 

No doubt it will be raised when 'any other business' is addressed!

 

What sort of Dictatorial attitude is that?

 

 

 

 

------------------

Steve Ormrod

[Guest Dave Lumb]

First to Ray Rogers and Trigger, thanks for calming down.

 

To Ray Farrell the following re the constitutional review:

 

The reason for the review is simple, members have questioned the 'benevolent dictatorship' and we are meeting their request for the structure and running of PAC to be reviewed and discussed.

 

As far as I am concerned the Constitution is fine. I can see little that needs changing save perhaps the way in which disciplinary matters are dealt with. Had there been a fully developed disciplinary procedure, involving people divorced from the committee itself, when Nev and co were taken to task, all the ensuing problems might not have materialised.

 

PAC still stands for what it ever did, as far as I can see. Protecting pike and pike fishing.

 

Come back, Ray (and the rest of you) so we can fight the good fight together.

 

Dave

[Guest Phil Dean]

Firstly i must apologise, i read this thread but i am not a member, ex-member or otherwise affiliated to PAC, i do however fish for pike and have enjoyed great pleasure from doing so.

 

on the other hand, i am an angler and a solicitor. my job involves dealing with disputes.

 

in england and wales the rules for solving diputes have recently changed for the better.

 

We lawyers are now are required to identify the problem/the area of disagreement, clearly display the issues and it is at that point that discussion starts.

 

previous writers have asked "what are the issues?". before anything can be settled or dealt with in a forum such as this then initial points should be clarified from the outset.

 

i wont contribute to this thread again but i will continue to read it, i hope that between you all the future of pike angling in this country can be preserved.

 

sorry to intrude

[Guest pikelines editor]

Re: Lumby's statement...

 

"PAC still stands for what it ever did, as far as I can see. Protecting pike and pike fishing.

 

Come back, Ray (and the rest of you) so we can fight the good fight together".

 

Dave

 

Seconded, this is the ONLY way forward,

put aside personal feelings, lets move on, TOGETHER!

 

A.P.A.Thee, a thing to get rid of... U.N.I.Tee, the anglers word for year 2001.

 

Puns r' us.

 

Best to all,

 

------------------

Steve Ormrod

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by Danny H:

One thing that confuses me is this.John Milford (present PAC Chair') and Ray farrell were on the same LAS commitee, I always thought thay were good friends.

How come these new  PAC problems can't be sorted out over a few pints?

 

Ray and I are also good friends, and we do exchange views over a pint of two whenever the opportunity arises.

 

Well, at least I think that we are still good friends after the last discussion we had over a pint

 

However, being good friends doesn't mean that we cannot maintain irreconcilably different views.

 

But then again, we are both a couple of old gits!!

 

Tight lines - leon