PAC (only those interested please)

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by Peter Waller:

What has been done can not be undone.

 

I understand that there are many aggrieved people.

 

I understand that many feel that they have considerable right to be aggrieved, and I have great sympathy for particular individuals.

 

I understand the history which has led us here.

 

I do not understand what is now required .

 

Throw Neville Fickling back out of the PAC? What exactly will that achieve?

 

Keep stirring and stirring until something gives?

what exactly will that achieve?

 

Throw out the new committee?

What exactly will that achieve?

 

Retreat into little enclaves of local power?

What exactly will that achieve?

 

The great strength of the PAC has been its ability to select guys capable of doing a tough job, give them the full authority to do that job, and let them get on with doing that job without having to win a popularity contest while doing it.

 

That way, you get people with ability who are prepared to roll up their sleeves and get on with it.

 

For just three years

 

What do you want to replace that system with?

 

Some form of 'democracy'where no one has the confidence to take tough decisions in case they get voted down at the next meeting?

 

Where people lobby for support by phone, in the back of cars, at the bar, before having the confidence to make any kind of move? One faction trying to outmanouvre another?

 

What kind of people do you think we'd get, prepared to put in the time and effort then?

 

Look around at a lot of other organisations and you'll see exactly what you would get.

 

Nothing to match the PAC which we've had up to now, respected throughout angling, capable of fighting the battles that have needed fighting, changing attitudes that needed changing.

 

Before you ask me to throw any of that away, you need to spell out clearly what you intend for the future, where and how it will take us, how that will be better than what we have now.

 

If you'd just step back and look more clearly, you'd see that in Mark and his team we have a group as capable as any that have gone before. And they have a job to do as difficult as any before. None of us will agree with everything they do, but we need to let them have the space to get on and do it. In the way they choose to do it.

 

It's dead easy to knock anthing, anyone, down. Not so easy to build something worthwhile.

 

So, come on tell me in simple terms, what do you want, how are you going to achieve it, convince me you have constructive ideas that will work better than anything we already have.

 

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest Leon Roskilly]

Originally posted by Frank Gibbons:

In defeat, SACG have won a single seat and one single vote at the very large table that forms NFA.  It’s akin to having 1 Liberal MP and 15 Labour MP’s in the House of Commons.  The lone vote can probably make a significant impact where there is commonality but where there is a fundamental difference the Liberal bows to Labour policy

 

Except Frank, at the end of the day, it's not votes that count so much as ideas, and well presented arguments.

 

Three people may walk into a room, sit down and be quiet. Influencing no one, presenting nothing. You see it on the back benches all of the time.

 

One person, may whisper an idea into the room, through a crack in the door, and change history!

 

Being at the table means opportunity. What use is made of that is what really counts.

 

And it's far easier to whisper an idea from at the table, than from the cold outside.

 

Votes are dumb, it's ideas and well presented arguments which eventually take the day. You need to be there to do that!

 

Tight Lines - leon

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Frank and Ray, I thought you had taken the unfortunate decision to resign from PAC, that being the case why do you still attempt to 'muddy the waters'? You have had your say, people listened, and made up their own minds, life goes on. As far as the SACG is concerned if you had done your job properly, attended the meetings, read the minutes, and represented PAC effectively with the rest of specialist angling, you would not have posted the mis-information you have at the start of this thread.

If in the future you decide to start a Scottish Pike Group I'm sure you will be welcome to join the SAA and get involved with the bigger picture. Just as Nev was going to do when he found himself on the outside.

Please listen to the sense of some of the posters here.

 

Alan

[Guest Bruno Broughton]

I've restisted all temptation to get involved in the PAC/Blithfield/NJF saga... and that ain't gonna alter here.

 

BUT: I will comment on the NFA/livebaiting scenario. Lest anyone be in ANY doubt, any 'capitulation' on issues such as livebaiting can now come only through the NAA. That body - on which I am one of seven representatives - does not decide anything by voting; it is done by concensus.

 

There is a strong consensus that the NAA will not campaign against livebaiting. Indeed, to do so for several people around the table (myself included) would represent a bridge way too far.

 

Whatever the history, livebaiting is not an issue, but the illegal transfer of livos is. We can quite easily defend the former, and will if needs be; imbeciles who continue to do the latter and flout the law can no longer be tolerated or excused.

 

Full stop!

 

 

 

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

Bruno

 

[This message has been edited by Bruno Broughton (edited 01 March 2001).]

[Guest Eric Edwards]

The more I hear from Frank Gibbons the more disgusted I become.

 

Frank, you were critical of me because, years ago, I left the PAC publicly over a principle. You were so critical that, despite leading me and others along for many months, you "sacked" me and installed Mark Leathwood as secretary. Now you yourself are doing your level best to damage the PAC over a principle.

 

In my eyes you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

You and the others who resigned did so of your own free will because you could no longer get your own way. There is nothing noble about your resignation, you haven't done it for the sake of the club, you haven't done it for Scottish pikers, you have done it for yourself because your own ego is so badly bruised.

 

It's all a bit perverse isn't it? You now find yourself in the same situation as I was, wronged by an all-powerful general secretary who cannot be challenged or influenced.

Pity you haven't been able to swallow it like I did - for the sake of pike fishing!

 

Eric Edwards

[Guest Colin Brett]

Originally posted by Eric Edwards:

The more I hear from Frank Gibbons the more disgusted I become.

 

Frank, you were critical of me because, years ago, I left the PAC publicly over a principle. You were so critical that, despite leading me and others along for many months, you "sacked" me and installed Mark Leathwood as secretary. Now you yourself are doing your level best to damage the PAC over a principle.

 

In my eyes you are a hypocrite of the highest order.

 

You and the others who resigned did so of your own free will because you could no longer get your own way. There is nothing noble about your resignation, you haven't done it for the sake of the club, you haven't done it for Scottish pikers, you have done it for yourself because your own ego is so badly bruised.

 

It's all a bit perverse isn't it? You now find yourself in the same situation as I was, wronged by an all-powerful general secretary who cannot be challenged or influenced.

Pity you haven't been able to swallow it like I did - for the sake of pike fishing!

 

Eric Edwards

 

Eric is certainly right when he says that the General Secretary is all powerful, and that is exactly Barrie Rickards & Co intended when the constitution was drawn up. In other words a "DICTATORSHIP"! One has ended and another one begun. "Long Live whoever is in charge"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Colin

[Guest malc31]

I must be missing something here,for i was not awere that the N.F.A. was a closed shop. Frank Gibbons and Ray Farrel seem to think that the N.F.A. can do as they please .Well they do have a rather large membership of angling clubs,And for the past twenty years i have been secretary of a club with over 500 members who are in the N.F.A. In fact our association has won the N.F.A. div one and two national matches in the last few years. Do Mr Gibbons and Farrel really think that i would stand by and allow anti live baiting proposals to go through without a strong objection being raised. Eric Edwards has discriped you two poor losers to a tee .You have both left the P.A.C. and the club is in my view a lot better of without those that do not stand by the clubs constitution. Go now quitely for gods sake you have had your day .You now sadly only undermine the work you did in the past. Malcolm Bannister.

[Guest Elton]

Just in case this thread turns sour(er), can I just point out at this point that any complaints regarding postings on it should be directed at me and not the other three moderators.

 

I have specifically asked Ian, John and Gaffer not to take responsibility for this thread, not because I don't respect their judgement, but because I am in a better position to respond to any abuse than them (as happened last time). As a full-time worker and a part-time site owner, I have no problem with telling people that they aren't welcome here...I really hope, however, that it doesn't come to that. I'd rather see people disagreeing in a civil manner.

 

The only instances that will provoke me to comment further in this thread are when:

 

a) foul language comes up again.

it turns into a slanging match

 

Apologies for sounding so negative. I'll now leave you to it.

 

Tight lines,

 

Elton

 

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

Anglers' Net

Keeping It Virtual...

[Guest Ian Cresswell]

In non-moderator mode I would like to nominate the second poster in this thread for a special 'Fastest Anonymous Keyboard In The World' award.

 

A whole 2 minutes between the first and second posts ...

 

How many words per minute is that? ... or am I being horrible in thinking that the two posts are linked in some way?

 

Isn't it time to stop this nonsense?

 

Ian.

[Guest G. Reaper]

Ian,

 

There's a good reason for the Guiness Book of Records posting and that is this. At present, Frank has not got access to the net - OK, he can twang the odd email from work but he has no facility to post etc. A local friend whose machine he has used in the past was away - so he mailed me through his posting and I put it on the page. Bit like Martin Gay did for Barrie. I felt that this posting should have a prelude - so two quick posts.

Nothing sinister!

Anyway, Frank should be on line himself in a week or so.

As to quick postings, I have another to follow this which might help explain why this is all still going on. Hopefully, I might be able to beat my record in consecutive postings. (Could be an idea for a competition there somewhere).

 

Ray