PAC (only those interested please)

[Guest Dave Lumb]

Alan you can have your rattle back - but I've broke it for you!!

 

As for the meeting it seemed to go well, as far as I could tell. Everyone seemed to leave the meeting looking forward rather than back.

 

Aside from the Committee there were eight other interested individuals present (including our Nev).

 

Dave

[Guest 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?

- A simple view I know-

But sometimes simple is best.

 

[This message has been edited by Danny H (edited 04 March 2001).]

[Guest Alan Pearce]

Good news Dave, fingers crossed.

 

Alan.

[Guest interested]

Is ray rogers an 'ANTI'or just another POODLE

[Guest A.P.A.Thee]

"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....

[Guest new member]

i was wanting to join a club for pike anglers, but now i am confused

who do i send my £17.00 to or should i save up and join them all.

[Guest Alan Pearce]

That's the way to do it.

 

Sounds like it all went quite well.

 

Well done to those that took part, life is never easy, just remember the bigger picture. You will always gain more respect by trying rather than sniping.

 

Good luck to you all.

 

Alan.

[Guest malc31]

Re new member There is only one P.A.C send your £17. to them, Who is this man? Ray Rogers or is it Roy Rogers the Cowboy.,Back from the grave....Malc Bannister.,

[Guest G. Reaper]

In replying to Leon - the following might serve.

 

From about day two of this affair, requests were made to the PAC committee by a number of people to hold a meeting. Unfortunately, people called it an EGM and we were told - no way an EGM - so no meeting. Up to that point, I was still in PAC. We wanted a meeting to thrash this out properly. Why didn't some committee person say - no EGM but we'll have a meeting anyway. The committee's rejection of a meeting was allowed to run for three odd weeks - 3 weeks too long. In a conversation I had with John Milford, (even though I was outside the club by then) I said just have a meeting - call it anything you are happy with but it must be quick - he agreed that was the only course. Frank had said similar to Mark Leathwood - so had Mac to Lumby, I believe.

 

We all had stressed the urgency. So even though we had resigned, we, along with others, sprang at a remote chance of helping with a way forward. This was in the last week or so in January. If the committee were going to show good faith, a meeting within two weeks was the least that could have been arranged. Time was slipping away and anger mounting. Even though he said everyone had an invite, I had told John Milford I would be happy to help get a ball rolling but having resigned, I was aware that I couldn't partake. It was down to the PAC committee and membership to thrash things out when they got behind closed doors. I'd even suggested to Mr. Milfoil - prior to my resigning, that Neville's readmission be suspended (suspended, not reversed) until the RO's dinner, in May, when apologies and necessary prerequisites to his come back could have been put in place and NJF could state his case. In that way, the membership might be satisfied that the misdeeds of Blithfield were finally put to rest and I would have thought his return would have been ratified. There might have been a few grudges but not the division we see now. Next thing is that the mandate at the previous dinner was called a mistake and ignored - so that knocked that idea out of court.

 

Back to the meeting idea. Time had festered wounds and words had hardened. The committee in an amazing bit of insensitivity called the meeting for 4th March (yesterday) - 6 weeks from saying a meeting could be on. Reasons were given - the fishing at Mentieth, and an SACG meeting but that still left some Sundays available on earlier dates. Not only that - instead of saying this is about the most important meeting the club's ever had and making a day of it - it's called for 2 pm. Other committees would have put long distance travellers up at the hotel at the clubs expense if necessary (it's been done for other meetings) and made sure that everybody - but everybody that wanted too could get there. How many got there - 8 including NJF and the committee! Come on, what sort of meeting is that?

 

Even before the meeting, it was made clear by the committee that nothing would change.

What is and has been wanted, Leon, was a full scale meeting with everything on the table. That's not to say everything would have changed around but an attempt would have been made to sort the mess out properly and in good faith.

 

Also, it does no good the PAC committee saying that the constitution etc is going to be looked at in the light of all of this. They can't say, on the one hand, that they were allowed to operate as a dictatorship and then say to stop all this happening again, we must change things. If they are as right on this issue, as they say - why tinker? If they now think things must change, then they must know something went wrong in what happened - if that's the case - why the intransigence?

Back to the meeting idea, again - we are also told that with yesterday's meeting, the matter is now finally closed and cannot even be raised by members attending the working dinner, so no go there either. No doubt the meeting will be pointed at as complying with the requests for proper discussion. It would have been more honest and genuine not to have agreed to it at all than to call it and then make sure the doubters can't get there or have no point in going. Scottish members - an expensive 500 - 600+ mile round trip to a two or three hour meeting. The same from the West Country and South East. Add to that the amount of useful talk that you can do on such an important matter in that time. Then add to that the statement that should the feeling of the meeting be against the committee's actions it would make not a jot of difference - you tell me Leon, whose not trying here.

 

A lot of reasonable things were put forward by those not happy with what's gone on but each one has been knocked back in one way or another. All that we wanted from day two was a genuinely given, proper working meeting - even just to work out a formula to start to heal the rift - was that too much to ask? The original way the readmission happened was bad enough - the subsequent actions of the committee are proving far worse.

 

Leon, I understand the reasoning behind what you and others put forward and that history should be left to the past - that we should all put our shoulders to the wheel etc. If it were just a handful of luddites then that would ring totally true but it misses the point that we are just part of large group of ordinary people who feel that some matters must be put properly to bed before we move on. If they are not, they will continue to haunt and that gets nobody nowhere. You ask what we all wanted and how we thought it could be achieved, I hope that I've gone some way to answering it.

 

My turn now to ask you a question. Was the way NJF's readmission done worth PAC losing Mac over? Mac is an honourable man and if he feels that something is wrong enough to resign over - then don't you feel something was enough amiss that it needed looking at?

 

Moving on - to me giving examples of lack of trust and publicly naming names, as requested by Mike. Why can't I just say that there are those who are not trusted by some - because of previous actions and statements and leave it like that - point made - no personal slagging.

 

To illustrate the difference - Mike says that neither Frank nor I were considered able enough to be allowed to talk, together with SACG, at predator related meetings with EA. Suffice to say that both of us, me on some occasions - Frank, nearly every month - attended PAC arranged meetings on very difficult and delicate subjects - predator wise - and brought home the goods. The way you do it Mike, I wouldn't call it making a point but simple smearing with innuendo and I'll go further as to why that is.

 

Mike, in saying that, you actually do my arguing for me. By smearing, you give an example as to why many do not trust some of those who are to speak for specialist angling - for that, I thank you. You have raised it and I can therefore, on this occasion, comment a bit more personally. What you are saying is that the executive of SACG decided that those that ran PAC were not good enough to represent themselves and predator interests. That the SACG executive knew best - better than predator anglers! That the General Secretary of PAC who got livebaiting reinstated on quite a few waters was inadequate to sit with the SACG at tables? That someone (me) who had served for almost 6 years on PAC (not the usual 3) and had served for 4+ years on the SACG committee was not up to it? For a lot of it, you weren't even there Mike! But Mike - I know that in a way you're telling the truth - the SACG Executive did fight tooth and nail to stop us getting near discussions. We know that we were not even privy to knowing that some were happening - until afterwards! Not only were PAC not allowed to talk, the club was not even asked for input to some meetings. Don't trot out that old chestnut that it's because I didn't let the PAC committee know what was happening, the SACG exec tried that when challenged on this - by doing so, they proved quite happy to attempt to sacrifice others to justify their own involvement.

 

And, yes, you've used that one before too - another little innuendo smear to 'justify' your world view. Balance that falsehood with fact - do you really think that apart from the long service I did on both committees that I've mentioned - plus over 3 years on the LAS committee, that I would have lasted a month on any by acting the way you have said? And what about my dealings with large, prestige venues, the tackle trade, piking waters, members, other groups etc. etc. etc. Multi-thousand pound generating events, costing a wedge to set up? We are not talking about general conversations - we are talking about dealing with people at the top. Would some non-communicating idiot be able to carry that out? Even if that didn't qualify me to a seat with SACG at meetings it certainly didn't magically allow me to let people know something if I wasn't told!

 

That's where trust dies and you are not doing a thing to show attitudes have changed. Go ahead, if you want and highlight other areas of SACG business where I, Frank or PAC have been used as scapegoats to cover others' tracks - you'll have a free reign - I won't respond - I've said my piece here and I'm not going to enter a silly game of verbal ping-pong. It's your choice - try to build trust or further damage it if you feel inclined.

 

OK, I'm not in PAC anymore and people might, with some cause, say why am I chuntering on about it? Leave aside that others feel as I do, on a personal note, there have been offers to the resigned to come back and "go forward" with the club. I've been listening and I've been pleading to find just a glimmer of a path back but it's not there and now, I doubt it will be. So, on that note, I will end my postings and replies on PAC and connections - yes, they're ended.

 

The way to leave it? Those that agree with PAC et al - go your own way in peace. Those that don't will have to go their own way too. That's the best answer I can give now.

 

Ray Farrell

[Guest Ray Rogers]

O.K. enough is enough, Postings in future will be more constructive, I can feel my ears burning already from up north.

 

On reflection I have gone a bit over the top.

 

From Ray, Whopps!!! Roy Rogers the good ol cowboy from Essex risen from the grave.

Personal PAC Committee attacks will cease forthwith.

 

Originally posted by Dave Lumb:

As President of PAC I have had enough of this bloomin' nonsense.

 

I resign.

 

Dave Lumb

 

PS Sorry to get you goin' kiddies. That was just another lie from the PAC Committee!!! If you haven't guessed, I can't take this thread seriously any more. But I'll keep lurkin' to have a laugh.

 

Ta ta.