Martin Salter and Mark Lloyd fail to deliver again

[Bob Shotter]

Just to side track a little (sorry Andy) Looks like someone's dumped some 'mal-ware' on your site Bob, might be a good idea to sort it out sharpish!

 

Thanks Nick we are on the case, Paul has been trying to sort it since before Christmas but it looks like a service provider issue. We have so far downloaded and scanned all the files and updated the vbullitin package.

[Brian Carragher]

Are you serious Brian? Are you going to allow me to argue my case or not? I didn't challenge Salter to a debate, he challenged me. That man is an ex-MP and director of the Angling Trust. What do you expect me to do?

 

I'm independent in so far as I am not a member of either the Angling Trust or Canoe England. Are You? Why do you feel so threatened by me? Would you rather I stopped posting so that AN members could receive a convenient, sanatised version of reality?

 

I'm not stopping you nor anyone else arguing your case but in presenting your case it allows others to ask pertinant questions of you. The fact that Martin Salter is an ex MP seems to me to be the only basis of your problem with him, the fact that he challenged you to a debate, in other words put up or shut up, does'nt give you the right to invite other people onto a platform for a debate without first Oking it with him first before you pillory him for his non acceptance of your now new format of 4 debators. Martin Salter may be many things to many men but the one thing he is not is stupid, why do you expect him to appear on a panel that looks like its rigged for a lynching

 

Please explain your "sanitised version of reality"; because as a self confessed once a year canoist, I have to ask how real is your problem or are you just looking to hang Martin salter out to dry purely because he's an ex MP

 

 

Why do you find 99 ice creams threatening? what surprises me is that the posters on here haven't yet told you to shut up.

 

Your comment above is not without form

On every topic and forum you've posted in you take exactly the same position when people question your motives, you get very personal and offensive with folk and do yourself and what case you believe you have no good at all

 

Hmm, Brian, I have no desire to get myself banned. But I don't understand why you're so sensitive to public debate.

It's as if posting a public opinion about canoeing rights is tantamount to heracy if doesn't fit neatly into Angling Trust policy.

 

 

Posting in the way you do is not what I call public debate and I've done a bit of the public debating myself so know what I'm talking about, debate is about the exchange of views and positioning and trying to present a point. By doing as you do and try and infer words to someone that they've never written nor spoken only weakens your argument

 

I've never said I don't like or am sensitive to public debate( as far as I'm concerned bring it on) but with debate and positioning come scruitiny and it seems you don't like that hence your often personal attacks which do nothing but weaken your case

 

There are many on here who are highly critical of the Angling Trust and are'nt afraid to say so but they present their case fairly and objectivly, you should try that sometime,so trying to justify canoing rights by giving out spuriou comments and details over access rights that happens to be innacurate again weakens your case, just as much as trying to expand your argument with the AT and Salter by referring to barbel stocking of a river and using that as either an excuse for canoing down the river or as another excuse for bashing Salter and the AT, neither of whom I'm saying or right or I'm supporting but in the balance of fairness its only right that if someone is'nt here to defend themselve its not right that you have sole rights to be either offensive towards them(or any other poster) or allow some of your wilder statements to go unchallenged

[Phone]

Andy,

 

In America we say, "I don't have a dog in this fight". From the outside looking in on the debate (which I enjoy) you're loosing. Make your point again. What's the subject? What do you want to happen?

 

Phone

[Bob Shotter]

For those that don’t know, this gentlemen is what Mr Salter had to say just a couple of weeks back after it was announced he had joined the Angling Trust team.

 

Quote ‘’I am already lined up to attend a range of ministerial and other meetings and will be addressing conferences and supporting the excellent work of Angling Trust campaigners Mark Owen (Freshwater) and David Mitchell (Sea Angling) and the legal team headed by Justin Neal. I will be the main point of contact with my former colleagues on the All Party Parliamentary Group on Angling and will be developing and helping to implement a wider angling and fisheries campaign strategy for 2012’’

 

On the back of that statement I would say ‘be afraid, be very afraid.’ Here we have an org with a questionable mandate, no credible form of consultation with its members, clearly saying one thing while moving in quite a different direction and they are clearly intent on representing angler’s right up to and including government level while the majority of its members let alone anglers in general are oblivious to their actions.

 

If I’m wrong I would like to know how and if not beg to ask are you going to allow them to get away with it?

[andy_youngs]

Well Andy mate, put it this way you and I both know all we need to about what is going on at the Angling Trust and further we know Martins views. Yes a debate might well help a few more find out but my suspicion is that with everything else that is going on at present all you will achieve is identifying yourself to him and your programme. He will only be interested to see if and what threat you pose and that is the only reason why he would want to talk to you.

Good. I am a threat to him, and the sooner he realises it the better.

 

One sentence in a private meeting just before Christmas will have set the alarm bells ringing at the AT it was when Les Weller who runs the huge Northern Federation told David Mitchell that the Northern Fed had on its own more members than the AT when it comes to sea angling. David was both rattled and clearly embarrassed. Now that was in front of eight out of the ten IFCA sea angling reps imagine what would happen had that been in front of DEFRA or the minister who are sure to hear about it any way.

 

From what I have heard there appears as much discontent from fresh water anglers about the AT as there are on the marine side, if so why are the Trust allowed to continue to get away with it. Declare war expose them responsible what have you to loose. The Trust is week right now and it won’t take too much to get rid of them or better still take them over.

I don't want to declare war on the Angling Trust, or to destroy them. But if we are to have a governing body of angling, then it needs to be more responsible and sensitive to broader issues. They need to recognise that it is sometimes necessary to explain to freshwater anglers that they can't always have it their own way, and that they need to accommodate other river users such as canoeists. Similarly, I can see no reason or need for recreational sea anglers to be licensed, or for catch limits to be imposed. The environmental impact of recreational sea angling is negligable

 

Above all, if they issue a public challenge to someone to engage in a public debate, then they need deliver. At present, they are failing on all counts.

Edited January 2, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Bob Shotter]

Steady on Andy, I didn’t say you were a threat, Mr Salter may have thought you were but by not engaging then that could be an indication that his view has changed on the other hand we have had Christmas which means he could simply be having some time out.

 

Just a suggestion but can you copy and paste the original challenge here so we can get a better idea of why he thought a debate was in order? You might also answer the other questions from other posters.

 

If I’m reading this correctly you feel canoeist should have more rights of access, but to what and where? Are the areas in question public? What would be the objection from the angling fraternity?

 

Further you say you don’t want to declare war on the Angling Trust? Then add ‘if we are to have a governing body of angling, then it needs to be more responsible and sensitive to broader issues.’ Has that not been the cry for far too long they don’t communicate on core items let alone broader issues. I’m sure the MD would sooner not fail and face a financial problem which is what will happen if anglers take a stand.

 

At present and IMPO I believe Mr Lloyd has not realised how serious a predicament he is in, the next few months look set to be interesting to say the least, having said that who is there on the fresh water side ready to take on the responsibility of speaking on behalf of all anglers with in that discipline.

[Brian Carragher]

I don't want to declare war on the Angling Trust, or to destroy them. But if we are to have a governing body of angling, then it needs to be more responsible and sensitive to broader issues. .............., and that they need to accommodate other river users such as canoeists.

 

You want an angling governing body to represent or accomodate canoeists, is'nt that what the BCU (British Canoe Union) is for, regardless of what various thoughts are on the effectiveness of the AT and its remit to speak on everyones behalf, its absolultely crazy to think that they would abdicate their responsibolities towards anglers and riparian owners and accomodate canoeists to the detriment of their own members

 

Such a policy would be suicide and thats not a route I ever see them going down, to suggest such a thing and expect other anglers to support it is just plain daft, you might as well suggest that the British Vegan Society represents all the UK farmers interests, (thats a parralell not an instruction)

[andy_youngs]

I'm not stopping you nor anyone else arguing your case but in presenting your case it allows others to ask pertinant questions of you. The fact that Martin Salter is an ex MP seems to me to be the only basis of your problem with him, the fact that he challenged you to a debate, in other words put up or shut up, does'nt give you the right to invite other people onto a platform for a debate without first Oking it with him first before you pillory him for his non acceptance of your now new format of 4 debators. Martin Salter may be many things to many men but the one thing he is not is stupid, why do you expect him to appear on a panel that looks like its rigged for a lynching

How? Salter challenged me to a debate 'in front of several hundred anglers'. I accepted, on condition that the debate was conducted fairly and properly. I'm not saying that several hundred anglers can't be present at the debate, but if it is to happen, then it must be properly chaired, and fairly argued. It's called democracy. That's fine, but I'm afraid it would also include the involvement of several hundred canoeists and other assorted members of the public in the audience. I appreciate that that might be inconvenient for Salter, but I'm not the one who laid down the challenge.

 

Salter didn't ok it with me in private before he tried to sucker me into a public appearance at the AT AGM, and he'll get nothing from me in return. Fine, we can argue it out in public, but if he presumes to lure members of the public into the lions den like that then he deserves to have it thrown back in his face.

 

Please explain your "sanitised version of reality"; because as a self confessed once a year canoist, I have to ask how real is your problem or are you just looking to hang Martin salter out to dry purely because he's an ex MP

 

On every topic and forum you've posted in you take exactly the same position when people question your motives, you get very personal and offensive with folk and do yourself and what case you believe you have no good at all

 

Posting in the way you do is not what I call public debate and I've done a bit of the public debating myself so know what I'm talking about, debate is about the exchange of views and positioning and trying to present a point. By doing as you do and try and infer words to someone that they've never written nor spoken only weakens your argument

 

I've never said I don't like or am sensitive to public debate( as far as I'm concerned bring it on) but with debate and positioning come scruitiny and it seems you don't like that hence your often personal attacks which do nothing but weaken your case

 

There are many on here who are highly critical of the Angling Trust and are'nt afraid to say so but they present their case fairly and objectivly, you should try that sometime,so trying to justify canoing rights by giving out spuriou comments and details over access rights that happens to be innacurate again weakens your case, just as much as trying to expand your argument with the AT and Salter by referring to barbel stocking of a river and using that as either an excuse for canoing down the river or as another excuse for bashing Salter and the AT, neither of whom I'm saying or right or I'm supporting but in the balance of fairness its only right that if someone is'nt here to defend themselve its not right that you have sole rights to be either offensive towards them(or any other poster) or allow some of your wilder statements to go unchallenged

I'm not sure how to reply to that vitreolic outpouring. You may know something about public debating, which would go some way to explaining why you are so eager to avoid one.

 

The 'sanatised version of reality' arises once people start getting banned from forums for posting their honest opinions.

 

I accept that I've given Salter and Mark Lloyd a bit of stick, but that's because they're public figures, and I think they deserve it. They're both purporting to represent me. They didn't ask my permission to do that, they just did it, and as far as I'm concerned they did it badly.

 

If they're not here to defend themselves then that's up to them. You should stop trying to defend them ... it's not your job and I think your time would be better spent urging Salter to do what he says he's going do.

Edited January 2, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Brian Carragher]

And in one fell swoop Andy you've managed to kill any last vestiges of credibility that you were only just hanging on to , you have no game plan other than to bring salter to book and for no other reason than he's an ex MP and you see it as your duty to engage him

 

Let me save you the embarrasment, he'll crucify you on a stage when you're open to public scrutiny yourself, you can't conduct yourself on here so you have no chance when the pressures on and you have to stand in front of an audience, give it up as a bad job and save yourself any further ridicule

[andy_youngs]

And in one fell swoop Andy you've managed to kill any last vestiges of credibility that you were only just hanging on to , you have no game plan other than to bring salter to book and for no other reason than he's an ex MP and you see it as your duty to engage him

 

Let me save you the embarrasment, he'll crucify you on a stage when you're open to public scrutiny yourself, you can't conduct yourself on here so you have no chance when the pressures on and you have to stand in front of an audience, give it up as a bad job and save yourself any further ridicule

 

If that's what you think then fine. But the fact remains that I'm not the one that's running away from a public debate.

Edited January 2, 2012 by andy_youngs