Liberty and livelihood march?

[Vagabond]

Wordbender:

 

 

1. Who on this forum wouldn't march to show support for angling and why?

 

2. If angling was banned, how many would carry on doing it and why?

 

I marched before and I'd certainly be there again if I thought it would do my sport any good.

 

And, I'll be angling in some form or other until I die.

Can't improve on your two answers there WB.

 

I fished at the age of 7 when the whole world seemed against my doing so (ie fishing strictly forbidden by my parents)

 

At the age of 70 plus, am still fishing, and intend to keep doing so. If it became banned in this country I would take the easy way out and move my centre of activity elsewhere, simply because I am in a position to do so.

[Peter Waller]

That shooter looks a bit cross Jim.

 

I would march for angling, if it was for angling, and organised by angling, despite the risk of the 'lower orders' using it as an excuse for a tad of idiocy. I believe that Peter Sharp is spot on as to the risk that anglers might give the wrong idea to the public. And for that reason I do not believe that now is the time to march.

 

To march 'for angling' under the guise of the CA is, I'm convinced, totally the wrong route to take. And anyone doing so is, I believe, not working for angling. Such involvement is damaging to our image.

 

Would I march for the shooters? Yes, a rather rough crowd I might add, especially the lampers amongst them. But they are our buffer. But that aside it is perfectly reasonable that we retain the right to hunt, the right to husband the countryside in a practical and acceptable manner.

 

What I won't be involved in is this class hatred, political thing. The cover of Jim's shooting mag says it all. Despite Labours middle ground stance it is still seen, by many, as the party of the masses. Up here, in Norfolk, I have no doubt that many 'posh' folk are using the whole hunting agenda as a knock the masses, the lower classes, vote for us Tories, or else.

 

Gorging baiting, badger baiting, killing with hounds, cock fighting, it is reasonable that these should have been banned. But to ban both shooting and angling is neither practical nor reasonable.

 

If I march it won't be as a weapon against Labour and its supporters, it won't be under the smokescreen of the CA & the Fox hunters, it will be for angling, when the time is right.

[Peter Waller]

Interestingly David T has not come back to this one, nor our Malcom! I wonder why?

[Paul Boote]

Peter Waller:

Interestingly David T has not come back to this one, nor our Malcom! I wonder why?

Because your very fine earlier posting was pretty well unanswerable, Peter.

[david t]

i am replying now for those of you who wondered why i havent done so yet. i agree with the few of you who said that it would only be worth going on a march if it was organised by angling, for angling, i think it is risky to get involved with, or seen to be involved with hunting or shooting, as we risk the public tarring us with the same brush as they use on the hunters. although on the other hand i dont want to see shooting banned, it is a tricky subject.

I would personally carry on fishing if it was banned, firstly because it means alot to me, and would be worth a fine, the other reason i would carry on is because i feel it is right to have the chance to fish, and also as a protest against the nanny state.

I think many people would be put off marching by the scenes the papers show of the conflict at the fox hunting marches, we need to show the public we want to preserve or sport, but not appear violent or vicious. The hunting marches got nasty because they could see the ban coming into place fairly soon and it caused panic, for want of a better word.

 

Also i didnt come on this forum to cause an arguement, thanks.

[Alan Stubbs]

I'd march to preserve the sport.

 

I'd defy the law and fish anyway. Try policing that! The EA are under-resourced, as are the police. They'd never cope and I'd not vote for a party that sought to give them the means to do so. We see too much abuse of power from their masters as it is.

 

For reasons I'll not go into, when 'New' Labour were being assisted into office by the Tories, and they were lying about their promises of 'open government', I was stood less than 2 metres from a failed cabinet minster (twice) and currently a European commissioner who was heard by several to say 'No, this is not for the public domain and it MUST be suppressed!' We were given summary abuse when we laughed at him.

 

I can't for the life of me work out why I have never believed a word coming from the mouths of the cabinet ever since. Not that I did before.

[Newt]

david t:

i am replying now for those of you who wondered why i havent done so yet.

Nice reply david t. The suspicion is based on the number of folks over the years who come on this forum (and others) with an agenda that has nothing to do with chatting about angling or looking to give or get information about angling.

 

We usually see a post that furthers (in their minds) their agenda, whatever it happens to be, and then nothing after that.

 

We are most happy to have you posting if you intend to join in the usual purposes of the forum. Your exact same topic starter post on this thread from someone with a 'track record' of a dozen or so other posts about less emotive issues would not have caused the same suspicious reaction.

[david t]

no, i didnt come on here to prove a point, i can see how people would use this to have a argument or just prove a point. as you might have guessed im abit new to this forum business, mainly due to the fact that i only really use computers when i have to, and i tend not to use them for pleasure. anyway when ive got free time, i prefer to either be fishing, thinking about fishing or sorting out my fishing tackle. i can see now that the marching topic is abit of a hot topic, also a political topic too, and is likely to create abit of friction maybe.

i think its ashame that we have to worry about fishing coming under the spotlight in this age of 'freedom'. ive always considered life too short to sweat over politics, maybe when i reach 30 i will become more politically aware, or at least watch the political fishing situation.

if i dont reply too soon, then hopefully thats because im fishing, with abit of luck!!

[poledark]

I have to chuckle when I read that

quote:

---

I would carry on fishing regardless

---

It would probably be the easiest thing to police that there is...........you sit there fishing, along come a couple of "wardens/coppers/fishing police and "You are nicked"

 

No good you saying that you are just looking, you may not have even caught anything, if you have a rod out then you are fishing and then "you are nicked"

 

My other scource of mirth is the idea that Peter W would actually get around to marching for angling. He would spend so much time looking for the CA members that he would never leave the parking lot, if he ever got out of his own front drive.

 

That is not meant to be offensive by the way, it is simply how I perceive his attitude judged on his previous posts.

 

Den

 

[ 09. March 2005, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: poledark ]

[Peter Waller]

No offence taken Den, I think we know each other to well for that. However, you are wrong on this count. If I believe in something I get seriously motivated, don't worry.