Discrimination

[Phone]

Steve,

 

What's your point?

 

do you advocate change?

 

Phone

[andy_youngs]

Steve is clearly hesitating before answering your question Phone, and I can't say I blame him.

 

The title of this thread is 'discrimination', and the subject is my banning from a public forum for accusing the Angling Trust of pursuing 'fascist' policies.

 

These words, 'fascism' and 'discrimination' are very emotive terms.

 

I have not used them lightly. I have used these words because Hugh Miles, Angling Trust mogul, published a magazine article in which he describes 'shouting in incandescent rage' at a group of canoeists who were attempting to paddle down the Wensum during the closed fishing season in May 2010. It wasn't me, or anyone I know that he shouted at. But when he did that, and then published his words in a magazine article, then it became relevant.

 

He also presented an untrue picture of the ecology of the Wensum to the public on the Springwatch series that year. This has been to the embarrassment of the Executive Producer of Springwatch, who had previously given me written assurances that there had been no collaboration between Springwatch and local barbel fishing interests on the Wensum in the making of the programme.

 

The other recent appointment within the Angling Trust that I object to is that of Martin Salter.

 

The reason I object to his elevation into the corridors of power is that he had an opportunity to solve these problems once before, but he chose not to. As far as he's concerned 'war war' is better than 'jaw jaw'.

 

I'm not sure how many people are aware of this, but Martin Salter challenged me to a public debate on the Fishing Magic Forum.

 

I accepted.

 

Then I was banned from the forum.

Edited March 21, 2012 by andy_youngs

[Steve Walker]

Steve,

 

What's your point?

 

do you advocate change?

 

Sorry Phone, missed your question. Point is simply that acting in the selfish interests of the group they represent is what lobby groups are for. You wouldn't expect the NRA to lobby for gun control or to appoint pro gun control executives. I'm not a great fan of the Angling Trust, but I think on this issue they've taken the only stance they can be expected to take.

[Renrag39]

What happens to the AT though when we muddy the waters with the likes of me who deem themselves 'Kayak Anglers'? The AT, I believe, support kayak angling...

 

How can they discriminate objectively to the demands of 'normal' kayakers/canoeists, when they theoretically should support those using a kayak/canoe with a fishing rod?

[Steve Walker]

How can they discriminate objectively to the demands of 'normal' kayakers/canoeists, when they theoretically should support those using a kayak/canoe with a fishing rod?

 

I think they would need to look to their membership and ask "do you want unrestricted canoe access to your waterways if it means that you can fish from a canoe?" and go from there. Realistically, I think fishing from a canoe is such a minority interest that most of the people the trust claims to represent would not want that.

[Renrag39]

I know Steve, it's a shame really.

The US laws would make good sense to me but it'll never happen here.

 

I think, for me at least, it makes more sense for me to support the BCU(?) as Anglers who fish from Kayaks make up a greater percentage of their members and may be taken into account.

 

Regardless, I shall continue with my methods. Not had any trouble where I paddle as of yet, although that may well change as more water users appear, along with more anglers on the banks come June 16th.

Words can't hurt me, but one act of violence like Andy describes (I have a kayak cam ) and I'll defend myself as required and post the relevant footage for all to see. I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that though.

 

I use the kayak for fun, fishing and fitness. In that order. Hopefully people will realise this and let me be.

 

Reading that back, I sound borderline militant. I'm not, I just want to have the opportunity to enjoy myself as I see fit and as long as it doesn't impede others use of the waterways or disturb them too much, I'll repay the respect.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Renrag39

[andy_youngs]

one act of violence like Andy describes (I have a kayak cam ) and I'll defend myself as required and post the relevant footage for all to see.

Good policy. Me too. It's called "trust in God, but always navigate away from the rocks"

I'm surprised nobodies yet asked to see a copy of the magazine article though; it is a truly remarkable piece of writing. Here is the offending passage in full, which occurred during filming for Springwatch 2010 (closed fishing season):

 

"By mid afternoon the barbels passion had subsided a little, just before they all fled in terrified panic. No, not an otter but canoes, fifteen of them filling the pool. Luckily, ***** was there to plead with them not pass over the riffles, while I shouted at them with incandescent rage, not because my filming was screwed but because they were trespassing on the river during the most sensitive weekend of the year. As I vehemently pointed out to them, passing over shallow riffles was like walking over a bed of blue-tits eggs, and although they lied about having permission from the Landowners, they also expressed complete ignorance that it was the fish spawning season. But surely they know that ducks, moorehens, kingfishers and all the other wildlife they had disturbed on their illegal trespass downriver had dependent young at that time of year.

 

I'm sure NACA have tried, but canoeists certainly need educating, and maybe a voluntary scheme in which they are allowed access to the river at less critical times of the year might be a way forward. But at present the country seems to be descending into anarchy, where people do what the hell they like regardless of the laws of the land."

 

I think the real issue to be addressed here, is whether rank and file anglers are prepared to allow this man to represent them as part of the 'voice of angling'

Edited March 21, 2012 by andy_youngs

[andy_youngs]

The US laws would make good sense to me but it'll never happen here.

Never understood that logic. UK laws are what we choose to make them.

[cg74]

Yes, it would. It would be akin to banning someone from a pub because you didn't like the colour of his jacket.

 

As long as the anti-angling animal rights activist doesn't ram it down it down your throat in an inflammitory way, then he's allowed to post, and he's allowed to buy you a pint of beer, and you are allowed to talk to him. Because every pub is a parliament.

 

Andy, Andy, Andy, you were banned because you were rude, argumentative and no one could fathom out exactly what your point was. I asked you endlessly but not once did you bother giving me (or anyone else) an answer as to what exactly was your objective.

 

A perfect analogy there Andy because ALL pubs have the right to refuse anyone service, no reason need be given. So why should a forum be any different?

In my opinion; they shouldn't!

 

As the doorman would say; "your name isn't on the list, so **** off!!" Or "no trainers, no jeans and certainly not that jacket!"

(get over it)

[andy_youngs]

you were banned because you were rude, argumentative and no one could fathom out exactly what your point was. I asked you endlessly but not once did you bother giving me (or anyone else) an answer as to what exactly was your objective.

hmm.

I completely agree that no one could fathom exactly what my point was, so I was therefore rude and argumentative. And that's why I got a temporary ban.

The permenant ban came for bringing that forum into disrepute on this forum.

Do I have any regrets?

None whatsoever.

Edited April 13, 2012 by andy_youngs