Oi! That's OUR MP!

[Guest sslatter]

See what I mean?

 

I rest my case..

[slodger]

'See what I mean?'

 

No I don't Graham. I didn't post to start an argument with anybody, the first paragraph of the posting to which you've clearly taken offence was meant only as mild banter. You obviously haven't seen it that way and for that I'll gladly apologise.

 

I'm actually still sitting on the fence with regard to the CA, and would have welcomed any information that might help me decide one way or the other. Instead you seem to have mistaken me for someone intent on disruption. That's not the case.

[Guest sslatter]

Mate.. I don't take offence- that's you, that is. Read your contentless posts of rage and insult..

 

Mistaken you for someone who wants disruption? How EVER could I have done that??

 

You see "slodger".. you lot all do one thing that gives you away:

 

You all talk the same.

 

Rather than trying to stir up trouble here, why don't you do that "search-and-read" exercise I suggested?

 

Then you might not waste time, space, and energy trotting out the same old tired CA guff, that we've all heard a million times before..

 

..and no doubt will hear again, some time after you've disappeared..

 

Enjoy your read..

[Peter Waller]

Just hope that this issue finds its way into the angling weeklies. The evidence should help those on the fence, and therefore help angling.

[slodger]

'You see "slodger".. you lot all do one thing that gives you away:'

 

Graham,

 

How about we start again?

 

Exactly what do you mean by 'you lot'? I'm categorically not a CA member. Who or what else do you think I am? How on earth can you react so angrily to genuine questions?

 

For your information the only clubs or organisations I've previously prescribed to are the SAA, PAC and ACA. I'll guarantee I'm every bit as passionate an angler as you are.

 

Do a thick headed old building laborer a favour and keep the answers simple, I lose the plot when you go into all that clever speak....Hey! That's a joke!

 

Regards Chris

[slodger]

'Just hope that this issue finds its way into the angling weeklies. The evidence should help those on the fence, and therefore help angling.'

 

If this should prove to be a CA directive Peter, then I for one would not support them.

 

I'm one of the 'on the fence' brigade. I understood the campaign by the alliance to be shared amongst a number of rural issues. There's certainly a long list on their web-site. I can't really muster any sympathy for fox hunting, for a variety of reasons, but being born, raised and currently still living amongst a rural community, many of the other issues they claim to support are close to my heart.

 

I guess I'm in danger of convincing Graham that I'm set on some covert mission here, but hey! what the hell. :-) If it seems that the hunting/shooting fraternity are less than genuine with regard to their 'War cry' in support of angling, well... don't we feel the same? Isn't that what the term 'Alliance' denotes, a joining of two or more, very likely disinterested, parties in order to increase their singular force? Foxhunting aside, what is it that the heartfelt opposers find so abhorrent about the CA?

[Newt]

slodger:

Foxhunting aside, what is it that the heartfelt opposers find so abhorrent about the CA?

The fact that regardless of their stated purposes/aims/goals/concerns, there does not seem to be any real "Foxhunting Aside" side to what they do in practice is what seems to have many folks on here more than a little upset.

[Peter Waller]

You will have to decide Slodger. I have my own opinions based on observations over a few years now. I can see no real advantage in going over the same tired arguements yet again, I'm sorry, and a few will be relieved. People, with a few exceptions, are pretty well entrenched by now.

 

So what more can I add? I would have thought that this latest CA-gate revelation would be sufficient to cast reasonable doubts. It seems pretty damning.

 

The evidence appears to be there re the party political issue. A few entrenched supporters will, I'm sure, deny its relevance, their right. The burying of heads in the sand springs to mind on this one!

 

The CA needs to be transparent, and I don't believe that it is. But that is only my opinion. A declaration of interests by senior CA members and directors would probably be a bit of an eye-opener.

 

The CA needs to be cross party. Will it be targetting Tory MP's who voted for the hunting with dogs ban? It's your decision Smudger, your call, make the wrong one and you could be putting a nail in Angling's coffin! An awesome responsibility my friend.

 

I'm sure the CA would make a great song and dance if Angling was to target one of theirs, don't you?

 

I live and breath angling Smudger. It has become a political pawn, and I resent that big time.

[slodger]

Newt,

Okay I'm willing to listen. What do they do in practice? You're suggesting that they are using all of the other issues they claim to be supporting as a Trojan horse for their singular objective of reinstating fox hunting right?

 

I'm a simple angler from the countryside who's trying to decide what is the right thing to do. There's obviously some seriously strong feeling against the alliance on this site, yet on other sites I read equally compelling arguments in favour of them.

 

Graham,

Check this link out. (Scroll down to the picture.)

http://totalcoarsefishing.com/forums/index...d=2809;start=75

[Peter Waller]

Paragraph one, many of us do! Smoke gets in my eyes, la la lala la!!!!