Should we join forces with the Countryside Alliance?

[Peter Waller]

Any more for the skylark? 45 votes so far!

[Cranfield]

Peter, perhaps people are getting a bit fed up with your personal obsession.

You raise this subject almost weekly.

[Peter Waller]

Fair point Cranfield. I'm almost as bad as that Jardine fella with his stream of seemingly late press releases! But maybe new members have yet to be brainwashed by either of us!

 

Would you say the same if you didn't support the CA?

 

[ 08. February 2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Tim Kelly]

I couldn't care less either way about the CA. I've met Jardine and thought he was a typical pompous arrogant twit, just like most politicians, so maybe he knows how to talk to them!

 

I couldn't care less who "the voice of fishing" is, but it seems to me that there's an established campaign group who seem to be able to organise a large body of people and communicate with politicians ready made. In the last 100 years fishing as a whole hasn't ever managed that with any single body, so why not take advantage of whats already there? If you don't like the way they're doing things, get involved with them and change the way they deal with fishing issues from the inside.

[Peter Waller]

Now FACT is a reality we don't need the CA. They need us, we don't need them.

[Tim Kelly]

Hmm, If you think FACT will last much more than a year, in the words of Hugh Falkus "My cock's a lobster!" (Made me laugh out loud when I read that, his last letter I believe to Trout and Salmon magazine)

[Liamsm]

Hi Peter,

I hate fishing politics, but a combination of Leon's and Tim’s last answers made me think a bit more laterally about it all for about a minute.

So a question for you to think about.

Would it be better if the voice of angling was not an angler at all?.

Maybe it needs someone that is totally not emotive towards angling at all, to do the job.

That way it could be someone who could represent everyone without bias and the inner wranglings that cause the splits and differences between anglers.

Personally I think that a professional politician that does not give a toss about fishing is the only one that will ever be able to represent 'all' anglers.

 

…………..Liam.

[Peter Waller]

There is a wisdom in there Liamsm. Probably one of the biggest splits on AN has been caused by the very existance of the CA, and don't forget that Jardine is an angler and quite a good one.

 

Yes, a non angling negotiator speaking on behalf of angling makes a great deal of sense.

 

A non fox hunting one makes even more sense!!

[Tim Kelly]

I don't think Jardine's a hunter, and pretty soon neither will the rest of the CA be!

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

As a NONE-MEMBER of either FACT or CA, I personally feel that the CA can't hold a candle to the expertise that FACT has on board in relation to the broad church angling it appears to represent.

 

You on the other hand, might be mistakenly seen to be working for "certain" political angling forces keen to see that the CA angling drive gets down-sided at every opportunity?

 

It’s a bit like you are waddling through the shoppers and pigeons strapped in-between sandwich boards advertising the "End Is Nigh if the CA ever rule planet politico".

 

Is your new role in F.A.C.T. going to be the anti-anti-anti-anti-very anti-really anti-seriously anti- anti Countryside Alliance and enormously anti-gigantically anti-to the point of a nervous breakdown anti Charles Jardine press officer?

 

One thing seems certain though. The CA and Charlie Jardine for all their apparent insignificance and worthlessness really do appear to attract some people’s attention. Wonder why?

 

Are the blokes from F.A.C.T. really the men from U.N.C.L.E. Iylia Kuriakin and Napoleon Solo did start SACG didn't they? And didn't Lady Penelope and Parker start the CA?

 

Let us not forget that the CA marched on totally united when the NAA failed to unite a mere handful of groups under its own leaky umbrella? Where your own angling politicos failed Peter, the CA forged on as a totally UNITED entity.

 

That’s perhaps what domestic politicians admire about the CA. Their unwavering UNITY? They have UNITY cracked Peter. Have we? They also have individual membership funding whipped as well. Have we?

 

It’s all too easy criticising Peter, but the fact remains Charles has done a far better job at uniting his membership.

 

I wonder, if Ben Bradshaw climbed into the ministerial car after the angling summit meeting saying to his chauffeur “I’ve fifty quid that says they’ll all be falling out within twelve months”.

 

“On to the Savoy then minister for that lunch with Mr Jardine?”

 

Regards,

 

Lee.