ACA Support.

[Peter Waller]

Have just received my copy of a letter from the ACA chairman. In it the Chairman asks for our support. And to quote:- Please let us have your views and please can you use e-mail to:-

guy@a-c-a.org

 

This seems reasonable, the more positive support the better, even if its only best wishes for the future!!.

[Newt]

Can they possibly be of help with the Thames pollution issues? Surely some member clubs own fishing rights along parts of the river that are affected with all the crap.

 

Being on the losing side of a huge lawsuit might just motivate the folks who need to fix the problem.

 

[ 20. December 2004, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Newt ]

[Peter Waller]

At this moment I don't know the answer to that one Newt.

 

I sent off an e-mail wishing the ACA well, commenting that atlast the James Gravey Train had hit the buffers.

 

A reply came back with the comment 'quite' and that very many ACA members had also e-mailed in offering their best wishes for the future.

[Peter M]

Newt:

Can they possibly be of help with the Thames pollution issues? Surely some member clubs own fishing rights along parts of the river that are affected with all the crap.

I contacted the ACA on this subject they said

"We are looking closely with barristers as to whether we can bring a public nuisance case against Thames Water on behalf of angling in general and seek an injunction against any further storm discharges. It is a very difficult and not often used area of law, but watch this space."

 

So lets hope this can bring results. I feel we need the ACA more than ever in these current times and will continue to support them.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear All,

 

Peter Martin in his post enclosed;

 

I contacted the ACA on this subject they said

"We are looking closely with barristers as to whether we can bring a public nuisance case against Thames Water on behalf of angling in general and seek an injunction against any further storm discharges. It is a very difficult and not often used area of law, but watch this space."

 

That’s very interesting Peter.

 

How does the ACA step outside of its supposed remit to look at ways via talking to barristers about taking on Thames Water on behalf of "ANGLING IN GENERALL"?? Crikey me!!

 

We've just gone through the James investigation which seemingly ended in the James's being paid severance pay (must conclude from that, the investigation found nothing they could dismiss the James's for??) Gone through the ACA sending out letters to the full membership not once, but twice in several weeks over the James issue leaving us to imagine how much that cost in administration and postage costs. To now, Peter being told that they –ACA- are looking towards acting on behalf of "ANGLING IN GENERALL"!!!!

 

As a fully paid up life member of the ACA, can I ask exactly "WHO" is paying the ACA to start representing angling in general??? Could it be the ACA paying membership themselves? What a great message to send out to the existing ACA membership! - You fund us and we'll start to represent angling in general that doesn’t!?

 

Can't imagine many anglers rushing to join the ACA if this is going to be an on-going trend?? Or existing ACA members paying their membership fees for the benefit of the angling majority that don’t join the ACA?

 

The ACA surely has a remit to represent its paying membership?? Who gave them a remit to now start representing angling in general that are presumably none members?

 

And seeing as the James's are now gone, the blame for this incredible gaff can't be laid at their door surely.

 

Even more amazing than that, is the preposterous idea of seeking injunctions against any further storm discharges. How can any high court judge rule on a "dual system" that you can't stop anyway? That’s the whole problem.

 

Please tell me you are prepared to name the ACA contact that gave you this information Peter? I'd certainly like to have a word with him/her because as an ACA member myself, I certainly don’t want to see ACA funds used for incredibly expensive legal actions of any kind on behalf of none paying ACA members. And certainly not given the information I recently received from the present ACA chairman in his letter!!

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

I would have thought that the PR of such a move would far negate your fears Lee, however reasonable they are.

 

It would, if it comes off, be a real coup of far greater value than ever achieved by the departed Bob.

[Peter M]

Peter Waller:

I would have thought that the PR of such a move would far negate your fears Lee, however reasonable they are.

 

It would, if it comes off, be a real coup of far greater value than ever achieved by the departed Bob.

I agree with Peter Waller. i was lobbying them as to why they wouldn’t do anything about the Thames pollution and this was there reply. I wish now I had not gone public now. The antiquated sewage system in London is a major problem and only tonight on London Tonight there was a feature on how during the rains of last August many homes were flooded by raw sewage and people are still not able to return home for christmas. Thames water were unable to prevent this even by pouring the stuff into the river. If angling is going to grow up it needs to become even more political and needs to form alliances that will garner public support. The chances of the ACA finding a way to bring about any action is small it is likely they will be unable to do anything but I for one am pleased that they are not just looking at a narrow band of small cases but take a view about all pollution. Threats to our traditional angling way of life are many and complex and a multi layered approach is needed to combat these threats.

 

My new years resolution is to get more political on environmental and angling issues I look up to the likes of Peter Waller Leon Roskilly and others who are acting on a local level while keeping an eye on the bigger picture. I urge all anglers to do the same.

[Peter Waller]

Peter, I'm hardly in the same league as Leon, but thanks for the accolade.

 

I'm sure that your local area, if it doesn't already have a consultative, would benefit from one. Its worth checking out.

['eelfisher']

Dear Peter (Martin)

 

Pleased to hear your proposed New Year Resolution....

Quote "My new years resolution is to get more political on environmental and angling issues I look up to the likes of Peter Waller Leon Roskilly and others who are acting on a local level while keeping an eye on the bigger picture."

 

Given that statement.....one which I applaude....don't worry about barks from puppies on the political edges of the arena.

 

Your going to have to say what you think if you're going to get political....and stand by it.

 

Your remark.....

Quote "I wish now I had not gone public now."

 

You don't have to name and shame.....just know how to play the game....you'll learn quick enough what to say and what to adapt to your text in future.....we all have walked that line.

 

I am not a member of the ACA....a decision made due to concerns in the ACA camp in the past few years.

 

However, I would think that the ACA would much prefer yearly membership subscription members than life ones, due to the amount of money coming in via that concept of membership.

 

A 'life' membership sounds grand but cost very little over a ten year period compared to 'yearly' subscription.

 

Maybe we should all consider the yearly option to fully support the ACA....if chosing to join them is our wont.

 

Yours With Respect......

Steve.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter, (Waller)

 

How on earth could such a statement be seen as valuable PR to the ACA membership? How on earth can the ACA increase its present mandate of representing its members to representing angling generally? How on earth can the ACA hope to fund such representation? What conceivable value does this present ACA statement hold for the ACA membership?

 

And why do you constantly keep on attacking Bob James Peter? Surely even you must know you are sailing very close to the wind with your ongoing anti-Bob James statements? The man has now left the ACA employ Peter. Isn't that enough? Or do you have another agenda?

 

Dear Peter (Martin),

 

The ACA has absolutely NO chance of taking on the Thames Water problem. Nor might I add, would in reality ever dream of doing so outside of issuing the odd (bizarre more like) "political spin" statement in such present dire times it is experiencing? (If indeed it has?) I ask again Peter; please give me/us the name of the ACA contact that issued the statement given to you? As I said, I would dearly love to speak to him/her. In any case, I will be speaking to the ACA chairman over this statement as it definitely goes way outside the present ACA remit. Not to mention its financial boundaries! I am extremely annoyed about this supposed latest ACA statement Peter but thank you for bringing it to the attention of the ACA on-line membership.

 

Dear All,

 

The reality on the Thames Water situation concerning storm water in conjunction with sewerage is simply this; The Victorian London sewerage system is a "dual" system. This means it was designed to take not only rainfall and all forms of "top water", but sewerage as well all flowing into the same system. Such systems have been outlawed for many years in all new building developments because such systems simply don't work in the same way modern systems work. However, there ARE still many such old dual systems working in many cities and towns up and down the country. The old Victorian London system is especially bad due to the sheer volume of water and sewerage it takes in times of heavy rainfall. London is after all very large and heavily populated. Thames Water is virtually powerless to alleviate such problems in times of heavy prolonged rain because of the system type they have to work with. Only the construction of a totally new system will cure the present situation.

 

The fact is, the ACA "WON'T" take up this issue. Why? 1, It has NO MANDATE to represent none ACA members. 2, The ACA doesn’t even come close to having 1/50th of the disposable funds needed to take this issue on anyway in the high court even if it really wanted to!!

 

The problem facing London via its old Victorian sewerage system is breathtakingly massive in financial terms. Also mammoth in time scale needed to put it right. Present figures for correcting the situation run at one and a half billion and such a figure would undoubtedly spiral over a construction time scale of 8-10 years. Added to which, the present idea for a solution to London's sewerage problem contains many flaws that would inflict ecological problems elsewhere sooner or later. This is one of the reasons (aside from financial reasons) why committees set up to address this problem haven't as yet found a successful outcome.

 

Will political angling take this issue on? Ask them. These politico's know all about the full extent of the problem.

 

Personally, I think the Thames Water sewerage situation remains a time bomb waiting to go off. But that’s another story.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.