ACA Support.

[awaaar]

lots of green eyes in angling, lots!

 

The posts surrounding this ACA affair have further highlighted that fact IMO.

 

Put me in front of some water, give me some tackle and bait - happy man - all the other bo**ocks can run the marathon!

 

[ 23. December 2004, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: awaaar ]

[Peter M]

MrMatthew:

Lee your attitude frankly stinks!

 

I am not a member of the ACA, was planning to join in the new year, but to be truthfull if you are in anyway representative of the attitudes within the organisation I want nothing to do with it.

Mr Matthew I for one would urge you to join. we need your attitueds to prevail.

[trent.barbeler]

Dear MrMatthew,

 

I'm a member of the ACA. Your not? If you were a member, then you would know the ACA only ever has represented its members. It can do nothing else. I asked before, is any other political angling body going to take Thames Water to court on the behalf of anyone who is not a member of their various organisations? Course not. So why should the ACA act any differently?

 

Then again, you could join the ACA right now and send all your opinions to the new ACA chairman. I'm going to. So is Pete Waller and a host of others I should think.

 

"Lee your attitude frankly stinks!"

 

Well of course it does. Its because you don't agree with me. And thats far from nothing new. It is after all only the "tint-er-net" you know.

 

Peter Martin is right. For the ACA to procceed towards an effective future the ACA has got to start being more transparent to its members. Join the ACA and email them to give your opinions on this new way forward.

 

Anyway. I'm off shortly to put my party frock on. Big CA doo to go to tonight up at the castle. Still a few tickets left or I might be able to sneak you in at the servants door below stairs. Mums the word.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

Already have Lee, friendly good wishes for the future.

 

Re angling clubs acting for other than its own members. A major grouse that I had with the late SACG was that it claimed to represent me and other non members; it is the nature of clubs acting at national level. The same accusation can also be levelled at the CA. But the ACA is rather more than a club representing the few. Its actions, and deterant effect, spill over and effect us all, thankfully. Should it act for the one member that fishes a particular water then it also acts for all the others who also fish it. The ACA can not operate in isolation.

 

[ 23. December 2004, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Newt]

Peter - while any beneficial 'spill over' effects are great, the ACA very clearly only acts on behalf of it's members. I think that without that narrowing of focus, it would doom itself.

 

I know you are aware of the below but either Mr.Matthew is not or else he has trouble understanding a fairly simple and uncomplicated statement of purpose.

 

From the FAQ on http://www.a-c-a.org/

quote:

---

Q. What does the ACA do?

A. The ACA is the ONLY organisation that:

 

-TAKES POLLUTERS TO COURT

on behalf of its members and passes all the damages, every penny, back to its members.

 

PAYS FOR EXPERTS.

You need experts to prove the case. The ACA pays for experts - up front - so we get the BEST ADVICE for our members.

 

-TAKES ON RISKY CASES WITH UNRIVALLED EXPERIENCE.

A solicitor acting for you on a No Win, No Fee basis will not take on risky cases because he wants to be paid. In 52 years, the ACA has only lost 3 cases.

 

-HAS TAKEN ON AND WON GROUND BREAKING CASES to establish precedents in fisheries law.

 

-GIVES FREE LEGAL ADVICE to our members on all matters affecting angling

---

[trent.barbeler]

Dear Peter,

 

Taxis coming around 8.45 so not much time.

 

SACG?? Crikey! I seem to recall you having the same pops at its merged phoenix the SAA not that long ago? Now you’re a SAA member it seems.

 

What did David Bird say only a few days ago? What was it now? Oh yes. NO PAY. NO SAY. And David's the SAA chairman isn't he? Now David advocates the basics of if you don't pay, you can't have your say because we don't represent anyone who doesn't pay to be a member. Am I right?? So there's absolutely no difference between David's ideology, (which in this case I agree with) and the ACA? So if you "ARE" a member of the ACA and you fish any river that gets polluted, chances are the ACA will fight your case if there is a case to answer. Yes? Other political angling bodies claim to represent their members. Yes? How many of them have actually taken people to court in the interests of their members either collectively or individually apart from the ACA?

 

Now so there's no confusion between your clever twists and reality here Peter, what we were originally talking about here was the ACA taking on Thames Water via the high court (presumably) acting on behalf of angling in general? None ACA members? I said it couldn't do that for various reasons. The main one being of course they haven't got no where near the funding to take on such a case. I also asked the question of whether any of the other angling political bodies were going to take the TW on also on behalf of angling in general. I notice you are not keen to answer that question Peter. Wonder why? So, can I have an answer to these questions posed Peter so all can see the answers so all is in a position to see exactly where it is you are coming "FROM"?

 

Must dash now Peter.

 

Regards,

 

Lee.

[Peter Waller]

This is all getting heavy, too heavy, and quite honestly,its verging on pointless arguement.

 

I think Mathew, that you would best follow my first link and ask the ACA chairman.

 

As I understand it the ACA can act for adjoining landowners, not just the owners of the fishing rights.

 

[ 23. December 2004, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: Peter Waller ]

[Peter Waller]

No, don't shut up! Just address your questions directly to the ACA. And, to be honest, my comment was aimed at Lee more than thee!

[smudger]

as regard the thames pollution could not the the A.C.A start banging on the E.A.'s door. instead of making threat's it clearly can not follow up?

surely this is the E.A's remitt.me thinks that people in the thames water area might be in for

a big water bill increase to pay for the upgrade

of the sewer system,which under E.U directive's

should not be discharging raw sewage in to river's.would thought that the E.A would've been jumping on thame's back over this,as they have been vocal over the clean up of the coastline of devon and cornwall,which is know complete but SW water now want's to increase our water bills by 45% over then next 5 year's. seem's to me that the ACAhas lost it's direction after the jame's fiasco!