September meeting with Defra?

[Leon Roskilly]

Richard Ferre is equally in the line Barry. As already mentioned it is an outright lie to say members of the angling Trust exclusively practice catch and release. It isnt true. Hes another lyer.

 

That isn't at all what Richard said.

 

Before you go around accusing people of this and that, and if you ever want to be taken seriously, you really should check your facts before sounding off Glenn.

 

(And not rely on some spurious uncorrected draft minutes, posted on the internet no doubt by the anonymous chief s**t-stirrer, for the more junior s**t-stirrers, and wannabe sh*t-stirrers to gleefully seize upon)

Edited February 15, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Steve Coppolo]

Morning Steve.

 

The way you emotivly put it continually , deeper and deeper and deeper into the mire etc etc etc, just how many issues are we looking at here regarding the rsa. Yes i know we have to try and get defra and the eu from managing the managers to manage the rsa management. The questions are bag limits, licences. Why do you want someone to rep you for these questions, why can't you ask them directly for yourself. Does Leon really rep you. If you think it is as bad as you are trying to portray it why don't you step up. Go for it.

 

We have all had a chance of our say regarding the shape of the rsa. I know i have and i have done so. If it achieves something who knows. Thats for the suits to tell us. If we don't like it then we tell them so.

 

Can't speak for the man himself but i do know the answer as to why you are being ignored, we all do, personally i don't blame him. Don't you feel you wish to rise above that and move on or are we going to see a have a go at Leon at all costs and for the next few years as well, regardless of the subject matter.

 

Don't you agree if A T works out and it is a big if, the likes of sacn will not matter in any event and i don't mean anything derogatory by saying that. So why keep on, we know and have known your personal opinion of just one rep, yet you keep on refering to the reps, who else is in the firing line.

 

Afternoon Barry

 

At the moment, we are looking at the creation of no fishing areas, no bait digging areas, bag limits, quotas, fishery closures, restrictive and ridiculous codes of conduct, licencing, log books, compulsory insurance.......and that's just the ones we have had hints about. Who knows what else is being discussed behind closed doors?

 

I have made it very clear what my views are on these subjects - and the misrepresentation we have to tolerate. Letters have gone to MP's, MEP's and fisheries managers. The trouble is, you and I can say what we like in a letter, but it just takes one misguided individual sitting around the right table to undermine all of it. They have worked themselves into the positions they are in, they are the people telling the decision makers what we want, they are the people ignoring what grass roots sea anglers are saying and, therefore, they are the people who should take the flack when they get it so badly wrong. Which they have. Leon certainly doesn't represent me, just the same as Richard Ferre doesn't represent me. But they are telling the decision makers that they do and making plans on my behalf that I don't like. That gives me the right to criticise them. Leon can ignore me all he likes. To tell decision makers that he represents me, whilst ignoring every question I ask of him, demonstrates the scale of his arrogance - more than I ever could.

 

Your last point is interesting, Barry. You asked, if the AT takes off, the SACN would become irrelevant, so why keep on? Well, from what Leon has said, the SACN is already irrelevant. He says he wasn't at that meeting representing the SACN. The SACN wasn't being represented by anyone. So who was Leon representing on the day? We keep being told that the AT is the only game in town now. Having Richard Ferre in the driving seat is, to me, cause for concern. The prospect of Leon also representing me, and the rest of the UK's sea anglers, through the Angling Trust, just doesn't bear thinking about.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Steve Coppolo]

Seems to me this thread - once again - has proved perfectly well and justified that the angling community like other communities keep drafts and certain other half-produced papers in the unknown until they really are ready for the public eye. What a waste of people's time.

 

Fishingsfine, the fishing reps we have here keep EVERYTHING in the unknown, which contributes directly to what you have read on this thread. And you think that their secrecy is justified?

Edited February 15, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[glennk]

That isn't at all what Richard said.

 

Before you go around accusing people of this and that, and if you ever want to be taken seriously, you really should check your facts before sounding off Glenn.

 

(And not rely on some spurious uncorrected draft minutes, posted on the internet no doubt by the anonymous chief s**t-stirrer, for the more junior s**t-stirrers, and wannabe sh*t-stirrers to gleefully seize upon)

 

 

Leon I am not to fussed what people think or if they do or dont take me seriously. I'll leave that up to them. I still stand by what Ive said and if you dont like it then thats up to you. Whether you were at the meeting as SACN rep or as a diplomatic envy for the UN, I dont care. Your post about being retired on WSF was simply made to mislead people and your presence at this meeting has proved your still well involved - or should that be still meddling.

 

Did you also fail to notice that Elton posted a link to these minutes before they ever appeared on my site ? You havent told him he was wrong to publicise them.

 

I also note youve started to swear a lot. Thats not like you Leon. Has the article 47 video got to you ? Im looking forward to the next instalment, it sums it up perfectly. As for **** stirrers. I cant reveal my sources but I thank them for keeping me up to date on matters that will impact on my future angling experience. I hope you dont manage to kill recreational sea fishing in real life.

Edited February 15, 2009 by glennk

[Leon Roskilly]

Did you also fail to notice that Elton posted a link to these minutes before they ever appeared on my site ? You havent told him he was wrong to publicise them.

 

 

The difference being Glenn (and its a big difference) that the alarm bells went off in Elton's head and Eton posted them with a 'health warning', whereas you swallowed them hook line sinker rod and reel, and started posting personal abuse on public forums based upon their (fairly obvious) erroneous contents.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[glennk]

Not quite sure how telling the truth constitutes personal abuse ? You told an untruth on WSF the minutes showed you did it.

 

If theres a politer, PC non abusive word for it that you want me to use in future Im all ears. But every time you tell a miss truth Ill be around to point it out.

Edited February 15, 2009 by glennk

[Leon Roskilly]

Not quite sure how telling the truth constitutes personal abuse ? You told an untruth on WSF the minutes showed you did it.

 

Do you not yet get it Glenn?

 

THE DRAFT MINUTES ARE INCORRECT!!

 

I am not a member of the SACN Executive Group

 

Nor was I representing the SACN at the meeting.

 

 

And Richard Ferre did not say what you have publicly called him a liar (or 'lyer') for saying.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Leon Roskilly

[Ryford]

Fishingsfine, the fishing reps we have here keep EVERYTHING in the unknown, which contributes directly to what you have read on this thread. And you think that their secrecy is justified?

 

Would it come as a surprise to you to hear that another group of anglers has met the minister (and not Defra officials) at a separate meeting to discuss article 47?

 

And that's the ony other one I have heard about. Inless of course you have heard differently.

 

One representative breifed their membership over a week ago so I hear, so there's no secrecy there I am pleased to say. It's my impression that RF did not say what he is being accused of.

 

Ryford

[Steve Coppolo]

Even if the minute taker made a mistake and those weren't the exact words used by Richared Ferre, I can't see that catch and release was never mentioned in the sentence that may have been written down wrong. If the person taking the minutes had little idea of the subject, they would hardly have plucked the reference to catch and release out of thin air. They are just as unlikely to think of writing down a request for a definition of fish catching and whether it applied to catch and release, on their own initiative. This leads me to believe that Richard was seeking to find out whether C&R would be workable under any new legislation that we may be subject to. If this is the case, and I strongly suspect that it was, then this smacks of the same old appeasement tactics emplyed by the RSA lobby to date, that has lead us to the sorry mess we find ourselves in now.

 

In any case, Mike Smith, of Cefas, stated, (or was that yet another mistake?), that no scientist could quantify the percantage of fish that survived being caught and released and, in doing so, as good as told you that you can forget about using C&R to get you into MPA's and MCZ's,* as well as being allowed to fish once the cod quota has been used. If the people present didn't see that, then they really didn't ought to be sitting at the table discussing the future of sea angling.

 

 

 

*For as long as I can remember, Leon has been appeasing anglers whilst promoting MPA's by saying that they would be allowed to fish in them but it might be C&R only

Edited February 15, 2009 by Steve Coppolo

[Ryford]

Fishingsfine, the fishing reps we have here keep EVERYTHING in the unknown, which contributes directly to what you have read on this thread. And you think that their secrecy is justified?

 

Would it come as a surprise to you to hear that another group of anglers has met the minister (and not just Defra officials) at a separate meeting to discuss article 47?

 

And that's the ony other one I have heard about. Inless of course you have heard differently.

 

One representative briefed their membership over a week ago so I hear, so there's no secrecy there I am pleased to say. It's my impression that RF did not say what he is being accused of.

 

Ryford