Mullet

[Cranfield]

All,

 

As you can see Mr. Slater is still making threats to me. For

those of you who don't know me, I am 17 years old and Mr.

Slater is a grown man of 40 with two boys of his own so he

should know much better.

 

Regards,

 

Matt Baldwin

 

----- Forwarded Message -----

From: "Mark Slater" <>

To: <Matt Baldwin>

Subject: RE: "record" mullet

Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2007 06:50:29 +0100

 

I sincerely hope I don't bump into you down the marina Matt.

 

 

Matt, if I was you, I wouldn't post on this thread anymore and hope it slips quietly off the page.

Perhaps Mr Slater shouldn't send you emails worded like that, but I don't think you emerge from this incident as shining white as you and your supporters seem to think you do.

 

 

-->

QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 10 2007, 09:32 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Probably due to the mushy bread used as groundbait sticking to their hulls like cement.

I had a boat in a marina and used to fish in it, they then banned fishing for the above reason, I couldn't even fish for bass without bread as they said if others saw me fishing they'd think it was OK to fish again. The thing was, I was probably the only member to fish for mullet, all the others were outsiders. They could of said, only members could fish but from their boats, but they just banned it out of hand to all.

 

 

Norm, its also the 4oz weights hitting boats, the hooks and line that come up with the mooring ropes, litter and floats and line left hanging round boat railings.

The behaviour of some "anglers" is unbelievable , especially in areas where we are barely tolerated and easily banned from.

They do not seem to realise that access to private areas is a privilege granted and should be respected.

[Tony U]

Matt, if I was you, I wouldn't post on this thread anymore and hope it slips quietly off the page.

Perhaps Mr Slater shouldn't send you emails worded like that, but I don't think you emerge from this incident as shining white as you and your supporters seem to think you do.

 

Cranfield

At the risk of repeating myself issuing threats to a 17 year old boy, is, whatever the rights and wrongs of Matt's deeds, unacceptable, particularly by a 40 year old man. If he continues in this vein then it will not be me; but the Boys in Blue he will have to answer to.

[five bellies]

Matt, if I was you, I wouldn't post on this thread anymore and hope it slips quietly off the page.

Perhaps Mr Slater shouldn't send you emails worded like that, but I don't think you emerge from this incident as shining white as you and your supporters seem to think you do.

 

 

I think you will find Cranfield, That all of matts Friends have objected to the mannor that this alligation was handeld not the Ins and outs of the complaint its self, You have initaily imagined lynch mobs, and are now seemly objecting to a young man awnsering to threats and allegtions openly on this forum. Although it seems acceptable for him to be publicly castigated you using the word prehaps falls way short of condemnation!,

You have shown enough intersest in the topic to have made several posts on the subject so why is it now appropraite for Matt to shut up? Matt the sending of threatening comunications is an offence and could be investigated by the police.

 

The Malicious Communications Act 1988 section 1, see Stones 8 - 20830, has been amended by the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 section 43. The section deals with the sending to another of any article with intent to cause distress or anxiety. The offence covers letters, writing of all descriptions, electronic communications, photographs and other images in a material form, tape recordings, films and video recordings. Poison-pen letters are usually covered.

Particularly serious examples must justify a more serious charge, eg threats to kill.

The offence is one of sending or transmitting, so:-

It is committed where the sending or transmitting took place, and

There is no requirement for the article to reach the intended recipient.

Edited August 10, 2007 by five bellies

[Cranfield]

As I said earlier, my comments on this matter have been based on what I have read on here and nothing else.

 

I wasn't with Matt when he caught the fish, I didn't hear what Mr Slater said to him about not fishing , or the conversation when he returned to the boat, or witnessed the alleged mess left behind, etc., or read the Email on Matt's PC allegedly from Mr Slater.

 

I am being the cautious one and not taking sides and blindly believing one persons assertions against anothers.

I don't know Matt and I don't know Mr Slater.

 

Its my opinion, the police should be told about alleged threats, not the general public on Anglers Net.

 

Anglers for Peace.

[five bellies]

As I said earlier, my comments on this matter have been based on what I have read on here and nothing else.

 

I wasn't with Matt when he caught the fish, I didn't hear what Mr Slater said to him about not fishing , or the conversation when he returned to the boat, or witnessed the alleged mess left behind, etc., or read the Email on Matt's PC allegedly from Mr Slater.

 

I am being the cautious one and not taking sides and blindly believing one persons assertions against anothers.

I don't know Matt and I don't know Mr Slater.

 

Its my opinion, the police should be told about alleged threats, not the general public on Anglers Net.

 

Anglers for Peace.

 

 

I also was not with Matt nor privvy to any other of the details you listed but we where all involved the minute angrey Boat owner made his allegation Publicly on this forum That is why He made the Post was it not?to cast dought and muddy the waters. Now I dont know about you Cranfield but the true measure of a friend is how that freindship is tested in adversity,I believe matt because I know him and have had the oppertunity to judge His character (SP) You havent had this oppertunity so I suppose for that you can be forgiven. Faith in an indervidaul is earned not given freely nor blindly is it ? Matt has earned my trust and support and this will be unwaivering (incidentley If Matt had strung me allong who would have been the Idiot the liar or the fool who believed Him and yes I would forgive him and remain his freind ) Most off the posts on this forum are made on trust with less evidence than Matt supplied, we as members of this forum read and digest them and rarely question the sencerity nor the integrity of the perslon making the post,

 

Your caution was not apparent when you made the assumption that Tony U was riseing a Posse with Me and Kayac as Deputies,

 

I do Know matt I dont want to Know Mr slater!!!!!

 

Id have said reading your last post, it was your opinion that Matt should bury his head in the sand and tolerate being bullied on line and via the phone hoping it will go away, thats what a lot of victems of bullying do and it rarely does go away. We all have an interest in how this story developes now, surely even you ................one thing we do seem to agree on is if these comunications persisst it is time to envolve the police.

 

Cranfield please dont think I am atacking you personaly There is enough stife existing on this thread allready without us opening another frount. But I will stand by Matt on this one, untill it has reached its conclusion question my blind faith if you must but it has stood me in good stead more than once and will agian no dought.

 

 

Fisherman for peace yes why not

[Tony U]

So............

We are all agreed then, Matt should contact the Police if the threats continue.

Could I suggest he contacts the Mods and gets this thread locked so we can all move on.

 

Tony

 

Anglers for Peace

Edited August 10, 2007 by Tony U

[five bellies]

So

We are all agreed then, Matt should contact the Police if the threats continue.

So could I suggest he contacts the Mods and gets this thread locked so we can all move on.

 

Tony

 

Anglers for Peace

 

 

What a good Idea

[Guest muttley]

WOW...what a blinding thread..threats of violence, accusations of all sorts of skulldugery, mudslinging from all angles, controversy left right and center, and in the middle of it all one serious mullet. Now i'm not too concerned about any of that apart from one thing...Will this fish stand as a record as it was caught (net or rod we'll never know) in a strictly NO FISHING ZONE. This to me seems one fact that can NOT be disputed. I personally feel that it should not stand as a record because it was caught illegaly. Nothing against you at all Matt but if you did have the record would you be able to enjoy it knowing that it was caught where you shouldn't be fishing(with either a rod or net) LOL Can anyone clarify the rules on this one...that means you Leon. If you did catch it with a rod and line Matt....well done.....top fish. But if you did 'scoop' it and said that you caught it with rod and line...then shame on you and remember the only person you are fooling is yourself.

Forgot to say that angry boat man should keep his threats to himself. Cant agree with that at all.

Edited August 10, 2007 by muttley

[Leon Roskilly]

Can anyone clarify the rules on this one...that means you Leon.

 

Like me, we'll all have to wait for what the British Record Fish Committee has to say.

 

The National Mullet Club committee is aware of the controversy, but it seems that won't stop Matt walking away with 'a van load' of their trophies.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Leon Roskilly

[Rock Hopper]

Getting back to the origional post, that is one impressive mullet. Have tried on a few occasions to catch mullet a quarter of that size with no success. I'm sure Matt did catch with rod & line but even so rod & line or net, record or not, that is a great fish. Good on you. The mullet was put back. No harm done. Nobody got hurt. Life goes on. The angry boat owner should just get over it, he was exploiting Matt anyway. £25 for 5hrs work. Has he heard of minimum wage?