Jump to content

Mullet

Matt Baldwin

By Matt Baldwin
in Sea Fishing

 Share

Recommended Posts

thedogs Member

thedogs

Posted
Posted

The issue is not whether Matt Baldwin caught a mullet of a lifetime, or even whether he is a honourable fellow.

 

I can only judge Mats character from his posts and the few e-mails we have exchanged.

 

Mat seems like an honest sort of chap who I doubt would cheat his way to a record or any other awards come to that.

 

The issues are the location of the catch, and whether or not the marina allows anglers to fish there. The biggest issue to my mind has to be whether the National Mullet Club intends to reward Matt Baldwin a “van load of trophies “even if the marina was a no fishing area. If the NMC decide to award the “van load of trophies “ then it equates to condoning fishing in no fishing areas. This surely would be giving out the wrong signal to the mullet clubs younger members.

 

David Rigden, I am sorry to say your reply of wait until February stinks of ducking the issue!

Please Please check this out!

 

http://www.justgiving.com/tacyedewick?ref=

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 261
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted
David Rigden, I am sorry to say your reply of wait until February stinks of ducking the issue!

 

Do you, and does the National Mullet Club condone angler fishing in no fishing areas ?

 

 

Please re-read post number 144 i thought he made the mullet club position most clear.

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thedogs Member

thedogs

Posted
Posted

Hi barry, do you mean this bit?

 

1. Lots of mullet anglers fish in "grey areas" as regards access - tidal rivers where you may or may not need a permit, private land where anglers may or may not be tolerated. As we have no way of knowing the detail in all the places our members (nationally!) may fish, and no way of enforcement, we don't have a rule on this. I am not condoning it but as a matter of law, it is not "illegal" (as you put it) to fish in a marina with "No Fishing" signs - you are breaking the marina rules but not the law of the land. This would be true even if somebody was trespassing in the marina grounds because trespass is not a criminal offence under English Law unless the owner has obtained a court injunction to keep them out or in specific cases such as MoD.

 

If so to me it reads as though the NMC at best wouldnt wish to know if a fish was caught in a no fishing area.

The fish was caught in a no fishing area, the NMC have been told this and jet on a private forum David Rigden say Mat is going to walk off with a 2van load of trophie". If this is not condoning angling from no fishing areas I dont know what is.

Please Please check this out!

 

http://www.justgiving.com/tacyedewick?ref=

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Norm B Member

Norm B

Posted
Posted
Please re-read post number 144 i thought he made the mullet club position most clear.

:clap2: Just read 144 and if that's clear then to my mind he's condoning fishing where you shouldn't be fishing and by doing so is encouraging anglers to get anglers a bad name. I know that tresspass is not a criminal act, it is a civil act but tresspass is not something to encourage. I personally believe, based on past decisions by the BRFC, that Matt's mullet will not get the record, for the same reason the NMC should not reward a breach of civil law. They should show what their standards are and show what they think of their members tresspassing. A grey area is a grey area but tresspass on private property and breach of trust are things I personally take very seriously. Having, until recently, belonged to a shooting syndicate for 20 years and having to chase off poachers, bikers, peace campers, travellers, antis and dog walkers from clearly sign posted private property I don't take tresspassing lightly. :unsure:

http://www.seaanglingnews.co.uk
Link to comment
Share on other sites
barry luxton Member

barry luxton

Posted
Posted (edited)

B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 13 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->:clap2: Just read 144 and if that's clear then to my mind he's condoning fishing where you shouldn't be fishing and by doing so is encouraging anglers to get anglers a bad name. I know that tresspass is not a criminal act, it is a civil act but tresspass is not something to encourage. I personally believe, based on past decisions by the BRFC, that Matt's mullet will not get the record, for the same reason the NMC should not reward a breach of civil law. They should show what their standards are and show what they think of their members tresspassing. A grey area is a grey area but tresspass on private property and breach of trust are things I personally take very seriously. Having, until recently, belonged to a shooting syndicate for 20 years and having to chase off poachers, bikers, peace campers, travellers, antis and dog walkers from clearly sign posted private property I don't take tresspassing lightly. :unsure:

 

Norm B, the guy has made it clear in post 144 that he does not condone it. He also makes it clear before the dogs post that it is decided at the annuall meeting and quite rightly so. There is no fudging on his part. Further it is made clear that there is no rule inplace as it would be not practical to police, that makes sence to me, just like a sfc issuing a bylaw that they could not police. As with any other private club, anyone can call an extraordinary generall meeting at any time but it would need to be of a serious nature.I have posted that it for the record committee to decide and i'm sure that they are streetwise and will make the right desision in any event. Within the first page of posts, Matt made it clear exactly where it was caught, again even he is leaving others to make the desision if it is to be ratified or not.

Edited by barry luxton

Free to choose apart from the ones where the trust poked their nose in. Common eel. tope. Bass and sea bream. All restricted.


New for 2016 TAT are the main instigators for the demise of the u k bass charter boat industry, where they went screaming off to parliament and for the first time assisting so called angling gurus set up bass take bans with the e u using rubbish exaggerated info collected by ices from anglers, they must be very proud.

Upgrade, the door has been closed with regards to anglers being linked to the e u superstate and the failed c f p. So TAT will no longer need to pay monies to the EAA anymore as that org is no longer relevant to the u k . Goodbye to the europeon anglers alliance and pathetic restrictions from the e u.

Angling is better than politics, ban politics from angling.

Consumer of bass. where is the evidence that the u k bass stock need angling trust protection. Why won't you work with your peers instead of castigating them. They have the answer.

Recipie's for mullet stew more than welcomed.

Angling sanitation trust and kent and sussex sea anglers org delete's and blocks rsa's alternative opinion on their face book site. Although they claim to rep all.

new for 2014. where is the evidence that the south coast bream stock need the angling trust? Your campaign has no evidence. Why won't you work with your peers, the inshore under tens? As opposed to alienating them? Angling trust failed big time re bait digging, even fish legal attempted to intervene and failed, all for what, nothing.

Looks like the sea angling reps have been coerced by the ifca's to compose sea angling strategy's that the ifca's at some stage will look at drafting into legislation to manage the rsa, because they like wasting tax payers money. That's without asking the rsa btw. You know who you are..

Link to comment
Share on other sites
five bellies Member

five bellies

Posted
Posted

B)-->

QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 13 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
:clap2: Just read 144 and if that's clear then to my mind he's condoning fishing where you shouldn't be fishing and by doing so is encouraging anglers to get anglers a bad name. I know that tresspass is not a criminal act, it is a civil act but tresspass is not something to encourage. I personally believe, based on past decisions by the BRFC, that Matt's mullet will not get the record, for the same reason the NMC should not reward a breach of civil law. They should show what their standards are and show what they think of their members tresspassing. A grey area is a grey area but tresspass on private property and breach of trust are things I personally take very seriously. Having, until recently, belonged to a shooting syndicate for 20 years and having to chase off poachers, bikers, peace campers, travellers, antis and dog walkers from clearly sign posted private property I don't take tresspassing lightly. :unsure:

 

It was not a trespass Matt was in the Marina by invitasion of Angry boat owner

Someone once said to me "Dont worry It could be worse." So I didn't, and It was!

 

 

 

 

انا آكل كل الفطائر

 

I made a vow today, to never again argue with an Idiot they have more expieriance at it than I so I always seem to lose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveRigden Junior Member

DaveRigden

Posted
Posted
The issues are the location of the catch, and whether or not the marina allows anglers to fish there. The biggest issue to my mind has to be whether the National Mullet Club intends to reward Matt Baldwin a “van load of trophies “even if the marina was a no fishing area. If the NMC decide to award the “van load of trophies “ then it equates to condoning fishing in no fishing areas. This surely would be giving out the wrong signal to the mullet clubs younger members.

 

David Rigden, I am sorry to say your reply of wait until February stinks of ducking the issue!

 

Sorry Dogs, I can only re-emphasise what I've written already...

 

NMC doesn't have a rule relating to "No Fishing" areas. This doesn't mean we condone fishing in "No Fishing" areas, it reflects a long-standing of the membership to impose rules upon itself which it knows will be unenforceable. That's democracy for you.

 

If the membership wishes to reconsider its position on this issue, it will almost certainly do so at the AGM in February. There is a provision for an Extraordinary General Meeting in our rulebook, but I'm not seeing the required three members rushing forward to ask for one.

 

I can't give my own opinion and pass it off as NMC policy, just because you want an answer now. It just doesn't work like that, and if I did so you would no doubt castigate me for making up policy on the hoof, and rightly so. And before you ask, I'm not giving my personal opinion specifically so nobody can confuse it with NMC policy and also so if I end up chairing a debate on this issue at the AGM, I can do so in an impartial way.

 

I don't think NMC can contribute anything further to this debate at this time, so apart from a couple of brief replies below this is my last post on this thread. In fact I won't even be reading what you guys are writing 'cos I'm off on my hols as of today. Hence the gale and rain.

 

David.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveRigden Junior Member

DaveRigden

Posted
Posted

B)-->

QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 13 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
:clap2: Just read 144 and if that's clear then to my mind he's condoning fishing where you shouldn't be fishing and by doing so is encouraging anglers to get anglers a bad name. I know that tresspass is not a criminal act, it is a civil act but tresspass is not something to encourage. I personally believe, based on past decisions by the BRFC, that Matt's mullet will not get the record, for the same reason the NMC should not reward a breach of civil law. They should show what their standards are and show what they think of their members tresspassing. A grey area is a grey area but tresspass on private property and breach of trust are things I personally take very seriously. Having, until recently, belonged to a shooting syndicate for 20 years and having to chase off poachers, bikers, peace campers, travellers, antis and dog walkers from clearly sign posted private property I don't take tresspassing lightly. :unsure:

 

NMC Reply: Norm, you seem to have misread post 144, specifically you seem to have missed out the words "I am not condoning..." I was simply trying to clarify a point of law for Muttley who had said Matt B's fishing was "illegal". Beyond that, can I please refer you to my reply to thedogs?

 

Personal Reply: Sorry, Norm, I'm a new member to this site and can't yet access member profiles. Are you the same Norm B who edits Sea Angling News? And who published Matt B's photo and awarded him a reel as a prize? And still has reference to this on their website? If so, could I ask if now that you know the fish was caught in a "No Fishing" area, and in light of your views expressed above, will you be taking the item down from the website and witholding/trying to recover the prize? And telling your readership why? If so, you have my respect as a man with the courage of his convictions. If not, don't you think your pontification about what NMC should do is just a bit rich?

 

Sorry if you're the wrong Norm B!

 

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaveRigden Junior Member

DaveRigden

Posted
Posted
Norm B, the guy has made it clear in post 144 that he does not condone it. He also makes it clear before the dogs post that it is decided at the annuall meeting and quite rightly so. There is no fudging on his part. Further it is made clear that there is no rule inplace as it would be not practical to police, that makes sence to me, just like a sfc issuing a bylaw that they could not police. As with any other private club, anyone can call an extraordinary generall meeting at any time but it would need to be of a serious nature.

 

Cheers Barry, you're a gent, my guess is you have some experience of running a club and trying to keep everybody happy! Really off on my hols now, bye all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
thedogs Member

thedogs

Posted
Posted

Sorry but this is making the National Mullet Club look very silly, I have read a post by David Rigden saying that Mat is to walk away with a van load of trophies, but its on a private forum so I cant past it to hear.

 

I have made my mind up, the NMC is a joke and the chair man has NO BALLS!

Please Please check this out!

 

http://www.justgiving.com/tacyedewick?ref=

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We and our partners use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences, repeat visits and to show you personalised advertisements. By clicking “I Agree”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit Cookie Settings to provide a controlled consent.

  I accept