Mullet

[Tony U]

To be fair to Newt the expression "beating up on " does not have the same literal meaning as it would here in the UK as I understand it it can also mean berating or having a go at.

 

 

Tony

[Guest muttley]

To be fair to Newt the expression "beating up on " does not have the same literal meaning as it would here in the UK as I understand it it can also mean berating or having a go at.

Tony

 

I think that we all knew that. Thanks for stating the obvious even though no matter how hard I look I still find it hard to find anyone who thought that it referred to physical violence in any way.

I think that Cranfield was talking about Newts acidic patronising tone that can often be irritating to say the least.

[Cranfield]

Tony, I did take the same interpretation of that expression as you did, but I didn't think there was any agression, hectoring, or "beating up on", in Angry Boat Owners long post.

 

As I said, I thought it was mature, well reasoned and quite concillatory towards Matt, even to the extent of offering to buy him a drink at the next MMC meeting.

A fair exercise in "fence mending".

 

It didn't deserve the response it got from Newt.

[five bellies]

I take it the group Hug is on hold ?

 

 

May be If angry Boat owner hadnt been as hastey with his first post and constructed it with all these new facts in place and in order, his statement may have been more credable,Instead It seemed to me

a exercise in back Peddling. Colin Mentioning the Poor gentleman who was Kicked to death by the verminous scum in Cheshire and trying to draw a comparrison to Matts alleged behaviour Is damn right deplorable What on earth are you talking about Secondly the boat record is what it says on the box if you are standing on a boat thats what you caught it on. Mored up in a birth or anchored

off shore.

[Norm B]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 13 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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.

 

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

I understand that Matt was invited on the understanding that he would clean the boat, no fishing is allowed in the marina. If the postman walks up my driveway to deliver my mail, he isn't tresspassing, he's doing his job, with my permission, if he walks up my driveway without any mail and picks raspberries he's tresspassing and stealing, do you not see the difference.

[Norm B]

--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Norm B @ Aug 13 2007, 09:40 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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.

 

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!

 

I am one and the same. I awarded Matt his prize because it was the fish of the month and at the time I hadn't been contacted by the boat's owner. He phoned me and was very polite and reasoned and I had no cause to believe what he said wasn't true and I still don't. While there are more allegations and counter allegations about Matts fish, it was I who pointed out to him that it beat the current record and told him what he needed to do to make a claim, I wasn't in posession of all the "facts" then. I would not of advised him to make a claim for the record had I been in posession of the "facts" at that time as I know from previously dismissed record claims that the BRFC don't award records for fish caught by "unauthorised persons", ie, not having permission to fish the water concerned. Having awarded Matt the fish of the month prize, I am not such a petty person as to ask for it back, just to prove I have the courage of my convictions, for you or anybody else, he won it with, in my opinion, the best boat caught fish that month and he's entitled to it. Would I have awarded it knowing what is being claimed now, I don't know and I'm not even going to think about it as hindsight may affect my judgement. What I expect the NMC to do is look at the case and make their own minds up based on the "evidence available to them", which is what I did at the time.

I thank you for your courtesy in replying personally to my post. Norman Berry, Editor, Sea Angling News.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Norm B

[barry luxton]

What a super cut and thrust debate this is, when it is finnished there will be friends and enemies made, that i have no doubt, but it will be a shame if it goes all personall. I have doubts with some of the comments made that contradict themselves and conclude that who ever is telling porkies is made of so much rubber they could bounce to the moon and back as the 'stories' are so far apart. As Norm B now points out for example, was Matt given or denied the chance to fish, as previously Matt has said that he was. Hmmmmmmmmmm. There does not appear to be a lot of crap 'all' over the boat in the photo's, Hmmmmmmmmm. I am assuming that the fishing took part after mr angry b o had left and within that hour that was when all the crap was left that is not showing in the photo's. What was the state of the boat like before Matt started fishing, from what i read it was still not very clean. Why did mr angry b o state he took hours to clean up then to say he got it cleaned professionally, again it don't look too bad in the photo's or am i missing something. Matt was asked to do a days work cleaning, for 25 quid? What about the time differences regarding who was to meet who at particular times and the reason why. This has got more twists and turns than a snakes armpit. Brilliant. No offence to either.

[Guest muttley]

You've gone a bit quiet Leon...I see you are reading this thread. Best one on here for ages.

Group Hug aaahhhhhhhhh Just 4 you 5 bellies

Edited August 14, 2007 by muttley

[thedogs]

I would like to put it out to debate the question of if the NMC award Mat the "van load of trophies" for a fish caught in an no fishing area, could this be taken that the NMC are condoning fishing in an none fishing area.

I would like the opinion of the forum; David Rigdens reply is hazy to say the least.

 

The NMC should promote good angling practices for its members young and old.

 

To award Mat B a van load of trophies would be like the well-respected BASS awarding a best catch and release trinket to one of its members who had caught the fish before joining the society.

[Angry Boat Owner]

What a super cut and thrust debate this is, when it is finnished there will be friends and enemies made, that i have no doubt, but it will be a shame if it goes all personall. I have doubts with some of the comments made that contradict themselves and conclude that who ever is telling porkies is made of so much rubber they could bounce to the moon and back as the 'stories' are so far apart. As Norm B now points out for example, was Matt given or denied the chance to fish, as previously Matt has said that he was. Hmmmmmmmmmm. There does not appear to be a lot of crap 'all' over the boat in the photo's, Hmmmmmmmmm. I am assuming that the fishing took part after mr angry b o had left and within that hour that was when all the crap was left that is not showing in the photo's. What was the state of the boat like before Matt started fishing, from what i read it was still not very clean. Why did mr angry b o state he took hours to clean up then to say he got it cleaned professionally, again it don't look too bad in the photo's or am i missing something. Matt was asked to do a days work cleaning, for 25 quid? What about the time differences regarding who was to meet who at particular times and the reason why. This has got more twists and turns than a snakes armpit. Brilliant. No offence to either.

 

 

Barry,

 

It's better than Eastenders ! I'm back at this flipping forum reading all the gossip...

 

I feel the urgent need to obtain 3 signed affadavits from the 3 people onboard my Dad's boat to confirm that the captor said he scooped the fish up in the net.

 

Herein lies the crux of the matter :-

 

a) The fish WAS scooped up and it's all got a bit out of hand

or

That was an excuse used as the captor KNEW he ought not to be fishing there

 

I can't think of any alternatives ?

 

Boat condition : It was brand new 4th April - ought to be immaculate just a bit dusty.

 

Crap all over the boat : you can't see the swim platform at the rear which had bread all over it and worst still the ducks found it and then sh*t all over it.

 

I did spend some time trying to clean it - then found that the bread/mush has set like glue on the teak. Had to have it all sanded off and treated with Sikkens Cetol - cost me over £500 - I can upload the receipt if you wish to inspect it ?

 

With regards to to timings - the date had changed a few time, once due to me as I was too busy and once as the Captor had forgotten he had to work in a shop - what time I was due to go down there to inspect the work is irrelevant ? In fact it's always good to keep "daywork" operatives on their toes by NOT turning up a pre-determined time - otherwise they will be FURIOUSLY working 5 mins before and 5 mins after :-)

 

A days work for £25 - again there have been some assumptions here - it was 4/5 hrs for £25 cash - which is WELL above the national min wage : see link here http://www.dti.gov.uk/employment/pay/natio...wage/index.html.

 

Again I think it's a little irrelavant in the grand scheme as the Captor himself emailed me and apologised for all the mess and asked NOT to be paid. (Why on earth would I pay somebody for a days fishing ?)

 

 

If time permits, I'll pop my head back in here in a few days time and answer ANY more queries.

 

Maybe at the next Mullet club meeting an improvised jury / witness stand could be rigged up :-)

 

All joking aside, as I have mentioned previously - it's a CORKING fish and nobody can take that away. But the circumstances are suspect for sure. If it were a court case you would need to decide on a balance of probabilities. Perhaps a vote ought to ensue ?