DNA ...a new era for records or the start of a big mess ...

[Graham Marsden]

Well thats not how it is in Law, and thats what counts, the BRFC have no law holding on the records as they dont own it, the captor does, the BRFC stands for nothing in truth, as the record list is Voluntary, nothing more and wouldnt even be around if it wasnt for captors making the claim, chicken and egg, fish and captor what came first, you should know, you think you know everything.

I can only compare what you know about this, to that of your knowledge of outboard motors and the leads they come fitted with, forgot, the company that makes them were wrong and you were right. NOT.

God how boring this has become, as we went over this along time ago, and you were wrong then as you are now.

Ray Roberts will not be the only one who sees your reply for exactly what it is, and it needs no explanation from me as it is so transparent. Is that really the best you can offer to what could have been a sensible debate?

 

[Graham Marsden]

Furthermore, I won't be exchanging any personal insults or red herrings with you as I believe my argument regarding withdrawing record fish is strong enough to not need the support of personal insult.

They say far more about you than they say about me anyhow.

 

[Berty]

I have to say that if i could...in my wildest dreams.....choose to hold a British coarse fish record it would be either the Roach or the Pike........i see them as the icon's of British fishing......

Ray you should feel humble to have been given the honour.

 

[Ray Roberts]

What is the current record for a Red Herring?

 

[dezza]

I like to put my feelings foreward on this one.

The present day BRFC is in my opinion one of the best yet.....Andy Nellist is someone i look upon as a friend and i and ALL those who know him have total respect for his dedication.

We need a record fish list as a guide and to record angling history.....it needs to be retained within the angling world so that it can be monitored.....the BRFC are here for that.

If lady luck ever blessed me with the capture of a record fish i have total confidence that the BRFC would handle it in a manner that was totally fair and unbaised.

I also believe that it is THE FISH and not the captor that is the important part of the record ans should be recorded.........being the captor would be something i would be immensly proud of...........but it is the fish that is recorded for posterity.
__________________
Paul Williams

I fully agree with all you say here Brummie. The fish holds the record - period!

 

[Graham Marsden]

According to the BRFC (and they run the show) the captor holds the record but it doesn't belong to him.

As with the other analogy I used, the 'four minute mile' didn't hold the record, Bannister did. But the record belongs to history, and history can't be changed.

 

[Berty]

Hmmmmm.....

Personally i think it is "the deed" that counts.......eg, a sub four minute mile has been run, therefore if i want to hold that record i have to beat it.

Same with a fish...a 4lb something roach holds the record and if i want the record i have to beat it.

At no time during the " i must beat" thoughts did i think of the holder.....just the deed.

So either way, as you say history can not be removed from the equation, what happened, happened!

 

[dezza]

But there is a whole world of difference between a record fish caught on rod and line and say the shortest time it takes to run 100 metres.

The equipment needed to record the run, the time, the stopwatch, the measuring tape, and the athletes, who's performances improve as time passes, are always available. With certain fish records, a fish to beat the current record might never again be available.

That's why my logic tells me it's the fish that holds the record.

 

[noknot]

Thats what other posters have said Ron, and that's why the "record" should stand!

 

[Graham Marsden]

That's why my logic tells me it's the fish that holds the record.

What matters is what the BRFC say, not what we think. They say the captor holds the record.

The fish is the record, the captor holds it, and history owns it.

 

[dezza]

A fully authenticated record however should stand. Even the captor of the record cannot remove it, because it's been written in the history books and in countless articles in the press.

It's impossible for the captor to remove that record, because quite rightly, history owns it, not the captor.

 

[Graham Marsden]

Exactly Ron.

 

[Chris Hammond ( RSPB ACA PAC}]

I don't mean to fan the flames of any arguments, but it seems frankly lunacy to me for anyone to think they could own a record of any kind. Once it is verified it surely is just another piece of history?

How on earth would the disputee of any such claim prevent anyone from knowing the historical fact? 'Thought crime' was a fictional concept after all.

Blimey, the things people will get their knickers in a twist over. Only in angling eh?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

How on earth would the disputee of any such claim prevent anyone from knowing the historical fact? 'Thought crime' was a fictional concept after all.

I couldn't agree more, so I was hoping that Ray would answer my question regarding applicable Law (Act etc.) that he seems to think over-rules the records committee?

Very confusing . . . . .

 

[quickcedo]

15 minutes of fame has a lot to answer for.

 

[Berty]

15 minutes of fame has a lot to answer for.

I have got into loads of trouble in 15 mins

 

[quickcedo]

You and me both!!

 

[noknot]

So what is the BRFC record Roach now? All I could find was that it was caught in NI in 2006 with no mention of Mr Clarke???

 

[dezza]

I am sure that the roach caught by Ray Clarke is the English record.

 

[Berty]

Rays fish was the old BRFC record.....the NI fish is the new one, though some say it is not a true roach.