Rev Caffyn on the one show

[Peter Jacobs]

All this talk about stuff being edited out makes no difference, what went out and was seen by however many watchers

Of course it makes a difference, and a huge one as well. I grant Mark Lloyd with altogether more intelligence and knowledge of this particular problem than how the edited commentary and images portrayed.

There were very important points such as the dropped court case ( did that have anything to do with this letter being sent?)

No, the Court case failed long before the letter to the BCU. The plaintiff was advised to wholly revise or withdraw as his case had no legal standing.

if its not legal I don't want them where I fish winter/closed season or not.

On this point you and I do agree.

That said, we (anglers that is) have to be seen to be reasonable in our stance and negotiations prior to the Court's determination.

Notwithstanding, I would personally prefer to see a far more determined position being adopted by the Angling Trust as our first line of defence/attack.

 

[greenie62]

Of course it makes a difference, and a huge one as well. I grant Mark Lloyd with altogether more intelligence and knowledge of this particular problem than how the edited commentary and images portrayed ...

Perhaps Mark Lloyd could be persuaded to give his tuppenuth on the interview to the forum to clarify what was said v. broadcast?

 

[aebitim]

Im sorry but im totally convinced that the BBC are basically anti-angling as I cant say how many times that angling has been blamed for killing swans with lead shot,right to the present day,even though you cant buy it in tackle shops in the UK and the vast majority of anglers don't/wouldn't use it,don't blame the shooting lobby though,that blast more shot on one duck shoot than an angling club could drop in a season.:doh:

It is illegal to use lead shot in shotgun pellets close to water, they use tungsten alloy ones these days.

 

[thecrow]

Of course it makes a difference, and a huge one as well. I grant Mark Lloyd with altogether more intelligence and knowledge of this particular problem than how the edited commentary and images portrayed.



No, the Court case failed long before the letter to the BCU. The plaintiff was advised to wholly revise or withdraw as his case had no legal standing.



On this point you and I do agree.

That said, we (anglers that is) have to be seen to be reasonable in our stance and negotiations prior to the Court's determination.

Notwithstanding, I would personally prefer to see a far more determined position being adopted by the Angling Trust as our first line of defence/attack.

Sorry Peter but how does stuff that was edited out make any difference to what was seen on TV? if it was edited out it wasn't shown, unless you know what was edited out you have no more idea than I do what was and wasn't said by the trust, the point is that even if the important things were mentioned and edited out the trust should have maintained some control over how they were portrayed, surely the trust knowing how the BBC have treated angling in the past would have had a preview of what was to be shown before it was shown? if not it looks very amateurish and gullible on the trusts part.



I am fully aware that the court case was dropped before the letter to the BCU, the point I was trying to make was perhaps the letter was prompted because of that case being dropped and the reasons for it being dropped, again most anglers will not be in the know unless they were involved in the letter being sent. Its not important as it was just something that came into my head while I was posting.


On your last paragraph I totally agree, the BCU need to know that the trust are determined one way or another to sort this out, when they win (the trust) I see another battle on the horizon in getting the authorities to uphold the law.

 

[no-one in particular]

I doubt they will be on either side Mark, in todays world if it doesn't affect them they don't want to know, there will be some anti angling nutters that will hope the paddlers have a case I suppose but they were always there before this battle began.

---
Maybe Crow but, I can see this is how it will pan out one day possibly , the BBC doing a rich land owners and their wealthy clients spoiling the fun of ordinary people trying to have a paddle type of program as it becomes a bigger issue. being the BBC. (not my view by the way, just working it out). Then the public will get interested. Stuff the public! However, if you cannot get the sympathy of the public, will you get the sympathy of the courts. Should not affect the case in court but, courts are inhabited by people. !
You mention "battle" which is how this will be as it gets bigger and wider. many see it as a battle/war. I don't or wish it to be one. .
Fight this as an individual cases, case by case, as and where canoes are a problem or breaking the law. Breaking it into a bigger wider more published "war" with canoeists is in my opinion is a unwise move. I cannot see in the wider world of opinions, PR and politics it will be won. And the general view of anglers and angling may take a backward step. A grave is being dug for me and ordinary pleasure anglers.

 

[bennygesserit]

There are also quite a few anglers like me who think we should be actively working with canoeists to share a national resource , that way we might be able to limit their numbers on certain days , at certain levels of flow and width of river.

However I still believe the legal right is with us , the anglers and that Caffyn is incorrect.

 

[geoffmaynard]

There are also quite a few anglers like me who think we should be actively working with canoeists to share a national resource , that way we might be able to limit their numbers on certain days , at certain levels of flow and width of river.

However I still believe the legal right is with us , the anglers and that Caffyn is incorrect.

No Benny. There are some things which cannot be compromised. Canoeing and angling on a narrow shallow river are two incompatible pastimes. On the Wye, the canoeists have 70 odd miles of navigable river with a PRN in place. They should not be allowed to unlawfully paddle the upper river too.

 

[no-one in particular]

Hi Benny, public opinion is important, the law is as well if its on your side but, it is only one weapon.. I am fighting my own little battle which is on going. In reserve I have media exposure, the local rags, maybe even the BBC program The Big Issue. I am confident I will have 95% of the public on my side. The people I am fighting will know this if and when it happens. They will be worried about this I believe. Its a powerful weapon. If I thought I would not get 95% public support I would not consider this route.
The One Program is a mainstream prime time program. Its a big step up in the argument. I just don't know if this will do a lot of good to the cause.
However, I concede it probably does not matter what any individual thinks anymore. It has taken on a bigger momentum and will run its course. I just think now it has, the AT aught to think carefully about how it handles the big media exposure. Public opinion is going to be a lot more important and I don't want them to lose that battle, aside from the issue, angling itself is getting public exposure, play it badly and not good for all of us. I hope the AT plays this side of things well.

 

[geoffmaynard]

There were very important points such as the dropped court case ( did that have anything to do with this letter being sent?) that were not mentioned on screen, IMO the trust should have ensured that they were mentioned

Not possible. The BBC and most/all other broadcasters reserve the right to edit any interview to fit with their timeslot. If you agree to go on screen, you agree to their T&Cs. Probably why there was nobody from the BCU there

 

[bennygesserit]

No Benny. There are some things which cannot be compromised. Canoeing and angling on a narrow shallow river are two incompatible pastimes. On the Wye, the canoeists have 70 odd miles of navigable river with a PRN in place. They should not be allowed to unlawfully paddle the upper river too.

Like I said I believe the law is on the anglers side and the two pastimes may be compatible if the river is wide enough and deep enough. Do you fish your stretch every day ? Wouldn't you give up a few days to guarrantee some canoe free days ?

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Like I said I believe the law is on the anglers side and the two pastimes may be compatible if the river is wide enough and deep enough. Do you fish your stretch every day ? Wouldn't you give up a few days to guarrantee some canoe free days ?

In my opinion they are only compatible if, and it is a huge "if" there is an existing PRN on the stretch concerned.

No compromise!

Regardless of whether or not I fish a stretch every day I am paying for uninterrupted fishing and if that means no other disturbances in times when I am not physically fishing then , so be it.

I am also paying for the right to catch fish that have spawned successfully during those compulsory periods when I am not legally allowed to fish.

 

[geoffmaynard]

Like I said I believe the law is on the anglers side and the two pastimes may be compatible if the river is wide enough and deep enough. Do you fish your stretch every day ? Wouldn't you give up a few days to guarrantee some canoe free days ?

Would you allow trespassers to camp in your garden a few days each summer if they left you alone for the rest of the months?

 

[thecrow]

Not possible. The BBC and most/all other broadcasters reserve the right to edit any interview to fit with their timeslot. If you agree to go on screen, you agree to their T&Cs. Probably why there was nobody from the BCU there

Thanks for the enlightenment Geoff, as you say nobody from the BCU there, perhaps the trust should have adopted the same stance instead of appearing knowing that what went out may not have been what they thought it would be, I have never believed the maxim that all publicity is good publicity.

Sorry this post sounded a bit sarcastic at the start, wasn't meant that way.

---------- Post added at 18:31 ---------- Previous post was at 18:28 ----------

Would you allow trespassers to camp in your garden a few days each summer if they left you alone for the rest of the months?

I quite fancy a few days change of scenery

 

[Peter Jacobs]

In a nutshell the Rev said he could find no evidence of the Magna Carta being repelled by act of parliament, re passage of craft and fishes. Strange that Windy found it. Should have bleedin looked for it shouldn’t he, rather than rely on faith much as his cloth does!

I am really surprised to see and hear Caffyn stating that the Magna Carta is still effective.

In actuality only three clauses are still valid - one guaranteeing the liberties of the English Church; the clause confirming the privileges of the city of London and other towns; and the clause that states that no free man shall be imprisoned without the lawful judgement of his equals.

Other than those three surviving conditions, "modern" enactments have superseded the Magna Carta in its' entirety.

As the boy on the street corner used to yell, "read all abaht it . . . "

Here: BBC News - Why are there so many Magna Cartas?

The copy on display in Salisbury Cathedral is well worth the visit to see, but after October when the main tourist season has abated . . . . . . . . and if you fancy a decent afternoon tea afterwards then try the Red Lion Victoria Lounge or the Grassmere Hotel

 

[maggot_dangler]

I am really surprised to see and hear Caffyn stating that the Magna Carta is still effective.

In actuality only three clauses are still valid - one guaranteeing the liberties of the English Church; the clause confirming the privileges of the city of London and other towns; and the clause that states that no free man shall be imprisoned without the lawful judgement of his equals.

Other than those three surviving conditions, "modern" enactments have superseded the Magna Carta in its' entirety.

As the boy on the street corner used to yell, "read all abaht it . . . "

Here: BBC News - Why are there so many Magna Cartas?

Yes but do you Actually trust the " Biased Broadcasting Corporation " to tell it like it Actually is or just their twisted take on things as is more usual for them .. :wh

 

[Peter Jacobs]

Yes but do you Actually trust the " Biased Broadcasting Corporation " to tell it like it Actually is or just their twisted take on things as is more usual for them ..

The remaining effective clauses of the Magna Carta (or Great Charter) are supported by English Law and commented upon studiously by the likes of Simon Schama and Mark Juddery; so even the usually anti angling aunty BBC cannot try to alter that . . . . . .

Aside from those 3 remaining clauses, the other 60 have all been repealed or become obsolete by other enactments.

Clause 26 was the first to be repealed in 1826, and thereafter having broken the apparent inviolability of the Charter the remaining 59 clauses were repealed in the following 140 years leading to those 3 lasting clauses by 1969. Most of it being killed off by the Statute Law Revision Act of 1863

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#The_Great_Charter_1225

 

[alan whittington]

It is illegal to use lead shot in shotgun pellets close to water, they use tungsten alloy ones these days.

Well thanks aebitim,i didn't know that it had changed,one question mind,would you think the guys shooting pigeons near me are using tungsten pellets,i doubt they could afford the outlay(ive had to put my brolly up many times to stop being showered,let alone pheasant shoots,ive got my doubts,right or wrong,its to easy to buy lead and I don't think the shotgun lobby are restricted the way angling is(rightly so in my view).

 

[mark lloyd at]

As usual with the media, 3 hours of filming were edited into a short clip and some of my comments were reported out of context. What they asked me was "when would you let canoes onto rivers?" I replied that "all rivers are different and it depends whether it is a coarse fishing or game fishing river, or both". They then asked "what about on this river?" (we were filming on the River Exe, which they had decided in advance) and I replied "on this river, which is a game fishing river, canoeing could be allowed in the winter when people aren't fishing" (or words to that effect). They cut out the bit about it being river-specific.
It is important to stress that any access to rivers by canoes must be agreed on a river-by-river basis by the landowners and angling clubs concerned, to reflect the local fishing seasons and to protect fish and fishing.
This kind of misrepresentation is very common in the media. Every piece I see covered on the news on subjects where I have some expertise fails to tell the story accurately.
What is important is that the Angling Trust & Fish Legal are actually taking on this issue. We have spent several months worth of staff time dealing with local and national problems with canoes and we are making real progress.
Our legal case continues, we are just working through a 14 page response from the BCU's solicitors.
Anyone wishing to support our efforts would be welcome to join us at Angling Trust Organisation for Anglers. Please also support us by taking part in our raffle at The Angling Trust 2014 Raffle | Enter for your chance to win up to £5,000 cash or £2,000 Daiwa tackle
All best wishes
Mark
Mark Lloyd, Chief Executive, Angling Trust & Fish Legal.

 

[greenie62]

I'd suggest he was on about the Game Fishing Close Season but his statement made it sound like an all-angling Close Season - for someone representing ATr/Fish Legal - this was a poor 'mistake'.

Hi Mark,
Apologies for the vile calumny, but I think you've well explained the point raised.
Keep up the good work.
:thumbs:

 

[Peter Jacobs]

As usual with the media, 3 hours of filming were edited into a short clip and some of my comments were reported out of context. What they asked me was "when would you let canoes onto rivers?" I replied that "all rivers are different and it depends whether it is a coarse fishing or game fishing river, or both". They then asked "what about on this river?" (we were filming on the River Exe, which they had decided in advance) and I replied "on this river, which is a game fishing river, canoeing could be allowed in the winter when people aren't fishing" (or words to that effect). They cut out the bit about it being river-specific. It is important to stress that any access to rivers by canoes must be agreed on a river-by-river basis by the landowners and angling clubs concerned, to reflect the local fishing seasons and to protect fish and fishing

Many thanks Mark for clearing those points up; it was obvious really given the lack of flow of the conversation at that point in the interview.