River Close Season – Is it time for a rethink?

[black kettle]

Good Morning East End Warrior,

What do I mean by my comment of:

"“good for others watching this and other threads like it”?

I am of the opinion that this thread was started to gauge resistance "NOT" to debate the issue. Ray Walton put up Steve Popes former words when he questioned why on earth is this subject being brought up again? Well Steve Pope unwittingly hit the nail on the head because his former words could be used again to ask why on earth has the AT brought up this subject when previously under another banner they fought so very hard to retain it?? Remember Ray, I was a large player in a large team when we took this issue on in SACG and Steve Pope, Fred Crouch, Mike Burdon, the whole of the BS committee and virtually all of the BS membership were extremely passionate about retaining the close season. Fred Crouch especially so.

It appears to me that the AT know far more than they are letting on? Does this Martin Salter/AT move merely represent the hidden agenda's of angling's commercial interests? I have read absolutely nothing coming out of the AT about reasons for retaining the rivers close season when previously, we had reams of information as to why it should be retained. Anyone who fought this battle back then will be scratching their heads as to why the current rivers close season requires either scrapping or altering simply because nothing has changed. All of the major concerns for keeping the close season remain, so why are the AT riding out this chariot using Martin Salter to whip the horses? Do they assume a resigned ex MP carries a lot of clout? The general public don't think so because all the polls say the nation just don't trust MP's and the latest scandal over Maria Miller and her expenses just pours gallons more petrol on the public fire of outrage over how MP's carry on. Having said that, Martin Salter did not claim a single penny for a second home. Then again he didn't have one as he used to commute to work. Bravo says I. Shame a lot of the other money grabbing cretins didn't follow his example!

Does the AT truly represent UK angling? Who are the driving forces inside the AT? My personal opinion is the AT has made a series of blunders since its formation and this debacle will do absolutely nothing for their popularity. Of course the AT "claims" it represents angling and a handful of government underlings will trumpet the same music but the reality is, and always has been, the majority of our nations anglers are not in AT membership so how does it work that the AT represents us all? Its because there is nothing else and it really is as simple as that.

However. My money is and always has been, on the vast majority of grass roots anglers. It is they who buy all the tackle and all the bait. It is they who buy all the club memberships and day tickets. It is they who support EA fisheries with the purchase of their rod licenses. It is they who add billions of pounds to the nations economy via their continued involvement in the most participant sport in the country. Angling politicians call this majority "APATHETIC" And that's how much they know. Our grass roots anglers "ARE" UK angling NOT the AT who sit in their ivory towers so out of touch they could be sat on the moon.

The AT claim to government for compensation for the tackle trade for any losses incurred due to the floods is absolutely ridiculous hogwash. Imagine the scenario. Every time it rains hard twerps come rushing out the woodwork to claim money for loss of business cos its raining. Floods this, floods that. Climate change has arrived batten down the hatches B&Q are selling flat pack arks. The fact is we have been having severe flooding for all sorts of reasons since man came down from the trees. Cast your minds back to the winter of 2011-2012. It was the driest winter on record since records began resulting in water shortages and hose pipe bans across the country. No one on the Somerset levels got flooded that winter, or for many of the previous winters before that on a large scale. No amount of dredging will stop flooding when the jet stream strengthens because quasi-biennial oscillation forces the jet stream to change in a way that drives storms whilst serving to feed them in the process as they are driven onto our shores. Dig the rivers twice as wide on the Levels it will make no difference when the jet stream moves in the same direction. This problem manifests itself thousands of miles away far from our shores but when it does we cannot do a thing about it. Other than build our houses on stilts. Of course the dredging is not based upon any sound scientific or engineering evidence, its based upon knee-jerk reaction from a bunch of twerps galloping around like headless chickens fanatical about keeping up their perceived public profiles. In any case, who was responsible for cutting back on dredging in the first place?

Have the AT politico's read the science? Do they seriously expect this or any other government to dish out millions and millions of pounds to what is after all a independent economy? And if the government hand over the money how many other businesses will clamber to get their compensation in as well? Like I said its ridiculous hogwash. Our tackle trade has seen rain and floods before. Is this the best the AT can come up with? Its all starting to read like party political rubbish to me where they will jump on any broken wheeled band wagon to trump up and justify their existence.

I feel it is extremely unfortunate that Steve Pope made statements and said what he did in regard to the current rivers close season. Not unfortunate because of its content, but unfortunate given his previous stance over the whole issue. That he said it without the batten being handed to him by the BS membership or perhaps the whole BS committee is also unfortunate. Steve has been the spokesman for the Barbel Society for 19 years since its formation in 1995 so could hardly claim such an important opinion was being conveyed as an individual. Like it or not, Steve Pope wears the stripes of the BS having been virtually their only spokesman.

Now I know that the BS is not run along any democratic processes that I am aware of. Indeed it is totally the opposite akin to the democratic processes that virtually all of our nations angling clubs are administered by. Even so, only the most blind or short sighted dictatorship would fail to realise the sheer importance of what the rivers close season mean to the BS membership not to have given them the opportunity of having a ballot to air their views on the subject. Then Steve Pope would have the societies remit over such an important topic to speak on their behalf. I am unaware that any such ballot took place. What I am totally aware of is that Fred Crouch if he was still with us, would be fighting tooth and nail about keeping the rivers close season exactly the way it is.

Long post big subject Ray. I've only said a very tiny fraction of what needs to be said in defense of retaining the rivers close season. Much of that will come later in a bigger arena to this one hopefully.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

Also, when you examine those different dates you see there is only a very marginal difference between different regions, of what, a week or two,

Well try looking at a calendar, Peter, it's 4 weeks in one case, but my point remains unanswered by you that if game anglers can understand different dates (whatever the separation) then why cannot coarse anglers understand them also?

As to your point about game angler NOT complaining about close season, I thought I'd answered that question of your 8 years ago (or was it 2005?) - game anglers STILL KILL their quarry in many cases. Just as in 1878, you kill a gravid female, you kill all her eggs. I support a close season on trout, migratory trout, and salmon.

EDITED BIT: And to add - the winter time is not too nice to go game fishing on rivers, floods, coloured water (as has been mentioned), and simple bitter cold. Not many of those dedicated nesh (that's a northern term) fluff-chuckers want to be out in weather like that. It demands too much clothing, OK for coarse anglers, and would restrict their casting ability. So hence no complaints from them. Edited bit over.

I also support close seasons on certain coarse fish where they are deemed essential to the well being of the species, but maybe at different times and in different places.

Accepting that the key period for fish to be protected is just before spawning through until just after they've spawned:

Your comment is quite correct, Colin. Fish are in the very prime of condition just prior to spawning, it is post spawning, for about a month after, when they appear at the most vulnerable. I don't wish to sound anthropomorphic, but women are much the same. I have worked with women that are pregnant and expecting within days, but following the birth they are out of condition for months. This could be said for much of the animal kingdom, but some appear better to deal with it than others.

MS stated in his rethink article and I quote “It has also caused others to ask us to re-ignite the river close season debate and to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

Ray, perhaps you are reading too much into that sentence. The key words are "ask us" and that to me simply means open the debate and if those person have asked them to approach Government it by no means is a guarantee that the Trust will do that. It's just the way you interpret it, same as saying "They can fish.", so many different ways of interpreting it. Don't keep seeing an elephant in the room when there isn't one. Have the debate and then let's see.

All for now, must read more.

 

[black kettle]

Morning Crow,


"I think that we as anglers should be very wary of involving other none angling parties in the c/s debate, they have their own agendas which are nothing to do with angling and I dare say some of them would like to see anglers away from the rivers full time."

Not exactly correct from my experience of working with a great deal of conservation groups especially within SSSI sites when I had undertaken Draft Management Schemes. My experience is quite the opposite. Not one single organisation (including the RSPB and the BTO) were opposed to angling. Yes there will always be issues concerning discarded fishing line and litter and rightly so, but that is an issue that our own house has to put in order. Interestingly have you noticed the AT having a real big push over this subject?

What the conservation orgs ARE in favour of is keeping the rivers close season. I will stick my head right above the parapet wall and say it will be every single one in existence who will support a rivers close season. And I'll go further and state the entire game fishing fraternity will along with the whole of the shooting fraternity. There are also a lot of very influential and powerful angling conservation organisations that will as well.

The truth is, the pro close season lobby has not even become to get mobilised yet but it will.

This issue is bigger than anglers and it would be a mistake to think for a second that this is merely an angling issue. It involves a massive community who all have a vested interest in our rivers. Their support was called upon before and it will be called upon this time.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

You cannot provide more protection if you couple that with a shorter close season. As the good chief engineer was used to say: it's just not logical Jim!

Actually, Spock was Chief Scientific Officer. Do learn your Star Trek Peter.

What Colin is saying is that you can extend the close season, but with different times and different species in mind, thus making it shorter to cover specific species. It's simple to understand if you only open your mind to it.

This view totally ignores the fact that our sport impacts on the countryside and involves direct contact with a wild animal in its natural surrounding

Mick, let other people worry about that. We are anglers, they won't worry about fish. The amount of damage that anglers do to nature is so insignificant it just doesn't bear thinking about. Why is it that the average angler sees more kingfishers than the most observant bird watcher?

. . . only on a very few shared rivers CG.

No. On any river proving you have the owners permission or it is considered a 'free' stretch you have the ability to fish for trout after the various dates I referred to earlier with fly or lure. Sadly, fly fishing on the Thames doesn't work as Thames trout do not rise to the fly (Patrick Chalmers 1932). So using lures or fishing with a live minnow (EA permission needed for using a minnow trap) are the only ways.

stretch the bounds of selfishness to breaking point

And there go those emotive and divisive words again....

 

[mick b]

Mick, you've crucially missed out one significant factor; there is only a 2 week gap from the end of the coarse season to the start of the trout season... A rather busy 2 weeks if nature is repair and replenish itself!

Besides exactly what harm am I inflicting to the environment whilst sitting fishing?

Trout anglers fish during the day only, on a 'beat' (typically 2-400 metres of bank) alone or with another 'rod', they have the beat for the day, all to themselves, they fish in short bursts and take frequent breaks, they never fish in one place all day or even for an hour at a time, and leave zero bait on the bottom when they leave.
Also a 'rest day' is often imposed by the trout fishery, usually a Monday when there is no fishing whatsoever and the river 'rests'.
On most trout beats there is a chemical toilet which the anglers respect and use almost without exception.


Coarse anglers fish river in high numbers, often all day as well as throughout the night, fishing within casting distance of each other with no respite for the fish, wildlife or bankside vegetation, often during the hardest months of the year. They frequently leave large quantities of un-natural (bait) material on the river bed and use nearby hedges/cover as their toilet or hideaways for their rubbish.
Note: Human urine and excrement is highly damaging to a sensitive environment and a skilled ecologist can easily pinpoint areas used as toilets by the change in vegetation alone.

For information;
My County Wildlife Trust has won many accolades for its conservation work on the Barton Carrier, using sound science and good management practices allied to a sympathetic angling group the river is now a model of how to conserve and recreate a riverine environment.
My river Association employs staff who work full time on conserving our rivers and developing co-operation and good practices.
That is why I support them and will continue to do so, and why I do not support the Angling Trust.

As for 'trust' any of you want them to hold the rope while you go over the cliff?



History will show that Angling Trust has acted very badly in the manner they facilitated this 'debate' how they end it will perhaps be even more important?

Only Mr Lloyd has been prepared to write a few words, none of which mention why, with such a small number of individual members he thinks they 'represent' angling in this country.
Many football clubs have similar numbers of supporters but they would never claim to represent their sport!


.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray Wood 1 View Post
MS stated in his rethink article and I quote “It has also caused others to ask us to re-ignite the river close season debate and to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

Ray, perhaps you are reading too much into that sentence. The key words are "ask us" and that to me simply means open the debate and if those person have asked them to approach Government it by no means is a guarantee that the Trust will do that. It's just the way you interpret it, same as saying "They can fish.", so many different ways of interpreting it. Don't keep seeing an elephant in the room when there isn't one. Have the debate and then let's see.

All for now, must read more.

Jeff,
I see no elephants in the room, what I do see is a debate being asked for that neither Martin Salter of Steve Pope want to enter into. Why is that I ask myself, what have they got to hide what are the real reasons driving this called for debate by the mysterious “others” who MS seems unwilling to name?

I have asked questions that require no more than yes/no answers from each of them, like me many others are wondering why they refuse to answer questions or take part in a debate they wanted.

The continual refusal to either answer questions or debate damages them both and their desire to alter the CS.

You say I am reading to much into one sentence, I do not agree. The sentence clearly indicates that they and “they” means the angling trust are to make formal approaches to both the EA and Government. Unless my ability to read the English langue has deserted me. It has nothing to do with interpretation the words are there for all to read.

Perhaps MS could have worded that sentence differently but it is my honest opinion it is worded in the way it was designed. You may read it in a different way than I that is of course your choice, for me it is clear what that sentence means.

A bit like “Ronsil” it does what it says on the tin.

Lee,
Thank you for that very detailed response, your ability to put things into both respective and words is to be admired. I await more from you.

Speak later

 

[Peter Jacobs]

The sentence clearly indicates that they and “they” means the angling trust are to make formal approaches to both the EA and Government. Unless my ability to read the English langue has deserted me. It has nothing to do with interpretation the words are there for all to read.

. . . and therein lies the whole crux of the matter that has led to many people being very suspicious of the Angling Trust's motives in this instance.

The words are theirs and the meaning is perfectly clear for all to see.

Someone mentioned earlier that maybe its time for the pro Close Season individuals to form a closer association, and I for one would be happy to be counted in that number.

Over the years we have had many discussuions on this topic, and polls have been taken in both the national angling media and on websites such as these, and typically the result has always been more or less 50:50 so maybe it is the Angling Trust that is playing a dangerous game by prompting the discussion, yet again?

also, there has to be a good reason as to why some of the pro-abolishonists are so worried about involving non-angling groups and organisations . . . . . . .

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

“It has also caused others to ask us to re-ignite the river close season debate and to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

OK Ray, let's take it apart. There's is a connection within the entire sentence not separated by commas and certainly no colons or semi-colons. So what it says in the latter part is dependant on what it says in the first part, i.e.: “It has also caused others to ask us ... to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

There's the clue, "others to ask us to make...." no promise there that they will or ever intend to. I'm pretty sure that Martin, having been in politics, is very keen on his precise use of the English language. Ergo, I see no elephants. I worked with language translators for some years and that to me is as clear as day. Make of that what you will, debate by all means and I respect your views even though I disagree with them, but don't misconstrue Martin's sentence, please.

 

[Peter Jacobs]

And there go those emotive and divisive words again....

The only reason you say that is because the word selfish is probably the best word to describe what those who want to see the end of the Close Season?

It certainly could never be in the interests of the fish or our conservation or sporting credentials . . . . could it?

 

[Jeff Woodhouse]

also, there has to be a good reason as to why some of the pro-abolishonists are so worried about involving non-angling groups and organisations . . .

I'm not worried by them at all Peter, but to me it's like someone being bullied in the school playground and asking for his bigger brother and his mates out of fourth grade to sort them out for him. If we're to have and internecine battle, lets keep it that way. If you don't feel your arguments are strong enough then time to reconsider them (oh, RETHINK!) or find some better evidence to support your cause.

 

[mick b]

Mick, let other people worry about that. We are anglers, they won't worry about fish. The amount of damage that anglers do to nature is so insignificant it just doesn't bear thinking about. Why is it that the average angler sees more kingfishers than the most observant bird watcher?

Oh so thats the way is it.......Im an angler and I don't care about anything else!!!

Well I damn well do care.....and spend my hard earned money supporting those who care as well.

Does the Angling Trust 'care' ...???
I don't think so.........care about money, and perhaps their commercial 'friends', maybe their 'politicians' are thinking like you and also believe in looking after number one?
Maybe it was their 'friends' that asked for this debate, they are not saying so we can only guess?


Angling damage insignificant....total rubbish!
Anglers damage is tremendous, and impacts greatly on the riverine environment.

Simple trampling alone suppresses soft stemmed vegetation to the point where it can die out, this is why it is used as a method of plant control on some Nationally protected areas.

Anglers cut tress and bushes without any regard or care, except for their own requirements.
Cutting a tree badly will effect its structure for its entire life, to say nothing of the transfer of disease through poor hygiene.

Anglers cut or pull out reeds and rushes and dump them on the bank, or hide them away hoping no-one will see, no care is given to allowing the invertebrates in the stems or roots to return to the water alive.

How many coarse anglers wash their boots before leaving a fishery, none in my experience, trout anglers, hundreds if not thousands!!
How many coarse anglers use different nets for different rivers, Im the only one I know of.

The observant bird watcher spending the same amount of time in the same place as the angler would see just as many Kingfishers as an angler, probably more because he would be paying more attention, rather than fishing.
Anglers, are in my experience pretty poor naturalists on average, most can not even tell a reed from a rush.

mg:

 

[Peter Jacobs]

I'm not worried by them at all Peter, but to me it's like someone being bullied in the school playground and asking for his bigger brother and his mates out of fourth grade to sort them out for him. If we're to have and internecine battle, lets keep it that way. If you don't feel your arguments are strong enough then time to reconsider them (oh, RETHINK!) or find some better evidence to support your cause.

On the contrary Jeff, I am more than happy with the case that I have put, not only this time around but on all previous occasions as well, and with the current law on my side then surely it is up to your side to conclusively prove your case (?)

It just seems to me that (seeing that the Angling Trust [bigger brother?] is now getting involved) that the pro abolishionists are taking it up a notch, and like in all conflicts that causes proliferation on both sides.

So be it!

Now, what was the line from the movie Tombestone?

Oh yes, "you called down the thunder, well now you've got it"

[insert smiley thing > > > > HERE to prevent misinterpretation]

 

[cg74]

Peter J, I've listed your points to make it easier too answer. I think the problem in quoting your posts stem from you answering inside the boundaries of posts (mine) you've quoted.

1, "I am sorry but I fail to see the logic in that statement especially when viewing the known diverse spawning periods of our coarse fish."

2, "I am not being selfish at all Clive but I am simply trying to state an overall case to account for the many different types of anglers using the banks, from the dyed-in-the-woll specimen hunters to the Dads and Lads who go for a day's fishing; plus everyone else inbetween."

3, "Maybe that is the case for your type of fishing, however not everyone fishes that way now, do they."

4, "How many of those rivers are open to the general public? How many of thosehave a public right of way compared to having banks that are owned by farmers etc?"

5, "Sitting there targeting (or catching a by-catch of) gravid fish would that be? Why would you want to do that in the first place?"



1, 2 & 3, Because as I've already detailed by selecting certain bait types and sizes, it's perfectly possible to almost eradicate bycatches.
Not ever wishes to fish in the same way but they wouldn't be coarse fishing a river in late March or April as it currently stands, so no loss to them...

4, All of the rivers I listed need a big fat tick putting next to them in answer to your question.

5, Firstly I never stated that I would be fishing, I actually meant not fishing because as I know certain bycatches can be all but eradicated.
So I'll ask again: Can you tell me how sitting still and quiet on a river bank me selfish and/or does any harm?

What would catch if you catch if fishing the Thames around Oxford or the Severn from Bridgnorth to Worcester using 14mm pellets, paste or boilies:
Bream, chub and carp (oh and on the Severn you'll get barbel).
Perhaps we should broaden it a little further, the Wye from Hereford to Symonds Yat; Barbel and chub. The Eden from Wetheral to Carlisle; chub.

Which are not unduly laden with spawn.

 

[Ray Wood 1]

OK Ray, let's take it apart. There's is a connection within the entire sentence not separated by commas and certainly no colons or semi-colons. So what it says in the latter part is dependant on what it says in the first part, i.e.: “It has also caused others to ask us ... to make formal approaches to the Environment Agency and to government."

There's the clue, "others to ask us to make...." no promise there that they will or ever intend to. I'm pretty sure that Martin, having been in politics, is very keen on his precise use of the English language. Ergo, I see no elephants. I worked with language translators for some years and that to me is as clear as day. Make of that what you will, debate by all means and I respect your views even though I disagree with them, but don't misconstrue Martin's sentence, please.

Jeff,
I misconstrue nothing, like I said you interpreter the sentence any way you choose, and dissect in what everyway that suits your needs.
To me it’s meaning is clear, as for MP’s ex or standing they do not command much respect in the UK these days.Still fiddling and duping the electorate.

Did Marin facilitate this debate because he was asked to by ordinary anglers? NO. He and Mark Lloyd facilitated it for the “others” who ever they may be?

Perhaps you are one of those “others” who seem to have nothing to say in this debate, but one who is willing to debate. One can be seen lurking on FM morning noon and night, why is he so reluctant to add his views and comments on FM when he uses this site to promote both himself and his sponsors and his own agendas and self interests?

This whole lets have a re-think stinks, one has to ask just what the motives of the AT are and just what they are up to opening this issue once more.

I have no wish to argue with you Jeff and like wise I respect your views but disagree with them. So we must agree to disagree on MS’s words and other issue regarding change to the CS.

Respectfully yours.

Peter,
Like you I am fully prepared to come together with any the Pro Close Season individuals to form a closer association.

Regards
Ray

 

[chav professor]

There are undoubtedly ways of extending the fishing season..... But I have yet to fully understand all the intricacies - all seems very complex..... how could it be enforced??? Sure, on an expensive salmon beat or game fishery with a no-nonsense bailif....

What about the miles and miles of free stretches? just as significant.... clubs that control sections (i have fished a few rivers and never been checked for a day ticket).

If the close season is more an 'idea'... than an act of practical conservation/care on our behalf - even that may not be enough to abolish the close season.

Regarding tolerance between game/coarse..... I would argue that it is nothing short of elitism. Thats a different battle...... for a small minority, they seem to do well out of a rod licence we ALL contribute to.

I would suggest the EA are quite happy with a close season - its when electro-fishing/river management takes place.....

 

[black kettle]

Some great posts from the close season supporters.


"you called down the thunder, well now you've got it"

Those that sow the seed, must now reap the whirlwind

Ray (Walton) You were part of a looped message but have your messaging facility disabled.

Regards,

Lee.

 

[mick b]

I'm not worried by them at all Peter, but to me it's like someone being bullied in the school playground and asking for his bigger brother and his mates out of fourth grade to sort them out for him. If we're to have and internecine battle, lets keep it that way. If you don't feel your arguments are strong enough then time to reconsider them (oh, RETHINK!) or find some better evidence to support your cause.

Jeff,
The time for a playground scuffle has long past.
The lines have been drawn and its now a case of which side your on.

I did my fighting years ago and have a box of medals to prove I know how to win.

In my working life I met three Ministers of the Environment one for over half an hour in a 1-1 which finished with my project securing substantial funding.

I know how to fight with the pen or the sword, the Angling Trust and the abolitionists want a fight....well I for one accept!




.


Im prepared to give them one, alone or with allies

 

[chav professor]

whoops whoops

 

[cg74]

whoops whoops

I preferred the pre-edit version.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:50 ----------

Some great posts from the close season supporters.

I'd say that's due to you being of the same mind set...

 

[black kettle]

Mick B said this;

"Oh so thats the way is it.......Im an angler and I don't care about anything else!!!

Well I damn well do care.....and spend my hard earned money supporting those who care as well.

Does the Angling Trust 'care' ...???
I don't think so.........care about money, and perhaps their commercial 'friends', maybe their 'politicians' are thinking like you and also believe in looking after number one?
Maybe it was their 'friends' that asked for this debate, they are not saying so we can only guess?


Angling damage insignificant....total rubbish!
Anglers damage is tremendous, and impacts greatly on the riverine environment.

Simple trampling alone suppresses soft stemmed vegetation to the point where it can die out, this is why it is used as a method of plant control on some Nationally protected areas.

Anglers cut tress and bushes without any regard or care, except for their own requirements.
Cutting a tree badly will effect its structure for its entire life, to say nothing of the transfer of disease through poor hygiene.

Anglers cut or pull out reeds and rushes and dump them on the bank, or hide them away hoping no-one will see, no care is given to allowing the invertebrates in the stems or roots to return to the water alive.

How many coarse anglers wash their boots before leaving a fishery, none in my experience, trout anglers, hundreds if not thousands!!
How many coarse anglers use different nets for different rivers, Im the only one I know of.

The observant bird watcher spending the same amount of time in the same place as the angler would see just as many Kingfishers as an angler, probably more because he would be paying more attention, rather than fishing.
Anglers, are in my experience pretty poor naturalists on average, most can not even tell a reed from a rush."

Now that's what I call a post.

Regards,

Lee.