Who's been a naughty boy then

iannate

The fish made me do it!
Well, I'm glad that Mick Alcott, Fisheries Enforcement Officer said:
[we] work 24/7, seven days a week
I like to know that our money is well spent


At least they put this:
Customers who use third party sites may be charged more and might not get added to the official database as quickly.
 

Ray Roberts

Well-known member
If he used one of those third party sites and genuinely thought he’d paid then I feel sorry for him. They can be convincing and the government should have clamped down on them long ago.

If not then screw him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

rayner

Well-known member
I can understand folk not buying their licence. Not that I would ever brake any law.
But there's a big but.
The fisheries I fish in South Yorkshire and North Derbyshire never ever see a EA water bailiff.
Couple that with folk who have no dosh, those out of work or those who are on zero hours contract and low paid work, of course we will get the odd folk who will risk it.
It's wrong but I can understand it and there's no way I will vilify anyone who is caught.
It's not good that everyone throws stones without giving a thought for the poor criminal.
 

John Keane

Well-known member
If they can afford the tackle, the bait and the fuel to go fishing then they can afford a licence. Good job the “angler” in question wasn’t poaching salmon or they’d have confiscated his car too. No sympathy whatsoever for the parasites.
 

theartist

Well-known member
With the culprit also paying costs etc are the EA missing out on a windfall by not bringing more fines in? I saw plenty of anglers in the last few weeks who look like they could well be of interest to a patrolling bailiff

Look at how much us motorists are fined for the slightest misdemeanour regarding speeding, parking,box junctions bus lanes, no right turns, farting at the wheel etc Lots of revenue is made from driving fines, could the EA do the same with illegal angling?
 
Last edited:

John Keane

Well-known member
I don’t do the execrable Facebook or Twitter but if there is ever a video of bailiffs checking licences on YouTube then you get an avalanche of keyboard warrior gobshites proclaiming they don’t buy a licence and threatening violence on bailiffs. The sport could do without ar$eholes like that!
 

mikench

Well-known member
It's not good that everyone throws stones without giving a thought for the poor criminal.
I have no sympathy for criminals who deliberately break the law. Many motoring offences are strict liability and there is no need for the prosecution to prove intent. There are many poor people who do not break the law and they should be respected.
 

rayner

Well-known member
Some people get help from the Government with rent not food though, food banks provide that for families who struggle.
There was an article on the national news regarding clubs run by schools to provide at least one meal a day where it's needed. For people that I would call abandoned by the people who make decisions is abysmal to say the least.
OK in the great scheme of things no licence = no fishing. I believe that fishing is not just a pastime/hobby/sport, it is also a release from the constant struggle of trying to run a household and feeding kids, or mental illness. If you think it makes you a better person for turning your back then I'm dumbfounded. I prefer to keep my gob shut instead of throwing stones at anyone.
For people in need there should be help from the powers that be for folk who cannot afford to pay their dues. If a licence comes under that I could see nothing wrong
It's all well and good to poke the finger or throw stones at the unfortunate but there has to be a little compassion.
To liken fishing without a licence on a par with motoring offences that is totally absurd.
 

terry m

Well-known member
The law is the law and rules are rules. Falling on hard times doesn’t and should not mean that you get a free pass to flout those laws.

There may a debate to be had regarding people facing tough challenges and how best to support them, but that is a separate debate IMO.
 

markg

Well-known member
Some people get help from the Government with rent not food though, food banks provide that for families who struggle.
There was an article on the national news regarding clubs run by schools to provide at least one meal a day where it's needed. For people that I would call abandoned by the people who make decisions is abysmal to say the least.
OK in the great scheme of things no licence = no fishing. I believe that fishing is not just a pastime/hobby/sport, it is also a release from the constant struggle of trying to run a household and feeding kids, or mental illness. If you think it makes you a better person for turning your back then I'm dumbfounded. I prefer to keep my gob shut instead of throwing stones at anyone.
For people in need there should be help from the powers that be for folk who cannot afford to pay their dues. If a licence comes under that I could see nothing wrong
It's all well and good to poke the finger or throw stones at the unfortunate but there has to be a little compassion.
To liken fishing without a licence on a par with motoring offences that is totally absurd.
There could be concessions for people on the dole, a £10 licence maybe, £30 is a hit on the dole which is designed to just keep a person a smidgen above the official poverty line. I knew one commercial that charged less for unemployed people if you proved it and showed the right documents, not only kind but sensible as well, they had plenty of punters. They could do the same for licences, I dont think it would be a bad thing, maybe they would sell more licneces and have less licence crime..
And your right, compared to motoring offences is way off beam, even a wrongly parked car can create an accident and kill someone, when has not having a £30 licence ever harmed anyone and yet you get less for parking offences and no one takes any notice..

And while I am here, £621 for a first offence and a gulty plea is not justice or fairness in my book for a poxy £30, more like victimisation and profiteering by the state; it's a disgrace and because of that I feel very sorry for the bloke; he has become the victim!
 
Last edited:

s63

Well-known member
Have I missed something? I can’t find anywhere that this man is either poor, unemployed or bought a licence through a third party. The law is a complete shambles with an inability to match a penalty to the crime, however if this is a man of wealth then there maybe some justification for the fine.
 

bonjqvi

Active member
I agree that its a small price to pay for a years worth of fun ,irispective of wealth dole hard up etc .but I also find not everyone should be tarred with the same brush .
3yrs ago my so was hard up and only went fishing about 4 or 5 times in the summer months so he used to go to the post office and buy a daily ticket something I didnt know existed until then ,when ever he wanted to go .
well he went to devon cornwall area for a holiday and took his tackle as there were plenty of ponds advertised on the holiday site ,well when he went he asked the balliff what the crack was as in site rules and if he needed a licence the answer was NO hey ho after 5hrs fishing tap on shoulder can I see you licence . baliff was not there lots of letters phonecalls denied everything .court £200 lucky it could have been worse
 

markg

Well-known member
Have I missed something? I can’t find anywhere that this man is either poor, unemployed or bought a licence through a third party. The law is a complete shambles with an inability to match a penalty to the crime, however if this is a man of wealth then there maybe some justification for the fine.
If thats a reference to my post, I was not saying he should get a less fine if poor ect, my post was in two parts with one referencing licence fee concessions for unemployed people. The other was that £621 for a first time pleaded guilty to £30 crime is unfair and more like profiteering by the state irrespective of the mans wealth and I really don't like that at all. Fines should fit the crime and not for profit, this man is a victim of a crime by the state imo..
I know I am on my own in this, always have been and always will be, but that's what I think, always have and always will. I am not saying it's not a crime and should be punishable but it's way over done and I resent the AT for driving a lot of this. it's a £30 crime, thats all it is, nothing much is it.
 
Last edited:

Jelster

Well-known member
If the punishment doesn't hurt then people are likely to offend again. £621 is short of the £1,000 which (I think) is the limit of the fine, and that £621 included costs etc.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime......

I've never complained about a speeding ticket, I was speeding, got caught, paid the fine. You know you are breaking the law so you have no excuse. £30 for a licence isn't a lot really, it could be more....
 

Peter Jacobs

Moderator
Staff member
In all honesty, I have zero sympathy for anyone who is caught fishing without a valid licence.

The maximum tariff for not having a valid licence is, I believe, £5,000 so one can equally make a case for this person being very fortunate in getting off with 600 quid fine . . . . .

Personally I think any fine should be levied as a percentage of one's income . . . . as this is surely the most fair and even way of aportioning the punishment.

A paltry £60 FPN to someone earning on excess of £100k per annum is meaningless whereas to someone of the minimum wage could be devastating.

In many counties in Norway speeding is punishable by one month's salary (gross) for every 10 kph that you exceed the limit . . . . . now that concentrates the mind to a grand extent and you rarely see anyone tearing down the road in their car.
 

nottskev

Well-known member
I always buy the license and I agree people who don't should face a fine. The fine should be adjusted to reflect their income and means; the better off they are, the more cynical the offence; the worse off, the more even a small fine bites.

I have some sympathy with the view that we should remember many people live in circumstances that make it more likely they will risk fishing without the license, and I don't think a vicious tone is called for when the circumstances of a particular offender are unknown.

I think we should recognise the scale of the offence: it may be irritating that some bloke next to us on the bank has no license, but it's nothing compared to the driver behind us who has no insurance or driving license.

I occasionally find it odd that many anglers who don't have a good word for the EA and declare the license a waste of money, are eager to excoriate offenders.

It's hard to avoid being a bit political (small p) on a crime and punishment topic, but at the back of my view on this is my experience that most of my self-employed acquaintances would think nothing of "saving" the equivalent amount to a license fee by a bit of VAT or tax creativity, about which they wouldn't even feel guilty.
 
Top