bizz
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by bizz on Nov 26, 2011 10:42:34 GMT
Im supprised no one else has asked this question and why have those at the club not kept us informed. In the summer an angler was banned for life for refusing to return a large number of big tench that had been held in a keepnet for a couple of days. Surely the bailiff was in his rights if he sees fish that he thought could be distressed to ask for them to be put back and he dont deserve to be attacked for making his point. This morning i read a story by Ben Fisk in an old angling times and its the same dam story but with no names. every one in south yorkshire knows it was sid and ged at wintersett so come on Leeds why have you reduced the ban to two years and not reported things on a forum thats supposed to be for news, and with all the ooha going on other pages about otters shouldnt anglers get there own house in order over fish welfare.
|
|
|
Post by smithleback on Nov 27, 2011 11:07:13 GMT
bang right mate,some anglers there own worst enemy
|
|
|
Post by frim on Nov 29, 2011 1:10:40 GMT
Bizz, So we don't hijack a good Otter thread, i will answer your question over the Wintersett incident. The officials of the committee that deals with offenders (GP) on the evidence given by a respected bailiff who over the years has been as good as is word, voted unanimously to ban the angler for 10 years. The GP had never before had to deal with an offence as serious as the ones put before us, but felt that anyone who attacks a bailiff is not wanted by LDSA or anyone who risks the welfare of our fish for the sake of a trophy shot or any other reason is not wanted either. We are not trained in law but just try to do the right thing, the decision wasn't made lightly but we felt had to be made quickly to prevent the possibility of any future confrontation on the venue, plus the situation could have instantly been diffused by him simply returning his fish to the water. He was informed of our decision by solicitors letter and given his right to appeal. His appeal was put before the next delegates meeting in the form of a 9 page letter challenging the accusations and claiming that it was Ged that infact assaulted him, that the large tench were in no danger in a large keepnet and that carp-sacks were a much bigger problem anyway. The delegates decided to over rule our committee and reduce the ban from 10 to 2yrs, afterwards everyone on the GP felt badly let down by the members but had to accept that in the end all decisions are made by them. Steve Fearnley G P
|
|
bizz
New Member
Posts: 38
|
Post by bizz on Nov 29, 2011 16:15:16 GMT
Thanks steve but what a waste of time for your gp and ged stupid thing is that anglers could be doing more damage than the otters.
|
|
|
Post by gedthespread on Nov 29, 2011 22:31:29 GMT
i hope the delegates have realised by now how much this decision to reduce this ban has undermined the morale of several different bailliffs,the account of this incident given in writing by me was nothing more than a factual account,as you would expect from a bailliff,and as such it was not concerned with my personal opinions about the offender.Why is it that the ultimate decision on this matter is made by a bunch of delegates,most,if not all of whom have never even set eyes on wintersett?In these times when our fisheries are vulnerable to the problems of people taking fish for thetable and people stealing carp for other fisheries,it is more important that angling clubs support their bailliffs.and not alienate them in the way that the delegates have.The chances of myself{or any bailliff] approaching a group of poachers,and risking a confrontation are now smaller. There are certain angling clubs in this area that impliment a lifetime ban on members that turn up and nightfish their waters without booking in advance,this demonstrates a lack of perspective when comprared to assaulting a bailliff,perhaps a delegate would be prepared to come on this forum and give their point of view?perhaps while their at it,they may also like to tell us how long it is acceptable to keep a group of specimen tench in a keepnet,30 hours,40 hours?most normal anglers would say a couple of hours at most,others may vary,but lets bear in mind its not 1970,and issues relating to fish welfare seem to be a hot topic at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by frim on Nov 29, 2011 23:34:20 GMT
Its all down to the society being run to rules that are 100 yrs old Ged, and when it comes to hands on decisions like this they are next to useless. With the backing of all the newer officials I know the General Secretary Graham Park has put a lot of work into looking at ways to change things and bring the club into this century "I know he will give details when he is happy that he has covered everything" All the officials will continue to back our bailiffs 100 per cent and try to convince delegates that our decisions should be upheld, but unfortunatly some are a bit dim.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Nov 30, 2011 9:35:31 GMT
Some good points reaised, Ged, and some good counters too Steve. I now feel far better, personally, knowing that if i make a decision of the bank to remove an angler that the club will support me 100 percent, well, atleast the officials will.
We need to instill this into the delegates to also support our decisions otherwise poeple will do as they please and make the baliffs' jobs increasingly more difficult.
Maybe we need a few more delegates to offer up their time and bring the club and it's archaic rules into the 21st Century
|
|
|
Post by grahampark on Nov 30, 2011 23:37:16 GMT
Hi Dan Unfortunately you cannot have more delegates unless you have more clubs, two per club up to twenty members and one other delegate for every twenty other members. As for the archaic rules i am working on that but it will take time to change the whole consitution and rules, i personally would do away with the delegates meeting and replace it with a management committee and have quarterly members meetings, but as i say it all takes time.
Regards Graham
|
|
|
Post by dan on Dec 1, 2011 9:51:47 GMT
I didn't realise you can only have 2 delegates for every 20 members a club has, so thanks. I think everyone realises the rules need modernising, and truly believe that no one expects them to be changed over night, these things take time.
Thanks for comments, and I know how hard you guys in the office all work, so apologies if I caused offence, it was not intended.
|
|
gadge
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by gadge on Dec 10, 2011 13:52:49 GMT
As one of the other bailiffs at Wintersett I'm pretty disgusted about the decision to overturn the original 10 year ban. Over the last couple of years Jed and myself have put a lot of time in trying to sort out the many problems associated with the fishery and we like to think that we have got the top side of most of them. But this lack of support from the delegates is a bitter pill to swallow,maybe the next time the fences are cut down or the locks vandalised we should just leave them and let anarchy return again and see how long it takes the delegates to realise they also need the support of 'their' bailiffs.
|
|
|
Post by miller101 on Dec 10, 2011 15:55:33 GMT
if there was a 'like' facility on the site you would have a 'like' right now. Fully agree.
|
|
|
Post by gedthespread on Dec 11, 2011 16:22:26 GMT
would be interesting to know,just for the record,what exactly is the purpose and role of these delegates,what does the club get out of them and what do they get out of the club?
|
|
|
Post by grahampark on Dec 11, 2011 17:42:02 GMT
Hi Ged As it stands at the moment the delegates, who represent the member clubs of the society, have the ultimate say on all decisions made at sub committee meetings, this is convade to the delegates by way of each set of sub committee minutes read to the delegates meetings. This was ok when the society had over 200 member clubs and at delegates meetings there was standing room only and more importantly they represented the whole membership of the society, not so today with unattached membership being available and in my opinion this needs to be corrected as i have posted before and i am working to give members representation on their own account at meetings, not an overnight fix but i am confident of achieving this change.
Regards Graham
|
|
sidt
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by sidt on Dec 11, 2011 18:31:09 GMT
As the referred to "banned angler" and the subject of much controversy, I would I like to set the record straight regarding the incident between me and the bailiff at Winterset and hopefully put this issue to rest. This message is for Bizz and all those who have responded so far, and perhaps some who haven't.
First of all I would like to state that I would agree wholeheartedly with Bizz statement, the responses to it, the action taken against me and that bailiffs do indeed deserve to be protected. However, this would be dependent on me having heard both parties accounts of the incident, analysing the information and reaching an unbiased decision based on the facts before me. Unfortunately, this did not happen and a life ban was imposed based on only the bailiffs version of events!! Thankfully, the ban was reduced on appeal after I had been given the opportunity to present my case.
The last thing I want to do is perpetuate this issue and I am certainly not out to court support/sympathy from readers. However, I do think it's time the angling public were given a factual account of that nights'events and remind those who have already seen fit to comment that the only people who know what really happened is Ged and me.
I would like to make it clear from the start that the fish in my net had been caught that day and not 24,30, 40 hours and so forth earlier as has been suggested, information Ged was fully aware from our conversation a couple of hours prior to our altercation. The truth of the matter is that Ged approached me for a second time in a very confrontational manner. He demanded I return the fish to the water immediately or he would. When I refused Ged moved toward my keepnet and rods and I responded by standing in front of him. It was at this point and in a response to a push from Ged that I pushed him back. The outcome was to leave us both soaking in the waters edge and as I got to my feet I put my hand on Geds chest to prevent an escalation of the assault. Ged demanded I let him up and I did so immediately. As he stormed off angrily Ged stated he would bring his friends to "sort you out". At no point did I threaten to kill Ged as has been reported, or make any further move or comments except to say "bring who you like". With regards to the ban reduction has anyone actually thought that delegates may be in possession of more information than has been made public, such as the statement you are reading now?
I have nothing to gain or lose by telling the truth given a ban has already been imposed but I firmly believe in my right to give my account of events that night. I would also like to make readers aware of the fact that I have notified delegates and the editor of Angling Times ( thank's to their admitting the story was a inaccurate and biased account) that I am willing to fund and undergo a polygraph test and to pay a sum of money to a charity of their choice should my account of events be found untruthful. I have not received a response from either. I wonder why?
Finally, I would ask readers to consider their own responses if faced with this situation. I was doing nothing more than protecting my person and property from damage or harm which is a basic human right. As previously stated, Ged and I know the truth of what happened irrespective of what has been said or reported since. Perhaps our mutual dislike of one another got in the way of rationality but we were both in the wrong that night. Sadly, from the comments I have read so far it appears that bailiffs are above the law and beyond reproach. Please feel free to comment if you you consider it necessary but personally I think this topic has already had more air time than it deserves.
|
|
|
Post by dan on Dec 13, 2011 14:17:55 GMT
Sid,
What was said by Ged the first time he approached you?
Why do you have this perception that bailiffs are above the law? surely they are only there to enforce the rules set out by the club? if they feel something needs to be addressed, surely that request should be adhered to?
|
|