Sea fishing licence?

Hi
the councils themselves have no power to do that due to a very old law in
The Magna Carta which makes sea fishing in the UK free to all.

What you have probably heard is that the Government are considering
overruling the law and introducing a licence that would cost approx £22 per
person.

For more info get the October issue of Sea Angler.

Regards

Luis

"SL" wrote in message
...
I fish along the south coast. I have been hearing rumours that local
councils will be bringing in licenses for fishing off the beach. Is this
true? If it is, does anyone know how much these licenses will cost?
Regards,
SL

--
N.Groups: Take word SPAM out of email to reply.

FREE International Call Charges
http://www.san.steve.btinternet.co.uk

On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:50:09 +0000 (UTC), "Luis Troyano"
wrote:

Hi
the councils themselves have no power to do that due to a very old law in
The Magna Carta which makes sea fishing in the UK free to all.

What you have probably heard is that the Government are considering
overruling the law and introducing a licence that would cost approx £22 per
person.

For more info get the October issue of Sea Angler.

Regards

Luis
This is just political scare mongering as the government would not be
able to over rule the law. We live in the UK not some third world
country.

Norman

They are going to overrule the Lords on Fox Hunting and use a law that is
only supposed to be used in dire emergencies


oops top posted! to late to delete!
"Norman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:50:09 +0000 (UTC), "Luis Troyano"
wrote:

Hi
the councils themselves have no power to do that due to a very old law in
The Magna Carta which makes sea fishing in the UK free to all.

What you have probably heard is that the Government are considering
overruling the law and introducing a licence that would cost approx £22
per
person.

For more info get the October issue of Sea Angler.

Regards

Luis
This is just political scare mongering as the government would not be
able to over rule the law. We live in the UK not some third world
country.

Norman

On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 17:45:16 GMT, "Brutus Gold"
wrote:

They are going to overrule the Lords on Fox Hunting and use a law that is
only supposed to be used in dire emergencies


oops top posted! to late to delete!
"Norman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Sep 2004 18:50:09 +0000 (UTC), "Luis Troyano"
wrote:

Hi
the councils themselves have no power to do that due to a very old law in
The Magna Carta which makes sea fishing in the UK free to all.

What you have probably heard is that the Government are considering
overruling the law and introducing a licence that would cost approx £22
What the House of Commons have voted by a clear majority vote is to
ban fox hunting with dogs. If the House of Lords vote against the
House of Commons ruling it would effectively undermine the decision
made by Parliament.
The Parliament Act you refer to is not an emergency law. Until the
House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

There are two ways for a law to be passed by Parliament. The usual way
is for the Houses of Commons and Lords to agree the same text.
However, it now seems unlikely that members of the House of Lords will
change their preconceived views..

The other way comes into play when the House of Lords refuses to agree
with the democratically elected House of Commons. This procedure is
known as the Parliament Act. It is fairly rare, but has happened twice
since the 1997 General Election,

The Parliament Act was passed by Parliament in 1911 and amended in
1949.
It says (section 2.1) that

"if any Public Bill ... is passed by the House of Commons [in two
successive sessions] (whether of the same Parliament or not), and,
having been sent up to the House of Lords at least one month before
the end of the session, is rejected by the House of Lords in each of
those sessions, that Bill shall, on its rejection by the House of
Lords, unless the House of Commons vote to the contrary, be presented
to Her Majesty and become an Act of Parliament on the Royal Assent
being signified thereto, notwithstanding that the House of Lords have
not consented to the Bill..."

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal. All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.
Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

Norman

In article , Norman
wrote:

House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

Tony Blair has created the House of Lords that -he- wanted - and stuffed it
with appointees yet still they won't pass this one.

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal.

Yes

All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.

Hmmmm. The CA got 400K people to march in London. How many do you think
would actually turn up if the NFSA asked them..?

Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

You're wrong there I'm afraid.

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?

Cheerio,

--

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

In article , Norman
wrote:

House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

Tony Blair has created the House of Lords that -he- wanted - and stuffed it
with appointees yet still they won't pass this one.

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal.

Yes

All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.

Hmmmm. The CA got 400K people to march in London. How many do you think
would actually turn up if the NFSA asked them..?

Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

You're wrong there I'm afraid.

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?
What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.
It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.
It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in
the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

The House of Lords is another relic of English history and hangs on to
credibility only because the people with all the power in this country
support it.
In May 2000 a change was made to the way in which non-party-political
members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of
members. If he was I am sure the voting in the House of Lords would be
different to what it is.
If you recall King Charles 1 tried interferring in the running of
parliament and ended up causing a civil war, which he lost, and
eventually having his head chopped off.

Every other western country in the world has elected representatives
in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.
Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime
Minister now they are in government). The decision to ban hunting with
dogs was taken by parliament just as the decision to close coal mines,
steel works and ship building was in the 80s.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

Norman

In article , Norman
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?

What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.

Er, yes. Thats the point isn't it?

It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.

It can be done for much less but most followers don't ride. (I have never
checked but I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of those who ride to hounds
rather than follow on foot was similar to the ratio of those who boatfish as
opposed to those who fish the shore. Costs too.)

It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in

Well you -can- watch the hunt for free too. It's considered reasonable to do
so if you happen to be in the area and the hunt comes by but if you're going
to do so regulary then you should subscribe.

the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

Whereas they fully fit:
'To cavort, make merry, play, trifle or seek diversion.'

members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of

Remind me who appointed the Appointments Commission.

Take a look at the last seven year's new members.

in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.

OT: but I hope we never have an elected house, OK, start a new set if you
like but make them hereditory. The last person to trust with power is
someone who wants it enough to seek election.

Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime

Teflon Tony can be trusted to look good on TV, to feel our pain and to be
somewhere else whenever the consequences of his actions come to light.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Fox hunting is done so that you can have free-range eggs, chicken and lamb.
The huntsmen are professionals employed by the hunt to manage the business
(so tend to be of the managerial classes, they have to look after a number
of employees and the hunt's finances.) The MFH is usually one of the
landowners over who's land the hunt works but the members will come from all
classes. Ouside the home counties local people predominate, there will be
farmers, farmworkers, shopgirls, chefs, builders, nurses and even the odd
computer programmer.

If you are in south Wales you may encounter the Brangwen Miner's hunt, no
toffs there. In the borders and Cumbria there are hunts that charge a tenner
for membership and hunt exclusively on foot (John Peel of the song never
rode a horse to hounds, the fells he hunted are far too steep for horses).
Even in the Hooray-Henry belt around London the hunts go out three or four
times a week - but only at weekends are there toffs galloping around (and
fewer foxes caught) most of the real work is done on weekdays with only two
or three followers in attendance.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

The commonality couldn't care less about hunting (or fishing for that
matter). In general they can't understand why parliament is wasting it's
time on the topic instead of getting us out of Tony's fiasco in the middle
east.

A few frustrated socialist MPs (see what happens if you let anyone who wants
power have any?) are driving this for completely misplaced reasons. They
swallowed the stereotype and ignored the evidence. The AR nutters are
cock-a-whoop.

The pity is that the way the bill is phrased it will be easy for bans to be
extended to shooting and fishing by following the precedent.

Do yourself a favour - don't believe what I've written, check it for
yourself. Your local hunt will be in the 'phone book. Get in touch and ask
them. Arrange to go and see for yourself. While you're there ask what it
feels like to be the target of saboteurs every week - get prepared for when
they turn to angling.

Cheerio,

--

In article , Norman
wrote:
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?

What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.

Er, yes. Thats the point isn't it?

It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.

It can be done for much less but most followers don't ride. (I have never
checked but I wouldn't be surprised if the ratio of those who ride to hounds
rather than follow on foot was similar to the ratio of those who boatfish as
opposed to those who fish the shore. Costs too.)

It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in

Well you -can- watch the hunt for free too. It's considered reasonable to do
so if you happen to be in the area and the hunt comes by but if you're going
to do so regulary then you should subscribe.

the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

Whereas they fully fit:
'To cavort, make merry, play, trifle or seek diversion.'

members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of

Remind me who appointed the Appointments Commission.

Take a look at the last seven year's new members.

in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.

OT: but I hope we never have an elected house, OK, start a new set if you
like but make them hereditory. The last person to trust with power is
someone who wants it enough to seek election.

Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime

Teflon Tony can be trusted to look good on TV, to feel our pain and to be
somewhere else whenever the consequences of his actions come to light.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

Wherever did you get that idea?

Fox hunting is done so that you can have free-range eggs, chicken and lamb.
The huntsmen are professionals employed by the hunt to manage the business
(so tend to be of the managerial classes, they have to look after a number
of employees and the hunt's finances.) The MFH is usually one of the
landowners over who's land the hunt works but the members will come from all
classes. Ouside the home counties local people predominate, there will be
farmers, farmworkers, shopgirls, chefs, builders, nurses and even the odd
computer programmer.

If you are in south Wales you may encounter the Brangwen Miner's hunt, no
toffs there. In the borders and Cumbria there are hunts that charge a tenner
for membership and hunt exclusively on foot (John Peel of the song never
rode a horse to hounds, the fells he hunted are far too steep for horses).
Even in the Hooray-Henry belt around London the hunts go out three or four
times a week - but only at weekends are there toffs galloping around (and
fewer foxes caught) most of the real work is done on weekdays with only two
or three followers in attendance.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

The commonality couldn't care less about hunting (or fishing for that
matter). In general they can't understand why parliament is wasting it's
time on the topic instead of getting us out of Tony's fiasco in the middle
east.

A few frustrated socialist MPs (see what happens if you let anyone who wants
power have any?) are driving this for completely misplaced reasons. They
swallowed the stereotype and ignored the evidence. The AR nutters are
cock-a-whoop.

The pity is that the way the bill is phrased it will be easy for bans to be
extended to shooting and fishing by following the precedent.

Do yourself a favour - don't believe what I've written, check it for
yourself. Your local hunt will be in the 'phone book. Get in touch and ask
them. Arrange to go and see for yourself. While you're there ask what it
feels like to be the target of saboteurs every week - get prepared for when
they turn to angling.

Cheerio,

--

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

In article , Norman
wrote:

House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

Tony Blair has created the House of Lords that -he- wanted - and stuffed it
with appointees yet still they won't pass this one.

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal.

Yes

All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.

Hmmmm. The CA got 400K people to march in London. How many do you think
would actually turn up if the NFSA asked them..?

Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

You're wrong there I'm afraid.

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?
What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.
It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.
It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in
the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

The House of Lords is another relic of English history and hangs on to
credibility only because the people with all the power in this country
support it.
In May 2000 a change was made to the way in which non-party-political
members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of
members. If he was I am sure the voting in the House of Lords would be
different to what it is.
If you recall King Charles 1 tried interferring in the running of
parliament and ended up causing a civil war, which he lost, and
eventually having his head chopped off.

Every other western country in the world has elected representatives
in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.
Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime
Minister now they are in government). The decision to ban hunting with
dogs was taken by parliament just as the decision to close coal mines,
steel works and ship building was in the 80s.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

Norman

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:33:04 +0100, "Derek.Moody"
wrote:

In article , Norman
wrote:

House of Lords was reformed recently it always had a conservative
majority as the "Lords", who were not elected by the people, mostly
supported the Conservative principles.

Tony Blair has created the House of Lords that -he- wanted - and stuffed it
with appointees yet still they won't pass this one.

To introduce a licence or sea fishing tax the government/local council
etc would have to go through the procedure of making legislation to
make it legal.

Yes

All the two million + anglers would have to do is to
vote for the party that opposed this.

Hmmmm. The CA got 400K people to march in London. How many do you think
would actually turn up if the NFSA asked them..?

Sea fishing has a lot more support from ordinary people which
contrasts that of fox hunting which is primarily an activity rich
people indulge in.

You're wrong there I'm afraid.

A year's hunt membership costs about the same as a football season ticket.
A day's wrecking costs more than a day's hunting. It's cheaper if you
folllow on foot - the majority follow on foot.

Of course if you want to spend more you can - just like certain angling
tackle-junkies.

Outside the home counties the great majority of hunters are 'working' class.
(One of the checkout girls in my local supermarket for eg.)

Of course the Anti's don't bother to tell you any of this. It's no secret
that fishing is due for a lot more anti pressure once this one has gone
through, are you ready?
What you are talking about is a collection of people who following
hunting for its traditional aspects and are mearly observers.
It costs about £200 per week to keep a horse and thousands more to buy
all the regalia, horse equipment and transport.
It cost nothing to watch someone fishing and there is no comparison in
the financial outlay needed for the two activities. Notice I do not
use the term "sport" as neither activity conforms to the definition
"an active diversion requiring physical exertion and competition "

The House of Lords is another relic of English history and hangs on to
credibility only because the people with all the power in this country
support it.
In May 2000 a change was made to the way in which non-party-political
members of the House of Lords were appointed. The Appointments
Commission was given the key role of recommending to Her Majesty The
Queen the names of individuals they think should be appointed on
merit. As you can see Mr Blair is not involved in the selection of
members. If he was I am sure the voting in the House of Lords would be
different to what it is.
If you recall King Charles 1 tried interferring in the running of
parliament and ended up causing a civil war, which he lost, and
eventually having his head chopped off.

Every other western country in the world has elected representatives
in the various seats of government. The interim situation that exists
in the "Lords" there today will be replaced hopefully with a more
democratic setup in the none too distant future.
Why Tony Blair should come in for such hostility over the issue is
beyond me. He is the elected leader of the Labour Party (Prime
Minister now they are in government). The decision to ban hunting with
dogs was taken by parliament just as the decision to close coal mines,
steel works and ship building was in the 80s.

Sea fishing was traditionally done to supplement the food supply for
the people who lived in the coastal areas of the country. Fox hunting
was never undertaken by the common people. The faithful "retainers"
looked after the dogs, horses and cleaned the gentry's boots gripping
their forelocks if their "Lords" glanced in their direction.

The moral of all this is that the "people" will decide what happens in
this country and since Queen Victoria's era the landed gentry are
getting less influential and the commonality more influential.

Norman