![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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, -- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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, -- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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, -- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
All-American Carp Fishing Forum...now a reality | PKelly | Catfish Fishing | 0 | May 8th, 2004 06:06 PM |
All-American Carp Fishing Forum...a reality at last | PKelly | General Discussion | 0 | May 8th, 2004 01:29 AM |
Volunteers Needed for VT Fishing Program | Outdoors Magazine | General Discussion | 0 | March 4th, 2004 02:58 PM |
RECIPROCAL FISHING GOES INTO EFFECT ON LAKE CHAMPLAIN | Outdoors Magazine | Fly Fishing | 0 | December 29th, 2003 03:18 PM |
RECIPROCAL FISHING GOES INTO EFFECT ON LAKE CHAMPLAIN | Outdoors Magazine | Catfish Fishing | 0 | December 29th, 2003 03:16 PM |