Sea fishing licence?

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

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,

--

Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).
The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?
I don't think so.

Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).
The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?
I don't think so.

"Blue" wrote in message
...
Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).
The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?
I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------
10p shotgun cartridge!! thats is a fact. I used to deliver the mail to an
estate that kept hounds.

"Blue" wrote in message
...
Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).
The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?
I don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------
10p shotgun cartridge!! thats is a fact. I used to deliver the mail to an
estate that kept hounds.

In article , Blue
wrote:
Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).

More likely they would be handed over to the RSPCA - who would do more or
less the same.

The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

About a third can be found homes. The better hounds go to stud. The rest
are put down. Even those retired hounds that are suitable for homing are not
easy pets but there are always a few country people willing to take them at
their usual retirement rate. No more than a tiny fraction of them could be
homed if the whole lot were obliged to disperse at once.

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?

Some are, probably about half of them.

Cheerio,

--

In article , Blue
wrote:
Derek,
You seem to know about hunting with hounds, so I'll ask you the obvious.
There was much wailing by CA people that a hunting ban would mean a lot of
hounds that couldn't be household pets would be put down (shot).

More likely they would be handed over to the RSPCA - who would do more or
less the same.

The obvious question........... what happens to old, knackered hounds now?

About a third can be found homes. The better hounds go to stud. The rest
are put down. Even those retired hounds that are suitable for homing are not
easy pets but there are always a few country people willing to take them at
their usual retirement rate. No more than a tiny fraction of them could be
homed if the whole lot were obliged to disperse at once.

Are they kept and fed for years until they naturally expire?

Some are, probably about half of them.

Cheerio,

--