Government repsonse to 'No Rod Licence Petition'

Guest

Bread wrote:

stuartdv wrote:

Individual back bench MP's and indeed some front bench MP's dont necessarily tow the party line Bread so I wouldnt expect consistency- Skinner, Benn et al very often defied the Labour Whip

Incidentally- it would be interesting to see what the originator of this post has to say on the debate that ensued- or is Wattsy of a similar standing as Banksy?

I keep cringing at the response John Gummer might give - I know he'll cock it all up for use Tories.

And Gordy will be there with his shakey hands.........

It'll all end up in tears. I reckon we should just take them all fishing. big grin

I'm losing you Bread...you're breaking up...say again...over...Earth to Bread...over.....we've lost you

Guest

Houston, we have a problem! big grin

Occasional Joined: Aug 21, 2007 Posts: 106

Okay, stuartdv has lured me back (by Banksy did you mean write something on the wall and then run away happy

).

Here's what I think (at the moment). Having read a lot of the responses I'm falling heavily on the anti-side. There's no way that the fee can fund its policing let-alone any improvements to fishing.

With that in mind it's tempting to think that it's another tax, which of course it is in a way, but not a way to increase revenue for the State. That leaves the other possibility - a form of control. This seems to me to be the most likely. Of course it doesn't really control anything or anyone but it is another liberty lost which is the main thing.

The trouble with New Labour is that as much as they've been crapping on the poor and sucking up to the not so poor, they're still socialists at heart and when it comes to it, socialism is all about controlling the people (ask Stalin).

I'll end up buying one because if it's the law then it's the law and I'm a pussy when it comes to willful law-breaking. I'll resent buying it for sure but I will end up buying one knowing full well I might get asked for it two or three times in the following ten years (unless checking at piers etc. becomes the law also).

I say I'll end buying one because it will happen. I've seen the whole consultation thing before many times. They WILL do whatever they've already decided to do though. They will seek a wide range of views and they will listen to a wide range of views but they won't pay attention or act on them because that's not what a consultation is about. It's about making it appear to anyone who's not paying attention that people's views matter.

As far as I can see the only people that this law affects are sea-anglers. We're the ones who'll be paying for it and we're the ones it's supposed to benefit. But we won't because the money won't go anywhere - it'll be eaten up in administration and cocked-up computer systems that don't work and cost 10 times as much as they were supposed to.

The licence is part of the Marine Bill which covers more than just angling - commercial fisherman are also affected by the Bill and rightly so since they have such an impact on the marine environment. Anglers have relatively little (and if everyone took their rubbish home with them it'd be close to none!). Even if two million sea anglers went fishing all at once, there'd still be as many fish on the next tide, and the next and the next. Although perhaps lugworm would become extinct!

The more I think about it the more I utterly fail to see the point of a rod licence for sea anglers.

I am going to write an email to my MP as soon as I get a chance - everyone should if they have a view on the matter (for or against) even if your MP already agrees with your stance - they can cite support then.

If there's any chance of it not happening it probably won't be through protests but running out of parliamentary time or a war or something. If it were to be beat by protest I have to agree with the other posters who've said we need a charismatic spokesperson. The trouble is though, that even then most of the public wouldn't give much of a toss either way. That's 2 million of us and 58 million of everyone else so the government will say 58 million people "don't agree with you". Maybe we could push the 2 million up to 3 or 4 by including support from partners and immediate family but even so it's still over 50 million people they'll say.

But you never know; perhaps a future government will get rid of it? Laws do change - the Tories made begging a non-imprisonable offence. New Labour changed it back to imprisonable.

Guest

Brilliant post- what a refreshing change to see a well reasoned and thoughtful argument Wattsy

Guest

I have had a response from James Duddridge our local MP.

I quote:

"Thank you for your e-mail dated the 5th November. I read your correspondence interest and must profess that I was unaware of the government's intentions regarding this issue. I have written to the Secretary of State at the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs enquiring into this matter and have outlined your concerns. I have also commissioned a House of Commons Library brief so that I am fully aware of the details of the matter.

I will naturally be writing to you again as soon as I acquire a response from the Minister."

So there you go. The fact that this is getting under the radar of our MPs just shows that this is not being broadcast braodly. Write to your MP and make sure that they know!

Guest

It's intriguing to me that an MP doesnt even know what was in the Queens Speech

Guest

Hmmm. Mrix, are you playing silly burgers? Someone (and it's not me) seems to have moved this into the Sea Fishing Rods forum. Is that really an appropriate place for it? big grin