Mr Editor, Sir,
Stemming this unnecessary debate is an interesting term as it's a two way street and goes back to a point made in the recent FM follow up.
I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe that he caught the claimed fish here in the UK.
The fact remains, however, that he himself could have "stemmed the debate" from day one with a prop in a photograph to prove, beyond doubt, that they were taken in the UK.
I appreciate that he may not have anticipated the furore his claims would cause but I still think a clued-in individual, if going to claim fish on the scale shown, would have opted for the "insurance policy" of photographic proof.
To not do so is, arguably, at best naive and, at worst, lays Mr Gay open to the claim of deliberately inciting this situation.
I didn't know Mr Gay and I want to believe his claimed fish and their origin but the fact remains, he didn't help himself, did he? He could have done so quite easily, to my mind.
He, himself, surely could and, more importantly, should have stifled this debate on day one. He could have taken photography to prove his claims easily and made that available to trusted persons / groups.
I want to believe he caught them here, but 99% is not 100% and Mr Gay, it could be argued, omitted that 1% through his course of action.
I really don't think I'm being unreasonable with these points.
Best to all.