Here's The Evidence...Martin Gay's 50lb Common Carp

[FishingMagic]

http://www.fishingmagic.com/news_events/headlines/18106-here-s-the-proof.html

Weigh-up the evidence...ponder the statements...consider the facts...it's your shout, folks.

 

[paul1_]

Is that it?

Robin Monday told you last week by telephone Cliff, that there was no misunderstanding, no 'mistake'. Martin Gay told Robin about what he had caught WHILST ON HOLIDAY IN CANADA, and showed him the undisguised pictures of his Canadian commons.

End of.....

 

[Michael Loveridge 2]

I met Martin a few times , he struck me as an honest talking type of man , a very good angler , I have known Cliff on and off for 50 years , Ed I knew a little from my years with Moor Hall and Belhus .
I have read this thread from begining to end and I have no reason not to believe Martins captures , because Martin put his fingers up to the Modern so called
Carp establishment he was disliked
I have seen the over fishing ...... 4 rod swim hogging around every still water in the land, Martin had no time ,as do I for this trend in fishing , pools are drained in order to see the contents etc etc
If I was fortunate enough to catch such a monster I would not want the carp world knowing about it .
Well done Cliff and Ed , for putting together an honest and accurate thread together

 

[no-one in particular]

Its a lot of work Eddie but still no proof it was an English lake. I am sorry mate, as much as I can respect all those peoples opinions, its still just opinions, that's not evidence. I wish one of them could have said, its an English lake "because"- "I could see an English road sign, a group of English houses, an English castle", (anything really) -in the back ground, would have given it more weight but they cant, can they ! Because there's nothing there! at least one of them would have stated a bit more than that, law of averages.

..and I am not going to say anymore on it-I was waiting to see what you were going to come with as you said you would some days ago and hoping for something conclusive but, that's it from me.

 

[Michael Loveridge 2]

Hang on lads above , what about the evidence from Eddie above .

Martin was at a committee meeting when he was supposed to be in Canada ?
What about Neville flicklings quote ?
What about Chris yates quote ?
Surely this must be taken into consideration , have you all read it properly ????

 

[stu_the_blank]

Surely this must be taken into consideration , have you all read it properly ???

Do you know what evidence is?

There has been absolutely none to prove the carp was caught in England. That has to be Martin Gay's fault. You either believe him or you don't, it's a matter of faith not fact.

For me, I don't actually care that much,it was donkeys years ago. Let it rest.

Stu

 

[geoffmaynard]

There has been absolutely none to prove the carp was caught in England.

This is the nub. And it's wrong. This is the result of spin in it's purest form.

Innocent until proved guilty is a LOT different from guilty until proved innocent.

The accusation is that the fish was caught in Canada. This is the statement which needs proving, not the other way around.

Please everyone take a look at your own PB photos. If I accuse you that your fish were caught abroad and you do nothing to counter that wild claim, it's confirmed - then, you are all therefore liars. An accuation is all it takes it seems ;(

Stop asking to prove a negative.

 

[thecrow]

the whole point of 'evidence' is that it's NOT proof - it's EVIDENCE

Evidence, the available facts, unfortunately in this case the facts that are available are not the ones that would be proof enough to prove the case.

Myself I can only conclude that if the fish was caught in England that the reason the "well known angler" will not come forward and give his evidence is because the water in question was not one that was available to fish legally, or that the fish was caught somewhere other than England and the "well known angler" doesn't want to be involved in it.

 

[sam vimes]

Even if everyone agreed that they were UK fish, it makes no difference whatsoever. Right or wrong, the fish was never accepted as a record and never will be. Even if the location was instantly recognisable and the fish a known one with a ridiculous pet name, it wasn't weighed and witnessed properly.

I still don't know what to believe. It comes down to a matter of trust and, frankly, the whole thing is so distasteful, I don't particularly trust any of the protagonists very much. Too many agendas, too much politicking, from either side.

However, it does remind me nicely as to why I have such a dim view of the various societies/specimen groups and some of those that choose to be involved in them.

 

[eddiebenham]

Evidence, the available facts, unfortunately in this case the facts that are available are not the ones that would be proof enough to prove the case.

Do you not find it odd that the "evidence" given by Robin Monday is apparently "proof" and "fact" while the "evidence" given by nine others, including myself and Cliff, who saw the photos, is outrightly dismissed out of hand and not even considered worthy of consideration.
I do find that rather odd as I'm sure many others reading this do.
Guilty until PROVEN innocent - is this the new rule then ??

 

[arthur2sheds]

Well in one corner we have the believers, in another the nay-sayers, and in another we have the undecided, in another we have the know nothings, and in another we have the know-alls....

We are running out of corners here folks... it's never going to be settled one way or the other, because as long as the antagonists and protagonists have a hole in their bums.... there'll be arguments

Lets put it to bed and move on eh..?

 

[aquaslappa]

I grew up in Chelmsford and it was well rumoured locally at the time that Martin's fish came from Hanningfield Reservior, a 600 acre trout lake that can be seen from the road, in fact the road pretty much runs alongside it all the way round (google map it!). Back in the early nineties I used to going canoeing there and regularly saw huge carp crash out that would break most people's PB. I also remember a photo in the Essex Chronicle in the late 80's of a carp (I think around 30lb) landed by a fly fisherman there. This doesn't prove that Martin's fish is British, but carp definitely resided there at the time, it was close to where Martin lived, it wasn't fished by carp anglers (and to my knowledge still isn't) and could easily have produced an uncaught 50lber - even back then!

 

[Cliff Hatton]

Crow: you ask why the mystery angler who was taken to the water and confirms it was in this country won't identify himself. Well...would you want to spend the rest of your life being called a liar?

I wrote to him last week but have had no reply - almost certainly for the above reason.

 

[stu_the_blank]

Errr...Stu, the whole point of 'evidence' is that it's NOT proof - it's EVIDENCE.

Errr Cliff, Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.

In this case it's so weak that frankly it points to Canada being most likely. I don't know what the purpose behind dragging all this up after so many years was but if it was to try to push Martin Gays case, it's been a miserable failure.

Let it rest.

Stu

 

[thecrow]

Crow: ...don't s'pose I could borrow that wall of yours a moment

Only one wall on this thread Cliff, its the one that the investigation has hit

---------- Post added at 18:26 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Do you not find it odd that the "evidence" given by Robin Monday is apparently "proof" and "fact" while the "evidence" given by nine others, including myself and Cliff, who saw the photos, is outrightly dismissed out of hand and not even considered worthy of consideration.
I do find that rather odd as I'm sure many others reading this do.
Guilty until PROVEN innocent - is this the new rule then ??

What I find odd is the fact that nobody has come forward with any unadulterated photographs and the fact that there is a "well known angler" that could was taken to the water but he refuses to come forward to dispel any doubts.

I have no idea where the fish was caught, same as many others, all I can do is go on what I read.

 

[eddiebenham]

Crow, I don't believe anyone will have any photos as when Martin showed us the photos he always took them back, so I'm quite sure that you will never see one.
(unless the photos sent to Colin Dyson are still around).

As I, and others, have already stated, we saw lots of photos showing the water as well as "trophy shots".

I have told what I and others saw in those photos, but it appears that Robin Monday saw something completely different to all NINE of us.

 

[tonybull]

Eddie

Where do you think the water was ? was it in Essex ? What part of the country ?

Because if a mate of mine showed me photo's and wouldn't tell me where the water was, then I wouldn't defend him because you can't because you don't know where the water was.

 

[thecrow]

As I, and others, have already stated, we saw lots of photos showing the water as well as "trophy shots".

I could show you lots of photo's showing waters and lots showing fish, they would be from Holland and France but how on earth could you differentiate between those from an English water?

As I said I have no idea where the fish were caught and if there are no photographs showing the water to be English this is a futile exercise, only one man knew the whole truth and he's gone so that's it for me.

 

[Cliff Hatton]

"I could show you lots of photo's showing waters and lots showing fish, they would be from Holland and France but how on earth could you differentiate between those from an English water? As I said I have no idea where the fish were caught and if there are no photographs showing the water to be English this is a futile exercise, only one man knew the whole truth and he's gone so that's it for me" - Crow.

Perhaps it's just as well, ol' mate. A great deal of effort has gone into making the case for the English common. Both Ed Benham and I have explained, yes...ad nauseum that after decades of having a 'mountainous', British Columbian background, the modified photos now miraculously conceal the power cables of Lennox Power Station (ref P.Selman)

This has been the very crux of the matter.

 

[fishface1]

Crow: you ask why the mystery angler who was taken to the water and confirms it was in this country won't identify himself. Well...would you want to spend the rest of your life being called a liar?

I wrote to him last week but have had no reply - almost certainly for the above reason.

I know stranger things have happened, but why would he be called a liar? All he would be doing was reporting a fact that he had been shown a particular, named water, not vouching for the fact that the fish had been caught there.

Also, what about this "best" friend of Martin who was also shown the water? Sounds like Cliff, or Eddie may have known Martin pretty well, so I guess you would be able to work out who this best friend is, and then maybe get in touch with him?

That would add some additional "evidence".