Bob and Jane James Suspended from ACA

[GrahamM]

Nothing like that, and even if it was that would have nothing to do with his wife who is the Director of the ACA.

 

[Jeff (Cheeky Monkey) Woodhouse]

I'm only just catching up with this as the subject was raised at our meeting last night.

No Nigel, I don't think it has anything at all to do with my lettre. I did recieve a very nice 2 page reply from Jane that I was hoping to do an simple extract from and disseminate amongst you peeps.

Think I'll hold back a while, but I for one am keeping a VERY open mind about it.

 

[Steve Hammatt]

As you say Graham, there must be some sort of serious allegation or the ACA wouldn't have gone public with it.

But "innocent until proven guilty" applies here, doesn't it ?

 

[Steve Hammatt]

On re-reading my message, my last sentence about "innocent until proven guilty" sounds like it was directed at Graham, which is wasn't. I was just agreeing with the general sentiments on keeping an open mind.

 

[GrahamM]

That's right, innocent until proven guilty. I think it would have been better for all concerned however, if the allegations had been made public. Right now, it's like the media has announced that two people have been dragged into court but that no one is saying what the charges are. Why announce one thing but not the other and have it lead to all this speculation?

It's not fair on the paying members of the ACA (and I'm one of them) and not fair on the James's.

 

[John Lock]

This story is covered in both AT and AM today. Nothing has really been added information-wise other than the ACA made the decision to suspend "after some members approached the committee with undisclosed information" and, in AT, Bob James is given a chance to defend himself. The rest of the article is padding (history of the ACA etc). The trouble with Bob's defence is that he doesn't know exactly what he is defending himself against, since neither he nor his wife have been told what the problem is, all he can do is give a resume of his good work for the ACA over the years. I quote Bob's words "No-one has come to tell me what is wrong or what this is all about". I'm an ACA member and I want to know exactly what the problem is. If Bob & Jane have done serious wrong I'll be the first one calling for their heads but, if it all turns out to be a petty vendetta or some other storm in a teacup, I'll be really ticked off because the ACA is one of angling's flagships and doesn't need, or deserve, any unwarranted bad publicity.

 

[GrahamM]

That's exactly how I feel about it all John. If this turns out to be something petty or unfounded then I shall be seriously thinking about what to do with the ACA membership I've had for over 30 years.

 

[John Hepworth]

I have not seen the Mail, but A.T. is yet another title to be added to what is now known as 'the gutter press'
Trying to make a 'story' out of what is so far a non event. Richarde Lee and whoever else involved should be bloody well ashamed of themselves.

 

[Coops]

Why John? AT is a newspaper for fishing related stories. If two well known people in a high profile angling organisation are suspended that's news. They haven't made it up, it's fact.

They actually seem to be taking a sympathetic view towards Bob James. They have every right to publish as long as they are not distorting or inventing facts.

 

[GrahamM]

The Director of the ACA and her husband, one of angling's best known anglers, suspended from an organisation that many of us have subscribed to for years, a non-event?

John, come and join us in the real world.

 

[Steve King]

I had a lovely day with Bob and a couple of his mates on the Wye yesterday. Bob is obviously gutted about the whole thing. I can't say too much, but I believe that the ACA has grown stronger by the efforts of Bob & Jane and that it would be a weaker an less effective organisation without them. Like Graham, I'm wondering about my ACA subscription...

 

[Ron Troversial Clay]

Come on John. Although I don't like some of ATs journalistic style myself, they not what I call "gutter press".

The ACA made the announcment and AT are quite right to report it.

Richard Lee has improved the paper considerably since the days of Higginbottom and Kelly.

 

[Blunderer]

I think we all know, but are not saying, that people are usually suspended like this for one thing only.
Gross Misconduct.
Now I am NOT accusing Bob James or his wife of anything, just stating facts. I think we can all hazard a guess what form of Gross Misconduct this is. I can.
I hope it proves to be somebody's malicious attempt to get at the two of them, nothing more.

 

[Cliff Parkin]

I've met the "James" a couple of times through work and a nicer pair would be harder to find lets give them the benifit of the dought until we now more. We should support people who help OUR fishing.

 

[Steve King]

I think that it is malicious Blunderer, however Bob & Jane don't even know their accuser(s) as yet.

I for one am confident that Bob and Jane are innocent and that this will be proved in the coming weeks. A nicer, more down to earth couple you could not hope to meet.

The whole future of the ACA is a differeent subject. If (as I hope that they are) proven innocent, do you think that they would wish to return to their former roles???

 

[Allan Marshall]

I have just read tomorrows AT, and it tells nothing about this story that throws any light on it.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

It is unfortunately the practice in employment law that if someone has serious allegations made against them, and we must until we know more assume the allegations against the James are serious. The employer has very little option other than to suspend the individual(s). Failure to do so is seen by an employment tribunal, if it goes that far, as neglect by the employer - if at a later date the employer dismisses the employee on the proven grounds of the allegations.

As a result of this, employers suspend employees to avoid this pitfall. The suspension letter normally says something along the lines of ? You are suspended from your post whilst an investigation takes place. This suspension does not infer or imply guilt on your part.?

ACAS code of practice also states, employees who are suspended should be told the reason for that suspension and the course of action that will be followed, including a time frame, for the matter to be resolved.

If the ongoing investigation exonerates the James?s, I see no reason why they should not return to their jobs.
Their employer has followed in my view (and I have substantial experience in this field from another life) the correct procedure as laid down in employment law.

I can even appreciate why the ACA went public about this.
Again, this is not unusual with high media profile people. It stops the rumour mill, corridor whispers, and tearoom exaggerations.
Bottom line, suspensions are a messy business for all concerned.

 

[Richard Lee 2]

Gutter press? Come on John, lighten up a little. It couldn't have been a straighter piece of reporting if we'd tried.
It was just a case of informing the public, and the ACA membership, of the suspensions. This is a big story that could ultimately change ACA history. The story is unfolding as I write.
I really don't understand why you are so aggressive all the time.
I am not the slightest bit ashamed of the AT story. And I'm not sure Graham is either, or he wouldn't have billed it as a 'Web exclusive' . Technically the first media outlet to break the story was fishingmagic. Therefore I can only take it as another personal attack otherwise you would have levelled the same at Mr Marsden. Thanks John.

 

[Ron Troversial Clay]

That's right Richard. AT reported the facts as they found them. Not only that, but the bit about who the ACA really are, was also important.

There are a lot of anglers who have never heard of the ACA and of the vital work they have done in combating pollution over many years.

 

[GrahamM]

I'm bloody proud that FM were the first to break the news about this. It's a big story and I can't understand anyone who thinks otherwise. Is anyone really thinking that the media should be keeping quiet about it? Both this website and AT just presented the facts and gave some background. That's what we're here for.