Bob and Jane James Suspended from ACA

[yoggy]

I for one joined the ACA 4yrs,and in my opinion any angler who cares about the enviroment they fish in and isn"t a member should think about doing so,,they do a fantastic job in trying to keep our rivers pollution free they fight what they believe in and rightly so.The ACA have only lost if i"m correct only 3 cases.I have only met Bob on 2 occasions and both times he was a true gent.I truely hope this awful mess can be resolved quicky and have the outcome we ALL want.As for AT reporting the incident i personally found it was done in a professional manner.Richard and his team have vastly improved AT and this includes the reporting side of things.regards.

 

[Ron Troversial Clay]

Here here Graham.

Proving again that FM is angling's top website.

 

[Nigel Connor(ACA ,SAA)]

Ron, I thought you already had an FM cap?

Have to agree with majority view on ATs coverage.If anything it was sympathetic to the James's.I do find it a little hard to believe that they were given no idea as to the basis of the allegations as this would be contrary to accepted employment law practice as Phil points out.

All will be resolved no doubt with hopefully no lasting damage to the ACA or to the James's if exonerated.

 

[John Lock]

Phil wrote "employees who are suspended should be told the reason for that suspension"

To quote Bob's words (as reported in AT) " ... no-one has come to tell me what is wrong or what this is all about. All I've experienced is a wall of silence".

I merely point out this seeming contradiction (assuming the ACA are aware that they should give reasons for suspension).

 

[Fred Bonney]

Too right Yoggy,as a member myself, I hope that some good for the ACA, will come of this.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

John correct! However, employers don't always follow this practice.
I know of one case very close to myself where the person was not told until 3 months after she was suspended.

It cost the employer (a charity) dearly because they lost unequivocally, in money, reputation, grant funding and worst of all the desperate clients it provided a very valuable service to.

I would not wish on anybody that 9 months nightmare of hell that person had to endure!

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

Was that a Liverpool based charity you are referring to Phil --if so,I think I know the one you mean and it HAS cost them a lot ......

John(Hepworth) --I don't know why,but you ALWAYS seem to look for ANY excuse to 'have a go' at AT.(do they owe you money or something)If it is not your 'cup of tea' the answer is simple-- Dont buy it.

In my opinion we need the likes of Angling Times and Anglers Mail to publicize our sport,and Richard Lee has done an excellent job as editor --and one thing he can't be accused of is not replying to any criticisms you or the likes of you throw at him .....

 

[Davy North]

Lets hope this thing is sorted out quickly, and for the best. The best being the future of the ACA. After all the ACA is about fighting polluters not personalities. For myself I'd like to see Bob and his wife cleared, he's long been one of my heros, but what ever happens I'll still be re-newing my membership.

By the way, what is Johns beef with the ACA.

 

[ED (The ORIGINAL and REAL one)]

Heheheh --he seems to have a beef with most things

 

[mark williams 4]

It worries me a little that Graham suggests he'll no longer support the ACA if this turns out to be tittle tattle gone public. The ACA is a charity funded by members, and its management are quite right to act with caution. Suspension isn't an accusation by the ACA, it's just a way of distancing those accused by a third party from the relevant affairs of the ACA - if there were some sculduggery, anyone left in place could, for example, shred documents.
I think we all sincerely hope that Bob and Jane come out of this with a smile, to continue their unstinting efforts. If they don't, the ACA will have been seen to have acted entirely properly, and will still be getting my money (which reminds me. I must pay my subs!)

 

[Steve King]

I think the problem is that there has been in-fighting within the ACA for some time.

Bob has told me what the allegations against him are, but obviously I'm unable to reveal this information.

Bob and Jane have my total support, and many staff and committee also support them. Neil Leaver has already resigned in support of Bob and Jane, unfortunately I believe that other resignations could follow. . . .

 

[david parker 2]

Amazed at how many people assume that 'nice' people aren't capable of making errors of judgement or being rather calculating in relation to specific things. Not meant a swipe at Bob and Jane...but the fact that someone seems 'a gent' or 'nice' is hardly grounds for making one's mind up that a person accused simply MUST be innocent. That's a cock-eyed as assuming all shaven haired, doc marten wearing males must be guilty when accused of something.

But enough of this madness. I'm off fishing.

 

[Andy Stafford]

Sounds very bad for the ACA to me, no matter which way you look at it. Bob and Jane would not have been suspended unless the allegations were both credible and of a serious nature, I'm sure that this step has not been taken lightly.
A vacuum is the last thing we need, rumours and innuendo will fill it quickly, which is in no one's interest. The ACA (at least whoever is there still) should go public at the earliest opportunity and tell members what is going on, surely the first rule of crisis management.
Despite the lamentably small membership, the ACA punches way above its weight for the good of angling and the environment. It is in all our interests that this is resolved quickly, so that one way or the other its work can be carried on effectively.

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

Ed, No the charity was Manchester Central Home-Start Scheme. Part of the National Children and Families Charity Home-Start UK.
The way HS nationally works is on a sort of franchise basis. Each scheme has its own Management Committee, which is sole in charge of that scheme. The National body has no jurisdiction over any scheme. Its role is an advisory one only.

The person concerned had ruffled fathers at national level over their outdated Child protection policy and other policies.

The national body told the MCHS to get rid of her, and they didn't care how they did it!
The MC trumped up charges against her in an attempt to sack her for gross misconduct. Each time she answered those charges and validated her actions, they went away and trumped up some more.

As I said it rolled on for 9 months, the scheme went from having a budget 650K pa to next to nothing. It made 24 staff redundant and many of funders withdrew most of the funding they'd been supporting it with.

The end of that living hell for the individual concerned came when the Chair of the M C had a Crisis of Conscience and told and gave a 7 page written and signed statement of all what had happened.

On the day of the sacking, the MC didn't have a clue that the Chair who by now had resigned, had given a written statement. The Union Rep opened the meeting up by saying ?before we start, we?d like to make a statement.? She got as far as saying we have a signed statement, and the head of hanging committee, sorry disciplinary committee slammed the note box shut and said, "What do you want to do about it?"

Obviously, the rep and the individual had discussed prior to the meeting the terms of their absolute surrender......."Well here are our terms of your surrender." Was the way it was put to them. The hanging committee, there I go again, sat there ashen faced, hoping against hope that the earth would swallow them up. IT DIDN'T and they had to agree to every demand.

I'm not at liberty to say how much the settlement was, but it ran into 5 figures.

Graham don?t have kittens about the fact I?ve named the organisations, as I?ve a two volume dossier of ever bit of correspondence including the Ex Chair?s written statement. It?s absolutely watertight Mate!

 

[Phil Hackett 2]

The above I think serves as a very cautionary story to all in this discussion we're having.

 

[MaNick]

Not ruffling any feathers.....

but, it's all very well saying that we should not speculate about the issue, but then people quiet happily divulge information about other "private" affairs....

If this was anybody else, maybe not quiet such a "nice guy", people would be quiet happy to speculate,divulge,make up,lie and contibute heresay!....

Lets hope the situation is cleared up quickly, with the right result, then maybe someone will tell us what it's all about!...



at the moment the thread might well be called...

"iv'e got a secret, but i'm not telling!"

 

[magicdog]

I'm not a member of the ACA but I have to say I'm surprised at the messages here to the effect of 'I'll be seriously considering whether to renew my membership' etc.

Surely, if the ACA does a good job for anglers, they will need their members even more after this - to lose a load of members because of this will drastically affect their ability to continue working?

 

[Bourassababe]

I really do feel that everyone is now turned to speculation which I feel is wrong.

Lets leave the subject and wait for the facts.

I've only been fishing for 3 years and have used the advice from the couple to help me fish with more confidence. So give them a break!

Whatever has occurred will be sorted out in due course and there's nothing that any of us says is going to change that

 

[Peter Knight]

Hi Steve King ! I met you while fishing with Bob last Monday. Good day eh?

Like Steve I know a little more about the way Bob and Jane have been treated and I'm very disappointed at the way this is being handled.

My personal opinion is that this is a witch-hunt. Bob and Jane have worked incredibly hard for the ACA for a combined total of around 28 years. They are both great ambassadors for our sport and I would never have got around to joining the ACA if it were not for Bob promoting it, as he always does, during his own free time whilst fishing.

I'm afraid that I cannot continue to support the ACA and I have now resigned. This has been a hard decision for me to make but if they can behave in this way I am not sure what the future holds for them.

Peter

 

[GrahamM]

Mark wrote, "It worries me a little that Graham suggests he'll no longer support the ACA if this turns out to be tittle tattle gone public."

The truth is that I've been somewhat troubled by the way the ACA is run for some time. We had a discussion about it on this forum quite some time ago and many felt the same as me, that they were not open enough, too aloof, and most of the time couldn't be bothered to even answer enquiries.

Many, many times I've asked for press releases to publish on this site, and offered to publish news items; anything in fact that would help what most of us consider to be a really good cause. I got nothing.

I thought it may have been because they thought that FM wasn't good enough, or big enough to do them any good, but even if that were true, surely the philosophy should be that a little good publicity is better than none.

And apart from that, I've been a loyal paying member for over 30 years, so maybe just me, as an individual member, deserved a better response than I got.

There are some matters we can't fully discuss at this time, but I will say that maybe some good will come out of this in the end, and the ACA will turn into a better run organisation that it is now. I hope so, for the principle of the ACA remains a noble one, and I don't want to stop supporting it.

Let's all wait for the outcome of this investigation and then make decisions based on facts rather than speculation.