Steve King
Well-known member
Why should either of those two sports have to put up with him?
Fair point, perhaps pocket billiards instead??!!!
Martin Salter on the Bob James Bust...
- Thread starter FishingMagic
- Start date
Fair point, perhaps pocket billiards instead??!!!
richiekelly
Well-known member
Fair point, perhaps pocket billiards instead??!!!
Perhaps he should join the paddlers, they don't seem to care about laws either.
barisaxman
Active member
Two things here.
1. The Wye is not a "largely salmon free river" True, they aint as many as there used to be. (I blame the bloody barbel infestation) but last year had one of the best salmon runs for a hell of a long time , due to the high water levels. If the rain continues, we should get another good year.
2. How do you know he didn't have a full salmon licence?
Talking about "salmon poaching". I overheard a conversation in a local tackle shop about a match angler hooking and landing an out of season salmon and was going to "clonk it" until he was told "They taste **** at this time of year, so I wouldn't bother", so he threw it back..... literally!
The fact it was out of season (January) and you can't take any salmon till 16th June and it was a kelt (illegal to take anytime) didn't seem to bother him.....
Can you imagine the uproar if a game angler did that to a carpy warpy.....
geoffmaynard
Content Editor
It's all C&R on the Wye now - no taking of fish at all.
Keith Williams
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2012
- Messages
- 49
- Reaction score
- 25
A Point worth raising in the light of the EA press release after the prosecution...
The EA officers claim it was clear that the tactics and the baits being used were clearly in his opinion for the purpose of targetting barbel.
Surely this is opinion of the individual and not a matter of law....does the EA Officer fish for barbel. is he a angling exponent himself with those determining skills ?
I would be surprised if this aspect of the prosecution is not revisited by the defence and give grounds for an appeal on the Facts as stated.
The Officer in question could not I believe give a factual opinion as any baits used which can be taken by any number of fish species present...accidently or otherwise targetted.
What hasn't been stated in the press reports is what tackle was obviously being used and seen at the time of the tackle Siezure when fouind in use.
I'm also sure that Martin Salter is briefed well enough to know that it was previously held in Fishery legislation ( SFFA 1975) with regard to a person(s ) being banned from holding a rod licence by a court, law requires a person to have been previously convicted for a rod & Line offence and thereafter only on a second and subsequent conviction that a person be barred by the courts.
Has there been a recent change to this proceeding??? if not its time the Angling Trust lobbied for the removal of a rod licence Holders right immediately after a 1st conviction....this would be effective
what is a problem is the fact that a barred person can STILL easily walk into a post office and buy another one under an assumed address identity and there aren't the EA officers on the ground to search out such frauds unless the post office alert it to the matter....and the use of a friends address who doesn't go fishing and loaned his ID to his mate just won't be detected unless of a complaint or tip off....
What does Martin Salter have to say I wonder ??
Food for thought!
The EA officers claim it was clear that the tactics and the baits being used were clearly in his opinion for the purpose of targetting barbel.
Surely this is opinion of the individual and not a matter of law....does the EA Officer fish for barbel. is he a angling exponent himself with those determining skills ?
I would be surprised if this aspect of the prosecution is not revisited by the defence and give grounds for an appeal on the Facts as stated.
The Officer in question could not I believe give a factual opinion as any baits used which can be taken by any number of fish species present...accidently or otherwise targetted.
What hasn't been stated in the press reports is what tackle was obviously being used and seen at the time of the tackle Siezure when fouind in use.
I'm also sure that Martin Salter is briefed well enough to know that it was previously held in Fishery legislation ( SFFA 1975) with regard to a person(s ) being banned from holding a rod licence by a court, law requires a person to have been previously convicted for a rod & Line offence and thereafter only on a second and subsequent conviction that a person be barred by the courts.
Has there been a recent change to this proceeding??? if not its time the Angling Trust lobbied for the removal of a rod licence Holders right immediately after a 1st conviction....this would be effective
what is a problem is the fact that a barred person can STILL easily walk into a post office and buy another one under an assumed address identity and there aren't the EA officers on the ground to search out such frauds unless the post office alert it to the matter....and the use of a friends address who doesn't go fishing and loaned his ID to his mate just won't be detected unless of a complaint or tip off....
What does Martin Salter have to say I wonder ??
Food for thought!
Last edited:
Frank Elson
Well-known member
I reckon the fine and confiscation was fair - it was within the law.
Of course Mr James will suffer far more because, now that his credibility is ruined, no Editor will use his stories... will they?
Of course Mr James will suffer far more because, now that his credibility is ruined, no Editor will use his stories... will they?
loggerhead
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 18, 2012
- Messages
- 68
- Reaction score
- 0
I believe that the Enforcement officer(s) would be considered by the courts to be 'expert witnesses' and therefore their opinion would be taken as factual. Also bear in mind that most EA bailiffs do receive extensive training for the job and most if not all are anglers themselves and well aware of all baits, methods and practises of the above average angler.
I hold no particular opinion about this case nor of the persons involved so I wouldn't wish to comment on any other aspect of this case.
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
It's only fishing, the guy committed a minor infringement and due to his "celebrity" the penalty is already disproportionate compared to the average angler, as it will undoubtedly have a detrimental effect on his livelihood.
Isn't it sad that a famous angling writer, presumably looked up to and idolised by young anglers should be caught breaking such a widely respected law of our sport?
Mr James broke the law for financial gain pure and simple.
It makes one wonder what other scams he has pulled in order to make a fast(er) buck?
IMO the fine imposed should have been ten fold the financial benefit he stood to gain from his illegal fishing.
Mr James broke the law for financial gain pure and simple.
It makes one wonder what other scams he has pulled in order to make a fast(er) buck?
IMO the fine imposed should have been ten fold the financial benefit he stood to gain from his illegal fishing.
B
Berty
Guest
Thats life! if i get enough infringments at work then i would lose my HGV licence, no matter how trivial some may think the infringments to be.
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
To me Paul, that's the relevent part, enough, i.e. multiple infringments. Whoever the culprit, it is still his first offence (or at least his first conviction)
B
Berty
Guest
I don't believe he got anything he shouldn't have......i would have got the same, he hasn't been stopped from fishing so he can still earn a living, IF anglers are prepared to pay for his services.
If i get infringments some employers may not want to use me......no difference.
He knew exactly what he was doing, as did those with him!
If the EA are that thin on the ground why buy a licence under a false name or borrow one in the first place.
Ray Roberts
Well-known member
He got the going rate for what he did, what's the problem with that? I don't think he should be punished for who he is, but for what he did. Generally penalties increase with repeat offences anyway.
itsfishingnotcatching
Well-known member
Totally agree with that Paul, however it seems that there are some who would see him hung drawn and quartered for his indiscretion, how come his accomplice still has a job in the angling press?
B
Berty
Guest
Yep, i agree with that.
---------- Post added at 20:14 ---------- Previous post was at 20:12 ----------
Probably because no one else wants his job, lol............i can understand some wanting Bob hung drawn and quartered though........he has "form"
justingarrett1970
Member
The law is simple so, yes, there should be much more stringent deterrents in place whether this be much higher fines (e.g £1000+) or a year's ban. Any subsequent infringements should receive a longer ban of 5+ years and possibly a lifetime ban for repeat offenders.
If these were in place, idiots like James would have certainly thought a lot harder and longer before breaking the law no matter whether he agreed with it or not.
If these were in place, idiots like James would have certainly thought a lot harder and longer before breaking the law no matter whether he agreed with it or not.
Jeff Woodhouse
Moaning Marlow Meldrew
A mate of mine reckons that were it up to him, BJ wouldn't have been able to commit this recent event as he'd still be banged up for his previous 'form'.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2009
- Messages
- 9,335
- Reaction score
- 1,692
Going off this...your first post n'all...I dread to think how stupid your next posts will be
