Fishery owner and farmer facing legal action on his no eastern Europeans policy

[henry d]

2 hours ago, Rewulf said:

 

Im being inflammatory ? YES and your arguments have huge holes in them You need to read some of your replies on this thread ,and others. I did, that is how it works the whole reading/writing (and sometimes, thinking) works

Lets look at the facts.
Both lakes have noticed fish going missing, Im pretty sure that after 25 years of running fishing lakes, they understand that natural predators take fish.
They probably take reasonable steps to minimize this. Poor argument, not facts at all.
So, if an unusual amount of fish   'disappear ' can we not establish that something else beside predators and disease has taken them? No as you have dismissed disease without looking at the facts, try researching KHV, SCMS, both killing carp the latter from the mid 90`s and the former from mid 00`s. Then check out DNR and big freeze/summer fish deaths, both very recent along with algal blooms

If a man leaves the fishing ground taking with him, more than he took in, would you say there is a possibility he may be taking fish ? How many have been caught? Facts remember not made up stuff/conjecture

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/386379/British-rivers-stripped-of-fish-by-East-European-poachers

Do Brits eat carp ? No Yes is the answer, just not so much at present times, as an angler (I presume you are?) you would know this

Do Poles eat carp ? Yes All, no, some yes, please do not over generalise, its a poor argument

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/35028556/my-job-is-telling-people-from-eastern-europe-not-to-eat-carp-from-uk-rivers

Do you think there is a reasonable possibility that Polish and East European fisherman have illegally taken the fish ? Yes, you would/should have read that above, but so do british people
If you demand to search these people, do you think they will let you ?
Do you think the police would be interested in coming out if you reported it ?
So what would you do ? Too subjective and not relevant, it is up to the owner to sort out their security not mine, I secure my possessions to the best of my ability, he should with his.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-440226/Signs-warn-Polish-anglers-stop-eating-carp.html

You have had various water bailiffs tell you there is a problem, do you seriously believe there isnt ? yes there is a problem but it is not relevant to this story, it is conjecture
I remember early 2000 ish DEFRA wanted to arm its water bailiffs with batons and CS gas, due to threats from illegal fisherman, without naming any particular nationality, it was widely known they were E. Europeans issuing the threats, often with weapons. More conjecture, you were the one asking for facts

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1525698/Fury-as-migrant-anglers-eat-the-fish.html

So if your business is being robbed into extinction, and the law wont help you, what do you do ? More conjecture, you were the one asking for facts
You ban the people doing the robbing, and if that means a blanket ban using illegal signs, what do you have to lose? Who did the robbing, we only have the owner saying there was any theft. Secondly you need to know who is doing it, not "I was told..."
If it was me I would do it differently, with some type of membership, with an unwritten rule in it(for real? an unwritten rule?)..but does it make you racist to want to protect your business and property ? No, naming a racial group with no credible evidence does

Again ask yourself what YOU would do. I do, but I see no definative evidence for saying it was all the EB people taking fish, no solid evidence at all, everything you have put here has been other instances at other waters. Deal with this issue rather than turning broad generalisations into facts.
And stop seeing racism and discrimination first, and the bigger issue last. So you admit that there is racism and discrimination going on, thanks for that, I thought you`d never see it. Personally both are as bad as each other, both racism/discrimination and theft, they both are crimes

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/britains-rivers-becoming-hotbed-of-crime-as-organised-gangs-steal-fish-on-a-huge-scale-a6752271.html

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by henry d
Missed a bit

[walshie]

Blimey, you could argue with yourself in a phone box. 

 

[Newbie to this]

Like I've said before one is criminal (theft) and the other isn't (discrimination) until it becomes a hate crime. And in some cases discrimination can be justified, so not even illegal!

Edited February 27, 2018 by Newbie to this

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Penelope said:

Well said Rewulf, it's rife the country over.

****, the river Tay is poached by all sorts, but mainly Brits

26 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

Of course it is, anyone who fishes knows that. I fish
But its rarely reported, because its so difficult to prove, and dodgy ground to single out a 'minority' for doing it. As above mainly Brits here and they don`t care how they hook a salmon, as long as the hook stays put until it is dragged up the bank.

What really gets my blood boiling is, when someone does call them out on it, the media and people like Henry, get all outraged about the injustice and prejudice, not about the fish theft and blatant disregard of our laws (theft and disrgard of the law are much the same), but about a poxy sign ! Plenty of column inches for that! I don`t get outraged at that as much as I do when bad arguments are used to disguise racism

People complain about racism and discrimination, in this, one of the most tolerant societies in the world.
You end up punishing people who transgress even slightly across the red line they have drawn. Bad argument again, the red line is the red line, theft is theft and racism is racism, you surely agree on this?
Will this create a MORE tolerant society ?
By being intolerant towards the people who have lived here for generations, you create hatred and resentment where it may not have existed beforehand. I am sure both the native american and australian people would agree with you on that one. So they have to be tolerant of our traditions and we don`t have to be tolerant of theirs?
You reap what you sow.

 

[henry d]

7 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Like I've said before one is criminal (theft) and the other isn't (discrimination) until it becomes a hate crime. And in some cases discrimination can be justified, so not even illegal!

Rubbish, equality act 2010, "Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is a protected characteristic listed in section 4" Justification is used when sex or religion is the reason someone cannot be considered for certain jobs.

 

10 minutes ago, walshie said:

Blimey, you could argue with yourself in a phone box. 

 

No just common sense is not as common as some may think (and I use the term "think" loosely)

[Rewulf]

Your argument seems to consist of 'Yeah but, no but,  non answers' to relevant questions.
Totally proving my view about how you see the issue.
So, are you going to tell me that you, being a fisherman, have never heard of E.Europeans stealing fish out of rivers and lakes?
Maybe because of  where you live, I could give you the benefit of the doubt.
But according to you only 'Brits' do it where you are apparently.

You say you dont get outraged, and accuse me of using conjecture, then you cross all my arguments out and replace it with actual conjecture and your very biased opinion !
You go on to accuse me of a 'bad argument being used to disguise racism' so Im a racist now because I defend the farmers ?
Im not sure if you bothered reading the links, but it matters not.
You have totally proved my point.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

the river Tay is poached by all sorts, but mainly Brits.... As above mainly Brits here ...

37 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

So, are you going to tell me that you, being a fisherman, have never heard of E.Europeans stealing fish out of rivers and lakes? Why is this a question? Of course I have, and I ahve read about and seen Brits do the same
Maybe because of  where you live, I could give you the benefit of the doubt. Why, we have a huge Polish/EE community here, and some have been here since WWII
But according to you only 'Brits' do it where you are apparently. I presume you have sight problems, or something similar, see the quote above

You say you dont get outraged, and accuse me of using conjecture, then you cross all my arguments out and replace it with actual conjecture and your very biased opinion ! There weren`t any facts about the OP that you used in the barrage of Q`s above they were all conjecture, you asked me to use facts and facts need to be relevant to the case we are discussing
You go on to accuse me of a 'bad argument being used to disguise racism' so Im a racist now because I defend the farmers ? Are you defending the farmer or are you defending the truth? The truth lies somwhere between the two sides, both brits and EE people will steal fish, not everyone of those races, but some will. It is wrong to discriminate as it is wrong to steal, the sign should have said "No taking of fish" it didn`t he discriminated, he is as guilty as those who take fish
Im not sure if you bothered reading the links, but it matters not. I did and it obviously did mean something to you otherwise why try to point it out, however it s my question now, what did any of them have to do with this case? Just in case you missed it as you did earlier
You have totally prooved my point. Yup, sure did

 

[Rewulf]

I think you may have some anger issues, to be honest Henry. 

[oowee]

24 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

I think you may have some anger issues, to be honest Henry. 

I think you need to read the posts before replying.

[Newbie to this]

1 hour ago, henry d said:

Rubbish, equality act 2010, "Direct discrimination occurs where the reason for a person being treated less favourably than another is a protected characteristic listed in section 4" Justification is used when sex or religion is the reason someone cannot be considered for certain jobs.

Taken from .gov website

[walshie]

I think whoever uses the biggest and boldest font should win this argument. Preferably with extra exclamation marks to get their view across.

This has gone off-topic from a discussion about the rights and wrongs of stealing a man's fish to tit-for-tat points scoring.

Pedantry and browbeating won't make the other person in a discussion suddenly think you're right and agree with you. One person accusing the other of conjecture when they use it themselves seems a bit ironic. Obviously there are differing viewpoints here, but I can't see how dragging it on and on and on ad nauseam would change that. Wearing someone down till they just can't be bothered to answer any more isn't "winning" anything. 

 

[Rewulf]

13 minutes ago, oowee said:

I think you need to read the posts before replying.

No I dont oowee.

He talks about 'Brits' stealing salmon from the Tay , then tells me ,in very big letters not to drift off the subject.
He casts doubt that the E.Europeans take fish to eat, its a well known fact, yet he lives among a 'huge' community of them.
He casts doubt on my intelligence, and ability to reason through an argument, whilst crossing my words out, and ridiculing my facts as conjecture, with his own version of the same.
He accuses me of racism, yet knows nothing about me.

2 minutes ago, walshie said:

I think whoever uses the biggest and boldest font should win this argument. Preferably with extra exclamation marks to get their view across.

This has gone off-topic from a discussion about the rights and wrongs of stealing a man's fish to tit-for-tat points scoring.

Pedantry and browbeating won't make the other person in a discussion suddenly think you're right and agree with you. One person accusing the other of conjecture when they use it themselves seems a bit ironic. Obviously there are differing viewpoints here, but I can't see how dragging it on and on and on ad nauseam would change that. Wearing someone down till they just can't be bothered to answer any more isn't "winning" anything. 

 

Very true, and I know Im wasting my time.
Its the high horse moral stance that gets me going.
"Im a PC hero ,and Ill stick up for any minority ,even if theyre in the wrong" attitude , that will drag this country to a place you dont want to be.
My final word.

[henry d]

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

Taken from .gov website

And his justification is? If you want you can have a look at the exceptions HERE but I don`t think you will find it.

1 hour ago, walshie said:

I think whoever uses the biggest and boldest font should win this argument. Preferably with extra exclamation marks to get their view across.

This has gone off-topic from a discussion about the rights and wrongs of stealing a man's fish to tit-for-tat points scoring.

Pedantry and browbeating won't make the other person in a discussion suddenly think you're right and agree with you. One person accusing the other of conjecture when they use it themselves seems a bit ironic. Obviously there are differing viewpoints here, but I can't see how dragging it on and on and on ad nauseam would change that. Wearing someone down till they just can't be bothered to answer any more isn't "winning" anything. 

 

Ok, lets go back then, is stealing wrong....yes, but we also have to examine whether discriminating against a whole race is wrong or right too.

In 2009 he said he caught at least 10 eastern europeans stealing fish, but no-one was taken to court and no-one was beaten up. This led to him saying "It’s my place, it’s my decision and I will do what I want. There’s not a chance of any apology, I haven’t apologised to anyone in my life. There’s plenty of places they can fish apart from mine. I’d rather have the Poles here if they were honest, but they weren’t honest and Billy Evans isn’t a man to steal from. I’ll shut the place before I tolerate them back here – I don’t care what the lefties or the Human Rights say.” He added: “I can discriminate against any nation I want.” So instead of doing as some people have said previously, he put up a racially offensive sign and that too is wrong. The first wrong led to the second wrong, but does not excuse it or make it any less of a wrong.

Rolling on to December 2017, the press report about the sign is removed and this thread starts.

He is quoted as saying "he erected the sign after he was told “there’s Poles or somebody stealing fish” " So the two stories do not tally up, the first says he caught people stealing (but no legal action was taken) and then claims his family were threatened, how can this man be taken seriously. However as in the past he was adamant by saying "I shall still stand up for what I believe in.If they want to call me a racist for stopping thieves from coming on my private property that's what they'll do. I know I'm right and I'm doing the right thing." and that is quite appalling. Is every Polish/EB person a fish thief?

Absolutely wrong as is stealing, neither are right and I`m not sticking up for anyone, the OP was from one perspective and was shocking, yet as soon as you investigate the story there seems to be no proof of theft, the stories differ over eight years and he is saying that he can do as he likes and no-one else can. What kind of world would we have if everyone did what was right by their own reckoning, absolute anarchy. Yet the farmer thinks he can because he thought someone stole from him.

 

[Newbie to this]

9 minutes ago, henry d said:

And his justification is? If you want you can have a look at the exceptions HERE but I don`t think you will find it.

But it still isn't criminal. It's in breach of the law, but not criminal until it becomes a hate crime, whereas theft is criminal.

[grrclark]

2 hours ago, Newbie to this said:

But it still isn't criminal. It's in breach of the law, but not criminal until it becomes a hate crime, whereas theft is criminal.

You have said this many times and you really need to explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

Edit to add some clarity.  There is a distinction between criminal law and civil law, but why do you think this is relevant.  Also what is the point of your argument relative to the difference?

 

Edited February 27, 2018 by grrclark

[Newbie to this]

16 minutes ago, grrclark said:

You have said this many times and you really need to explain how you arrive at that conclusion.

Edit to add some clarity.  There is a distinction between criminal law and civil law, but why do you think this is relevant.  Also what is the point of your argument relative to the difference?

 

I'm merely pointing out that the theft is far worse than the inappropriate sign, as the theft is criminal.

[grrclark]

Just now, Newbie to this said:

I'm merely pointing out that the theft is far worse than the inappropriate sign, as the theft is criminal.

Nobody is defending the theft.

Also why is that relevant to the sign?

[Newbie to this]

Just now, grrclark said:

Nobody is defending the theft.

Also why is that relevant to the sign?

Because the theft of his fish is the reason for the sign, and some people have ignored the theft completely.

[grrclark]

4 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

Because the theft of his fish is the reason for the sign, and some people have ignored the theft completely.

I don't think they have really, what folk have said is the sign he put up is not justified by the theft of the fish as it is broad brush discriminatory.

There are a host of things he could have done or approach in a different way, but he didn't, he chose to discriminate and that is wrong.

Of course stealing is wrong too.

[Newbie to this]

We're just going around in circles, I've never said the sign was right.

We obviously have a massive difference of opinion on this matter. Theft outweighs the inappropriate sign in my opinion and that is what people should be most annoyed about, in my opinion.

[grrclark]

But the original post was about the sign hence the discussion is about the sign.

[Newbie to this]

On 19/12/2017 at 21:15, oldypigeonpopper said:

hello, as above, farmer and fishery  Billy Evans owner of a well known fishery in north oxfordshire being taken to court by a UK polish resident with money gained by crowd funding, the polish resident Mr Papiewski who works for the Angling Trust stated it made him very angry and upset that such a sign can be put up and will argue it is race discrimination, in his defence farmer Billy stated he is fed up with finding stolen fish when he has confronted fisherman leaving the fishery, oh and they were polish, this has been going on for the last ten years or more in the UK and i have witnessed myself, with many instances of violence, and even killing and take swans off the river thames, the Angling Trust is giving £2,000 to the legal costs, any thought PW fisher members   

The original post is about the sign and theft of fish

[grrclark]

The post is about Mr Papiewski bringing a court case in respect to the sign.  The sign is the whole point of he post otherwise there wouldn't be a post.

If the OP put up a post highlighting how there are cultural challenges in the theft of fish then everyone would agree that is wrong, regardless of who is perpetrating the crime.

As you said, a circular and rather pointless discussion in any respect, typical PW fare really.

[Newbie to this]

20 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

in his defence farmer Billy stated he is fed up with finding stolen fish

And about the theft of fish, the sign and the theft go toghther as stated in the original post.

 

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't anyone condemning the farmer's sign, condemned the offenisve, racist comment on this thread aimed at the British? Or is it ok to be racist towards the British?

Edited February 27, 2018 by Newbie to this

[grrclark]

Theft is wrong, the sign was wrong.  There you go.

I didn't read a racist comment against the British, but then again my brain was curdling reading so much of the unthinking twaddle that has been posted.