In reply to Post #15
Good point. But if you weren't actually working where you should have been, in fact you were working where no-one was actually allowed to work, would that then stand up?
Good point. But if you weren't actually working where you should have been, in fact you were working where no-one was actually allowed to work, would that then stand up?
In reply to Post #16
I doubt it. I'm not sure poaching would be classed as essential
I doubt it. I'm not sure poaching would be classed as essential
In reply to Post #15
Was the venue open to other anglers at the time or was it closed/locked down ?
Or was he guesting ...... cough cough.... and guiding ?
Was the venue open to other anglers at the time or was it closed/locked down ?
Or was he guesting ...... cough cough.... and guiding ?
In reply to Post #18
Angling not allowed on the venue full stop, nothing to do with lockdown. A friend of mine was taken there as a 'guest'. Poaching pretty rife on there, he said, free for all.
Angling not allowed on the venue full stop, nothing to do with lockdown. A friend of mine was taken there as a 'guest'. Poaching pretty rife on there, he said, free for all.
In reply to Post #19
Every man, his dog and his long lost chinchilla are on there now.
Saw it described as “the guesting lake with the worn out swims” recently... thought that was quite apt.
Every man, his dog and his long lost chinchilla are on there now.
Saw it described as “the guesting lake with the worn out swims” recently... thought that was quite apt.
So who was it? Can't see it anywhere?
So is this the same lake where another 'name' was supposedly caught a few weeks ago or is this the same story?
In reply to Post #22
I think the other ‘name' you are on about Was caught at another lake but has been fishing the one mentioned.
I don't think the ‘name' was on a tutorial because he had another ‘name' with him Apparently .
I think the other ‘name' you are on about Was caught at another lake but has been fishing the one mentioned.
I don't think the ‘name' was on a tutorial because he had another ‘name' with him Apparently .
In reply to Post #23
Makes sense
Similar to what I'd heard
Makes sense
Similar to what I'd heard
In reply to Post #24
Why don't you name them ? I've checked the legal implications and you will be fine 👍
Why don't you name them ? I've checked the legal implications and you will be fine 👍
In reply to Post #25
Yeah if your gonna be b******g about the guy at least have the balls to name them rather than being little girls
In reply to Post #27
They can't, it's against the forum rules.
They can't, it's against the forum rules.