In reply to Post #441
...case in point:
Miss Georgina Ballentyne caught the largest salmon ever caught on rod and line. It has often been said her female pheromones were impossible for the salmon to resist. The truth is she was with the best guide and persisted when everyone else had given up and gone in.
...case in point:
Miss Georgina Ballentyne caught the largest salmon ever caught on rod and line. It has often been said her female pheromones were impossible for the salmon to resist. The truth is she was with the best guide and persisted when everyone else had given up and gone in.
In reply to Post #440
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
In reply to Post #441
Would you be willing to risk being sued and potentially lose everything you have? How exactly are you going to prove what's happened in the past? Nothing is going to stand up in court, even if someone's Mrs is a vet or whatever then that's a totally legitimate purchase of said hormone and means nothing.
Would you be willing to risk being sued and potentially lose everything you have? How exactly are you going to prove what's happened in the past? Nothing is going to stand up in court, even if someone's Mrs is a vet or whatever then that's a totally legitimate purchase of said hormone and means nothing.
In reply to Post #440
I agree that persistent heavy baiting of the same spot is a very good tactic, and underused in that many can't/won't put the time and money into it.
In the cases being discussed the anglers specifically said that they had not pre baited or put any prep work in. Listen to the Kevin Hewitt Nash podcast.
I agree that persistent heavy baiting of the same spot is a very good tactic, and underused in that many can't/won't put the time and money into it.
In the cases being discussed the anglers specifically said that they had not pre baited or put any prep work in. Listen to the Kevin Hewitt Nash podcast.
Some people on here have a very Hollywood view of our legal system. Do people know how much defamation/slander/libel cases cost to take through court? If the statements against them are true there is no chance that it would be worth risking all that money.
If people know that this illegal substance is being used and know this to be 100% true then they should have some morals, protect the sport that we all love and speak out. All this dancing around the subject is embarrassing.
If people know that this illegal substance is being used and know this to be 100% true then they should have some morals, protect the sport that we all love and speak out. All this dancing around the subject is embarrassing.
In reply to Post #446
They all know that this will bring the end of the booming industry. How many videos, articles, etc can you make when the customer base has little faith? It's not just the users of it that will suffer. The entire industry would. It's why they are brushing it under the rug. Problem is, the damage is already done. I don't think they'll be many anglers that see a big hit of fish and dont immediately think “on the hormone probably” and discount it.
They all know that this will bring the end of the booming industry. How many videos, articles, etc can you make when the customer base has little faith? It's not just the users of it that will suffer. The entire industry would. It's why they are brushing it under the rug. Problem is, the damage is already done. I don't think they'll be many anglers that see a big hit of fish and dont immediately think “on the hormone probably” and discount it.
In reply to Post #446
Great point, and to add another...
If I make a discovery of a new product, process or service at work, the intellectual property (ip) belongs to my employer, its in my contract.
If a consultant of a bait Company discovers a great edge whilst under contract to said company, why on earth would they not report, develop and commercialise the opportunity, especially on the back of such a wave of publicity, surely this is the perfect storm, assuming the product or edge is above board and legit?
Moreover, how would you feel if your consultants had a super 'edge', whilst working and representing your company potentially taking salary, free or discounted products, publicly endorsing the company and brand, yet failed to divulge said edge???
To me, whatever has gone on and whomever has done it, something does not ring true, there is no logical explanation that I can think of that is marketable or equitable, which leads me, as a reasonable man to believe the 'edge' is neither.....
Great point, and to add another...
If I make a discovery of a new product, process or service at work, the intellectual property (ip) belongs to my employer, its in my contract.
If a consultant of a bait Company discovers a great edge whilst under contract to said company, why on earth would they not report, develop and commercialise the opportunity, especially on the back of such a wave of publicity, surely this is the perfect storm, assuming the product or edge is above board and legit?
Moreover, how would you feel if your consultants had a super 'edge', whilst working and representing your company potentially taking salary, free or discounted products, publicly endorsing the company and brand, yet failed to divulge said edge???
To me, whatever has gone on and whomever has done it, something does not ring true, there is no logical explanation that I can think of that is marketable or equitable, which leads me, as a reasonable man to believe the 'edge' is neither.....
In reply to Post #444
Civil court is totally different to criminal court.
A libel or slander case has to be paid to be 'prosecuted', it is a civil case, not a criminal case. In other words, the person or persons who feel they have been wronged, libelled etc. have to pay to take it to court. If they win, then they will get costs returned in the form of the judgement.
It may not be a guarantee as it is not judge and jury, just the judges decision, until he decides a jury is required I believe, to examine specific material relevant to the case.
Civil court is totally different to criminal court.
A libel or slander case has to be paid to be 'prosecuted', it is a civil case, not a criminal case. In other words, the person or persons who feel they have been wronged, libelled etc. have to pay to take it to court. If they win, then they will get costs returned in the form of the judgement.
It may not be a guarantee as it is not judge and jury, just the judges decision, until he decides a jury is required I believe, to examine specific material relevant to the case.
In reply to Post #446
I know how the legal system works. I also know that it doesn't matter how true you know something is, if you can't stone cold prove it (how's anyone going to do that in this situation?) then you would lose should it ever go to court. Then you'd be liable for said other party's massive costs and probably end up with you and your kids homeless. Who's to say RH wouldn't fund it, knowing full well they would win? Would you risk it?
I know how the legal system works. I also know that it doesn't matter how true you know something is, if you can't stone cold prove it (how's anyone going to do that in this situation?) then you would lose should it ever go to court. Then you'd be liable for said other party's massive costs and probably end up with you and your kids homeless. Who's to say RH wouldn't fund it, knowing full well they would win? Would you risk it?
In reply to Post #449
Who said anything about criminal court? How can you win a case if someone sues you for something you've said, but with zero proof?
‘Yeah but he's had all those big hits, everyone knows he's on the sauce, listen to the podcasts!' Isn't going to cut it. So you lose, then as you said, pay the other party's costs, and you're ruined.
There are people with deep pockets who have a vested interest here, why do you think anybody who's said something has retracted their statements?
Easy to say ‘if someone knows it's happening then they need to speak up' when it's not your house on the line.
Who said anything about criminal court? How can you win a case if someone sues you for something you've said, but with zero proof?
‘Yeah but he's had all those big hits, everyone knows he's on the sauce, listen to the podcasts!' Isn't going to cut it. So you lose, then as you said, pay the other party's costs, and you're ruined.
There are people with deep pockets who have a vested interest here, why do you think anybody who's said something has retracted their statements?
Easy to say ‘if someone knows it's happening then they need to speak up' when it's not your house on the line.
In reply to Post #448
Out of interest..Anyone seen the bcac results for the last 4 years ? Uncanny the names and catches that dominate at the top. 2019 is laughable the weight differences between the top 2 and the rest. Bare in mind I'm pretty sure these matches alot of anglers are doing same thing and in well stocked waters. Ian Russell knows the score.
Out of interest..Anyone seen the bcac results for the last 4 years ? Uncanny the names and catches that dominate at the top. 2019 is laughable the weight differences between the top 2 and the rest. Bare in mind I'm pretty sure these matches alot of anglers are doing same thing and in well stocked waters. Ian Russell knows the score.
In reply to Post #450
Let's assume that nobody would make the accusations on record (in print, social media, Internet forum etc) without being 100% certain that they know that their statement is true. I would hope that was a given.
Let's also assume that the rumoured ‘substance' is a legitimate controlled veterinary medicine, available by prescription but being used to lure fish rather than the purpose for which it was prescribed.
Correct, the burden of truth is with the person making the statement. The most straightforward way to defend is to prove the statement to be true. In order to do that the substance has to be named and the source of prescription would be investigated and identified. While this was being investigated the source would more than likely be suspended. If found to be providing false prescription then struck off, losing their livelihood.
You then have the accusation of applying this ‘substance' into a waterway for financial gain. Would the EA choose to investigate as a criminal activity?
The whole process could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Other than those individuals being accused, which company or philanthropist with deep enough pockets has enough interest to take these risks and why?
Let's assume that nobody would make the accusations on record (in print, social media, Internet forum etc) without being 100% certain that they know that their statement is true. I would hope that was a given.
Let's also assume that the rumoured ‘substance' is a legitimate controlled veterinary medicine, available by prescription but being used to lure fish rather than the purpose for which it was prescribed.
Correct, the burden of truth is with the person making the statement. The most straightforward way to defend is to prove the statement to be true. In order to do that the substance has to be named and the source of prescription would be investigated and identified. While this was being investigated the source would more than likely be suspended. If found to be providing false prescription then struck off, losing their livelihood.
You then have the accusation of applying this ‘substance' into a waterway for financial gain. Would the EA choose to investigate as a criminal activity?
The whole process could cost hundreds of thousands of pounds. Other than those individuals being accused, which company or philanthropist with deep enough pockets has enough interest to take these risks and why?
In reply to Post #421
Crikey, he won't enter any more as he knows he won't win.
Crikey, he won't enter any more as he knows he won't win.
The main difference between criminal law and civil law is ; in criminal law it has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, where as civil law is based on the balance of probability... it's easier to prove in civil law as the burden of proof is less....
Let's just say i posted some comments on this forum which someone wanted to sue me for....in criminal law they would have to prove 100% it was me that posted the comments, in court i could argue my mate jimmy, john and peter all know my log in details and it might have been them who posted the comments,(which would create reasonable doubt) the police would then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was me, by getting the IP address of where the comments were posted from and proving it was me, where as in civil law they would just have to convince the judge that on the balance of probability it was me.....
Also the police could interview jimmy, john and peter under caution, and if they lied in court they could get prosecuted...where as the police will not get involved in civil cases, and jimmy and co could refuse to speak to the prosecution under civil law..... proving the comments were made by XXX person would be hard, unless it was a podcast etc. they would also have to prove they have suffered financial loss due to the comments.....
It's all Bollox no one will be getting sued, you could if you reallly wanted make fake online accounts and go mad trolling, the personal costs to track the person down and sue would be astronomical and would take months if not years in legal fees.
Let's just say i posted some comments on this forum which someone wanted to sue me for....in criminal law they would have to prove 100% it was me that posted the comments, in court i could argue my mate jimmy, john and peter all know my log in details and it might have been them who posted the comments,(which would create reasonable doubt) the police would then have to prove beyond reasonable doubt it was me, by getting the IP address of where the comments were posted from and proving it was me, where as in civil law they would just have to convince the judge that on the balance of probability it was me.....
Also the police could interview jimmy, john and peter under caution, and if they lied in court they could get prosecuted...where as the police will not get involved in civil cases, and jimmy and co could refuse to speak to the prosecution under civil law..... proving the comments were made by XXX person would be hard, unless it was a podcast etc. they would also have to prove they have suffered financial loss due to the comments.....
It's all Bollox no one will be getting sued, you could if you reallly wanted make fake online accounts and go mad trolling, the personal costs to track the person down and sue would be astronomical and would take months if not years in legal fees.
In reply to Post #455
Which is why in the real world (not the tiny, tiny % of people that are worried about a fishing competition) you virtually never hear of anyone suing for stuff said on the net. Apart from the odd WAG bitching in public!
Which is why in the real world (not the tiny, tiny % of people that are worried about a fishing competition) you virtually never hear of anyone suing for stuff said on the net. Apart from the odd WAG bitching in public!