On their official Facebook account Coldplay have joined the ever growing campaign by British tv chef Hugh Fernley Whittingstall's campaign to scrap the absolutely abhorrent EU laws which are having a shocking effect on fishing in the UK today.

 

http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/coldplay

 

EU quotas mean half of all fish caught in the North Sea are having to be thrown back overboard DEAD. Join Coldplay in campaigning against this dreadful waste by signing the petition below.

 

http://www.fishfight.net/

 

 

 

I am for one absolutely delighted Coldplay have joined the campaign. Living in a place where fishing is a big part of the economy and many people's lives it would be brilliant if all you lot could join up.

they tweeted something about this earlier, too :wacko:

i signed the petition when i saw the tweet, even though i don't know too much about the whole situation :P

they tweeted something about this earlier, too :wacko:

i signed the petition when i saw the tweet, even though i don't know too much about the whole situation :P

 

Good for you!

 

For Coldplay to have alerted people the world over of this barbaric fishing law they have gone even higher up in my book. The likes of other celebrities like Ricky Gervais and Gordon Ramsey also have put their weight behind this campaign so good on them as well.

The wastage is a product of trawlers that cannot control how many fish they catch. It is predicted that there will be no fish in the sea by 2030 if we continue to over-fish. The EU laws are an attempt to control this, though they're not clearly not helping. I am hugely sympathetic to the fishing communities that have made a living off of the sea for generations but I cannot sign a petition that would indirectly result in a reversed attempt to cut down on over-fishing.

The wastage is a product of trawlers that cannot control how many fish they catch. It is predicted that there will be no fish in the sea by 2030 if we continue to over-fish. The EU laws are an attempt to control this, though they're not clearly not helping. I am hugely sympathetic to the fishing communities that have made a living off of the sea for generations but I cannot sign a petition that would indirectly result in a reversed attempt to cut down on over-fishing.

 

But all the fish that is getting caught are dead and dumped and it'd make next to no difference. It doesn't make any sense at all. And I don't know where you got those sensationalised prediciton about no fish being in the sea by 2030. It is a law of pure and utter bollocks nature.

^ Well said! I signed the petition this morning!

But all the fish that is getting caught are dead and dumped and it'd make next to no difference. It doesn't make any sense at all. And I don't know where you got those sensationalised prediciton about no fish being in the sea by 2030. It is a law of pure and utter bollocks nature.

 

I know what you're saying but the fish are wasted because of the fisherman. They need to change their fishing methods. The laws are there for a reason. The fisherman wouldn't have to kill and waste fish if they refined their techniques. Isn't that obvious?

 

As for those "sensationalised predictions", I read about them 3 or 4 years back, so forgive me for not giving a reference but I can assure you they were made by a scientific body and were based on evidence. I'm sure a google search would confirm.

 

Can I ask what you think will happen if this law is revoked? Do you think there should be any kind of limit and do you honestly think that if the limit was increased, fish would not continue to be wasted?

I wouldn't exactly blame the fishermen. They've got families to feed too, and fish catches variate per year. It's just stupid that they're throwing these good fish back into the sea. There are millions of poor worldwide that are begging for it.

 

There needs to be a balance, simple fact. Quotas are important - anyone who thinks that overfishing has caused no significant effect to the ecosystem is an idiot. But wasting fish isn't a solution to the problem. It's just screwing things even more.

I know what you're saying but the fish are wasted because of the fisherman. They need to change their fishing methods. The laws are there for a reason. The fisherman wouldn't have to kill and waste fish if they refined their techniques. Isn't that obvious?

 

As for those "sensationalised predictions", I read about them 3 or 4 years back, so forgive me for not giving a reference but I can assure you they were made by a scientific body and were based on evidence. I'm sure a google search would confirm.

 

Can I ask what you think will happen if this law is revoked? Do you think there should be any kind of limit and do you honestly think that if the limit was increased, fish would not continue to be wasted?

 

No but what difference does this law make apart from putting millions of fish to absolute waste?? What difference?

 

And these scientific bodies - don't trust them. I can bet some of those were supported by the EU themselves hence their barbaric lies. The EU treat these fishermen like absolute shit even though they risk their lives week in week out just to put fish on our dinnertables. If you take Norway who AREN'T part of this European Union then they are flying high even in a time of economic crisis because they aren't held back by these moronic laws.

 

Yes quotas are important but as Osaka sun said this disgraceful law is just making things worse.

No but what difference does this law make apart from putting millions of fish to absolute waste?? What difference?

 

And these scientific bodies - don't trust them. I can bet some of those were supported by the EU themselves hence their barbaric lies. The EU treat these fishermen like absolute shit even though they risk their lives week in week out just to put fish on our dinnertables. If you take Norway who AREN'T part of this European Union then they are flying high even in a time of economic crisis because they aren't held back by these moronic laws.

 

Yes quotas are important but as Osaka sun said this disgraceful law is just making things worse.

 

The law is there to prevent over fishing, there has to be a limit at some point right? The fisherman go over that limit then claim its the laws fault that they have to throw them back. So why do they catch too many fish?

I'm sorry but to suggest that scientists are not a trustworthy source is fantastically stupid. Their claims are the result of years of research, testing and evidence. This evidence can then be scrutinised by other scientists around the world making it extremely rare that a published paper will be false.

I thought the title said fist fight and I got all excited. :disappointed:

What? Fishermen CANNOT control the amount of fish they catch but obviously these faceless bureaucrats of whom we know nothing about who sit on their arses all day know best I guess! Yes overfishing is a problem but how on earth is this law preventing that? It's been proven by Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall that isn't so why do you support it??

What? Fishermen CANNOT control the amount of fish they catch but obviously these faceless bureaucrats of whom we know nothing about who sit on their arses all day know best I guess! Yes overfishing is a problem but how on earth is this law preventing that? It's been proven by Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall that isn't so why do you support it??

 

Look, we can go round in circles if you like but I've already said why I'm not going to sign it. This is as salient as I can be;

 

The fisherman raped the oceans in the first place with there bloody trawlers that destroy the sea bed etc.. The law was brought in to try to curb the over fishing that was evidently going on. All that happens now is they continue to do what they like but have to throw the fish back into the sea. I think the fisherman should change, not the law. Thats the only solution that will stop wastage and keep a limit on fishing (which is certainly necessary).

 

Hugh Fearnley whittingstall is right, the law isn't preventing anything because the fisherman are breaking it. Other fishing methods should be adopted that allow the legal amount of fish to be caught without killing lots more. (e.g. not using trawlers.)

BUT surely it makes sense just to KEEP THE DEAD FISH! You can't control the fish that gets caught in the net! The fishermen just do their job and a great job they do. If you've ever seen the programme Trawlermen you'd see it is far more complicated for fishermen. And there are fat greater number of species ready to be caught than the declining cod numbers. Certainly enough fish to go beyond 2030 which is quite frankly guff. I'm pretty sure you got mixed up over that date because I've certainly heard that North sea oil NOT FISH could be gone by 2030 and seeing as you said it was a few years back it could well be a mix up!

BUT surely it makes sense just to KEEP THE DEAD FISH! You can't control the fish that gets caught in the net! The fishermen just do their job and a great job they do. If you've ever seen the programme Trawlermen you'd see it is far more complicated for fishermen. And there are fat greater number of species ready to be caught than the declining cod numbers. Certainly enough fish to go beyond 2030 which is quite frankly guff. I'm pretty sure you got mixed up over that date because I've certainly heard that North sea oil NOT FISH could be gone by 2030 and seeing as you said it was a few years back it could well be a mix up!

 

Keeping the dead fish means there is no law.

 

And no, i'm 100% certain that the scientific body predicted that current fishing levels would mean no fish in the sea by 2030. You call it guff, but they have evidence.