Unfortunately when it comes to arguing on the internet most cases are supported by nothing other then personnel experience, predujudice, and goals.
Slider you seem very passionate about tackling nets in the area and that passion is commendable, however this is a massive industry that involves peoples lively hoods on both sides of the argument and unfortunately the only way to convince people one way or the other would be to utilise factual evedence, peer reviewed research and the biggist weapon of all being statistics.
Its clear we all have varying knowledge and experence with netting and fish behaviour in general, personally i've only spent a little time up and down the beach but i've caught fish active netting occurring and in areas were it wasn't, but my experiences alone simply don't prove or disprove any argument i might care to make because there are simply too many factors in play.
If you really are looking for a postive reception for you're claims rather then back and froth arguments amongst each other then i imagine the best way to do this would be to reference specific research in support, after all i'm sure there are any number of papers, things are well known and there are credible findings to support the removal of nets, but with out specific referencing these claims simply come across as blanket statements that won't convince others to get behind your cause.
As i've said before i'm actually with you on banning or at least strictly controlling netting around the southeast coast but it needs to be for the right reasons and done in the right way, and convincing people of these aspects requires solid and irrefutable evidence.