I know we've done the pros and cons of the FC sell off already, but this might be of interest - Labour MP Tony Cunningham has asked the environment minister a pretty clear question about cycle and MTB use after the "disposal", and received a the sort of answer that used to make Jeremy Paxman froth at the mouth:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2010-11-18a.23779.h&s=cycling#g23779.q0
Thinking more and more that this scheme is going to have bad results for our sport in England and Wales.
So basically, 'if the new owners offer us enough cash, they can do what they want' ...
I'll carry on riding and tresspassing wherever and whenever I feel like, just like I do now - so far as purpose bult trails it's worrying 
So basically, 'if the new owners offer us enough cash, they can do what they want' ...
Must have missed that bit.
What I read was:-
I wrote to all hon. Members on 29 October about this issue. DEFRA and the Forestry Commission will consult the public on proposals for the public forest estate in England. We will invite views from a wide range of potential private and civil society partners on a number of new ownership and management options while protecting public benefits. When publishing proposals we will explore further the options for securing and increasing the wide range of public benefits currently delivered by Government ownership, and how they might be achieved at lower cost.
We will invite views from a wide range of potential private and civil society partners on a number of new ownership and management options while protecting public benefits. When publishing proposals we will explore further the options for securing and increasing the wide range of public benefits currently delivered by Government ownership, and how they might be achieved at lower cost.
Sounds more than a bit disingenous to me. It annoys me that this is presented as a costs-saving measure - my understanding is that the FC are able to run facilities far more cheaply than a private company (e.g. no insurance), and a lot of the money-making activities on their land are privately run anyway, with the franchise and licence income going back to support the FC. In the long term this is going to deprive the FC of income, which is ironic considering that they are supposed to be nearly self-financed already.
The other point is that "public benefits" isn't likely to include any sort of semi-official use, other than the bare provisions of CROW. Almost certainly bad news for people who like to explore or anyone raking out cheeky trails. There was a recent example on here of a guy who'd had "no cycling" signs go up in his local woods following sale to a private owner - I'm sure if this goes through there will be lots more.
If you've not already signed it, there's a petition here.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests
Or if you prefer:
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
