I don't disagree with that sentiment however I don't see why I am restricted to riding on designated MTB trails when in forest that are suitable for safe cycling on. I quite enjoy a long winter ride linking forests mostly on forest road avoiding singletrack. I don't see why because I do it on a MTB I have to rely on the benevolence of the Forestry Commission policy that also requires Horse Riders to pay a permit fee when walkers can wander where they choose as of right.
Of course in Scotland this issue is a waste of breath as you are on an equal legal footing with ramblers and horseriders when accessing land and if the SA decide to flog the forests that legal facility cannot be undone. In Wales we have a token gesture in Wales we can rely on till the WAG sell forests off. In England unless the Govt write the facility into legislation then the likelihood new forest owners can stop cycling on forest roads and apply a charge on any cyclist wishing to do so.
If you really think there is a point to argue against the principle of the same kind of access powers in force in Scotland should be applied to all English FC freehold estate then I think you're either trolling or you really have little of any value to add to this debate other than bitter vitriol since you do not appear to ride in England so why should you be commenting on the actions of those who do who wish to retain that facility after the sell off has happened if it cannot be stopped
