Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
The government was embarrassed before Prime Minister's Question's as its own documents showed that the coalition is expected to lose money in the sell-off. A joint Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Forestry Commission study showed that the government can expect disposing of the land to cost £679m over 20 years, but the benefits will only be £655m.
Ace.
Yarr. Your point being?
The toffs'll be awlright for land so forget you plebians.
even the iron lady backed off selling the forests.
Yeah, since when was it about saving money?
Idiology aside, some lord snooty with X million acres was on the radio earlier slagging off the FS for some policy enforcement or other on his land (how dare they) and welcoming the curtailing. No doubt chomping at the bit at the prospect of more cut price aquisitions, and some free cash grants on top too.
Sure, it's not ENTIRELY about the money but it must weaken the case for selling if it's not even going to enhance the coffers.
What are the chances of yet another Cameron u-turn then?
Well all things considered, the pragmatic thing to do at this point would be to bin it, apart from the financial cost there is the political one which is harder to put a price on.
I suppose if you are going to make an arse of youself, best to do it four years before the next general election though eh?
This is why I can't understand this policy. It makes no money and upsets the middle England voters that Cameron needs. Stupid. Tehre are other policies that I disagree with but can see some logic. This one has none that I can see
The more I think about this, the angrier I get. I've written down a few thoughts about how this is going to affect my local trails here:
http://wideopenmag.co.uk/news/8704/selling-our-forests-what-this-could-mean-for-you
If the sale does go ahead, by my reckoning the most likely outcome is that we'll lose access, and even worse, access to trails built up over years by volunteers. Even if the scheme works as intended, it's likely that we'll end up having to buy back the right to ride trails that have always been free.
Do you have a link for th e document anyone? I wish to own people with it. Either in dialogue or by printing it out and nailing it to a big stick.
Having just read the Hansard report on the debate firstly the gov had the cheek to amend the debate and won it arguing the past performance of forest policy by labour in power was shabby. they managed to get enough mp's to roll in at the end to ensure the tory amendment won by 40 odd but a number of tory mps were making very strong noises about significant desent against the proposed bill .. my own tory MP shabbily supported his party which I will be discussing with him face to face on the 21st.
Tory's main defence to the criticism were that all those opposed were idiots incapable of making their own judgement having been influenced by proven labour lies such as the forests would be bulldozed to become housing estates which clearly even they knew was not possible. The could not really get to square the circle of cost, the charities cant afford them and even if they could they would be bled dry maintaining them unless the government bailed them out with big grants that somehow seems to defeat the object which is to cut the 17 million annual costs of the Forestry Commissions management fees.
Even some of the Tories recognised loosing forestry staff in rural areas would have a cataclysmic effect on rural economies and that the FC love them or loath them provide a capacity to develop esoteric controls of forests that enable others to use them for recreation or sporting events that the commercial sector has yet to deliver in any similar quantity unless very well reimbursed and only at high profile sites.
A newer notion the tories seemed to biting is the psyche of being British and how we are forest peoples in reality and our love of forests and old oaks are more continuous than our respect of the king. The state ownership of the forest since WWi has meant irrespective of its limited benefits for public access until recently that many brits walking in a state forests gains a stakeholder benefit and wants to protect the forest environment he will not get when walking as a tolerated guest of the chip board, roll off loo paper, forest company plc who will be driven by financial measures.
most interesting is the number of tory mp's commenting on the 4 or 500 emails each is getting on the subject so get writing to yours if you have not and tell your mp you are fully satisfied with the forests the way they are run now then fill in the governments consultation
Please do your bit....
The big Petition http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests#petition
Email your mp http://38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/MP-forests
Woodland trust petition http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/Pages/default.aspx
DEFRA consultation http://www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfeconsultation
I have signed the petition and Emailed my MP, Mr Gove 🙂 , I await his reply.
I emailed my MP (Nick Harvey, Lib Dem) and got a nonsense reply from one of his staff, highlighting all the good things he does for us. At no point did her reply mention woodland sales.
Max would love to support but doing anything with my MP is an utter waste of time, she's been the MP of our rotten borough for at least 250 years and doesn't give tuppence for anyone's views.
Is there anything else I can do that would have an effect?
Is there anything else I can do that would have an effect?
Send the Email anyway, keeping quiet isn't going to do anything 🙂
With respect to Kielder forest, 25% of it is on private land so it isn't the government's to sell off...
It does not matter how hard line your local tory mp is, even the wettestt tory against the sell off will have a hard time voting against the bill because cameron is not going to want to loose face by being unable to call for a majority. Last nights vote on the debate proved that, however I think it's clear some tories MPs will be working hard to get the terms of the bill made more palatable and most of those will be the marginals with large mail bags from forest supporters rather than any moral notion what they are doing is wrong.
The safe seat tories need the marginals to retain seats at the next election if they wish to stay in power and continue to cream tax payers money off to give to their private sector companies.
Itt's equally important that Welsh and Scottish Mp's are contacted although there will not be many Tories amongst them, theire are libdems and anyone able to bomb danny alexander the ginger rodent with mail please do. Given the unpopular state of the forest service in Northern Ireland talking to mountain bikers over there I think its unlikely any NI MP's will bother to vote to save in England what they never had, however the loss of the FC in England will have a debilitating effect on the FC in Wales and Scotland even taking into account the tory biker chorus here.
well, that's the first time that I've emailed my MP. <waits for standard meh response>
My tory MP has a semi-rural constituency with loads of outdoor folk (esp equestrian/ramblers) but is also a party whip.
(And rumour has it he joined the conservatives back in the John Major government so he could do The Lord's work more effectively. What would Jesus do about the forestry sell-off? 😆 )
I am sure hell will freeze over before he votes against Cameron.
It's all about a binary thing, vote for, vote against. Pressure can be brought to *change* the contents of the bill. If people just sit on their hands and do nowt then expect to get shafted 🙂
Hansard link: [url] http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2011-02-02a.925.0 [/url]
If I got a sh1t response from my MP (or their assistant) I'd be straight back to them pointing this out and asking for a proper answer.
I got a pretty full response from Greg Mulholland (Lib)and have copied it here:
[url] http://singletraction.frankencrank.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3457&p=35512#p35512 [/url]
(scroll down a little)
The reactionary, alarmist hyperbole from the initial opponents hasn't helped TBH but there are enough issues elsewhere in the bill and proposals that it could still be booted out / substantially amended.
Fingers crossed 😉
My original post came from here:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/02/forest-sell-off-cameron-listens
which I found because I read;
Nice work Nicknoxx. Got to respond to our MPs letter. He made a silly mistake and mentioned the previous Governments sell of was 25000 acres. Oh dear he should have calculated it in Hectares then it wouldn't have looked like such a big number. Im sure thats just a clerical error but I'll point that out to him 😉
He also mentions that rights of access wont be effected. Well, we all know that and we are not against that, we are against the Permissive rights that we will loose, all the mountain bike trails and equestrian access plus the nature trails that dont run on Rights of Way.
Oh dear two glaring errors. What a sill man!
Please remember everyone that the forestry sell of is just a small part of the Public Bodies Reform bill. This will also effect Natural England, CCW and the National Parks.
Thank you
Whinlatter 19th Feb for the next demo
the previous Governments sell of was 25000 acres
Which is less than 4% of the 258000 hectares (~637500 acres) that the FC owns currently. A 4% change in assets over more than ten years is perfectly reasonable for a large organisation. The complete disposal of all assets proposed by the current government is not in any way comparabhle. My own MP made this point too, it's a complete red herring.
I thought I read somewhere yesterday that the proposal isn't a sell off, but a long term lease arrangement?
Max would love to support but doing anything with my MP is an utter waste of time, she's been the MP of our rotten borough for at least 250 years and doesn't give tuppence for anyone's views.Is there anything else I can do that would have an effect?
My MP is a shoe in Tory Back bencher who tries to ignore his constituents views. Doesn't mean i can't harangue him about his commitment to representing his constituents over this issue. After all he'll be back asking for my vote again in 4 years.
I thought I read somewhere yesterday that the proposal isn't a sell off, but a long term lease arrangement?
As far as I can see a 150 year lease amounts to pretty much the same thing as a sell-off, only with the added overhead of actually administrating the leases, which over the vast holdings in question isn't going to be a cheap or easy task.
my response to my MP.....ok it might be little patronizing!
Dear Mr Whittaker
I read your response to my wife’s letter regarding the forestry sell off and noticed that you had made a couple of school boy errors so thought I would reply to help you out.
Firstly you mentioned that the previous Government have sold of 25000 acres of woodland. That’s a big number. Unfortunately your boss’s document gives figures in Hectares. This is like acres, it’s a measurement of land, but a Hectare is bigger. So if you have a calculator handy you can try this conversion 1 Acre = 0.40468564224 Hectares.
The ConDem’d proposal is to sell off 285,000 hectares or if you like 637,000 acres. So you can see it’s quite a bit more than the previous Government
Hope that helps
A good example of why people don’t want the woods to be sold off is Rigg Wood. I remember going there with my Wife and son when he was a toddler; we parked up and had a cycle around the area.
Rigg Wood was sold by the Forestry Commission last year. Although the new owners are obliged to continue to allow walkers on the Rights of Way they have been able to close the car park, remove picnic benches and put up fences, making it much more difficult for people to access the woodland in future.
This leads me to your second error, which hopefully if pointed out you will be able to amend the letters you send out.
In your letter you say the Government proposal guarantees protections on rights of access. That is correct our Rights of Way are protected, unfortunately the British public are not complaining about that. We are alarmed that we will lose our permissive rights of access.
Permissive means that the Landowner has given us Permission to go on the land where there is no Right of Way. That includes mountain bike trails, equestrian routes, dog walking routes and family friendly nature trails, access to lakes for water sport enthusiasts. It also includes car parks and countryside furniture like picnic tables and information boards. None of these are covered by Rights of Way and the Landowner is under no obligation to provide them. However the Forestry Commission has used public money wisely and invested in an infrastructure of access for the public that we can use for free.
I hope I have been able to help you understand why the public, that you represent and serve, are so angry at the proposed sell off. If you’re still struggling maybe come along to a demo and ask people. I’m sure they’ll be happy to help.
All the best
Something that was mentioned to me that I found interesting.
Vodafone owe HMRC £6bn: [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs ]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs
[/url]
The entire FC estate is valued at around £700m: [url=
[/url]
I'll leave you to do the maths. 😉
Nicknoxx- thanks very much! Now got that nailed to a stick
After a bit of soul-searching, you will be pleased to know that I have sent it. I normally only do anything like this if it can be done anonymously.
I hold out no hope that I'll get any response, but at least she'll know there's on dissenter in the consituency!
Cool, nice one.
Just had reply back from my MP (D Davies, Monmouthshire) and we don't need to worry as the Crow Act will safeguard access. (Yeah right).
And he can't tell the 'English' how to vote on their woods. (This is from an opponent of devolution btw).
I've replied pointing out that they could spend a bit more time raising money from tax dodgers, rather than cutting away like a demented butcher. (Thanks for the link to the Vodaphone/Guardian blog btw).
Marko
I wrote to my MP. You can read his response [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailofdestruction/5412594411/ ]HERE[/url] AND [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/trailofdestruction/5412594477/ ]HERE[/url]
Not really sure what to make of it. ❓
I'll leave you to do the maths.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12300068 ]Cost of running public forests: 30p/person/year.[/url]
[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/7872052/Cost-of-Royal-Family-drops-7p-per-person.html ]Cost of royal family: 62p/person/year.[/url]
Can't we just flog off half of the royal family instead?
If the petitions and letters dont work we could always burn the forests down in protest.
LOL at minimperial
Finally pleased to see some sense coming out yesterday, from DC himself:
"Forestry Commission......was compromised by being both the regulator and the major producer of wood in England"
Regardless of how you feel about the sell off, something does need to be done about FC regulating and industry while also competing against it. It's a bit like being judge, jury and executioner. I can't think of another government department that operates in this way.
Tory's main defence to the criticism were that all those opposed were idiots incapable of making their own judgement having been influenced by proven labour lies such as the forests would be bulldozed to become housing estates which clearly even they knew was not possible.
Anyone reading the 38degrees mouth frothing rants I would say they have a point. I despair that 38degrees has become the banner under which those protesting the sell off are gathering, it really is playing right into the governments hands.
Well, my (tory) councillor, who has some standing in the constituency party, has agreed to try and influence my (tory) MP to ensure and extend access rights - not I noted to oppose the sell off itself.
Not much I know, but if we can influence the grass roots tory constituency parties the MPs might start to wonder how much support they'll get at re-selection and re-election time.
Just one more front to attack.
By the way - go after Anne McIntosh who represents Dalby amongst other places and is Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee if I recall - she ought to have an interest and possibly a little influence. A bit of pressure there can't hurt.
But the problem MSP is that not everyone writing to the Government and MP's are the kind of pen fodder that 38 degrees inspire. and its a generalising insult of the minister to write all the objection off as being irrational driven by media misrepresentation.
To add to the insult the Minister is now saying they are going to ignore all letters sent before the consultation opened as being responses to the proposals.
IGM it was interesting to hear in the debate Anne McIntosh did take the stand and made points against the sell off as proposed and doubts about the plan which should mean a few marginals should also be sweating a bit. Keep writing to your tory mp's they need a big mail bag so they know we are thinking about them
interesting article here thats worth a read
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/leaders-explain-their-misgivings-1.805072?referrerPath=home%2F2.1962
Just had reply back from my MP (D Davies, Monmouthshire) and we don't need to worry as the Crow Act will safeguard access. (Yeah right).And he can't tell the 'English' how to vote on their woods. (This is from an opponent of devolution btw).
fantastic.. my welsh tory MP voted with the pack.. not being an english mp did not stop Danny Ginger Rodent from grabbing the chance to get his hands on Englands Purse strings all the way from up there in scottyland. Even the BHS representing all those nice tory horseriding county class folks have got the message and good old crow aint gonna let them trot neddy down a forest road if the new owner says no
Edited - it was a bit of a tired rant.
I watched this being discussed on Newsnight last night. The Conservative politician didn't seem to really have a clue about what was going on and struggled to answer the audience members' questions, other than stumbling around the idea of community ownership.
My local fast-rising young-star front-bench [s]idiot[/s] MP voted for it.
Dropping him a line now.
Lets face it. We've elected a bunch of ####s who would sell the air from our lungs if they could.
Bite down hard boys and girls because this lot are going to give us a right hard ####ing.
My local fast-rising young-star front-bench idiot MP voted for it.
As did mine. And cut-n-pasted me a reply via secretary the other day. So I emailed him again. Also rubbish statement in local free paper about "it's all labour's fault and we need to get 'innovative' to save money" -next to no money to be saved by this now is there?
(off topic, Pimpmaster did you find a 28mm spanner in the end? I found mine if you want it for a few quid.)
We've elected a bunch of ####s
Don't get me started. We didn't actually elect [i]anyone[/i] properly did we?
Just had this from my MP - sounds like he believes the access issues but wants rid of the FC:
[i]Thank you for getting in touch with me about forestry. I share your concerns that public access, leisure activities, conservation and biodiversity should be protected and promoted. The Labour government’s scheme, under which 20,000 acres of public forest were sold, did not have adequate safeguards for these important concerns and led to a loss of access in some forests. I did not vote in support of the Coalition Government’s proposals in the recent debate because I wanted greater assurance that the safeguards now proposed will be effectively enforceable and will apply to land sales already planned. (In future the Government intends to sell only leases, not the freehold of the land, which makes enforcement of access conditions easier and more certain.) I will be watching the legislation carefully when it comes before the Commons to see that these issues are effectively dealt with.
Most of the forest areas in my constituency have always been privately owned and managed, but in Northumberland as a whole there is a very large Forestry Commission estate. The forests, both public and private, provide jobs in the timber trade and popular access for leisure which also helps to support the tourist industry. In some parts of the country, such as the New Forest, most of the forest area is ancient woodland which could be at least as well – or better – protected if it was in the ownership of charitable or community trusts. There are smaller areas in Northumberland to which this might apply. I do not see any compelling reason why, so long as access and diversity are protected, commercial forest areas have to be kept in the ownership of a loss-making nationalised industry which was created to meet very different circumstances at the end of the First World War. In Northumberland, the Commission’s decision to plant large areas of our hills with regimented conifer plantations was originally very controversial. In recent years the Commission has done more to promote the planting of broadleaved native species.
The Forestry Commission now has a vital regulatory role, and I want to see its expertise retained for the benefit of the whole of the forestry industry and the public who value it highly.
The Government’s proposals are the subject of a consultation, and I hope that when you have had a chance to study them in more detail you will respond to the consultation at www.defra.gov.uk/corporate.consult/index.htm.
With thanks for letting me know your views.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Alan Beith, M.P.[/i]
[i]If[/i] the worst case scenario comes to pass, I'm going to be doing some serious trespassing.
We've elected a bunch of ####sDon't get me started. We didn't actually elect anyone properly did we?
True. They didn't get my vote either.
How about "We've ended up with a bunch of ###ts"?
Either way we're shafted.
Have faith in the consultation process - yeah right.
The Department I work for was told some months ago that it would be subject to change and that consultation would take place. Consultation has not really started yet but we were told a while ago what would be happening once the "consultation" was complete.
I would suggest as far as the forests are concerned that it's all cut and dried with only the window dressing to come.
I would suggest as far as the forests are concerned that it's all cut and dried with only the window dressing to come.
I've done the consultation for forests -it is a complete insult to the word 'consultation' and exactly the window dressing you describe.
I've waited for quite a while before expressing my opinion on this whole thing but I've come to the conclusion that it's definitely all bad. In my experience the FC are becoming an increasingly forward thinking organisation trying to sustain forests not just for commercial reasons but for the benefit of visitors and wildlife too. They've come a very long way.
The Tories (Clegg included because he's just a sell out) show their true colours yet again by systematically destroying anything that's good in the country to the detriment of the poor and the benefit of the rich.
England is very thin on woodland as it is without it all being sold off to an uncertain fate. What we have needs to be nurtured for future generations. I can't see conservation organisations or Trusts being able to afford to buy it with all the cuts going on.
Email sent:
[i]Dear Mr. xxxx,
I have since seen online that you did not vote to protect our forests. As one of your constituents, I am very disappointed. As I'm sure you know, your constituency is highly wooded with a vast amount of history, and we live in an area with an enviable amount of public access woodland.
I am not convinced that:
[list][*]charities such as the Woodland and National Trust will be able to afford the land that will be made available for sale[/*]
[*]the public access that we currently enjoy will remain if it is sold[/*]
[*]in a lot of cases the right-of-way access that we have will also be restricted or made difficult.[/*] [/list]
Please look at the example of Rigg Wood in the Lake District ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/agriculture/forestry/8276046/Sale-of-Rigg-Wood-could-herald-forests-future.html), not to mention that it's now been proven that selling off our national woodland assets is not cost efficient ( http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/official-englands-forest-selloff-will-cost-more-than-it-saves-2201501.html).
Furthermore, it's been estimated that the entire Forestry Commission estate is worth £700m ( http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSC-05734.pdf), whereas Vodafone currently owe HMRC £6bn ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/vodafone-tax-evasion-revenue-customs) - this strikes me as a slight imbalance as an average wage, tax-paying voter (and yes, I did vote at the last general election).
At the moment I fail to see how this will help the country, which as you continually remind us is in dire straits.
Please reconsider your views.
Yours sincerely,
xxxx[/i]
Julian - no, I didn't. How much are you after?
Some facts:
The "heritage" woodlands are to be handed over to charitable trusts etc, not sold.
The proposal it to lease 85% of the remainder, not sell it.
my MP voted against, he's conservative too
The proposal it to lease 85% of the remainder, not sell it.
I believe that the lease is 150 years, isn't it?
I hate to say it, but that doesn't help us with immediate access issues unless the buyer wishes to open his/her land to all and sundry (and how likely is that?)
[i]The proposal it to lease 85% of the remainder, not sell it.[/i]
And the [i]relatively[/i] blind eye which the FC currently turns to access above & beyond statutory ROW?
Besides, I've yet to see a convincing justification for these proposals - tbh, the likes of Caroline Spelman seem to be rather unsure of what they are actually doing (even if the notion of an ideological yardsale is oh-so-clear in their minds).
GiantJaunt - Member
In my experience the FC are becoming an increasingly forward thinking organisation trying to sustain forests not just for commercial reasons but for the benefit of visitors and wildlife too. They've come a very long way.
That's weird. According to those north of the border they are the spawn of the devil, responsible for holding back he development of mountain bike trails and using all sorts of devious means to turf out existing leaseholders according go some hidden agenda.
Hahahaha! and HA!
Your trying to understand the governments thinking? it's quite simple, talk utter shite, that fools want to hear, get into power, sell a lot of shit and piss a lot of people off! then you get ousted and some of the shit gets bought back.
The shit that stays in the possesion of the rich, keeps you in shiny shit for the rest of your life.
Politics is a smoke screen for what is actually happening, sell the rich our forests then give them grants and subsidies that you wouldn't give us, to develop then, call it progress.
Wake up, you want to leave assholes in charge? get used to shit happening!
Giantjaunt, what exactly is your experience of the FC?
Pimpmaster Jazz - MemberJulian - no, I didn't. How much are you after?
RRP is ridiculous £15, (for a cone spanner. But bigger. 😕 ) CRC is £13, so hows about a fiver posted?
Sounds cool - I'll drop you a line and stop the thread hijack. 😉
All the blurb from the debate. Interesting the Rights of Way are always confirmed as being safe, however the permissive rights are glossed over and no confirmation is made about them.
See those mountain bike trails.......they're permissive
From the Hansard link OMITN posted above:
Mary Creagh (Wakefield, Labour)I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue, because we can put paid to the lies about it. Under the last Labour Government, there was a net sale of 4,000 hectares in England. We sold 9,000 hectares and bought 5,000 hectares. We expanded community access to the forests. The money was recycled back into the forests, and did not go to the Treasury.
We've just had a letter from our local MP which says
under the previous government nearly 12,000 hectares of forest land were sold off without any guarantee that woodland would be protected.
Which raises the questions:
- What "guarantees" are being put in place this time, other than the usual statutory rights and protections which applied to previous sales?
- Where does paying one of your staff to write freestyle drivel to your constituents cross the line into outright lying?
Also interesting to note that existing charities aren't falling over themselves with excitement at the thought of suddenly getting a shedload of other properties to manage:
http://tonywhitbread.blogspot.com/2011/02/forestry-commission-sell-off-1.html
Well the horse magazines are pushing it in the news
Come on Singletrack get it on the news page.
Oh and more public land, the NNRs are up for sale next as well
Just wrote to my MP too - will see what they have to say! Talks of U-turns in the papers today, but I don't trust that at all.
Edit: typo.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/11/english-forest-sell-off-on-hold
seems you are all right, the robbing tories are doing everything they can to sell our forests and line their pockets.
be involved in the public consultation or have no voice - you have a choice.
read the article carefully, this is nothing to do with the proposal, this is woodland that was already earmarked for disposal. The sale of woodland has been going on in a piecemeal manner for years. If the government hadn't tried to sell the lot in one go this sale would have gone through. It is only because there actions have actually alerted people to what happens that they have had to stall the sale.
I believe that this sale will happen but that a few caveats will be put in place. The question is then who ensures the rules aren't bent or broken after the sale. The government will then be able to say look we have sold this little bit off with rules and then proceed with the full sale.
I believe that this sale will happen but that a few caveats will be put in place
If this happens but current access is either continued, or even bettered, then it could be a good thing.
The worrying thing is that this is the Tories. My fear is that their banking mates (who are now getting lovely tax breaks - thanks for that George) will be the only parties with the funds to buy them, and I don't see them wanting to share.
As put on the other thread:
My MP responded by merely telling me to do the consultation. I have read it and indeed it starts from the assumption that the proposal is good and asks very guided questions about details of undertaking that process;
I will complete it and then revert to my MP with a list of questions that I feel were not covered. These include:
- The exact policy covering permissive ROW;
- If these are to be upheld, how will they be enforced?
- What happens if all these trusts and charities are not forthcoming / deemed to be unable to lease and manage the lands / don't have the cash etc?
And probably a load more that I can't remember right at this moment.
Pimpmaster - this has nothing to do with banks.
The other danger, if it hasn't already been said, is that the Woodland Trust might get hold of some of the FC forests. Then we will be truly shafted. Private ownership might be the better option.
ononeorange - It is inasmuch as they are onto a winner under this government (the one trying to sell off woodland). Have you been reading the news recently?
I don't normally get too involved in politics, but after the subject of this thread arose I have been following the news more closely, and I'm finding the way we're being treated offensive.
Yes. And I also disagree with the cosying up to Murdoch for instance, but he being a potential winner under the government has nothing to do with the forestry argument either.
My point is that we should stick to the forestry argument and put forward related arguments that are based in fact if we are to be taken seriously. Dragging in unrelated arguments not based in fact is a certain way to get ignored.