STOP THE GOVERNMENT SELLING OFF THE FORESTS

[Republic]

I signed it. Why try and get the country out of debt if it isn't our country anymore? Pointless exercise.

[PersonaNonGrata]

Nice one. Like the logic!

PS. Here is an article about Rigg Wood.

Rigg Wood on the Telegraph

[ap0gee1978]

After noting that QT last night spent more time debating who owns some trees than the events in Egypt and Tunisia, it scares me how adept the media are at steering people away from the bigger picture!

There are far more things of much greater concern / impact going on in government, but this is the one that seems to be creating the most interest!?! Not that public opinion has any influence on government policy, but isn't that where Big Society should fit in (not that it will ever work, since the logic of people paying to use the self-same services they run is all over the place like a mad woman's custard... :wonder: )

[Kandy]

A few more facts, apparently, the Forestry Commission only has 18% woodland NOW. The national trust, woodlands trust, others, already have the rest and it hasn't been damaged or lost! In fact much of the woodland not managed by the FC is far better maintained and has better access. The FC sold off woodland under Labour - where were you're complaints then?

I can't see the point of selling it off, but it really does not matter. But anyway, as it won't actually save money, the government will listen to the people, and abandon the idea.

Now you have to ask yourselves what they have really snuck through and what this smoke screen was for!

[trundlenut]

I found this report - though I would somewhat doubt their impartiality on the matter.

It is interesting that if all of the Forestry Commission land in England was sold then this wouldn't affect over 80% of forests, the majority is already privately owned. Since 2001 almost £43 million worth of forest has been sold which must equate to around 15,000 hectares (caution dodgy maths in use) and they have been selling land since the 1970s.

[PersonaNonGrata]

The report was produced by a private company that sells off woodlands and would benefit directly.

A few more facts, apparently, the Forestry Commission only has 18% woodland NOW.

All the more reason to protect what is left!!!!! But note that the FC has increased the total amount of forest in this country - especially the genuine British broadleaf forests.

In fact much of the woodland not managed by the FC is far better maintained and has better access

Nonsense. Just words. I've actually cited instances where private ownership has done the exact opposite, and described many different mechanisms and pressures that can only lead to change for the worse.

The FC sold off woodland under Labour - where were you're complaints then?

Like many people I didn't know this was happening and would have opposed it for exactly the same reasons as I do now. Lack of protest then does not dimish the validity of the arguments now. In fact it looks like Rigg Wood was sold off under New Lie-bour. (Have your read the article posted above?).

[slider]

I don't understand why you keep commenting. You live in Scotland which is completely unaffected by the proposals which concern ENGLANDS forests only.

And the other fella has stated that he doesn't care what happens to the countryside, but keeps giving us his opinion anyway. Ironic not to care at all but have a strong opinion on the subject.

Anyway, apogee makes a good point which deserves an answer - that the likely profits would be small and so it would be difficult to temp private interest. But this is actually an argument against the proposals because the deal is going to have to be really really sweet for the foresters. Right now more than 30% of the forests are broadleaf which is a type of tree that is not productive for loggers, so the tempation will be to allow our genuine British woodlands to be cut down to make way for conifers. And if the labour is too expensive lets get some immigrant labour in to the job while we're at it.

I comment as it's a free country and an an open forum I have every right to contribute to a debate that I feel is been driven by misdirection and misinformation I also feel that as someone who lives in the countryside and works in the field of rural development I can contribute facts to this debate. Are you trying to disuade me from commenting because you are afraid that my points are undermining your arguments?

The small profits argument does not stand up as the majority of potential purchasers are not really interested in the short term profits but in the tax breaks that can be gained from woning woodland. Most of the commercial forestry companies don't own teh woodland them selves but simply manage them for investment companies.

Cutting down broadleaf forests to grow conifers will not happen either - what an were is felled and planned is controled by teh forestry commision and will continue to do so. - The process of felling/and restock is detailed with a requirement for long term forest plans, designed lanscape area, a certain proportion of broadleaf/native species ect ect.

Edited 4 February, 2011 by slider

[trundlenut]

My post was merely prompted by me wondering about how much land we were talking about. I do wonder the maximum they have ever owned is, I doubt it was ever a majority.

I was suprised by how much land they have already sold off since 2001, I wonder if they bought any land in the same period?

I have yet to decide whether this is a good or a bad thing but we aren't talking about the majority of forest land in England being sold though. As the government are going to do it they are bound to **** it up and land agents (such as those who wrote the report I linked) will probably come out on top with a nice profit.

[PersonaNonGrata]

I comment as it's a free country and an an open forum I have every right to contribute to a debate that I feel is been driven by misdirection and misinformation I also feel that as someone who lives in the countryside and works in the field of rural development I can contribute facts to this debate. Are you trying to disuade me from commenting because you are afraid that my points are undermining your arguments?

The small profits argument does not stand up as the majority of potential purchasers are not really interested in the short term profits but in the tax breaks that can be gained from woning woodland. Most of the commercial forestry companies don't own teh woodland them selves but simply manage them for investment companies.

Cutting down broadleaf forests to grow conifers will not happen either - what an were is felled and planned is controled by teh forestry commision and will continue to do so. - The process of felling/and restock is detailed with a requirement for long term forest plans, designed lanscape area, a certain proportion of broadleaf/native species ect ect.

You might live in a free country but its the wrong free country.

The proposals affect England only, not Scotland which had the good sense to throw it out.

My posts don't include misinformation and misdirection. They are based on sound logic, personal experience and verifiable fact.

Your posts don't bother me, but might put off other people who actually will be affected by changes of this nature. Because of that your opinions on the matter are not just irrelevant but unwelcome as they could have an effect (however small) on the people who live here.

['daiking']

a random blog

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/why-nationalise-trees

[slider]

You might live in a free country but its the wrong free country.

The proposals affect England only, not Scotland which had the good sense to throw it out.

My posts don't include misinformation and misdirection. They are based on sound logic, personal experience and verifiable fact.

Your posts don't bother me, but might put off other people who actually will be affected by changes of this nature. Because of that your opinions on the matter are not just irrelevant but unwelcome as they could have an effect (however small) on the people who live here.

There you go again - it seems no-one else has a right to an opinion that differs from yours. All I have been doing is stating facts. I state my facts, you state yours, let others make up there own mine - we do live in a democarcy after all. If you can't handle that then tough.

Oh and by the way - althought I live on the side of the border the proposals still very much affect me. I'm not far from the border and regularly vist "your" forests as a leisure and access taker.

Edited 4 February, 2011 by slider

[PersonaNonGrata]

I go to France on holiday most years but don't think I've got any right to vote over there.

You keep going on about facts, like your the only one that has presented any. That's just plain wrong. Sure you've got a bit of knowledge about how the forestry commission works now and you seem desperate to let everyone know it - to the point of being rude to others you deem to be less knowledgeable than your good self - 'I do wish people would get the facts first'

Answer these questions then.

Are you telling me that Rigg Wood is NOT now in private hands and that the new owner has NOT locked the gate to the car park?

Are you telling me that many public rights of way are NOT blocked by private owners every year - requiring legal action to get them re-opened?

Are you telling me that the company owning the estate that includes Fair Snape and Wolf Fell did NOT attempt to keep their footpaths closed after the foot and mouth outbreak?

Are you telling me that the consultation document includes explicit provision for maintaining car parks?

[slider]

Oh but the fact is that I do have a right to vote in the UK and forestry is one of the areas where the Scottish Goverment do not have devolved powers - all decison making rests with Westminster.

If you read back the posts you will see that I have never argued against any of your specific points, all I have done is put across the other side of the debate. Thats what democracy is all about - discussion and debate to come to a democratic desision - not telling others to butt out of an open discussion.

[Vix]

I have signed the petition

[FellyMagic]

It has got the Grauniad/Daily Fail tree huggers in a flap over a load of nonsense. NHS and civil service cuts are way,way more important than the flogging off of a few trees. Some people really,really do need to get a grip on reality. Would you rather have coppers on the beat & firemen on duty, or a load of trees??

If flogging them off helps with the country's debt, then the government must do it.

By the way the government press office will have released that on purpose to hide some real nasty news of budget cuts, as they know the Grauniad & Fail would immediately be up in arms over it,along with the eco-mentalists..

[PersonaNonGrata]

Thats the daftest thing of it all - it doesn't help with the countries debt! (You can research the numbers on web dead easy so I don't want to keep posting them up). Selling off the forests will NOT improve the countries finances, and may actually make them worse - but its still not about the money because its still only pennies per person.

And it aint a choice between trees and public services because the numbers are just not even in the same ballpark - £15,000 million for the police per year, NHS about 110,000 million per year and the Fire and Rescue Service about £2,000 million. Numbers that are just not even comparable to the fake savings that the country isn't going to realise by selling what's left of our forests.

And here is what the thieves in the City of London cost us: The Lloyds and RBS bailouts cost somewhere between £70,000 million and 140,000 million and the Quantitative Easing program has cost about 200,000 million so far and could reach as much as 450,000 million before the end of 2011.

So everything has gone t*ts up because the Bankers stole billions

[FellyMagic]

Any income the government gets helps things, even if it is a small amount. You don't seem to give a toss about people keeping jobs do you eh?

Get rid of the forests now, and shut the hell up moaning. If you aren't happy with this country, just emigrate! You will find every country is in the same boat as us.

And thanks to new Layburr and their stupid free muppet passes, mine and my missus' jobs are now at risk thanks to yet more cutbacks. Brother -in law already lost his job with the local council, and cannot find work, and its looking dicey for me & the wife.

Trees are not important at the moment, just deal with it and stop crying.

And stop blaming it all on the banks..It's actually several world governments being weak (all this cr@p started in America, with banks lending money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back!), and not keeping an eye on what the banks were up to, and thinking everything would be rosy forever.

If you are so concerned about the trees, sell all your possessions and buy some woodland...

[slider]

Any income the government gets helps things, even if it is a small amount. You don't seem to give a toss about people keeping jobs do you eh?

Get rid of the forests now, and shut the hell up moaning. If you aren't happy with this country, just emigrate! You will find every country is in the same boat as us.

And thanks to new Layburr and their stupid free muppet passes, mine and my missus' jobs are now at risk thanks to yet more cutbacks. Brother -in law already lost his job with the local council, and cannot find work, and its looking dicey for me & the wife.

Trees are not important at the moment, just deal with it and stop crying.

And stop blaming it all on the banks..It's actually several world governments being weak (all this cr@p started in America, with banks lending money to people who couldn't possibly pay it back!), and not keeping an eye on what the banks were up to, and thinking everything would be rosy forever.

If you are so concerned about the trees, sell all your possessions and buy some woodland...

+1

[PersonaNonGrata]

You don't seem to give a toss about people keeping jobs do you eh?

"seem"?

Seems I seem to be a lot of things I'm not - it seems.

Its sad that you've supposed something about me that isn't true at all, and then launched into a tirade of personal abuse off the back of that supposition. If you had read the rest of the thread you'ld realise that I think that it will actually harm the economic position.

I could try to explain all the reasons why but its probably not worth the effort.

Its tiring fighting this corner on my own so I'm taking a holiday from this nonsense. Cheer away.

[FellyMagic]

It wont harm the economic climate selling off the trees. It could easily help it, as being in the hands of the private individual, there will be an incentive for it to actually make profit, thus giving the government further income from taxes. It could even create jobs, as they will probably want to manage the forests better than what this bunch of jokers do. (Further income from income tax & NI perhaps?)

A strong word of advice. NEVER believe what any newspaper tells you, especially if it is in the Daily Fail, a rag that gets sued more times than The News Of the World & Private Eye combined.

[slider]

You don't seem to give a toss about people keeping jobs do you eh?

Its tiring fighting this corner on my own so I'm taking a holiday from this nonsense. Cheer away.

That's just the point - you have little support on this matter but you still don't seem to accept that other people have a right to voice their views!

[Llanigraham]

Some of the proposals for the Forest of Dean, as that has to be "self supporting":

1/

Impose car parking charges on ALL car parks

2/

Impose a charge on ALL disabled car parking

3/

Increase charges to those groups running orienteering events TEN FOLD

4/

Increase charges to those groups running MTB events.

And that is only some of the proposals!

[slider]

Some of the proposals for the Forest of Dean, as that has to be "self supporting":

1/

Impose car parking charges on ALL car parks

2/

Impose a charge on ALL disabled car parking

3/

Increase charges to those groups running orienteering events TEN FOLD

4/

Increase charges to those groups running MTB events.

And that is only some of the proposals!

Whether or not the forests are privatised is it right that the public purse (i.e. the tax payer) should fund facilities for those enjoying their hobby or past time?

Forestry car parks need to be maintained , mountain bike trails are created and maintained, sometimes toilet facilities are provided - not to mention the greater cost of proving public liability insurance - the more facilities, the more users the bigger the chances of a claim.

I don't want to stop public access for one minute but the tax payer doesn't contribute to my leisure time so why should it for others.

[FellyMagic]

Whether or not the forests are privatised is it right that the public purse (i.e. the tax payer) should fund facilities for those enjoying their hobby or past time?

Forestry car parks need to be maintained , mountain bike trails are created and maintained, sometimes toilet facilities are provided - not to mention the greater cost of proving public liability insurance - the more facilities, the more users the bigger the chances of a claim.

I don't want to stop public access for one minute but the tax payer doesn't contribute to my leisure time so why should it for others.

Hear Hear!

[ap0gee1978]

I don't want to stop public access for one minute but the tax payer doesn't contribute to my leisure time so why should it for others.

Hear, hear. Likewise on the jobs front, if a job in the 'leisure / recreation' sector of a piece of FC land isn't profitable, why should it be saved in place of a nurse or bobby in an urban area?