Protect your forests
Discussion
Or rather, be ignored by those who, in theory, should be doing everything for you.
If you want to waste your time by pointing out to the government that 84% of the population of this country do not want our forests sold off, especially as it will save no money at all, go to:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forest...
It won't do any good. You could, of course, write to your MP. I did that on another matter and got back, from the hon Mr Kirby, a completely unrelated bit of advertising. But I've wasted my time again.
If you want to waste your time by pointing out to the government that 84% of the population of this country do not want our forests sold off, especially as it will save no money at all, go to:
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forest...
It won't do any good. You could, of course, write to your MP. I did that on another matter and got back, from the hon Mr Kirby, a completely unrelated bit of advertising. But I've wasted my time again.
"The government is planning a massive sell off of our national forests. They could be auctioned and fenced off, run down, logged or turned into golf courses and holiday villages. "
What a load of disingenuous b
ks. No, I won't be voting there. I'm sick and tired of such emotive nonsense, so sick and tired I think I'll go and cut a tree down.
What a load of disingenuous b
ks. No, I won't be voting there. I'm sick and tired of such emotive nonsense, so sick and tired I think I'll go and cut a tree down.82% of forests are already in private hands (eg. the National Trust) and they seem to be doing okay. I don't see why this is such a big issue. It seems that the plans were either poorly worded/defined or the papers have decided to make it issue of the day.
Edited by theaxe on Friday 4th February 16:36
The left really need to get their priorities in order I think.
On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
Yeah, Rigg Wood, sold under the current system, under a Labour government.
Funny how that never gets a mention, isn't it? And that public access is still perfectly fine, just that people can't park their cars in there. Oh and if you look at the reason for closing that car park:
"The car park area has been restricted to vehicles due to abuse from people trying to drive their car up a grassy track beyond the car park creating deep mud ruts and doing doughnuts in the car park as well as leaving litter behind. This closure was done after checking that 90 per cent of users were not even going in the wood, but using it to go to the lake on the other side of the road – quite often just to take a photo, before moving on a couple of minutes later. I am hoping with good management the rest of the wood can be enhanced and regenerated to become closer to a more typical Lakeland woodland habitat along with some small scale timber production suitable to the site."
Suddenly it isn't quite so clear-cut, is it?
Funny how that never gets a mention, isn't it? And that public access is still perfectly fine, just that people can't park their cars in there. Oh and if you look at the reason for closing that car park:
"The car park area has been restricted to vehicles due to abuse from people trying to drive their car up a grassy track beyond the car park creating deep mud ruts and doing doughnuts in the car park as well as leaving litter behind. This closure was done after checking that 90 per cent of users were not even going in the wood, but using it to go to the lake on the other side of the road – quite often just to take a photo, before moving on a couple of minutes later. I am hoping with good management the rest of the wood can be enhanced and regenerated to become closer to a more typical Lakeland woodland habitat along with some small scale timber production suitable to the site."
Suddenly it isn't quite so clear-cut, is it?
Brighton Derly said:
The left really need to get their priorities in order I think.
On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
The left, eh? That's 84% of the population is left? If anything this is a middle England response.On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
Your point, of course, is spot on. They want to build on Forrestry Commission land. Thanks for raising the point.
I'm not left leaning and nor am I in favour of unrestricted immigration yet I enjoy walking on Forrestry Commission land.
OH do fk off.
99% of the UK population would like the government to give them £20,000 a year for life. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.
The extent of democracy is to vote in an election. We have done it.
The government have a mandate to cut waste, reduce the deficit and focus on jobs that actually produce revenue.
The quango concerned only manage 18% of forests you retard, so it is hardly able to sell off the forests.
Clear?
k off.99% of the UK population would like the government to give them £20,000 a year for life. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.
The extent of democracy is to vote in an election. We have done it.
The government have a mandate to cut waste, reduce the deficit and focus on jobs that actually produce revenue.
The quango concerned only manage 18% of forests you retard, so it is hardly able to sell off the forests.
Clear?
EDLT said:
I thought the government were actually just selling the leases, with restrictions. Which is completely different.
Its like the students protesting over tuition fees despite having no idea what the changes are.
I think the strength of feeling amongst those opposed is that they don't wish to seen any changes to the current situation regarding the FC. Its like the students protesting over tuition fees despite having no idea what the changes are.
Did anyone see Damian Green squirming on the issue on QT last night.
EDLT said:
I thought the government were actually just selling the leases, with restrictions. Which is completely different.
Its like the students protesting over tuition fees despite having no idea what the changes are.
Its like the students protesting over tuition fees despite having no idea what the changes are.
Welcome to this weeks' storm in a teacup, that the media have chosen to blow up out of all proportion.Fact 1. Only some 18% of forested areas are involved - all the rest are in private hands anyway.
Fact 2. The idea is to sell them off to charities, not private individuals, property developers etc
Fact 3. Read up on your land law. If a public right of way exists in a forest it continues to exist, whoever owns it
The only problem I can see, which is the one highlighted with Rigg Wood, is that public rights of way often do not extend to motor vehicles. So they've closed the car park. So what? You going there to get some exercise? Park a bit further away and get a bit more
Brighton Derly said:
The left really need to get their priorities in order I think.
On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
Forests.On the one hand, they want unrestricted immigration. On the other hand, they want to preserve the forests.
But you can't build on farmland, mountains, hills, or moors... so that leaves the forests.
Immigrants, or forests, immigrants or forests, what a dilemma...
There, that's sorted then.
theaxe said:
Agreed, it's fox hunting all over again. The country has massive financial problems, is involved in two wars and this is what they want to spend time talking about.
What the flying fook has two wars(?) got to do with risking that areas including SSIs, public access lands, nature reserves, 'beauty spots' etc. getting sold off to foreigners, money grabbers and tax avoiders for an amount that wil be pissed away in moments by our esteemed leaders?Do you think the miniscule amount raised is going to sort out Afghanistan. Maybe get the hell out and save even more?
Oh, 'forgot, all private buyers are decent and only have the greater good at heart, naturally.
The FC is landowner for 872 scheduled monuments, 80 listed buildings, 39 registered parks and gardens, and a battlefield. They are also rich in prehistoric burial mounds and much other stuff.
As a cost cutting exercise it is a non-starter. We are being lied to.
Further many of the paths across FC land are not public rights of way.
The FC costs £15m pa to run and that does not take into account the benefits of the educational and leisure facilities. Those who take up the offer to run the FC lands will be entitled to subsidies from, you've guessed it, you and me. What this means is that loggers could cut down trees paid for by the taxpayer, take the profit and then take funds to plant more. And this goes on and on.
The majority of FC forests will be sold off to individuals/companies and only a few are in line to be bought by charities, i.e. other companies with their own agenda.
As a cost cutting exercise it is a non-starter. We are being lied to.
Further many of the paths across FC land are not public rights of way.
The FC costs £15m pa to run and that does not take into account the benefits of the educational and leisure facilities. Those who take up the offer to run the FC lands will be entitled to subsidies from, you've guessed it, you and me. What this means is that loggers could cut down trees paid for by the taxpayer, take the profit and then take funds to plant more. And this goes on and on.
The majority of FC forests will be sold off to individuals/companies and only a few are in line to be bought by charities, i.e. other companies with their own agenda.
rs1952 said:
Welcome to this weeks' storm in a teacup, that the media have chosen to blow up out of all proportion.Fact 1. Only some 18% of forested areas are involved - all the rest are in private hands anyway.
Fact 2. The idea is to sell them off to charities, not private individuals, property developers etc
Fact 3. Read up on your land law. If a public right of way exists in a forest it continues to exist, whoever owns it
The only problem I can see, which is the one highlighted with Rigg Wood, is that public rights of way often do not extend to motor vehicles. So they've closed the car park. So what? You going there to get some exercise? Park a bit further away and get a bit more
Where are charities going to get the money from?
Regarding rights of way. Yes rights of way are protected. But at present the public can freely wander around thousand of acres of woodland. However the rights of way footpaths, bridleways, byways etc only cover a tiny percentage of the areas of land in question.
Derek Smith said:
. Further many of the paths across FC land are not public rights of way.
As you know, rights of way can be created by established use.Also see this: http://www.ramblers.org.uk/freedom/improvingaccess...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff