-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forest sell off petition (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Jane Turner
Well-known member
How big is their majority?
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Not a lot of leverage then.... my Tory is only in by the skin of her teeth
The sniper
Well-known member
We should get labour back in seeing as they did such a good job last time,let's face it they are all as bad as each other only for once this government seem to actually be addressing debt rather than adding to it
Mike Price
Well-known member
The alternative view is that they are using the state of the world economy (remember if wasn't just the UK) as an excuse to drive their own ideals, I am yet to be convinced that that isn't the reality of things.
To sell publically owned assests seems to me at least a false economy, remember the utilities companies that are now making vast profits how much better would that of been for us all if they were still publically owned
With respect...
This thread isn't about Labour versus Tory, and it shouldn't become so. I wouldn't presume to speak for Jane, but my own reference to my MP being a Tory was because there is probably more to be gained from putting pressure on Tory/Lib Dem MPs than Labour.
Let's not get diverted.
Jane Turner
Well-known member
At the moment we are paying 30p a head to maintain all England's publicly owned forests like Thames Chase Community Forest. If the bill goes ahead, the local community will be given the opportunity to club together and buy an asset that they already own communally, in order to prevent it being sold to private developers (for peanuts).
How is that good economics?
Mike Price
Well-known member
I hope everyone signing the petition is also contacting their local mp to express their concern at this proposed sell off.
The link below will enable you to find your local MP and there is a letter drafted for you to customise.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/MP-forests
The link below will enable you to find your local MP and there is a letter drafted for you to customise.
http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/MP-forests
The sniper
Well-known member
while i agree that this thread should not go off on a political tangeant i feel that some(not all) within 38degree do not fully have the woodland/forests best interest as their number one aim.I was stopped by two of their people canvassing in london last week,their pitch was the usual i would expect from a bunch of leftie students,they started by telling me that the Government WOULD be selling off ALL the forests they own,they continued to tell me that the PUBLIC would have no access rights to any of the land sold off,another non truth.
I would be the first to chain myself to a tree if they stopped me using my local woodland but i really am not too sure this will happen,i need to know more to be convinced that the coalition is a big bad monster like it is being portrayed.
Many on here do speak sense but i have heard sense from those and not always from 38 degrees,a situation so sensitive needs more than 2 18-19 year old teenagers who have been told part truths to convince me to sign the petition.
To be honest,if they did sell the forests off,it helped get the country out of a mountain of debt,and the people buying looked after the forests like the forestry commission currently do and with the same access as we have in those areas already,then i fail to see how its a bad thing,but thats only if that is the case.As for us owning the Forests already,there is something in that to be honest but obviously the government believe it belongs to them and legally they would be able to sell them.Personally although i understand some peoples concerns and frustration i don't think it will necessarily end in tears,it may prove to be good with some areas receiving better attention than they are currently,thats the problem,no one actually knows what will happen.
I would be the first to chain myself to a tree if they stopped me using my local woodland but i really am not too sure this will happen,i need to know more to be convinced that the coalition is a big bad monster like it is being portrayed.
Many on here do speak sense but i have heard sense from those and not always from 38 degrees,a situation so sensitive needs more than 2 18-19 year old teenagers who have been told part truths to convince me to sign the petition.
To be honest,if they did sell the forests off,it helped get the country out of a mountain of debt,and the people buying looked after the forests like the forestry commission currently do and with the same access as we have in those areas already,then i fail to see how its a bad thing,but thats only if that is the case.As for us owning the Forests already,there is something in that to be honest but obviously the government believe it belongs to them and legally they would be able to sell them.Personally although i understand some peoples concerns and frustration i don't think it will necessarily end in tears,it may prove to be good with some areas receiving better attention than they are currently,thats the problem,no one actually knows what will happen.
It might not necessarily end in tears,but if it does, it'll be too late.I recall the Labour Party threatening to renationalise the utilities,warning off potential investors.Obviously they reneged on this.
The Forestry Commission don't do a bad job so the status quo suits me fine.
The money the sell off will generate won't scratch the surface of the huge debt.
Last edited:
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
An exaggeration. The CRoW Act will give the right of access on foot. Good luck exercising it once the gates and fences have been put up and the "Private, No Entry" signs are erected, and the picnic tables are removed and the roadside parking is blocked with concrete blocks and the shoot is in progress.
I don't think you understand how a democracy is supposed to work. The government are our elected representatives. They do not own anything. They are not entitled to sell them off until parliament (our elected representatives) vote for it. If enough pressure is applied to Lib Dem MPs and Tory MPs in marginal constituencies there could be a defeat for the government's proposals. As it stands, Lib Dem MPs will already be nervous and wary of supporting something which was not in any manifesto and which the populace do not support.
Many of us know what will happen because we've lived through many previous fire-sales of national assets.
The government's landed and loaded cronies will make it hard for us to access the land, will not manage it for wildlife, and will make a packet exploiting the woodland or will make a packet in grants for leaving it alone, thereby completely undermining the economic argument. This proposal will not save us money.
Where we stiil have access, what we pay 30p each for in taxation will cost us £5 parking, £10 for a mountain bike permit etc., and will open 11AM-5PM in mid-summer. And our 30p in tax will still be needed to administer and pay grants and give tax-breaks to the rich cronies who are kind enough not to screw the woodlands, (although they'll probably shoot the goshawks anyway)
Even if the sell-off raised the 'projected' funds, the sums involved are absolutely tiny anyway. As a Country, we owe £1,000,000,000,000. The woodlands cost us £20,000,000 per annum. So it's like cancelling your £2 annual subscription to the local bird club, selling your bins on Ebay for £20 (and finding that it'll cost you £15 to wrap and post them), all in order to clear your £100K mortgage (when you're on an income of £140K but with outgoings of £160K)
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Well-known member
Thanks Graham - much more eloquent than I was about to attempt
MJB
Well-known member
turkish van
Number 1 celebrity badger
38 degrees organises and holds campaigns of all kinds - it's not an environmental organisation, nor does it even attempt to collate much information on the website. There's plenty of reading material about elsewhere.
The economic issues have been debunked in several places now - selling the forests will not touch the national debt. Some privatised areas may end up better managed, but many more will end up in a worse state than they are now, with worse access, I think it would be naive to believe otherwise. As has already been pointed out, the FC do the best job of managing woodland in this country.
A good and brief summary of the reasons behind the campaign is here
Looks like the petition will hit 350000 tonight.... :t:
bitterntwisted
Graham Howard Shortt
There is a Commons vote on Wednesday. Please write to your MP now, especially if you live in a Lib Dem or marginal Tory constituency.
This was my letter...
Mr. Hamilton,
I have never before been moved to write to my MP, but my concern over the proposed sell-off of England’s forests is greater than over any other recent political issue. I write to seek your assurance that you will be as vocal as possible in opposing this outrageous proposal.
These forests are not the government's to sell. They belong to the people of this country, 84% of whom do not wish to see them sold. A mere 30 pence per person per year in taxation funds their upkeep and this figure would be liable to rise rather than fall after the sell-off in regulation, administration, and grant costs. The Forestry Commission does an outstanding job. A greater proportion of the SSSIs that it manages are in improving condition than are those run by any other organisation. And it manages access and potential user conflicts outstandingly well, particularly for those participating in my favourite hobbies of mountain biking and birdwatching.
The consultation paper suggests that the impacts will not be as envisaged because a proportion of the forests will be sold to conservation-minded NGOs etc. But those NGOs cannot afford to buy them. The Woodland Trust do not back the proposals because they simply cannot afford to buy the forests concerned. The National Trust are similarly opposed to the sell-off. The remainder of the estate will fall into private hands and while access may be ‘guaranteed’ by the right to roam, there can be little doubt that commercial owners will take measures to discourage access, will not provide amenities to visitors, will not maintain paths and access gates etc.
The sale of these forests, public assets since the beginning of our civilisation, would be a national disgrace, a shameful victory for an ideology of pure greed.
Yours sincerely,
This was my letter...
Mr. Hamilton,
I have never before been moved to write to my MP, but my concern over the proposed sell-off of England’s forests is greater than over any other recent political issue. I write to seek your assurance that you will be as vocal as possible in opposing this outrageous proposal.
These forests are not the government's to sell. They belong to the people of this country, 84% of whom do not wish to see them sold. A mere 30 pence per person per year in taxation funds their upkeep and this figure would be liable to rise rather than fall after the sell-off in regulation, administration, and grant costs. The Forestry Commission does an outstanding job. A greater proportion of the SSSIs that it manages are in improving condition than are those run by any other organisation. And it manages access and potential user conflicts outstandingly well, particularly for those participating in my favourite hobbies of mountain biking and birdwatching.
The consultation paper suggests that the impacts will not be as envisaged because a proportion of the forests will be sold to conservation-minded NGOs etc. But those NGOs cannot afford to buy them. The Woodland Trust do not back the proposals because they simply cannot afford to buy the forests concerned. The National Trust are similarly opposed to the sell-off. The remainder of the estate will fall into private hands and while access may be ‘guaranteed’ by the right to roam, there can be little doubt that commercial owners will take measures to discourage access, will not provide amenities to visitors, will not maintain paths and access gates etc.
The sale of these forests, public assets since the beginning of our civilisation, would be a national disgrace, a shameful victory for an ideology of pure greed.
Yours sincerely,
The sniper
Well-known member
While I agree it's a drop in the ocean financially what I don't agree on is the consequences,you make it sound like it's a done deal when the truth is no one actually knows a) what way the vote will go,although personally I think it will go against the sell off and b) if it did happen then what the consequences would be,no one knows,they are just guessing
I want the forests and woodland to stay as they are and I am sure common sense will prevail but when a group like 38degree send people out on the street and those people twist the truth to the extent they have then why should I trust them any more than the politicians
I want the forests and woodland to stay as they are and I am sure common sense will prevail but when a group like 38degree send people out on the street and those people twist the truth to the extent they have then why should I trust them any more than the politicians
Yeah, that's 'the future' for you.
