Guest 700- Registered: 11 Jun 2010
- Posts: 2,868
13 February 2011
17:5092519England's forests sell-off put on hold by Government to allow for review of Woodland Protection.
Good.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/11/english-forest-sell-off-on-hold
---------------------------------------------------
Lincolnshire Born and Bred
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
13 February 2011
19:2292529so has forrest chump had second thoughts.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 February 2011
19:2692530there was too much opposition from within the government ranks, the plan had not been thought out.
the cost of the sale would have been as high as the eventual payout.
at least our red squirrel and night jar population have a temporary reprieve.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 February 2011
19:2692531there was too much opposition from within the government ranks, the plan had not been thought out.
the cost of the sale would have been as high as the eventual payout.
at least our red squirrel and night jar population have a temporary reprieve.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 February 2011
17:3292597As some forest areas were already sold prior to the vote and without consultation, how sure can we be that the supposed hold on further sales will actually prevent any others going into private hands?
Most would realistically agree that huge savings do need to be made and most see the sense in getting rid of expensive quango's, however we appear to be moving very quickly away from practical measures and into ideological ones. Hasn't this country suffered enough at the hands of both red and blues in the name of their respective ideologies? Shouldn't we be looking for what is best for the country rather than for what fits in best with a parties ideological theories?
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 February 2011
18:529261182% of Britains forests are already in private hands. There is nothing wrong with it at all. The difference between this government and the last one in respect of the mere 18% owned by the forestry commission is that it proposed guarantees/protection and had a consultation. Labour sold off forest with none of that.
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 February 2011
19:3192612As have the Conservatives prior to a vote and despite assurances. It only remains to be seen how the rest will be dealt with. (As reported in the Sunday Times, hardly a left wing paper.)
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
14 February 2011
20:1692620I help with work parties in a local wood approaching 100 acres so I guess that is not quite big enough to qualify as a forest but it's still a lot of trees.
It is a Site of Special Scientific Interest so has a management plan agreed by the Forestry Commision and English Nature which specifies the maximum, minimum and type of tree that can be felled.
It has recently had a grant from the Kent Downs and Marshes Leader Project (
http://www.kentruralnetwork.org.uk/leader) to develop it as an educational resource with signage, equipment, a wooden meeting house, portaloos etc.
It has bridle paths and footpaths throughout, dog walkers are welcomed but motorcyclists are a problem and are gradually being 'persuaded' to go away and not come back. It has a traditional charcoal burner and all proceeds from the sale of charcoal, logs, fencing etc produced from the felled trees go towards the maintenance of the wood.
And you probably guessed, it's privately owned but with an enlightened owner who sees that public engagement and enjoyment of the wood is vital for its future. I'm much happier with this situation than with the monoculture plantations that are typical of much Forestry Commision property.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 February 2011
20:2892622what if it didn't have an enlightened owner though?
if he/she did not want access for the public could anyone do anything about it?
Guest 703- Registered: 30 Jul 2010
- Posts: 2,096
14 February 2011
20:3992625They have access over public rights of way, the rest is a grey area involving civil law unless there is criminal damage.
I think there is merit in what is the Scottish way which allows public access over all open land provided no damage is done, but this involves getting the owners and the public to appreciate the merits, which is the point of my post.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 February 2011
21:2892633not a good answer ray, the right of way laws mean nothing if there is an intransigent land owner.
we all remember the billionaire property developer with a criminal record(think his name was van hoogstraten) that fenced off footpaths to stop the ramblers association members going across his land.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
14 February 2011
21:4992635Yes and in the end he did time.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 February 2011
22:0392639he didn't do time for that though.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
14 February 2011
22:1892641It was for offences connected with it i.e.
violence committed towards ramblers by his henchmen, resulting in Conspiracy charges as I remember. Also violence towards tenants. A thoroughly bad egg, don't y'know.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 February 2011
22:3592646Howard - there will be good and bad in all walks of life.
With the current set-up you have the regulator (the forestry commission) also being a major land owner. That would be like making BT the regulator of telecommunications. It is simply wrong.
There seems to be an assumption that if something is owned by the government it is better protected and that is simply not true.
Too many people place too much faith in government and too little in private ownership. That is simply too simplistic. Given the choice in virtually everything, except defence and law/order, I would place my faith in private first with the state well down the list. But the point is I am not dogmatic about it. I get a feeling, including on this forum, that a lot of defenders of the status quo and of the state are very dogmatic and will always be very quick to jump on the private bad/state good bandwagon and that flies in the face of history and reality.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
14 February 2011
22:4792649HMS Victory?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
14 February 2011
22:5392652errrrm your point DT1?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
15 February 2011
08:5792690built in chatham with local oak and pine owned by goverment [public ownership].
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 February 2011
09:0892694And how are the needs fo the 18th century Royal Navy, with their available technology and resources, relevant to the points made in this thread about forest management and ownership in the 21st century?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
15 February 2011
09:1492697quite a lot actuly.they have still got the victorys blueprint at chatham along with a few others.which could be brought out and reused in these times of hardship.
---------------------------------------------------