ForumGarden

hello and welcome back to grumpy towers.

i,ve got to dash off because its panto rehersals again tonight

(oh no it isnt ED) oh yes it is ED 2nd to the 6th of feb.

so see you soon.

THE future of parts of Sherwood Forest is in jeopardy after the Government announced plans to sell off some of the England’s woodland.

Ministers have asked the Forestry Commission to raise £100m by privatising ‘assets’ in a bid to reduce the country’s deficit over the next four years.

The Forestry Commission controls Sherwood Pines – It translates into the sale of roughly 15 per cent of the public forest largest public woodland in the East Midlands which covers 3,300 acres.

Regional coordinator for Friends of the Earth Mary Button said it was a move that signalled ‘profit over preservation’.

Woodland could be sold - Local news - Worksop Guardian

AAG

there is only one word disgracefull diabolical ( thats two grumps ED )

what will the tories sell of next to reduce this huge defecit that labours incompetence left us with.

i mean the sherwood forest home of robin hood hived off to private enterprise to become what another big housing estate.

i,d like to know if epping forest is to be sold as well to become the new london extension or will that bit of greenbelt be spared.

we,ve got nothing left to sell but i can foresee greedy developers rubbing their hands with a chance to get hold of greenbelt land.

we must say a resounding no to the sale of greenbelt forest or greenbelt land.

and what of the wild animals of the forest the deer the badgers the owls are they the next ones to become a thing of the past.

we must save what bit of englands green and pleasant land we have left.

Good grief! I would have a thought a died in the wool right wing daily mail reader like yourself would be all in support of selling it off. After all why should taxpayers money be used to subsidise a bunch of tree-hugging enthusiasts. Let them sell it to their mates. After all with the way petrol is rising and lousy to non existent the riff raff won't be able to go to the country anyway. All they have to do now is end the hunting ban. You can see the logic behind all this

At least I live in Scotland where I have a right of access. I'm fed up with our politicians, it's like watching a contest to see who can be the biggest arseholes.

Better read the conditions of the sale.

Before engaging typewriter

Bruv;1352245 wrote: Better read the conditions of the sale.

Before engaging typewriter


It's a matter of principle. The reason we have a forestry commission in the first place is because private landowners had almost completely denuded the land of trees. Now after much investment the forests can be exploited they are going to be sold to private companies so they can take all the profit. It's quite simple, you either think it only right that some things belong to everybody or every little bit of out land is sold to the highest bidder. There used to be lots of common land before it was all enclosed so it is hardly a new concept. Don't know about yours but I'm very sure none of my ancestors agreed that medieval warlords should decide everythi9ng was theirs and parcel it out amongst all their mates. They're our forests and they should not be sold without our agreement.

I didn't decide that all the profits from the north sea should be used to give tax cuts to the rich and put people on the dole nor did I vote for the bastards that did that. Bend over labour have had their way here come the tories. At least they are honest thieving bastards unlike labour who are hypocritical thieving bastards.

A plague on all their houses. I can see plaid cymru and the SNP doing well at the next election just because the other parties are such plonkers.

The first I heard of this sell off was the woodland would be transferred to private hands but remain open as before to the general public as it has always has been and used as a public resource rather than a private one.

I could be wrong......often are

Bruv;1352382 wrote: The first I heard of this sell off was the woodland would be transferred to private hands but remain open as before to the general public as it has always has been and used as a public resource rather than a private one.

I could be wrong......often are


Once it's in private hands you can't stop them doing what they like without expensive time consuming court cases. If they put fences across rights of way and block access for walkers and the like what are you going to do? you're either going to have to rip them down or go to court, if you rip them down it's criminal damage.

Bear in mind we have a forestry commission because private landowners had completely destroyed vast areas of the countryside through over farming and deforestation. If anyone should take the profit from all that investment in time and our money it should be the taxpayer. For a lot of areas the forest is a valuable tourist attraction, take that away and the surrounding economy is devastated. It's worth a damn sight more to the local economy in areas like the new forest or forest of dean than any private forestry operation will ever be, all that will do is enrich the shareholders. It's a short term let's get some money in from a party that is instinctively opposed to the notion that you or I should be able to walk in the country without permission. It's not theirs to sell in the first place. It's already a public resource, do you really want to continue using forests and leisure resources you paid for out of the kindness of whoever buys it?

I get what you are saying, but, much conservation is in the hands of private individuals with access to the land freely granted.

What about the grouse deer and forests in Scotland ?

Land ownership ion scotland is a potentially inflammatory political issue that keeps landowners in their place and the sensible ones don't want to annoy a potentially very powerful lobby. In scotland there is a right of access ( I was in Wales last year it is really strange seeing signs saying private land keep out). Although you still get landowners that put up private signs and gates across rights of way. It's like a red rag to a bull and they usually get destroyed by some hillwalker. Most estates are quite OK but how much that is due to not having a choice in the matter is open to debate. There are reports suggesting that the activities of some estates in trying to restrict access actually damages the local economy but it's hard to find them published anywhere. Tourism and outdoor sports is a far more valuable resource than the shooting estates when it really comes right down to it and there's a kind if uneasy truce, you don't bother me and I won't bother you between the hunting and fishing fraternity and hillwalkers and mountain bikers. It's snobbery, they don't like the peasants being free to go where they like and the peasants are quite happy to tell them to F--k off.

All land in scotland is feudal tenure - although you don't have to pay feu duties any more. You notice they are not proposing to do this in scotland there would be outrage. The tories are hated enough as it is.