Government want to sell of all our forest land in England

[Police State]

Am I the only one that thinks this is fundamentally immoral? It is not THEIR land to sell off; it belongs to ALL OF US, and should not be for sale at any price to anyone, ever. These fecking morons will not stop until they turn every element of this country into one big corporate run quasi-state.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1228...

Edited by Police State on Thursday 27th January 08:17

[frontbum]

Private Eye said:

The same issue exists in England, where the cost of regulating and dishing out funds to private forestry companies is likely to outweigh the money raised from land sales. Lorraine Adams, branch president for the scientists’ union, Prospect, which represents more than 200 researchers, cartographers, rangers and skilled Forestry Commission (FC) workers, has uncovered evidence of this since the FC already sells off land occasionally. When it recently flogged an area of woodland for £60,000, for example, the new landowner immediately applied for funds under the English Woodland Grant Scheme to grow and cut timber and was given assistance totalling £55,000.

link

Edited by frontbum on Thursday 27th January 09:30

[Police State]

frontbum said:

Private Eye said:

The same issue exists in England, where the cost of regulating and dishing out funds to private forestry companies is likely to outweigh the money raised from land sales. Lorraine Adams, branch president for the scientists’ union, Prospect, which represents more than 200 researchers, cartographers, rangers and skilled Forestry Commission (FC) workers, has uncovered evidence of this since the FC already sells off land occasionally. When it recently flogged an area of woodland for £60,000, for example, the new landowner immediately applied for funds under the English Woodland Grant Scheme to grow and cut timber and was given assistance totalling £55,000.

link

Edited by frontbum on Thursday 27th January 09:30

One way or another, it's been going on for years. Wealthy Family Dynasties were paid fortunes to plant and maintain conifers (via cashback tax schemes) on very large estates all across Scotland all through the 80's (I'm no longer sure what the situation is up there now)


But this latest development is to raise a measly £100m; yep a figure that represents 1/10th of what the crappy millenium dome cost to develop and build. Or 1/2 of what it is costing to scrap 9 RAF aircraft.

Edited by Police State on Thursday 27th January 09:46

[The Black Flash]

I've no particular objection to outsourcing the management of the woodlands. The important thing is that they remain as managed woodlands, with access, rather than being sold for building land or whatever.

[youngsyr]

I'm convinced that this can only be a bad thing for the public and good thing for private companies. After all, private companies are pretty keen on profits, that's why they're not charities.

[Eric Mc]

The Black Flash said:

I've no particular objection to outsourcing the management of the woodlands. The important thing is that they remain as managed woodlands, with access, rather than being sold for building land or whatever.

Once the land is in private commercial hands, any guarantees about its useage signed at the time of sale will gradually be eroded over time until eventually the commercial operators will do more or less what they like.

Have a look at all the other privatisiations to see how, over time, the checks and balances that were originally built into the privatisation deals gradually faded away as the controversy over the fact that they were now privately owned faded into history.

Once something is owned and operated for profit, the commercial imperative overules all other considerations.

[Derek Smith]

This is not a cost cutting or fund raising exercies. There is potential in FC managed land that could, in the short/medium/long term, be used to raise revenue. The plan to sell it is a terrible decision. There is no point.

I used to live in NW Kent near some FC land and it was a joy.

The LibDems say they will object but they won't. It has been brought in early in this pariliament so that the AV can be held over their heads.

A disaster in the making. We will never get our land back. This is terrible.

[thinfourth2]

I think the forestery commision is probably the best arm of government especially up here in scotland.

[boredofmyoldname]

Eric Mc said:

The Black Flash said:

I've no particular objection to outsourcing the management of the woodlands. The important thing is that they remain as managed woodlands, with access, rather than being sold for building land or whatever.

Once the land is in private commercial hands, any guarantees about its useage signed at the time of sale will gradually be eroded over time until eventually the commercial operators will do more or less what they like.

^This, lots of the woodland being talked about is in prime locations for luxury, holiday or second homes. Woodland also has a much lower value than brown field when bought as just a wood, once local precedents exist or the people in power at the time of sale move on any covenants become easy to alter.

[Silver993tt]

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

[Police State]

Eric Mc said:

The Black Flash said:

I've no particular objection to outsourcing the management of the woodlands. The important thing is that they remain as managed woodlands, with access, rather than being sold for building land or whatever.

Once the land is in private commercial hands, any guarantees about its useage signed at the time of sale will gradually be eroded over time until eventually the commercial operators will do more or less what they like.

Have a look at all the other privatisiations to see how, over time, the checks and balances that were originally built into the privatisation deals gradually faded away as the controversy over the fact that they were now privately owned faded into history.

Once something is owned and operated for profit, the commercial imperative overules all other considerations.

Spot on Eric. you are not even 0.000001 incorrect.

[Police State]

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

[boredofmyoldname]

Police State said:

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

Are they not elected by us to make decisions on our behalf?

[anonymous-user]

Police State said:

Am I the only one that thinks this is fundamentally immoral? It is not THEIR land to sell off; it belongs to ALL OF US, and should not be for sale at any price to anyone, ever. These fecking morons will not stop until they turn every element of this country into one big corporate run quasi-state.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1228...

It is very rare i would ever agree with you however in this case i'll make an exemption. What will the future hold? Payment before entering any forest, have it all fenced off?

I would hate for the green stuff to be controlled, managed and maintained by corporates with eyes on profits rather than preservation and upkeep.

[crankedup]

This needs to be stopped and I suggest that those against the planned sell off write a letter of objection to their M.P. Or is there a better way of objecting?

The issue was discussed on Newsnight yesterday, it was suggested that the land could/would be purchased and used as an onshore tax haven.

[Police State]

boredofmyoldname said:

Police State said:

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

Are they not elected by us to make decisions on our behalf?

Yes they are; But not to our ultimate detriment. But let's not get carried away too much with the concept of 'democracy' and 'representation' just because they are elected with their rule book, that it should follow all of their decicions are correct. When it comes to decisions that cannot be undone, then it raises the question of whether we should have more of a direct say in things other than some anonymous politico ringing your doorbell every four years.

[pugwash4x4]

Police State said:

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

what makes you think this? where in law is forestry land owned by the government "ours"? is farmland also "ours", how about your back garden?

guess you mean "ours" from a moral imperative- if so, what is the basis for this?

[anonymous-user]

Frustratingly the number of people who are so strongly opposed to these proposals is not commensurate with the number use the woodlands and areas in question and I do wonder if the Govt will simply say "only x% of the population use these facilities..." and base a decision on that.

I appreciate that there are justifiable reasons as to why this is so, location and the altrusitic need to preserve these spaces for others (in the same vein as Martin Niemoller's "First they came" speech) amongst others.

if the right people took over management though, and took time to reflect on current usage activities, it could be brilliant for cyclists and walkers. the companies could provide better and more trail centres with facilities and recoup costs through increased parking charges and still manage the woodland accordingly. leisure will surely grow as an industry back to recent levels again soon and a good sum could be generated through the provision of more facilities like those mentioned.

its no surprise that a lot of financial investment companies are pushing timber related investments at the moment...

[boredofmyoldname]

Police State said:

boredofmyoldname said:

Police State said:

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

Are they not elected by us to make decisions on our behalf?

Yes they are; But not to our ultimate detriment. But let's not get carried away too much with the concept of 'democracy' and 'representation' just because they are elected with their rule book, that it should follow all of their decicions are correct. When it comes to decisions that cannot be undone, then it raises the question of whether we should have more of a direct say in things other than some anonymous politico ringing your doorbell every four years.

I don't want to get tied up in the rights and wrongs of a political process, I disagree with the sale of woodland that is currently open for public use, and any change of use that would ensue, being someone who regularly uses Winlatter, Kielder and Hamsterley Forests to name a few big ones not being able to use them would be a massive blow.

That said from experience of a relatively small piece of wood the expense and complexity of managing forests is something that potentially could be better from a private purse in the current climate.

[Police State]

pugwash4x4 said:

Police State said:

Silver993tt said:

None of the forested areas are being sold. They are being leased to organisations such as trusts. Leasing allows strict management criteria to be attached.

you could also say, quite easily; Ownership "allows strict management criteria to be attached". It's not theirs to sell or lease. It is ours, and ours alone.

what makes you think this? where in law is forestry land owned by the government "ours"? is farmland also "ours", how about your back garden?

guess you mean "ours" from a moral imperative- if so, what is the basis for this?

It is Public Land as distinct from private because the law say's so. And yes, I mean it from a moral imperative, I alluded to that in my original post. The basis?, It is land that was left after most of it was appropriated by the various landed families and other patrons of various monarches through the ages. It is ours (mine and yours collectively) by default on the basis that if it belonged to either me or you alone, then it would be owned privately.

I don't own my back garden, the crown does.