Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The coalition government of the United Kingdom is about to put all national parkland up for sale.

All national land is ultimately at risk.

The Guardian: We now know, thanks to the junior environment minister Jim Paice's frank evidence to a recent House of Lords select committee, that the government is considering the sale of not just "some", or even "substantial", amounts of woodland as the public was originally led to believe, but of all state-owned English trees across the commission's 635,000-acre Forestry Commission estate. This includes many royal forests, state-owned ancient woodlands, sites of special scientific interest, heathland, campsites, farms and sporting estates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/22/tory-privatisation-all-state-forests

The Telegraph: An Opposition debate on the proposals this on Wednesday could trigger a revolt as MPs throughout the country are deluged by public opposition to the plans.

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, has already been warned that some of his backbenchers may vote against the plans to sell 258,000 hectares owned by the Forestry Commission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8291358/Pressure-mounts-over-forest-sell-off.html

BBC - Commercial operators will manage commercial forests on long leases.

Community and civil society groups will be given the opportunity to buy or lease forests.

The consultation covers about 1,500 pieces of land totalling 2,500 sq km - the 18% of English forests owned by the Forestry Commission.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12287175

Who owns the Tower of London?

I'm going to see about a loan.

Monster Rain wrote:Who owns the Tower of London?

I'm going to see about a loan.

Is the tower in a forest?

snurl wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Who owns the Tower of London?

I'm going to see about a loan.

Is the tower in a forest?

Plant trees around it to make it in a forest if it isn't?

n0t_u wrote:

snurl wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Who owns the Tower of London?

I'm going to see about a loan.

Is the tower in a forest?

Plant trees around it to make it in a forest if it isn't?

Only if they look nice, and not too expensive.....

British government sucks, who wants to swap?

Got wood?

Why, yes, I do

Are these forests being sold as areas that would be available for construction ect? What are the buyers actually allowed to do with the land?

Also:

SilverMK2 wrote:Got wood?

Why, yes, I do

Well, at least you've still got an affordable educa--OHWAITAMINUTE

'sigh' There's another mark on my tally for how many times I want to slap the government with a fish.

Then subsequently remove them from office and get a better government in.

Well at least you'll get plenty of paper for new textboo---OHWAITAMINUTE

I'm glad to know that whenever I'm pissed off about how utterly horrible Harper's government is (seriously, it's like he wants to kill the internet altogether), I can look to Britain to know that yes, we could do worse.

Hmn, so who here in Scotland actually voted them in again...........? ¬¬

Yay, let's all vote in a government of businessmen and conservatives, that's a complety new idea that'll solve all our problems. Oh hang on, didn't some woman do the exact same things twenty or something years ago? Sigh.

Hey, at least you managed to vote in some people again and again to totally screw up the country to the extent where the next goverment has to consider selling everything off again

Need I mention where our previous glorious leaders were from?

Well at least this makes me feel a bit better about how incompetent the US government is. Glad to see that stupidity in government crosses all boundaries.

Wyrmalla wrote:Hmn, so who here in Scotland actually voted them in again...........? ¬¬

Yay, let's all vote in a government of businessmen and conservatives, that's a complety new idea that'll solve all our problems. Oh hang on, didn't some woman do the exact same things twenty or something years ago? Sigh.

As opposed to a government of businessmen and conservatives who pretend to be working class?

At least this lot gives what it says on the label. I mean, what's the alternative, John Prescott as Deputy PM again?

How much for Sherwood Forest?

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

Seven English Pounds, my good sir.

snurl wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Who owns the Tower of London?

I'm going to see about a loan.

Is the tower in a forest?

"All national land is ultimately at risk."

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

http://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/204/details.htm

SilverMK2 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

Seven English Pounds, my good sir.

Excellent. Let me get my hat and Sheriff's badge. Robin stay off my ing lawn!!!

SilverMK2 wrote:Hey, at least you managed to vote in some people again and again to totally screw up the country to the extent where the next goverment has to consider selling everything off again

Need I mention where our previous glorious leaders were from?

This is the clincher Its depressing how the lowIQ squad all,too squickly forget that Gorden 'Im the economic genius' Brown managed to squander a stable economy into a debt larger than we needed to fight Hitler. The interest alone is criplling us, which brown #thoughtfully' deferred at extra bonus cost until after the election. Cameron has inherited a hornets nerst of graspers who are used to wanting it now and not thinking about the cost, if they think at all.

I dont like selling off the forests, but the Tories have bee put up to this by the squandering of the previous administration. We are so deep in debt it will take us 50 years to get out by some estimates, yet we had cleared all debt under John Major. Tony Blair inherited a nation in the black and a solid economy.


Where did the moneygo? On increasing benefits while decreasing taxes under Blair, and for numberless quangos and PC dogma projects, we don't even have anything material for the cost except a grossly overbudget millenium dome and Wembley stadium.
All the spending was so that Blair and Brown look good while hoping that the majority of the electorate cannot add and subtract and see the shitstorm approaching. Fortunately for them the majority really were that stupid.

Frankly you should have noticed something was up in 1998 by looking at the policies, if not selling off the Uk gold reserves (at a low low price for EZ sale) to give phony Tony room for a generous beudget before the 2001 election. That should have set alarm bells ringing. How long did it taske to save a reserve, just to squander it in one year for one election to assist a handful of self serving fethheads.

Selling the forests is a trajedy, buit the Uk is living beyond its means and wont own up to it, Cameron has ordered that saving be made wherever possible, but that wont be enough. Perhaps the only answer is to look at the electoral role, see who voted the squandering new Labour lot in, and charge them for the benefits of twelve years of gross mismanagement. They are responsible, they should pay. Wouldn't it be nice if the Low IQ squad got their chequebooks out for once instead of their placards.

The title of this thread is totally misleading.

Also, will some of you actually READ the BBC article? I've bolded the relevant parts for the hard-of-thinking:

Auntie Beeb wrote:Ministers say ancient woodlands will be kept out of commercial hands as they launch a consultation on the future of Forestry Commission lands in England.

Campaigners claim weakening public ownership of the forests will damage nature and restrict access.

But the consultation documents propose that "heritage forests" such as the New Forest will be managed by charities, with access rights preserved.

Commercial operators will manage commercial forests on long leases.

Community and civil society groups will be given the opportunity to buy or lease forests.

The consultation covers about 1,500 pieces of land totalling 2,500 sq km - the 18% of English forests owned by the Forestry Commission.


Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not affected by the plans.


Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said disposing of the lands would enable the government and the Forestry Commission to focus on their most important roles.
Continue reading the main story

"State control of forests dates back to World War I, when needs were very different," she said.

"There's now no reason for the government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.

"It's time for the government to step back and allow those who are most involved with England's woodlands to play a much greater role in their future... and we will make sure that public access is maintained and biodiversity protected."

Where charities manage heritage woodlands, Ms Spelman told BBC News, the government will provide financial assistance.

The government points out that 69% of English forests are already in private hands; and that New Zealand, South Africa and the Australian state of Queensland have all gone through similar processes in recent years.

Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes. What's next? Are you going to start asking to see David Cameron's birth certificate?

Face it, your side lost. Instead of following the lead of the American Right and frittering away its dignity by slinging mud at the other side, the British Left needs to grow up, understand where it went wrong, and come up with a credible alternative. All they seem to offer at the moment is bitterness.

Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes. What's next? Are you going to start asking to see David Cameron's birth certificate?

Now that you mention it, has anyone seen his actual birth certificate? ? ?

Albatross wrote:Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes.

But if we sell off the woods the Ents will come and get us!

Frazzled wrote:

Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes. What's next? Are you going to start asking to see David Cameron's birth certificate?

Now that you mention it, has anyone seen his actual birth certificate? ? ?

He sold it.






Come on, I had to do it!

Albatross wrote:The title of this thread is totally misleading.

Also, will some of you actually READ the BBC article? I've bolded the relevant parts for the hard-of-thinking:

Auntie Beeb wrote:Ministers say ancient woodlands will be kept out of commercial hands as they launch a consultation on the future of Forestry Commission lands in England.

Campaigners claim weakening public ownership of the forests will damage nature and restrict access.

But the consultation documents propose that "heritage forests" such as the New Forest will be managed by charities, with access rights preserved.

Commercial operators will manage commercial forests on long leases.

Community and civil society groups will be given the opportunity to buy or lease forests.

The consultation covers about 1,500 pieces of land totalling 2,500 sq km - the 18% of English forests owned by the Forestry Commission.


Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not affected by the plans.


Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said disposing of the lands would enable the government and the Forestry Commission to focus on their most important roles.
Continue reading the main story

"State control of forests dates back to World War I, when needs were very different," she said.

"There's now no reason for the government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.

"It's time for the government to step back and allow those who are most involved with England's woodlands to play a much greater role in their future... and we will make sure that public access is maintained and biodiversity protected."

Where charities manage heritage woodlands, Ms Spelman told BBC News, the government will provide financial assistance.

The government points out that 69% of English forests are already in private hands; and that New Zealand, South Africa and the Australian state of Queensland have all gone through similar processes in recent years.

Seriously, MGS - how can you accuse people like Glen Beck of fear-mongering and manipulation with a straight face? This sort of behaviour is no different, in my eyes. What's next? Are you going to start asking to see David Cameron's birth certificate?

Face it, your side lost. Instead of following the lead of the American Right and frittering away its dignity by slinging mud at the other side, the British Left needs to grow up, understand where it went wrong, and come up with a credible alternative. All they seem to offer at the moment is bitterness.

This is less important than how the move will be seen.

Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

Every morning I wake up and thank my lucky stars I am not a Tory.

Orlanth wrote:
This is less important than how the move will be seen.

Take the student protests for example. The Uk raised the limit on fees to a maximum £9K per year, so the press, students and parents autiomatically assumed that the fees therefore were £9K a year.

I thought they also cut budgets at the schools by 40%, so ya know they need to get the money from somewhere.

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

http://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/204/details.htm

What's in the bottom corner? The satellite looks like woodland but the map says it isn't...

it's either the handiwork of the Large Hadron Collider or Osama...

In all seriousness, as long as the woodland protection and felling permit people are doing their jobs this shouldn't be a major problem...

reds8n wrote:

Frazzled wrote:How much for Sherwood Forest?

http://www.woods4sale.co.uk/woodlands/204/details.htm

can i just say how awesome you are for posting that link?

now who wants to pool together 120,000 Pounds?