The Conservative UK government is planning to sell off all our forests. Below is a link to a petition against it. Please sign the petition now: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests And here is an interesting take on the issue http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/31/william-conqueror-big-society-woodland
it's teh fookin' 80's all over again :willy_nilly: might as well let 'em sell it, there'll be no busses going anywhere near a rural area soon anyway ... only the rich will be able to afford to get to see a tree in it's natural environment .... or worse .... mountain bikers *shudders* where is teh national trust, with all it's mega millions, to buy up all these forest from the govt for us? (but seriously.. signed.. i hope it works)
well, i signed it, but i doubt it will make any difference... the corporatocracy just do what they want anyway and fuck what the people want...
Bleh, can't get worked up about this. It probably sounds ten times worse than it actually ever will be. I don't think it is accurate to say "all our forests", tbh...so we start on the wrong foot straight away. With respect, I can't sign your petition.
I have never seen forest management I could agree with.. Though, Ive lived next to the game land and one year they clear cut /just everything, Tree's all infected with Borer. Low level brush was sprayed. Cough Cough - Im dying here- after a few years and some chromosome damage. Some really fine trees and brush now. Almost impassable on foot. Very thick woods now for the animals... 30/40-50 years from now, they will do the same thing..
Apparently the plan is to sell off 100% of Forestry Commission - so "all our Forestry Commission woodland" would appear to be an accurate statement. To quote David Bellamy on the proposed sales - "This madness just has to stop - this isn't theirs to sell, these are our forests and they belong to everyone in the country." I cant quite work out whether selling some that's not yours to sell is fraud or theft. Of course, we've been told that local councils, charities and local residents will be given the opportunity to buy the woodland [the woodland that's already theirs]... these presumably being the same local councils that are laying off workers and cutting services because of government policies, charities who are already getting overloaded and will probably become more so in Workhouse Britain, and as for local residents... raising the sort of sums involved would be very difficult, to say the least. We seem to be in danger of revisiting the Enclosures Acts.
even if it is exaggerated, it's still an issue Does it matter that I'm in the US? Can anyone sign a petition in a different country?
I don't think anybody said that here. What was said was: "The Conservative UK government is planning to sell off all our forests" In truth, it seems: In October 2010, the Minister for Agriculture and Food, James Paice MP, wrote to MPs, outlining the Government's proposals to sell leases to roughly half the forests currently managed by the Forestry Commission. Of the 23,000 square kilometres (8,900 sq mi) of forest in Britain, around 40% is state-owned and 60% is in the private sector.
Selling nature for money in any form is destruction at its finest, it doesn't mean how far it goes, the first action is already one to many. The fact people don't fight against it is beyond me. I would protest this on any means if I lived in that country. IMO if known this would be a global fight to protect any forest. In the end, Ill take your trees, and raise your paper money.
Odon, I know you - you'll split hairs into ever smaller slices untill everyone has lost sight of the original point - or maybe cant see the wood for the trees ? I'm sure we both knew what was meant. I've often wondered which government department you actually work for
To be fair - and if I dont point it out, Odon will - not all Forestry Commission woodland was "good" woodland. A lot, if not all, of the original plantings post-WWI were conifer woodlands meant as a cash crop and not very friendly to the indiginous flora and fauna. Over time, though, as they were felled, there has been a policy of replanting much more deciduous, not to mention indiginous, trees and managing them as a woodland, rather than as a cash crop. Re. protests, I think there are a lot going on - certainly in my part of the world there are - but at the moment they are at a very localized grass-roots level... which may be the best way, initially at least. For example, one of our local newspapers - the Darlington-based Northern Echo [a North-East England regional morning paper] - has been campaigning against the proposals. It's through that source that I learned of one of the earliest bits of the sell-off - woodland known as The Stang, near Barnard Castle, size 526 hectares. It was sold by the Forestry Commission last month - for a cool 3.25 million GBP - to someone called BJSS, who describe themselves as a "software development and IT consultancy company operating in the financial services, energy trading and retail sectors". Sounds like impeccable credentials for running a woodland to me. This is the way it will be - the bunch of pirates in government will kindly allow local authorities, charities and local groups the chance to buy their local woodland, in the sure knowledge that they almost certainly wont be able to afford to. The woodlands will then be passed on to those who can - consultancy companies, developers, speculators. No doubt even now some financial consultant is working out how buying up woodland can be used as another tax-dodge by the mega-wealthy.
Well since we have already stripped the planet of half its forests resources id say its time to protest. It truly effects everyone in the future, maybe not ourselves who knows, none the less the children are going to pay very heavily. http://normbenson.com/timberati/201...d’s-forests-been-converted-to-non-forest-use/ Well actions need to be made to protect any forest. At the rate we are consuming we could be down to 35 / 45% of the worlds forests within 30 years. This is not a wild assumption. Excellent site with all kinds of global information. http://www.greenfacts.org/en/forests/l-2/2-extent-deforestation.htm#1 Some people are already doing the right thing buying land to preserve. Douglas Tompkins an American billionaire has done just that. http://observers.france24.com/conte...hilet-argentine-parcs-prives-douglas-tompkins He is not the only one, ive read about several rich Europeans doing the same thing. I hope its not to late though.
All I said was: "I don't think it is accurate to say "all our forests"" ...and it turns out I was right. Splitting hairs is better than making stuff up (at worst) or not being accurate (at best), imho. The original point should be: The Forestry commision is planning on selling roughly half the forests currently managed by the Forestry Commission. There really isn't anything else to slice or dice (not that I did in the first place, you were just trying to make me seem wrong)...apart from if somebody claims the land WILL ALL be chopped down, made into golf courses or cut off from the public. I don't know what will happen to the land...nobody does. If you're going to appose something I appreciate the need to be alarmist, that is why I said what I said in my first post..."Bleh, can't get worked up about this. It probably sounds ten times worse than it actually ever will be. I don't think it is accurate to say "all our forests", tbh...so we start on the wrong foot straight away. With respect, I can't sign your petition."
Actually - if I understand it correctly - the government has pledged to sell 15 per cent of the public forest estate by 2015... but that's only because it is the largest sell-off the government can authorise without the need for an act of parliament. However, a change in the law is being planned which will give the Environment Secretary the power to transfer ownership out of Government hands. It amounts to the biggest change in land ownership since the Second World War. So - if they get their way - the remaining 85% will pass from public ownership into private hands. Do you approve of that or not ? Forestry Commission woodlands in Scotland and Wales will remain in public hands, incidentally.
Organised local opposition to the proposed sell-off - this site concerns the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire... http://www.handsoffourforest.org/ .
The English Public Forest Estate (PFE) comprises over 1,000 woods covering some 258,000 hectares. It is the single largest land holding owned by the State. While the PFE only represents 18% of all woodland, it is much more accessible to the public—44% of the accessible woodland in England is part of the estate.1 It is managed by Forestry Commission England on behalf of Defra. (Woodland covers 9% of England, which is one of the lowest percentages in Europe.) http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/01/27/englands-forests/ http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/SNSC-05734.pdf So we've gone from all forests to half the forests to 15% of the 18% of the woodland there is. And the actual sell-off will represent less than one fifth of the woodlands of England. I also appreciate land is bought too. I would disapprove of this so-called massive sell-off (biggest change in land ownership since the Second World War) if... A. It was more land. B. There were no safe-guards. I appreciate once the land is open to be sold then we are only left with reassurances. Then it boils down how each piece of land is used/maintained. I'm not suggesting people should bend over and take it. If there are legitimate concerns and not just NIMBYism...fair enough. There is land near me that is supposedly being turned into foot-ball fields, and I respect people who are up-in-arms about it. I can see their point. I spent many a happy hour as a child enjoying the land. Plus I hate football. The problem is, it is, in the cold light of day...a shit piece of land. So it can go, for all I care. Not far from this land is a beautiful stretch of land and if it was proposed to be sold off, I would be concerned. But not overly concerned. I appreciate a hell of a lot of land in not owned by the FC, and it is beautifully maintained and access is assured. I think the difference between you and I is that I don't think just because it falls into private owner-ship this means it will be bad news. I wouldn't be mounting a campaign based on speculation, half-truths, omissions and just plain lies.
I know you dont. But if it's in "public" hands at the moment, shouldn't the "public" have a say whether or not it should stay there ? Given the record of public holdings sold off to the highest bidder - power, water, transport, etc - hasn't exactly been brilliant, shouldn't we be worried on that count alone ? No ? Politicians do it all the time. Though I fully expect you to now produce reams of figures proving conclusively that politicians do not lie all the time, ie: not 100% of the time ,etc. Split...split...split... there goes another hair
I think 15% is non negotiable the other 85% is open to consultation with the public. That's right isn't it? It hasn't always been exactly a complete failure, either. Be concerned but not worried. The concerns displayed in the OP link are too ott...it's not being fair or reasonable. I'm sorry I am or try to be. I have no trouble with my electric and water supplier. Do you? I appreciate there has been chaos with the trains. More chaos than would have happened if it was still state run? mmm, it could only really get better. It isn't splitting hairs. It's being fair. Again, I'm sorry for being fair. It simply isn't true that all politicians lie all of the time. I don't need provide reams of evidence to prove that. If you didn't rely on absolutes for your arguments and was fair...you would say the same thing too (with out the need for a nudge).
Who Knows ? It all changed again today.. Forest sell-off faces the chop after coalition invoked a public backlash - A week ago the government said there was no turning back with the sell-off. Now the momentum is with the public Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/11/forest-sell-off-faces-chop-public-backlash [QUOTE[I have no trouble with my electric and water supplier. Do you?[/QUOTE] More than you could possibly imagine, but lets not get sidetracked from the trees - the Forestry Commission is actually pretty good at what it does, probably better than most similar government organizations. A recurring refrain around this issue is: "If it aint broke, why fix it ?". And of course the other recurring refrain: "If its publicly owned, do they have any right to sell it anyway ?" How about we have a national referendum on it ?
