General Chat

Another interesting link from my MP is this......

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-02-02a.1406.4

jude:o)

Hello Jean...did'nt see that on Yahoo.

Had a few more emails from him, but still can't find the link he was referring to.
My post below may be what he means though not sure. It came from a newspaper, The Independent.
Dunno, what have l got that you have'nt??l added abit more to the end of the pre-written letter to him!

Nite
jude...PS l edited the name of the newspaper:o)

Why are they always so surprised when they threaten things like this? If people have got hold of the wrong idea as they insinuate then it is their fault for not clarifying it.

Disgusted!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lainey

Found this.....

Environment Secretary under fire over forest sale

By Andrew Grice, Political Editor


Thursday, 3 February 2011
Share
Close
Diggdel.icio.usFacebookRedditGoogleStumble UponFarkNewsvineYahooBuzzBeboTwitterIndependent MindsPrintEmailText Size
NormalLargeExtra LargeSponsored Links
Ads by Google

Forestry Commission Sales
Sign Our Petition To Save England'sAncient Woods
www.WoodlandTrust.org.uk/

Cheap Land for Sale
Cheap plots of Land for Sale in UKFree Brochure. Buy plots of Land.
www.landfinderuk.com

Land Rover - Our Planet
Actively Supporting Projects WithKey Conservation Partners See More
LandRover.com/Sustainability

Spread Betting - Try Now
Try GFTs Award-Winning TradingPlatform. Free Practice Account.
www.GFTuk.com



The Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman came under fire from MPs in all parties yesterday as she defended her controversial plans to sell off England's public forests. Ministers admitted privately that they had not explained it properly and were being inundated with protest letters and emails. More than 360,000 people have signed a "save our forests" petition.


David Cameron promised during Prime Minister's Questions yesterday, to listen to critics of the proposal.

Related articles
•Britain's forests are being sold off - and nature lovers are up in arms
Search the news archive for more stories
Desmond Swayne, Mr Cameron's parliamentary aide and MP for New Forest West, who backs the sell-off, said that it had "unleashed a torrent of hostile emails". He added: "It is as if the Government was planning to sell and fell every tree in the land in order to adulterate the people's strawberry jam with wooden pips."

Ms Spelman came out fighting in a Commons debate called by Labour. She blamed the public outcry on "ludicrous speculation" in the media and "scaremongering" by Labour, accusing the Opposition of "synthetic rage," "self-righteous indignation" and "hypocrisy" because the previous Government had similar proposals for a sell-off of Forestry Commission land. Labour insisted the idea had been dropped because of public hostility and the cost.

The Environment Secretary insisted that only 18 per cent of England's woodlands would be affected. She promised that ministers would approve sell-offs only if public access and biodiversity were safeguarded. "We are not going to accept second best," she said.

But doubts were expressed by Tory MPs with woodland in their constituencies. Julian Lewis, who represents New Forest East, queried plans to hand "heritage forests" such as the New Forest and Forest of Dean to charitable groups, saying charities would not be able to shoulder the cost.

Tim Farron, the Liberal Democrat president, said there was a "lack of clarity" in the Government's plans. He asked Ms Spelman to rule out selling forests in national parks.

Mary Creagh, the shadow Environment Secretary, attacked what she called the "sale of the century," saying: "People are furious at the environmental vandalism. The Government's impact assessment shows us that it is economic madness too. If you sell the commercial timberlands, you starve the ancient woodlands. The true value of England's forests can never be measured in the price the Government gets from selling them."

Mr Cameron suggested the proposals could be changed after a consultation exercise but aides denied he was signalling a U-turn. He told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions: "Is it the case that there are organisations like the Woodland Trust, like the National Trust that could do a better job than the Forestry Commission? I believe yes there are."



jude

Jude, David hasnt replied to me yet. What have you got that I havent!!
The piece I referred to in my e=mail was on Yahoo that morning, saying that the government had been taken aback by the amount of opposition they were experiencing. They think they own the country, not true, we ALL do.!

l have emailed D Davies again and have just received 2 back, he's on a train and using his mobile!! l find that quite amusing:o)) but also impressed!. Anyway he said something about caroline spellman and the link to her speech, so going to find it now or after dinner.

jude

Going back to what the forestry commission has said about the NT and its inability to manage forests. Presumable if they took on larger forests rather than woodlands, then they would be employing experts to manage it, presumable ex members of the FC? I think we should bear in mind that it is not in the FC interests to say anything good about the NT.

I am not on anyone's side here, just trying to fight my way through all the reams of information.

I don't know where either of those are Merlin. The houses we visit all seem to have been sympathetically treated. But I was really talking about countryside rather than houses where they have actually saved it for the public to use.

Thanks for that Rita...l just been looking again, but nothing!!

l would of thought NT is better than private, but all this jargon in/on emails and websites is confusing...

l received an email from David Davies MP Monmouth, and l get the feeling he agrees with the government:o(((

l just keep hoping the desicion is reversed!!

jude

People trying to make Thetford Forest a Heritage Forest so it can't ever be owned by a private individual or a company, I think is what was said on the news earlier, only just caught it.

Lizx

Ann, you should go and see what they,ve done with "Kiplings House" and "Churchills" you might then see my point of view.Take Care.**M**

I'm not sure I agrre entirely with you about the NT Merlin. They do a reasonably good job in the Lke District with repairing paths etc. A lot of places would have housing or similar on them if the Trust had not taken them over.

Meybe its time these MPs who wish to sell off" OUR WOODLANDS" should be" Forcefully Reminded" who they belong to,not them or any Political Party.but to the People of this Country. as to letting the "National Trust" take them over,excuse the expression but they bugger up everything they put their hands on.The government should leave well alone, and whoever dream,t up this stupid Idea should be removed from their position.**M**.

I have received personal letter from House of Commons...(ooh!) from my MP Alan Campbell.

He thanks me for concerns,says he shares them and will do all he can to support the campaign,and goes on to say...it is estimated that it costs the taxpayer only £10 million a year for the protection and expansion of Britain's forests and woodlands.
Government has pledged to sell 15 per cent of the public forest estate by 2015.
It is the largest sell-off the Government can authorise without the need for an act of parliament--meaning MPs may not get to vote on the final plans.
A change in the law is being planned which will give the Environment Secretary the power to transfer ownership out of Govt.hands.
It amounts to the biggest change in land ownership since the Second World War.

Our natural heritage should remain in public ownership for the enjoyment of everyone and we have a duty to preserve that for future generations.

"This is not the only wildlife issue. In recent years, the FC has recreated significant acreages of lost habitats on its properties, from heathland in Dorset and East Anglia to peat bogs in Northumberland. Open spaces in its managed woods hold many of our breeding woodlarks and nightjars, not to mention rare butterflies such as wood whites and fritillaries. Creating habitats on this scale is beyond the resources of private bodies – unless the FC pays them.

"FC land is the main habitat for breeding goshawks in England," a forester told me, "because we tolerate them." Surely the goshawk is a protected species and must be tolerated? Yes, he said, but over much of England there are no goshawks in private woods, even when the habitat is suitable. As they say, go figure. Similarly, the majority of England's honey buzzards have found they prefer state-owned forests to private land, as do the ospreys that are now colonising the Lake District.

What is it to be? A model of the Big Society in action or locked gates, frozen welcomes and a mysterious absence of hawks? Whatever the future of our forests, the Forestry Commission will still be needed to turn policy into practice. Every one of my partying foresters was certain about one thing. The FC may lose its land, but it will not lose its human estate. "Throughout the EU," my informant said, "fragmentation of the forest ownership has always led to a commensurate increase in the size of the regulatory body. Soon, we will be twice as big." Put simply, the more woodland owners, the greater the bureaucracy needed to administer grants and voluntary agreements. Has Caroline Spelman seen the thorny wood behind the tempting trees?"

This is from The Independent , long article with some very important points made.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/britains-forests-are-being-sold-off--and-nature-lovers-are-up-in-arms-2202526.html

"This is only one example. In East Sussex, access to one wood is "physically restricted through lack of maintenance", meaning the new owner has let the paths turn into bramble thickets. At another in the same county, "discouraging notices" hang over the entrance. At a wood in Kent popular with walkers, "access is now very difficult to gain". At yet another, in Herefordshire, freshly painted signs "discourage" horse riders and are "no longer welcoming". The Forestry Commission is under a legal obligation to deliver public benefit. Private owners can only be encouraged to deliver such benefits. There is no compulsion on them to do so.

Spelman hopes that those designated as "heritage forests" (once she gets around to defining what they are) will be bought by conservation charities. These bodies have cautiously indicated their willingness to take over woods of appropriate quality. "We are willing to play our part in giving them a secure future," said Dame Fiona Reynolds, director-general of the National Trust. "We are ready to step in."

The idea of the National Trust or any other conservation charity taking over, say, the Crown woods of the New Forest, caused a ripple of wry amusement among my foresters. From their perspective, the National Trust and others like it are well-intentioned amateurs. "When they took on Workman's Wood in the Cotswolds," said Rod Leslie, a former head of policy at the Forestry Commission, "it was in wonderful condition. The previous owner had lovingly maintained glades and coppice plots, creating a varied mixture of light and shade that was wonderful for wildlife, and appropriate to its history and character. Since then, the canopy has shaded over, and the wood has become duller in every sense. The Trust lacks experience and infrastructure for holistic planning in forestry matters."

So whilst it sounds great that charities will be given the chance to purchase and manage ( and the money comes from?) it does not mean that the forests will necessarily be managed to the best standard.

Can't find anything as yet Jude, but this is quite interesting posted yesterday

"
It has emerged that the selling of England’s public forests could actually cost the country more than it would save, a study by the Government revealed yesterday.

MP’s are preparing to debate the plans to sell 258,000 hectares of Forestry Commission land in the Commons today, but a joint Department for Environment Farming and Rural Affairs (Defra) and Forestry Commission study has revealed that the sell-off, intended to raise £250 million, would actually cost the taypayer in the long term.

The sell-off, transferring heritage forests like the New Forest in Hampshire and the Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire to a conservation charity would cost £507.9m but yield benefits of only £495.9m. Selling, or leasing, of the large-scale commercial woodlands would cost between £579.1m and £748.7m but generate benefits of between £573.1m and £737.8m, the study reports. Woodland earmarked to be offered to communities would involve costs of £234.1m and bring in an estimated £231.9m.

Mary Creagh, the shadow Environment Secretary, said: "The devil is in the detail of these proposals. Defra's own impact assessment reveals that every option for selling the forests costs the taxpayer more than keeping them in public ownership. This shows that the Government's proposals are economic as well as environmental madness."

Online campaign group 38 Degrees currently have over 407512 signatures, while 80,000 people have signed the Woodland Trust's campaign petition. We reported last week that local campaign groups have been setup to oppose the sale of the forests.



Read more: http://www.bikemagic.com/event-news/forest-sale-expected-to-cost-more-than-it-saves/9724.html#ixzz1Ctb8LRto"

Morning....has anyone heard anything regarding the Crunch Vote, l've not seen anything??
Jean mentioned in an email that something has happened but l can't find what or where??

jude :o)

I just pulled this out of the huge post I put on earlier - all those acres sold without the knowledge of the common folk!


The Forestry Commission already runs itself as a business and, in its own words, has always “bought, leased and sold land as part of good asset management”.

In 2009 alone, 51 sites were sold, totalling 2,500 acres, with another ?37 woods covering 2,000 acres sold last year. In the current financial year, the Forestry Commission anticipates it will make around £13.5m from open market sales – focusing on sites with good sale value but where Forestry Commission ownership adds least value.