Government U - turn, Sale of forests put on hold.

Dirtydog11

As in the title.

The Governments planned sale of the forests has been put on hold. Criteria will be reviewed. Protection needs to be strengthened.

They've backed down!!

Lol It would have been political suicide to push it through.

Well done to all those that signed the petitions.

Briggo

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814

Anonymous

That's not a back down. That's brushing it under the carpet so it can be sneaked back in when no one's looking or if it's a bad news day.

Or at least that would be the way Gordon Brown would have done it, like how he sold all our gold!

Dirtydog11

deadkenny wrote:

That's not a back down. That's brushing it under the carpet so it can be sneaked back in when no one's looking or if it's a bad news day.

Or at least that would be the way Gordon Brown would have done it, like how he sold all our gold!

I think its probably as big a U turn as they could have made without it looking like one, only time will tell.

We will be watching!

cooldad

deadkenny wrote:

That's not a back down. That's brushing it under the carpet so it can be sneaked back in when no one's looking or if it's a bad news day.

Or at least that would be the way Gordon Brown would have done it, like how he sold all our gold!

Cynic.

Anonymous

That's me

WisePranker

deadkenny wrote:

That's not a back down. That's brushing it under the carpet so it can be sneaked back in when no one's looking or if it's a bad news day.

Or at least that would be the way Gordon Brown would have done it, like how he sold all our gold!

I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

Daily Telegraph wrote:

But Ms Spelman said the Government was committed to increasing protection for access and public benefit in public woodlands, and that the "inadequate measures" applied to sales under the previous administration would be reviewed.
She said the review would not affect the commitment to sell 15% of the forest estate over the next four years, and had no impact on the continuing consultation into the remaining 85% of the public forests.

Pretty much sounds like they're planing on doing it no matter what we all say

Bar Shaker

I think it takes a very open and honest government minister to take such a decision.

That's something we haven't seen for a very long time.

Northwind

deadkenny wrote:

Or at least that would be the way Gordon Brown would have done it, like how he sold all our gold!

I do like how any criticism of the new lot always comes back to slagging the old lot. I wonder if Angela Merkel ever says "Hey, we might have totally failed to reduce our energy dependance, and my healthcare reforms are a joke, but at least I never massacred any jews"

Anonymous

Well, they're all the same. Politicians that is. Besides they slag off the old lot themselves. Labour continued to blame it all on the Tories even as Brown was being booted out.

Don't trust the Tories much more than Labour. Lib Dems I'd trust more to not want to sell off the land but they don't really have much say and Clegg just does what he's told.

They're all two faced basically.

supafly1982

i wouldnt sat hes cynical, he just has an understanding how politicians work,

just wait till theres terrible news, then they will sell all the forrests when we are all distracted, the art of missdirection

Anonymous

Think negative then you can be pleasantly surprised when things turn positive

Though maybe that explains why I'm miserable all the time

KonaKurt

Dirtydog, YES this is excellent news - for now at least.

I have been supporting this petition and following it's progress from the start, and it has clearly touched a raw nerve with many decent countryside lovers. I would like to think that this is a big issue with all mountain bikers, and indeed all people in this nation of ours, who enjoys outdoor sports and nature lovers. It is easy to pass off the situation by claiming that 'politicians will do what they want anyway, regardless of what we citizens think or protest about', but that is a very defeatist attitude if you ask me.

By NOT protesting and making your voice heard, we encourage more carelessness, profitering and corruption from our already uncaring self-serving government. This is an EXTREMELY important issue to EVERYONE in this great nation of ours, because piece by piece, year after year, we are losing our countryside at an alarming rate, a rate that has never been so high for the sake of merely profiteering and putting yet more timber and 're-development' cash in already grubby pockets. Fact: Propery developers are constantly greedy for more and more and more land (especially in this high priced country) to build on, and if we all just sit by in ignorance, shrug our shoulders, frown and say 'why bother to protest?' then we only have ourselves to blame when we later find most of our woodland and forests disappearing within a matter of a few years.

Sorry to ramble on, but this is a VERY important matter to everyone who not only uses our beautiful woodland for walking and sports, but anyone who claims to be proud to be British and love this green and pleasent land. In 10 years, it may not be.

You can write and protest to your local MP, or visit the link below and sign as I and over 500,000 others have already done.

I don't want to get too political here, but it is extremely important that the British public protest back! (If the Egyptians can succeed in being heard and make a difference, then why not us Brits about this?

KK (who wants to keep enjoyig our woodland as nature intended)

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests

RonB

We should take heart from this, however, and I know this sounds like "every silver lining has a cloud"...dk has a point...

DEFRA made a statement today saying: This will not affect the commitment to sell 15 per cent of the public forest estate over the next four years and has no impact on the ongoing consultation on the remaining 85 per cent of the public forest estate.

So there you have it. Things are being put on hold until the consultation is complete (mid April). The cunning plan is to carry on regardless after that.

Northwind

RonB wrote:

So there you have it. Things are being put on hold until the consultation is complete (mid April). The cunning plan is to carry on regardless after that.

OK, I don't know if your interpretation is correct but if it is, surely that outs the consultation as a complete smokescreen- if the plan was previously to go ahead before it was complete.

RonB

Source - DEFRA website - "The programme of forestry sales announced in the Spending Review in October 2010 will be temporarily suspended until extra protections on access and biodiversity are put in place. Once this has happened, the sales will go ahead."

Just to be clear, the "programme" within the statement refers to the 15%/ 40000ha. I know BikeRadar folks will be keen to see what "extra protections on access" means in practice. As I said earlier, the consultation on all of the public woodlands managed by FC continues, deadline 21st April. Info and guidance here.

Thanks to everyone who has supported the campaign, Ron

cavegiant

Am I the only one thinking that they are just considering more options. eg they could make more money selling our forests for nuclear waste storage than recreation.

kevcampbell

we need labour back in power i think, they seem to want to keep the forests

lets hope some kind of protests take place soon, which is 100 times worse than the student protests, hopefully that way they will give up power and hand it back to labour, kind of like what happened with egypt

Anonymous

kevcampbell wrote:

we need labour back in power i think, they seem to want to keep the forests

Maybe, but they wouldn't let us use them unless we all have CRB checks, wear tracking tags and have CCTV everywhere, just to make sure we're not being naughty or potential terrorists.

The Northern Monkey

if the govenment are selling the Forests, who actually does own them at the moment?

Is it "the uk public" or the crown or what?

bails87

deadkenny wrote:

kevcampbell wrote:

we need labour back in power i think, they seem to want to keep the forests

Maybe, but they wouldn't let us use them unless we all have CRB checks, wear tracking tags and have CCTV everywhere, just to make sure we're not being naughty or potential terrorists.

I don't remember having to do that a year ago when I went to FC land

Anonymous

Yeah, but given time they would. Labour was in the process of turning this into a police state.

WisePranker

kevcampbell wrote:

we need labour back in power i think, they seem to want to keep the forests

The problem is that they're just as bad. Labour sold off 25,000 acres of forests when they were in power.

Northwind

WisePranker wrote:

The problem is that they're just as bad. Labour sold off 25,000 acres of forests when they were in power.

That's a good headline grabber- but they also bought 13500, the net reduction was less than half the number the Tories have been throwing around., just 11500 acres.

If you go back to the previous Tory government, they had a total loss of 180000 hectares (444789 acres) so a mere 38 times more than Labour.

Also, I think most people have twigged but they've consistently quoted the Labour figures in acres and their own figures in hectares. The reason? 1 hectare is 2.47 acres so by quoting the labour figure in acres it gives them a number 2 and a half times bigger (and most people have no idea how big either are). That sort of shenanigans shows exactly where they're coming from and the respect they hold for the public...

sheepsteeth

so, did any of those threads about this stop the sale of land which we used to be allowed to ride on?

RonB

All the support is certainly making a difference. 1/2 million signatures on 38 degrees petition is just too many to ignore. In addition, over 50,000 letters to MP's. They don't like getting letters. It means they have to do something, even if it is just a cut'n'paste reply. I hope our site (below) helps explain thinks a bit more fully. Thanks again, Ron

Rick_huggins

Swampy owns the trees...

stumpyjon

I'm hoping it means they've cocked up, realised it's going to be more painful than they expected and will quietly drop the whole and go on to trash something else which people care less about or they can actually make money from.

The next thing we really need to worrying about in the FC is the proposed work force cuts. That's all we need, the trails need to be championed and maintained, a cut in workforce could well hurt that and I've got inside knowledge that may well happen.

Anonymous

Hmm, the more I read about it it seems all they've done is put on hold what was already pegged up for sale this April by Labour (the 15%) and appears to be nothing more than a means of placating the public and blaming Labour at the same time. The ConDem's plans still remain and the 15% will be back on the agenda come 21st April when the consultation period ends for the rest of the sale.

And someone pointed out to me that the 21st April is conveniently around the same time as a certain wedding.

Chrisdawg

Labour sold off about 7500 hectares but bought 5400 so a nett loss of 2100 hectares, still a loss I know. But the money made by these sales was pumped back into the FC, that will now stop and it goes to the treasury. The current 40,000 ha was put up for sale by spelman and paice not the last labour lot, the sale is on hold until they look into the protection of access and biodiversity. Just shows you that you can not believe all the crap that they have been spouting up until now about how everything will be ok.

And dont be taken in by the 'leasing is a better option' , that is just a load of b#####s ask any lawyer and he will tell you that any terms stipulated in a lease can be challanged and changed. They also dont need to be transferred if the lease is sold on.

Anonymous

Chrisdawg wrote:

The current 40,000 ha was put up for sale by spelman and paice not the last labour lot, the sale is on hold until they look into the protection of access and biodiversity

From what I understand Labour made provision for this 15% to be sold off through a change in the law. What they sold in the past is immaterial. They were effectively planning to sell it off anyway. That ConDems are doing the same just shows they're all as bad as each other and I wouldn't for a moment believe that Labour are the saviour of our forests and more than any other politician is.

Of course the ConDems are going further by leasing out the other 85%, and that's the bigger issue for us in terms of access.