So apparently the forestry selloff is off...
Northwind
Posts: 14,675
I think it was all the threads on here that did it. GO BIKERADAR WOO
Uncompromising extremist
0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
The 15% will be small bits of isolated woodland, they've been doing that for years.
Next big worry is the redundancies in the FC. It's fine having trails there but they don't maintain themselves and certainly don't get extended on their own. News I heard at the weekend locally did not fill me with hope.
Good the government have finally woken up though, maybe they'll do the same for tuition fees, foreign policy, child benefit, VAT, fuel duty etc.
Not holding my breath, probably go blue.It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
I've bought a new bike....ouch - result
Can I buy a new bike?...No - no result0 -
-
RevellRider wrote:That's good news, but I wouldn't stop paying attention. MP's are sneaky little barstools and will try and sneak it through
Too true. Be careful of what they're up to.
Asda submitted planning permission for a huge new store in village near to where I live. There were loads of petitions and written objections lodged. So Asda withdrew the planning application. So all the petitions/objections have been discounted because they refer to a planning application that no longer exists. Then Asda just submitted a new planning request, which didn't get anything like the same public response as previously because everybody thought they'd already made their case, not realising it'd all need re-submitting against the new application number. Bingo, succress for Asda.
I expect the Govt will resurrect the forestry sell-off plans when there's something more distracting holding everyone's attention.
(Cynical? Moi? ... )0 -
If asda are anything like their parent walmart just do what my in laws area does.
Walmart want in, put a huge infrastructure cost as a condition, road improve, trees, change store colours to blend better.
They will accept as they'll do anything to get in to the area, still a awful place, even worse to do business with than to shop.FCN 120 -
As I understand it Labour changed the law some time back for 15% to legally be sold whenever needed.stumpyjon wrote:The 15% will be small bits of isolated woodland, they've been doing that for years.
The recent fuss over the 15% that was then a U-turn that wasn't, was within this law, and could still be sold. That was going to be delayed until April when the consultation over changing the law to allow the other 85% to be sold off finishes.
So what's happening now appears to be that consultation is scrapped and it reverts to the 15% legal allowance.
But we do need to keep a very close watch on this to ensure they don't sneak something else in.
Also note at the end about the FC redundancies. Less FC workers could potentially mean FC land becoming off limits. Worrying especially for trail centres on FC land if maintenance can't be kept up and they shut them down.0 -
Briggo wrote:'The big society'
Sack paid staff, get volunteers in.
Ironically what we we've currently got is already very Big Society, enthusiastic FC staff kicked off the trail building, volunteers then continued the work but we still need FC support. Without the FC guys we can't achieve much, together we've achieved a lot.
or at the very least no maintenance.Less FC workers could potentially mean FC land becoming off limits.It's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.
I've bought a new bike....ouch - result
Can I buy a new bike?...No - no result0 -
stumpyjon wrote:Briggo wrote:'The big society'
Sack paid staff, get volunteers in.
Ironically what we we've currently got is already very Big Society, enthusiastic FC staff kicked off the trail building, volunteers then continued the work but we still need FC support. Without the FC guys we can't achieve much, together we've achieved a lot.
or at the very least no maintenance.Less FC workers could potentially mean FC land becoming off limits.
But thats Camerons idea, that they do the same job as the paid FC staff, they'll be given "powers" to work things, just not paid to do it because apparently the local community will be excited about doing something the paid worker was doing in the first place.0 -
But thats Camerons idea, that they do the same job as the paid FC staff, they'll be given "powers" to work things, just not paid to do it because apparently the local community will be excited about doing something the paid worker was doing in the first place.
What's wrong with some volunteering to maintain trails? It's done all over the world. That's how we started so a little work here and there is ok in my books.Many happy trails!0 -
I dunno why everyone is so happy, you are now all worse off because they aren't selling the land. Well done for not paying attention to the facts0
-
timpop wrote:But thats Camerons idea, that they do the same job as the paid FC staff, they'll be given "powers" to work things, just not paid to do it because apparently the local community will be excited about doing something the paid worker was doing in the first place.
What's wrong with some volunteering to maintain trails? It's done all over the world. That's how we started so a little work here and there is ok in my books.
I know full well volunteering goes on, look at my sig, I support a volunteer group. :roll:
As Stumpy said though the people who have the power to do more (FC staff) and help the volunteers with X Y and Z, they are now going to lose their jobs due to cuts, those roles are potentially going to be filled with the 'big society' volunteers because its giving people the power to look after their forest, when it was being done in the first place, just by someone who was being paid is all.
And this isnt just forests, its across all public sector areas, so its not a bad thing for trail maintenance as such if people are given the power, the shite thing about it is that Cameron expects it all to be done for free and put people out of work doing it.0 -
Not actually true, but, leaving that aside you know the forestry selloff was going to lose money, right?Uncompromising extremist0
-
Northwind wrote:Not actually true, but, leaving that aside you know the forestry selloff was going to lose money, right?
Sorry but it is true and yeah it looses money for the English FC but it saves the Scottish and Welsh FC's a hell of a lot and the English FC never had the money in the first place so...0 -
the scottish and the welsh fc have been funding the english fc for over 50yrs so the sell off would have saved the scottish and the welsh fc loads off money but u where all worried about getting access to the land so the say they are not going to sell the land off but what u dont know is if sum1 with the money went up to them them to buy the land they will do it through the back door and theres nothing u can do about it1 life live it to the max
im no1 so y try any harder??0 -
Thanks vmuch for all the fantastic support, which has made such a difference to the campaign. I am told that as well as the 1/2 mill plus signatures on the 38 degrees site MPs have between them received nearly 50000 letters from the public expressing their concerns over the consultation. The areas you would expect ... Dean New Forest, NYMoors, Cannock, Sherwood, Lakes but also folks representing urban constituencies, Scotland and Wales.
Re the latest posts...Forestry has been a devolved function since Feb 2003. No one country has been saving another since then at least. Wales FC - Welsh Assembly, Scotland FC - Scottish Parliament, England FC - DEFRA. Corporate services, run from Edinburgh are shared, pro-rata, between the three.0 -
the english fc is not run by DEFRA its run by nuber 11 downing street but for all the fc the head office is in edinburgh1 life live it to the max
im no1 so y try any harder??0 -
1. You think the Chancellor runs every Government Department?
2. I just said (in as many words) Silvan House (head office) is funded by all three countries.0 -
thats where u are very wrong yes head office is in edinburgh but the scottish fc is funded by the scottish office, the welsh fc is funded by the welsh Assembly
and the english is funded by the chancellor but the fc has 1 head office1 life live it to the max
im no1 so y try any harder??0 -
Selling it off would have meant we may have been selling what we own, to ourselves (some of us anyway).peter413 wrote:I dunno why everyone is so happy, you are now all worse off because they aren't selling the land. Well done for not paying attention to the facts
That's on the basis that they wanted communities to club together to buy the land and the likes of the National Trust would also invest in some of it, who are funded by a lot of us who are members or have visited NT properties. Though at least if the NT were to charge for parking you'd not be paying tax to the gov unlike if the FC charges (assuming you're an NT member and declare as a UK tax payer as NT is a charity, whereas FC is not).
Besides even if English FC was being bailed out by other countries, that's no problem for the English. It's a bonus for us. Keep it up :P
Was all the land up for sale exclusively FC land?0
