# Forestry commission sell-off:  Forest of Dean protesters get active



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Fucking Con Dems are set to flog off the entire 650,000-acre forestry commission estate in England to developers, charities and power companies.



> Today, more than 110,000 people had signed a petition against the coalition's proposed sale of all Forestry Commission land in England. Opposition to the sale of nearly 20% of all England's wooded area is fiercest in Gloucestershire where yellow ribbons and posters have been tied around thousands of trees.
> 
> If the public bodies bill, expected to be debated in the House of Lords within three weeks, becomes law, the entire 650,000-acre forestry commission estate in England could be sold to developers, charities and power companies, possibly raising hundreds of millions of pounds.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

There was a huge demo yesterday with burning effigies and such like. 

Have a look at HOOF


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2011)

That's a fucking disgrace.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

There's no way that's happening in the forest without dead bodies. No way on earth. They're also cutting the libraries and every other service in cinderford


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Jan 4, 2011)

Fucking hell


----------



## junglevip (Jan 4, 2011)

Greedy tory scum!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 4, 2011)

Is there any info available online as to where threatened forestry commission land is in the UK?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 4, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Is there any info available online as to where threatened forestry commission land is in the UK?


 
Sounds like the whole fecking lot


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Petition here: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/s/save-our-forests


----------



## editor (Jan 4, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Is there any info available online as to where threatened forestry commission land is in the UK?


It's all of it. 



> *For sale: all of our forests. Not some of them, nor most of them – the whole lot*
> 
> 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


----------



## treelover (Jan 4, 2011)

Dennis Potter will be turning very angrily in his grave


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 4, 2011)

Fuckin' nora


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 4, 2011)

Surely the Royals can oppose this? This cannot be allowed to happen.


----------



## treelover (Jan 4, 2011)

Selling England by the pound....


----------



## Divisive Cotton (Jan 4, 2011)

There's photographs here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/gallery/2011/jan/03/forest-of-dean-protest#/?picture=370242431&index=0


----------



## likesfish (Jan 4, 2011)

although would quite hapilly set fire to some fc confier plantations
 flogging off forests that have open access to private companies lets face the National trust won't be buying them sucks cunts.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 4, 2011)

Since when was publicly owned-assets the government's to sell?


----------



## rover07 (Jan 4, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> Since when was publicly owned-assets the government's to sell?


 
Forestry Act 1981


----------



## rover07 (Jan 4, 2011)

How much is the Forest of Dean on sale for?

27000 acres at say £3000 per acre. £81 million


----------



## ToothlessFerret (Jan 5, 2011)

I ran a local campaign during the last Tory Government, when it tried to speed up its creeping privatisation of the FC.  The campaign was called the Thetford Forest Campaign.  Used it to embarrass Gillian Shepherd who was the local MP, and also the Minister responsible at the time. They've been doing it for years.  Anyone wants any info on how the campaign went, let me know.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jan 5, 2011)

was chatting to a chap last night who reckoned the forests were a gift to the public from royalty way back when. If true, it was given to the people from private hands and the Tories now want it back into private hands again and to benefit from the sale.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2011)

Fucking hell. 3 weeks till it's debated in the lords? These cunts move fast don't they?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

ToothlessFerret said:


> I ran a local campaign during the last Tory Government, when it tried to speed up its creeping privatisation of the FC.  The campaign was called the Thetford Forest Campaign.  Used it to embarrass Gillian Shepherd who was the local MP, and also the Minister responsible at the time. They've been doing it for years.  Anyone wants any info on how the campaign went, let me know.


 
Tf, i'll pm you in bit if you don't mind.


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2011)

I think this could turn out to be an own goal by the Tories - their support in the countryside is fairly strong - surely this will cost votes? haven't heard what the Countryside Alliance thinks of this - can't imagine they would be too keen on it -


----------



## mauvais (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm all in favour of this. I didn't not pay any taxes to have them spend none of it on pixies and elves.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I think this could turn out to be an own goal by the Tories - their support in the countryside is fairly strong - surely this will cost votes? haven't heard what the Countryside Alliance thinks of this - can't imagine they would be too keen on it -


 
In this seat, Harper the tory MP, is a dead man.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Unbe-fucking-lieveable.  Utter cunts.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

> But objectors say the selloff is short-sighted and fear that woods will be bought by developers and energy companies who will limit access to trails and seek to fell as many trees as possible for a quick profit.



Hmmmm. Not much hyperbole in that article is there? No-one's suggesting doing away with felling licences, SSSIs, AONBs, TPOs or anything else that protects trees. Or altering planning laws to make it easier to develop woodland sites. (Funnily enough I read a comment on another Guardian article earlier bemoaning the fact that houses have been built in Epping Forest - I wonder if they know that Epping Forest is in public ownership?)

Most of our forests/woodlands are already in private ownership, some under good management regimes (either for amenity woodland or commercial silviculture, usually a combination of both), some under shit ones. Some of our woodland is in public ownership: some of it under good management regimes, some of it under bad - the FC has made some horrendous mistakes during its existence (PAWS anyone?).


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Unbe-fucking-lieveable.  Utter cunts.



Absolutely, I mean we wouldn't want woodland in the hands of people like this would we?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

You're going to have to do an explanatory post explaining why the proposed changes and sell offs will lead to things like the above.

edit: and you do realise the forest of dean is a working forest don't you?


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I think this could turn out to be an own goal by the Tories - their support in the countryside is fairly strong - surely this will cost votes? haven't heard what the Countryside Alliance thinks of this - can't imagine they would be too keen on it -


 
Come off it, the Countryside Alliance (along with the CLA) represents huge numbers of landowners who I'm sure will be more than happy to extend their estates by buying FC land.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Absolutely, I mean we wouldn't want woodland in the hands of people like this would we?


So you think that the woodland flog off is actually going to be_ beneficial_ to the public?


----------



## marty21 (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Come off it, the Countryside Alliance (along with the CLA) represents huge numbers of landowners who I'm sure will be more than happy to extend their estates by buying FC land.


 
true - but large numbers of landowners aren't large numbers of votes 

maybe they were in the past -


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

editor said:


> So you think that the woodland flog off is actually going to be_ beneficial_ to the public?


 
I'm not convinced there will be any particular effect either way as yet. The argument seems to be that public ownership of woodland = good, private ownership = bad. I'm not convinced that automatically follows, having visited and worked on numerous woodland sites in both public and private ownership. The example I gave kabbes above (the Hurtwood, it's on his doorstep) is in private ownership yet allows unlimited public access. They have a lot of monoculture even-aged plantations there (as do the FC), but they're in the process of converting to CCF (continuous cover forestry) (as are the FC), and doing very well at it too. And the heathland restoration work they've carried out is top class.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> I'm not convinced there will be any particular effect either way as yet. The argument seems to be that public ownership of woodland = good, private ownership = bad. I'm not convinced that automatically follows, having visited and worked on numerous woodland sites in both public and private ownership. The example I gave kabbes above (the Hurtwood, it's on his doorstep) is in private ownership yet allows unlimited public access. They have a lot of monoculture even-aged plantations there (as do the FC), but they're in the process of converting to CCF (continuous cover forestry) (as are the FC), and doing very well at it too. And the heathland restoration work they've carried out is top class.



It's not about _access_ though is it - and certainly not on a tiny little 3000 acre 'walk', as in your example.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> I'm not convinced there will be any particular effect either way as yet. The argument seems to be that public ownership of woodland = good, private ownership = bad. I'm not convinced that automatically follows, having visited and worked on numerous woodland sites in both public and private ownership. The example I gave kabbes above (the Hurtwood, it's on his doorstep) is in private ownership yet allows unlimited public access. They have a lot of monoculture even-aged plantations there (as do the FC), but they're in the process of converting to CCF (continuous cover forestry) (as are the FC), and doing very well at it too. And the heathland restoration work they've carried out is top class.


 
You would have a point if the sell-off was with a covanent that the land must be retained as woodland/heathland etc. However it's most likely to Tesco/golf course/quarry.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> I'm not convinced there will be any particular effect either way as yet.


So you think those people in the Forest of Dean are all misguided, as is the policy director of the Woodland Trust who - if I might respectfully suggest - is probably a little better informed about these issues than you?

That's not to say that some smaller concerns may do a good job though, but this is all about the bigger picture.


----------



## Red Cat (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> I'm not convinced there will be any particular effect either way as yet. The argument seems to be that public ownership of woodland = good, private ownership = bad. I'm not convinced that automatically follows, having visited and worked on numerous woodland sites in both public and private ownership. The example I gave kabbes above (the Hurtwood, it's on his doorstep) is in private ownership yet allows unlimited public access. They have a lot of monoculture even-aged plantations there (as do the FC), but they're in the process of converting to CCF (continuous cover forestry) (as are the FC), and doing very well at it too. And the heathland restoration work they've carried out is top class.



But it's not the tories land to sell - it's ours.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's not about _access_ though is it - and certainly not on a tiny little 3000 acre 'walk', as in your example.


 
Well yes one of the arguments against selling off the FC is about access - it's been in all the articles I've read recently. And retention of ancient woodland, restoration of PAWS, sustainable commercial silviculture, management of non-woodland sites within the woodland matrix. Which happens in places like the Hurtwood, much as on many FC sites. I don't know why you dismiss that example though - it's a fairly good example of well managed commercial woodland combined with amenity, very similar to what the FC provides on many (but not all) of its sites.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

editor said:


> So you think those people in the Forest of Dean are all misguided, as is the policy director of the Woodland Trust who - if I might respectfully suggest - is probably a little better informed about these issues than you?
> 
> That's not to say that some smaller concerns may do a good job though, but this is all about the bigger picture.


 
That's not what I said. I'm a volunteer for the Woodland Trust btw.

also: Define 'good job' please.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Well yes one of the arguments against selling off the FC is about access - it's been in all the articles I've read recently. And retention of ancient woodland, restoration of PAWS, sustainable commercial silviculture, management of non-woodland sites within the woodland matrix. Which happens in places like the Hurtwood, much as on many FC sites. I don't know why you dismiss that example though - it's a fairly good example of well managed commercial woodland combined with amenity, very similar to what the FC provides on many (but not all) of its sites.



You're going to have to do an explanatory post explaining _why_ the proposed changes and sell offs _will_ lead to things like the above.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

Red Cat said:


> But it's not the tories land to sell - it's ours.


 
I agree - this is the argument that should be being used, not scaremongering about all our forest being razed to the ground. Or utter hippy nonsense like this.

I don't agree with the FC sell off, but it has been planned for years - the writing was on the wall when Forest Research and Forest Enterprise were split off and that was fucking years ago.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're going to have to do an explanatory post explaining _why_ the proposed changes and sell offs _will_ lead to things like the above.


 
No I'm really not following you. 'Things like the above' are already happening in forests and woodlands all over the country, whether they are in public or private ownership, have been for years.

edit: and all the 'things like the above' are positive measures, don't know if you quite appreciated that.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> No I'm really not following you. 'Things like the above' are already happening in forests and woodlands all over the country, whether they are in public or private ownership, have been for years.


 
Look, i can see that you're attempting to backpedal right now, but a) it's long been planned and b) it's already happening are not serious arguments against opposing a series of proposals that _extend and deepen_ the sell offs, the enclosures, the privatisations. You came in with some pretty strong posts accusing posters of being against stuff like your example and attacking the arguments put forward against the sell offs. Now you have to either link the proposed sell offs with your preferred outcome or show that they will bring about a better situation than what we have now. Or, of course you can continue going backwards until you end up agreeing with the posters/arguments you were attacking earlier.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

pH is right that there is a lot of very well managed woodland in the hands of private trusts that manage them for the benefit of the local communities.  He's right that Friends of the Hurtwood is one such trust.  As a member, I should know that.

The point, however, is that every time woodland changes hands, it presents a risk.  It may be that it is taken over by an altruistic trust that intends to manage it for the benefit of local people.  On the other hand, it may be that it is taken over by people who want to drill for oil instead (and they have resubmitted a fresh application on that one, incidentally, which we now have to respond to all over again).

At the moment it is all in the hands of a body that exists to manage it properly.  Who know what will happen to it if it is sold off?  It could be good but chances are a lot of it will be bad.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Look, i can see that you're attempting to backpedal right now, but a) it's long been planned and b) it's already happening are not serious arguments against opposing a series of proposals that _extend and deepen_ the sell offs, the enclosures, the privatisations. You came in with some pretty strong posts accusing posters of being against stuff like your example and attacking the arguments put forward against the sell offs. Now you have to either link the proposed sell offs with your preferred outcome or show that they will bring about a better situation than what we have now. Or, of course you can continue going backwards until you end up agreeing with the posters/arguments you were attacking earlier.



No butch seriously, go and read up on basic silviculture and woodland conservation first please.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> No butch seriously, go and read up on basic silviculture and woodland conservation first please.


 
Yes, i knew that a post like that was coming before too long. Transparent.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> No butch seriously, go and read up on basic silviculture and woodland conservation first please.


 
Are you having a different debate to everyone else?


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> pH is right that there is a lot of very well managed woodland in the hands of private trusts that manage them for the benefit of the local communities.  He's right that Friends of the Hurtwood is one such trust.  As a member, I should know that.
> 
> The point, however, is that every time woodland changes hands, it presents a risk.  It may be that it is taken over by an altruistic trust that intends to manage it for the benefit of local people.  On the other hand, it may be that it is taken over by people who want to drill for oil instead (and they have resubmitted a fresh application on that one, incidentally, which we now have to respond to all over again).
> 
> At the moment it is all in the hands of a body that exists to manage it properly.  Who know what will happen to it if it is sold off?  It could be good but chances are a lot of it will be bad.


 
This is a good point, but being in public ownership is not necessarily a guarantee of safety either. And don't forget also that the Hurtwood is not just managed for the benefit of the local community, it is also commercial forestry, well managed too.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Are you having a different debate to everyone else?


 
Possibly yes, because I'm not sure there's many people on this thread who have experience of working in commercial forestry and in woodland conservation.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> This is a good point, but being in public ownership is not necessarily a guarantee of safety either. And don't forget also that the Hurtwood is not just managed for the benefit of the local community, it is also commercial forestry, well managed too.


But, overall, which do you have most faith in: public ownership or the ConDem flog-off?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, i knew that a post like that was coming before too long. Transparent.


 
What, a "go away and learn about the topic under discussion" post?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Crispy said:


> What, a "go away and learn about the topic under discussion" post?


 
No, a look at my medals and shut up post. A post that had nothing to with ownership or the arguments being put forwards by the HOOF campaigners about commons ownership whatsoever. So no thanks, i'll not be bowing down to enlightened paternalism thanks.

Got anything to to say on the issue? Given that you've managed to misread just what _the topic under discussion_ actually is. It's not a technical one, it's a political one.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

editor said:


> But, overall, which do you have most faith in: public ownership or the ConDem flog-off?


 
Of the FC estate? Public ownership but with a reformed FC (one that recognises arboriculture and amenity woodland management as equally as important as silviculture would be nice. The Arb Association have been banging on about this for years).

But you only present two options there: there is already a substantial amount (the majority) of woodland under private ownership (including charities such as the Woodland Trust, National Trust etc. - it's curious that charities are being blanketed with the potential 'threats'), much of which is being managed extremely well. I just don't agree that transferring ownership to the private sector will automatically lead to a decline in quality or the loss of woodland.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Possibly yes, because I'm not sure there's many people on this thread who have experience of working in commercial forestry and in woodland conservation.


 
This debate isn't about "ways to conserve a forest".



Crispy said:


> What, a "go away and learn about the topic under discussion" post?



What, are the government proposing selling the forests only to organisations conducting commercial forestry and woodland conservation


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

The enclosures drastically improved the quality and productivity of land. Should they have been opposed?


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> This debate isn't about "ways to conserve a forest".



Partly it is, yes. It's all about access and other issues too.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> What, are the government proposing selling the forests only to organisations conducting commercial forestry and woodland conservation



No. But the legislation that exists (felling licences, TPOs, SSSIs AONBs, T&CPA etc etc.) makes it very difficult for land to be converted to other uses. Not impossible by any means, as successive governments have shown us - Newbury bypass, HS2 (maybe) etc. But if you look at land values in the countryside, prices per hectare by and large relate to land use - forestry at £x/ha, unimproved pasture at £x/ha etc. The reason such land doesn't command a higher price is because it would be very difficult to do anything else with it that would give a greater return.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Got anything to to say on the issue? Given that you've managed to misread just what _the topic under discussion_ actually is. It's not a technical one, it's a political one.


 
No, I'm going to listen to ph, seeing as he has the greatest relevant knowledge.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> No. But with the legislation that exists (felling licences, TPOs, SSSIs AONBs etc etc.) makes it very difficult for land to be converted to other uses. Not impossible by any means, as successive governments have shown us - Newbury bypass, HS2 (maybe) etc. But if you look at land values in the countryside, prices per hectare by and large relate to land use - forestry at £x/ha, unimproved pasture at £x/ha etc. The reason such land doesn't command a higher price is because it would be very difficult to do anything else with it that would give a greater return.


 Until these changes


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Crispy said:


> No, I'm going to listen to ph, seeing as he has the greatest relevant knowledge.


 
I'm listening to him too. As i said, it's a political not a technical issue. What comes after listening?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 5, 2011)

Thinking


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Thinking


 
...about the wrong issue.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Until these changes


 
Why so? The legislation that controls development is not being relaxed.

You do realise that, as I've already pointed out, the vast majority of woodland in this country is already privately owned. And yet we still have trees.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> ...about the wrong issue.


 
A different one maybe. I think you're coming at this from a land ownership point of view. I'm not.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Why so? The legislation that controls development is not being relaxed.



The legislation gives the relevant minister the power to do _anything_ they like. That's precisely why people are worried that golf courses, housing developments etc will spring up.


----------



## editor (Jan 5, 2011)

Thing is, this sell off is being driven by one thing only: short term profit.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The legislation gives the relevant minister the power to do _anything_ they like. That's precisely why people are worried that gold courses, or housing developments will spring up.


 
Go on then, show me where the need to obtain a felling licence is being revoked. Or that statutory protection to SSSIs is being reduced.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

editor said:


> Thing is, this sell off is being driven by one thing only: short term profit.


 
From the government's point of view, I agree, they just want the money. But anyone who tries to get into forestry for a short term profit is going to end up out of pocket (other than rich pop stars buying up the Flow Country before the tax loopholes were closed).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Go on then, show me where the need to obtain a felling licence is being revoked. Or that statutory protection to SSSIs is being reduced.


 
That's not what the legislation does  - The Public Bodies Bill:



> 18
> Powers relating to Forestry Commissioners
> 
> (1)
> ...



That means that the whole pre-exisitng regulation and network of protections can be overturned if there's the chance of a quick buck.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's not what the legislation does  - The Public Bodies Bill:
> 
> 
> 
> That means that the whole pre-exisitng regulation and network of protections can be overturned if there's the chance of a quick buck.


 
Yes, that's the FC. But, for example, SSSIs are protected by Natural England under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and CRoW.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Yes, that's the FC. But, for example, SSSIs are protected by Natural England under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and CRoW.


 
So? That's a tiny part of the picture. The FC is what counts.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> So? That's a tiny part of the picture. The FC is what counts.


 
The vast majority of FC sites of conservation value will be designated SSSI or AONB or Ramsar or NNR or any one of a number of other designations. The FC is still required to work with and gain consent from Natural England where they carry out potentially damaging operations (which covers just about anything, I know from experience) to avoid breaching W&CA or CRoW or the increasing number of European Directives relating to conservation. In exactly the same way as private landowners.


----------



## Blagsta (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Yes, that's the FC. But, for example, SSSIs are protected by Natural England under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and CRoW.


 
Didn't help with Newbury Bypass iirc.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Thing is, pH, as this oil drilling at Leith Hill thing shows, land can apparently be totally protected legislatively and yet still be vulnerable to a persistent company who will keep on making applications (this oil company has put in three applications on successive December 1sts, meaning that any resistance has to be organised in the 6 weeks over advent and Christmas when people tend to have other things to worry about).  When the local councils are also in bed with the company and see an opportunity for some quick profit, the existence of legislation doesn't help as much as you think it really ought.

Rules can be gotten around.  The only thing that can totally protect the land is if it is in the hands of a body that point-blank refuses to use it for anything other than already accepted practice.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> was chatting to a chap last night who reckoned the forests were a gift to the public from royalty way back when. If true, it was given to the people from private hands and the Tories now want it back into private hands again and to benefit from the sale.


 
If that's the case, then I hope that someone is looking into the deeds of gift, to see whether the land is entailed or covenanted. Who knows, it may be illegal for the govt to sell some of it!


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Didn't help with Newbury Bypass iirc.


 
Yes I made that point above - and who built Newbury bypass? Not a private landowner.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> The vast majority of FC sites of conservation value will be designated SSSI or AONB


The area around Leith Hill is designated AONB.  That isn't stopping the oil application.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Thing is, pH, as this oil drilling at Leith Hill thing shows, land can apparently be totally protected legislatively and yet still be vulnerable to a persistent company who will keep on making applications (this oil company has put in three applications on successive December 1sts, meaning that any resistance has to be organised in the 6 weeks over advent and Christmas when people tend to have other things to worry about).  When the local councils are also in bed with the company and see an opportunity for some quick profit, the existence of legislation doesn't help as much as you think it really ought.
> 
> Rules can be gotten around.  The only thing that can totally protect the land is if it is in the hands of a body that point-blank refuses to use it for anything other than already accepted practice.



Absolutely. But then that is common to private and public bodies, no? The FC have always come under a lot of criticism for their silvicultural policies btw, at least until very recently when they began to convert to CCF. But it's the FC that's largely responsible for the damage caused in PAWS and they've always been a public body.


----------



## bi0boy (Jan 5, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Didn't help with Newbury Bypass iirc.


 
Won't help with the forthcoming A11 dual carriageway through Thetford Forest either.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> The area around Leith Hill is designated AONB.  That isn't stopping the oil application.


 
I agree, the legislation is far from watertight. But that's always the case isn't it, whether it's nature conservation or building conservation, someone will always find a way around the legislation - both private and public bodies.

What stage is that at btw? It hasn't actually been approved as yet has it?


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Won't help with the forthcoming A11 dual carriageway through Thetford Forest either.


 
Which is in public ownership.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Yes, the Forestry Commission are no angels.  Ideally, I'd prefer it to be in the hands of the Woodland Trust or, failing that, the National Trust (notwithstanding the fact that both have allowed things that really go against their charters in the past).  But I prefer the Forestry Commission to what amounts to a random sell-off.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> A different one maybe. I think you're coming at this from a land ownership point of view. I'm not.


 
Isn't ownership the base from which anything else has to proceed, in terms of what might happen to the current FC estate?


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> I agree, the legislation is far from watertight. But that's always the case isn't it, whether it's nature conservation or building conservation, someone will always find a way around the legislation - both private and public bodies.
> 
> What stage is that at btw? It hasn't actually been approved as yet has it?


They submitted a revised application this December.

It's a fucking joke.  They had an "independent" expert come in to check out the wildlife claims.  Incredibly, they found evidence of dormouse all around the border of the proposed buffer zone and yet magically none within the buffer zone.  Ditto for the incredibily rare nightjar, amongst other birds and animals on the protected species list.  Because obviously neither nightjar nor dormice would wonder into the zone -- no, they just go in a ring around it.  Ridiculous.

I received notice of the revised application on 8th December.  We all have until 14th January to make a revised response.

It'll all be on the Mole Valley website, I would imagine.

Write to Alan Stones, Planning Development Control Team Manager (ref MO09/0110), Planning & Development Group, Surrey County Council, County Hall, KT1 2DY if you want to object.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Go on then, show me where the need to obtain a felling licence is being revoked. Or that statutory protection to SSSIs is being reduced.


 
I strongly suspect that, as we've seen historically, the private acquisition will be followed by concentrated lobbying by interest groups to amend procedures and protections. While that may be more difficult to do with regard to SSSIs etc, varying the terms of the licencing of felling might not be such a stretch.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yes, the Forestry Commission are no angels.  Ideally, I'd prefer it to be in the hands of the Woodland Trust or, failing that, the National Trust (notwithstanding the fact that both have allowed things that really go against their charters in the past).  But I prefer the Forestry Commission to what amounts to a random sell-off.



Good points well made. 

There was a debate about this on another forum I go on (one for forestry and arb professionals) and the general feeling there was that there won't actually be much interest in buying FC land anyway - commercial forestry is not a very good way to make money, managing amenity woodland even less so, and developers are likely to be scared off by the prospect of not obtaining planning permission. I imagine that some of the bigger forestry concerns (Tilhill UPM, Fountains maybe) might buy some up but even they tend to manage for private landowners under contract rather than building up huge portfolios of land. I dunno.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> They submitted a revised application this December.
> 
> It's a fucking joke.  They had an "independent" expert come in to check out the wildlife claims.  Incredibly, they found evidence of dormouse all around the border of the proposed buffer zone and yet magically none within the buffer zone.  Ditto for the incredibily rare nightjar, amongst other birds and animals on the protected species list.  Because obviously neither nightjar nor dormice would wonder into the zone -- no, they just go in a ring around it.  Ridiculous.
> 
> ...


 
Cheers for that. I think I already have put in an objection some time ago (via a Woodland Trust campaign) but I'll see if I can do it again.

edit: just found it:

"Status Description: Decision made        
Comment: This application has already been decided. You cannot comment on it" 

That'll be the old application then yes?

Also: the agent putting in the application for the applicant (Europa Oil and Gas) appears to be Surrey County Council - so much for a public body protecting the environment.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> I strongly suspect that, as we've seen historically, the private acquisition will be followed by concentrated lobbying by interest groups to amend procedures and protections. While that may be more difficult to do with regard to SSSIs etc, varying the terms of the licencing of felling might not be such a stretch.


 
I don't know. Felling licences have always been 'weaker' than, say, SSSI designation (by design) but a lot of our legislation is now tied up with European Directives which hopefully strengthens it. But who knows. That's always going to be the case whether the FC is sold off or not.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Isn't ownership the base from which anything else has to proceed, in terms of what might happen to the current FC estate?


 
Well that's my point: I'm not so sure. I've seen good and bad woodland management in both private and public ownership. I've worked in/visited some really fantastically managed woodland in private ownership - like the Hurtwood, or, quite recently, Angmering Park estate in Sussex. There are some really passionate people out there who own and manage and care for woodland. But some really awful ones too - often poorly managed shooting estates in my experience where the understorey consists of dense non-native shrubs to provide game cover but very little chance of natural re-generation. But the FC is guilty of exactly the same - some of its land is managed in an exemplary way (like Kings Wood near Chilham - although I expect a lot of people would be horrified to see the chestnut coppice even though this is absolutely best practice), some of it, like the PAWS, is, well, shit.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Yes, the Forestry Commission are as guilty if not more guilty than most of mismanaging estate in order to maximise profit from shooting.  There's an area near us that springs to mind, which has clearly suffered in recent years owing to what I have always perceived in my non-expert way as extremely dodgy-looking undergrowth.  So it's interesting to hear that this "dodgy undergrowth" might actually be "dense non-native shrubs" causing the damage.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> Cheers for that. I think I already have put in an objection some time ago (via a Woodland Trust campaign) but I'll see if I can do it again.
> 
> edit: just found it:
> 
> ...


 
Strictly speaking I think it's a series of amendments to the application from last year.  But last year's one was a new application compared with the one you may well have already commented on.  Europa continue to push and push and push.

Europa are definitely a private firm.  I didn't know that their application was actually made by SCC though.  On the other hand, I'm not completely surprised either.  SCC is made up of very disperate parts, from the rural areas such as Mole Valley through to the likes of Kingston and Redhill.  I don't think the built-up areas give two shits about the management of the forest.  So from that angle you're right that public bodies can also be just as bad.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2011)

I laughed when I got the letter regarding the revised application on the oil dig, then cried when I realised it wasn't a joke.



FC, for all their bad points are the one major landowner who don't give a shit about us holding parties on their land. So they get my vote on that score alone.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Yes, the Forestry Commission are as guilty if not more guilty than most of mismanaging estate in order to maximise profit from shooting.  There's an area near us that springs to mind, which has clearly suffered in recent years owing to what I have always perceived in my non-expert way as extremely dodgy-looking undergrowth.  So it's interesting to hear that this "dodgy undergrowth" might actually be "dense non-native shrubs" causing the damage.


 
I don't how much of their estate is managed for shooting - I think they have tenants who may do so, but I'm not sure the FC allow shooting (other than for pest control). I might be wrong though. 

There's a fair bit of Rhododendron ponticum round your way, which is non-native (introduced into gardens then escaped), very dense, and prevents natural regeneration of native trees; it might be that. But, in my experience, if someone went in there with a chainsaw and some ammonium sulphamate to clear it (which would increase the conservation value of the woodland) there would be people who would complain vociferously, calling it vandalism or similar. Helping people to understand what you're doing and why you're doing it is one of the main tasks in managing any sort of woodland.

Here's some pics of sweet chestnut coppice I took in Kings Wood in October(?):

7 year old (ish) coppice:


which in a few years will be clear felled in coupes (I think this is about 20yr old coppice):


but will rapidly grow back (this is probably first year regrowth)
 

until 6 or so years later it looks like the first pic again and you hardly know it's been cut. It needs to be done sympathetically avoiding soil compaction for example, and on a carefully planned cycle, but it provides sustainable products (probably for fencing in this case), it provides employment, the coppicing prolongs the life of the stools and the light reaching the forest floor encourages germination of all sorts of dormant wildflower seeds which increases biodiversity.

Anyone looking at the second pic could feel horrified by what had been done, but you need to look at the other two pictures and see it in the context of the overall coppice cycle. It's a woodland management technique that has been carried out for centuries.

Cutting down trees is not always a bad thing.

Kings Wood is FC and, in my opinion, brilliantly managed - there are acres of sweet chestnut coppice being cut on rotation but also areas of high forest and hornbeam pollards (so not all FC woodlands are even-aged coniferous plantations). Great place to visit - on the North Downs Way. But I've seen plenty of similar top-quality woodland management in privately owned woodlands.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

Sorry, that's probably quite boring. I tend to get overexcited by such stuff as anyone on here who knows me will confirm.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

They're forever chopping down bits of woodland round here, for the sake of woodland management.  It certainly seems to work.  And it looks like a lot of work.

Shooting: there's a bit of forestry commission land near us where they rear a lot of pheasants.  The shoot of those pheasants takes place in fields abutting this land.  I'm not sure whether the land used for the shoot is strictly FC land or not, but the land they are reared in certainly is.


----------



## ddraig (Jan 5, 2011)

SSSI didn't stop LNG from diggin a fuck off trench through the Brecon beacons to put a pipe in for the gas to be sent from Milford Haven docks either


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

kabbes said:


> They're forever chopping down bits of woodland round here, for the sake of woodland management.  It certainly seems to work.  And it looks like a lot of work.



If it's sustainable and sympathetic management then yes it does work (is this on the Hurtwood?). But it can certainly appear very destructive at first.

You may be right about the shooting then, dunno.

Even-aged Scots pine on the Hurtwood:



I know it's a monoculture but I still quite like it. Looking forward to seeing how the CCF develops over time.

edit: here's something about the FC and shooting, but it seem to only mention renting (45,000ha).


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2011)

There's also an abundance of white and fury dog shit in the Hurtwood. Surely a case for it to be a SSSI.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's also an abundance of white and fury dog shit in the Hurtwood. Surely a case for it to be a SSSI.


 
Sorry, that's actually mine.  I sometimes get caught a bit short when I'm out on a walk.


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Jan 5, 2011)

I shall look more closely in future, to see if I can spot the kabbes logo in the turds.


----------



## _pH_ (Jan 5, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> There's also an abundance of white and fury dog shit in the Hurtwood. Surely a case for it to be a SSSI.


 
I think it already is designated a SSSI and falls within the Surrey Hills AONB. Still, at least we now know why. Not nightjars and dormice at all, but white dogshit.

edit: just checked. Interesting. Leith Hill (National Trust) is designated SSSI, but Holmbury Hill (Hurtwood Control) isn't.

Screenshot from the Natural England website:


----------



## kabbes (Jan 5, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> I shall look more closely in future, to see if I can spot the kabbes logo in the turds.


 
Strange things are afoot at the circle-k.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Again: The enclosures drastically improved the quality and productivity of land. Should they have been opposed?


----------



## Crispy (Jan 5, 2011)

Would it be more accurate to say that the quality and productivity of the land was improved by the land management practices that the enclosures enabled?

ie. Those same practices could have been put in place whilst maintaining common ownership of the land?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Would it be more accurate to say that the quality and productivity of the land was improved by the land management practices that the enclosures enabled?
> 
> ie. Those same practices could have been put in place whilst maintaining common ownership of the land?



Now you're getting it! Within the set of social relations that existed at that time it meant that the landlords fucked everyone off the land and turned it into sheep runs and re-engaged the locals who used to rely on the commons as wage-labourers. It meant thieving the land off of us. In the _current_ social conditions those same attempts repackaged as community ownership or the big society mean ...

Yes, good practice isn't reliant on an ownership model. It's significantly easier under one where we own the land though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

Some background/context



> It is true that once a company has bought a forest, it will still need planning permission to cut the woods down. This is a crucial brake. But – wait – Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has just announced he is "remov[ing] the structures of control" and making it "much easier" to get planning permission across the country. Planning is being massively deregulated, just as the forests are sold.





> The forests that remain will be less well maintained and harder to access. The Forestry Commission looks after our woods today, and 100 per cent of it is maintained to the international Forest Stewardship Standard. By contrast, only 25 per cent of private forests in England are looked after this way. After the sale, they will become more degraded, less biodiverse and less likely to survive for the long term.





> And you will find it harder to get to them. The Government says that the legislation passed in 2000 granting us all the "right to roam" will mean we can enjoy them just the same. But the public only has a right to access woodland classified as "freehold". According to The Ecologist magazine, half of privately owned woodland is barred to the public.





> The Prime Minister has said the forest sell-off "empowers local communities" to take over the forests for themselves as part of a "Big Society". Yet sources within the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs say that, unsurprisingly, only about 1 per cent of the sales are anticipated to go to local co-operatives or green groups.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jan 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The enclosures drastically improved the quality and productivity of land. Should they have been opposed?



We (the people) still experience the impact of the late 18th-early 19th century Inclosures today. 

It was, without doubt, the most society-changing parliamentary-supported act since the post-pestilence enclosures ending c.1510. It's completely incorrect that quality and productivity of the land improved. 

Much of the uplands were given over to Victorian pursuits of grouse moor management, which were laid open through tree felling for lime production and created an increase in peat coverage due to heather burning, etc. 

Across the land, many of our oldest woodlands were cut down for lime production to produce charcoal to create the lime needed to increase agricultural productivity, and to a lesser extent to feed the growing iron industry in local and regional industrial centres. 

Thus, I'm not sure why you view this as increased productivity of the land - it was entirely artificial (through agricultural lime production) and unsustainable, having devasting consquences for woodland, wildlife, and the people who were forced off the land by various companies and expanding farms.

Productivity was not increased in any meaningful, lasting way, other than in the short-term, and the devasting effects of erosion and denudation of the soil structure, the loss of the trees in the uplands which affect hydrological processes (increased flooding isn't just about building on the flood plains) are still affecting both land and people today. 

Then there's the effect on people - in 1810, 80% of people lived rurally and worked the land in some way - by 1880, 80% of people were forced into burgeoning urban centres and forced into wage labour in insanitary conditions, and a whole new host of social and health problems were thus created - the loss of community we romanticise about in our 'alienation' today, began at this time.

(excuse the very condensed history above - this topic is worthy of much deeper research than the hurried abstract I've just provided)


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

You've totally missed the point. Classical liberal economics justified the enclosures on the improving ('improvement' was a deliberately chosen word on my part) nature of the capitalist organisation of agricultural production (this argument was also used to justify land grabbing colonialism abroad as well). I.e a technical rather than a political reason was offered for what was at its core a  economic/political plan of elite appropriation of commons. 

Earlier in this thread some posters were mistaking (or at least concentrating on)  technical arguments about the improvements and benefits that private ownership offered whilst seeming to ignore the political dimensions of the proposals. I was drawing an analogy between the two situations and asking posters who would more than likely have opposed the enclosures to apply their reasons for that opposition to these proposals. 

And i'm sorry, there simply was massively increased agricultural productivity - that's precisely why that 80% of the population who lived and worked rurally shrunk so vastly and so quickly - because less people were needed to produce the same amount. That's an increase in productivity.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

Here's how investing in commercial woodland is now part of 'tax planning':



> *Investing in woodland*
> 
> Investing in commercial woodland attracts the flowing tax advantages:
> 
> ...


----------



## big eejit (Jan 7, 2011)

Great summary of the position in today's Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...sale--camerons-green-credentials-2177929.html

Includes some interesting lines about the planned relaxation of planning rules to make forests more attractive to developers:

"It is true that once a company has bought a forest, it will still need planning permission to cut the woods down. This is a crucial brake. But – wait – Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, has just announced he is "remov[ing] the structures of control" and making it "much easier" to get planning permission across the country. Planning is being massively deregulated, just as the forests are sold."


----------



## invisibleplanet (Jan 7, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Great summary of the position in today's Independent:
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...sale--camerons-green-credentials-2177929.html
> 
> ...


 
Unless you're roma/traveller/etc


----------



## big eejit (Jan 7, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Unless you're roma/traveller/etc


 
Well, the massive planning dereg will make it much harder for roma / travellers as authories get local on their arses.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 7, 2011)

Forestry Commission sell-off is a massive tax-planning bonanza for the rich

http://ca.linexlegal.com/index.php?cid=1458532

Who'd've thought it?


----------



## Quartz (Jan 7, 2011)

Alternatively, it could be a con to get hold of Lottery funds...

People get very upset about the sell-off. They apply to the Lottery Commission for funding to buy the land. Funding is granted (the Lottery Commissioners know which side their bread is buttered). People get the land; government gets the Lottery cash. Everyone's happy. Except those who realise it's a con.

Unfortunately, I don't think the Tories are that clever.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 7, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Forestry Commission sell-off is a massive tax-planning bonanza for the rich
> 
> http://ca.linexlegal.com/index.php?cid=1458532
> 
> Who'd've thought it?


 
Got a link that doesn't need a login?


----------



## editor (Jan 8, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Got a link that doesn't need a login?


Is it this article (which only links back to the Indie piece)?
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-a-massive-tax-planning-bonanza-for-the-rich/


----------



## big eejit (Jan 8, 2011)

editor said:


> Is it this article (which only links back to the Indie piece)?
> http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/...-a-massive-tax-planning-bonanza-for-the-rich/


 
Looks like it. But it makes the point. This is not about what's best for the forests / woodland or the English people. It's the Tories seeing a juicy big plum, that's currently held for the common good, that their mates could be making money from.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2011)

I suspect it's a link to this run-down of methods of tax-planning.

(is no one looking at my links to all this stuff much earlier on the thread then?)


----------



## ernestolynch (Jan 8, 2011)

For anyone like Crispy who are not sure about the big picture, the TORIES are bad people. When they talk of reform, expansion, freedom, liberalisation, deregulation, efficiency, rationalisation, and so on, you can be 100% sure that there will be bad things happening.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I suspect it's a link to this run-down of methods of tax-planning.
> 
> (is no one looking at my links to all this stuff much earlier on the thread then?)


 
Your link does say the same thing. The link I posted was just more explicitly to do with using forests as tax breaks. 

Anyway I'd recommend the Independent article again. This from it (sorry it's long but all relevant):

_Not every buyer will cut them down, but some will. Why do the Tories think timber companies want to buy them – to abandon the work they do in every other country on earth and become druids? Confronted with this point, the Government admits there is a "possibility of established forest being bought by energy companies who would proceed to chip it all for energy recovery" – and then swiftly insists there is nothing to worry about.

The forests that remain will be less well maintained and harder to access. The Forestry Commission looks after our woods today, and 100 per cent of it is maintained to the international Forest Stewardship Standard. By contrast, only 25 per cent of private forests in England are looked after this way. After the sale, they will become more degraded, less biodiverse and less likely to survive for the long term.

And you will find it harder to get to them. The Government says that the legislation passed in 2000 granting us all the "right to roam" will mean we can enjoy them just the same. But the public only has a right to access woodland classified as "freehold". According to The Ecologist magazine, half of privately owned woodland is barred to the public.

It gets worse still. The Forestry Commission works very hard to make our woods accessible to everyone. It builds car parks, bike tracks, visitor centres, picnic areas. When the land is privatised, most of that will go. They can put a massive fence around the forest, they just can't put up a sign that says "keep out". Look at what happened to Riggs Woods in the Lake District, sold a few months ago. The car park has been shut down, the picnic area has been dismantled, the visitors' centre closed, and all you see when you go there now is a large, bolted gate that, legally, you are allowed to clamber over. And for what? To preserve our forests costs just 30p per taxpayer a year. Selling them off for ever will raise just half of the sum that one corporation – Vodafone – did not have to pay after the Tories came to power out of what Private Eye estimated was its total tax liability. (Vodafone denies this figure). So if you go down to the woods today, you'll find the best metaphor for Cameronism. Change your party's logo to a lovely green tree – then sell off all the real trees to corporations. Oh, and then say you are "empowering volunteers" by doing it._

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...sale--camerons-green-credentials-2177929.html


----------



## fredfelt (Jan 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Here's how investing in commercial woodland is now part of 'tax planning':


 
Ah, I was wondering why a private owner would want to buy woodland protected from commercial development and therefore not profitable.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 8, 2011)

Fuck's sake


----------



## co-op (Jan 8, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> And i'm sorry, there simply was massively increased agricultural productivity - that's precisely why that 80% of the population who lived and worked rurally shrunk so vastly and so quickly - because less people were needed to produce the same amount. That's an increase in productivity.



It's a side argument really but the question of whether British agricultural productivity went up in the 19th c is a hard one to measure, partly because there are two measures of 'productivity' - amount of calories produced per unit of land, or amount produced per worker, but it is certainly no easy win for the "massively increased agricultural productivity" that you claim, in fact it's a highly contentious debate. On a simple logical level your argument just doesn't stand up because Britain was a net importer of food for the whole of the 19th C so shrinking rural populations and growing urban ones simply need have almost no relationship to what was happening in the Uk agricultural sector.

It's only an important point because most people massively underestimate the productivity of traditional peasant-style of agriculture, which is poor at generating profits for landlords but good at producing large amounts of food with no energy inputs; per unit of land human-intensive agriculture (ie peasant type) is _still_ more productive than highly-capitalised mechanised agriculture.

Anyway, as you were.


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Jan 9, 2011)

_pH_ said:


> ...
> Kings Wood is FC and, in my opinion, brilliantly managed - there are acres of sweet chestnut coppice being cut on rotation but also areas of high forest and hornbeam pollards (so not all FC woodlands are even-aged coniferous plantations). Great place to visit - on the North Downs Way. But I've seen plenty of similar top-quality woodland management in privately owned woodlands.


 
I know Kings Wood very well. Spent hours and hours wandering around the North Downs. Great Olde Worlde pubs to drop in at. Nice day trip for London based U75 people. Get the fast, or the slow train to Ashford. Small country bus heading to Faversham (I think) or, share a short taxi ride. Find a village called Boughton Aluph (think cricket green with real ale pub etc) to start your walk.

Obviously, the whole sell off is wrong IMO. The irony that United Nations have declared 2011 as International Year of Forests - Forests for People.

Regardless of how any sale will be managed and what becomes of FC land isn't the issue for me. It's simply the fucking cunts stealing from the public again.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 12, 2011)

As you say Stanley

"The United Nations has declared 2011 as the International Year of Forests. It has invited governments, organisations and individuals to do all they can to raise public awareness of the key role of forests and sustainable forest management in building a greener, more equitable and sustainable future." http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/INFD-8BZHSM

So our government has decided to do its bit by selling our forests off to energy companies. Nice one.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 12, 2011)

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/new...300m-sell/article-3084310-detail/article.html


----------



## big eejit (Jan 12, 2011)

Hmmm, and why selling off only the English forests? All in this together? Royal Bank of Scotland ring any bells?


----------



## creak (Jan 13, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/english-forests-lost-tax-revenues

This could be quite powerful in the fight against the sell-off, too. Richard Murphy's been great recently.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 13, 2011)

creak said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/13/english-forests-lost-tax-revenues
> 
> This could be quite powerful in the fight against the sell-off, too. Richard Murphy's been great recently.



Yes, in brief:



> "This is about creating a massive opportunity to ensure that less tax is paid which undermines the whole cause of selling off the forests. If I had a million pounds and I thought I have some risk of dying in the next few years, as part of my inheritance planning I could put it into forests. Then when I keel over, I can pass that on to the next generation without inheritance tax, so the government would lose out £400,000 in inheritance tax. I think an awful lot of people are going to be tempted to buy forests", said Murphy.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 17, 2011)

http://www.saveourwoods.co.uk


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 19, 2011)

Are we to believe DEFRA’s Mythbuster – busted?


----------



## citydreams (Jan 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You've totally missed the point. Classical liberal economics justified the enclosures on the improving ('improvement' was a deliberately chosen word on my part) nature of the capitalist organisation of agricultural production (this argument was also used to justify land grabbing colonialism abroad as well). I.e a technical rather than a political reason was offered for what was at its core a  economic/political plan of elite appropriation of commons.


 
..which was all based on partisan principles. The landowners wanted cheap labour to allow England to compete internationally (both economically and militarily) and set out to prove that it was in the best interest of the peasants.  Parliament bought it hook, line and sinker.  

I recommend 'Commoners: Common Right, Enclosure and Social Change in England, 1700 - 1820: J.M. Neeson' for a great expose on capitalist interests subverting social justice.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 24, 2011)

Just in case people haven't _yet_ decided which side to come down on - Julian Glover has come out in support of the proposals.


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 24, 2011)

In Wales the Plaid Cymru Minister is protecting Wales' forests and keeping them in public hands.

http://welshramblings.blogspot.com/2010/10/welsh-forests-are-in-safe-hands.html

When you are lobbying and campaigning you should use this as evidence that there is no need for privatisation at all. Wales has a dramatically reduced budget next year (thanks to the ConDems) and doesn't see the need for privatisation so why are the Tories and Lib Dems so desperate to do it?

You can use this argument on NHS reform and tuition fees as well. There is an alternative!


----------



## lewislewis (Jan 24, 2011)

big eejit said:


> Hmmm, and why selling off only the English forests? All in this together? Royal Bank of Scotland ring any bells?


 
Because the UK Government does not have responsibility for forestry in Scotland, Wales or the north of Ireland. The devolved governments in those countries have to take the decision- and tellingly, they are all against a sell off (or Wales & Scotland are, at least).


----------



## creak (Jan 27, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/27/government-england-forest-sell-off

A bit more detail released today. Turns out that even in the best case scenario this'll only net the Treasury a miserable £25mil a year, over the next decade. And of course this is before we factor in the subsidies that can be claimed back by rich private landowners, and the efficacy of forestry as a tax dodge for the wealthy.


----------



## editor (Jan 27, 2011)

Thank fuck Wales is having nothing to do with this fucking Tory nonsense.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 27, 2011)

creak said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/27/government-england-forest-sell-off
> 
> A bit more detail released today. Turns out that even in the best case scenario this'll only net the Treasury a miserable £25mil a year, over the next decade. And of course this is before we factor in the subsidies that can be claimed back by rich private landowners, and the efficacy of forestry as a tax dodge for the wealthy.


 
It's probably worse than that because once someone's bought the land they can apply for £1000s worth of government grants. So the usual privatisation story where a public asset is sold to be run to a worse standard with subsidies from the taxpayer. A huge fraud on the people of this country.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 27, 2011)

Mark Harper tory MP for the Forest of Dean has had his windows put through and posters are appearing everywhere with his face and the words 'traitor'...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jan 27, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Mark Harper tory MP for the Forest of Dean has had his windows put through and posters are appearing everywhere with his face and the words 'traitor'...


 
Nice!


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

Citizen66 said:


> was chatting to a chap last night who reckoned the forests were a gift to the public from royalty way back when. If true, it was given to the people from private hands and the Tories now want it back into private hands again and to benefit from the sale.


 .
The forest of dean was planted in an attempt to provide Oak for the Royal Navy


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

I am yet still to see any evidence that there is a plan to sell all forests (though I think maybe there should be). If there were, there would likely be all sorts of covenants imposed. What is more worrying is that this is just an example of the potential use of extraordinarily broad powers being granted to ministers in the Public Bodies Bill.


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

Today’s papers are pretty much confirming the point that there never has been a plan to sell off all of England's forests. There has been a massive knee-jerk bit of reactionary thinking towards the consultation paper.

Th Graun who have been leading the populist misunderstanding are describing it as a partial climb down thanks to the Lib Dems and Activists. I don't thik it has much to do with Lib Dems at all, other than perhaps they sought to clarify the consultation document. 

Anything of value is being passed onto Charitable trusts, the 'sell off' will be actually involve 120k hectares being rented to the private sector as happens in Scotland.

You have to remember most forestry commission land is pine forest planted on mass by the state to insure Britain had a strategic supply of wood in event of a war or breakdown in international trade.  


http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/26/england-woodland-rethink


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2011)

You're talking about the consultation paper -we're talking about the public bodies bill which quite simply does enable what those opposing have said is the case and at any point, no matter what soft soaping is now being applied. Charitable trusts? What does that mean? Given that the govt themselves estimated that only 1% of the forests woodland etc could be taken over by local community groups. What does charitable trusts mean in this context? Control by the local bigwigs? The rich and the powerful in the area? The woodland trust has already said it doesn't have the funding to take part - who does that leave then? And the plan is actually to dispose of 100% of all publicly owned forest one way or another. And that 120k hectares isn't all commercial forestry at all - it's forestry with commercial _potential_ - something entirely different.


----------



## Random (Jan 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I am yet still to see any evidence that there is a plan to sell all forests (though I think maybe there should be).


 What a dick you are. What we need is more land being brough under public control, not further enclosure of the UK's already ridiculously fenced-off countryside.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> .
> The forest of dean was planted in an attempt to provide Oak for the Royal Navy


 
Who told you that rubbish? The forest existed well before the later planting.


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

Random said:


> What a dick you are. What we need is more land being brough under public control, not further enclosure of the UK's already ridiculously fenced-off countryside.


 
Some of the best countryside in the country (vast chunks of the Dales, Dartmoor and Scotland) are owned privately and well managed for conservation, game and country sports. Thanks to the CROW act anything you can get most places with open access.


----------



## moon23 (Jan 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You're talking about the consultation paper -we're talking about the public bodies bill which quite simply does enable what those opposing have said is the case and at any point, no matter what soft soaping is now being applied. Charitable trusts? What does that mean? Given that the govt themselves estimated that only 1% of the forests woodland etc could be taken over by local community groups. What does charitable trusts mean in this context? Control by the local bigwigs? The rich and the powerful in the area? The woodland trust has already said it doesn't have the funding to take part - who does that leave then? And the plan is actually to dispose of 100% of all publicly owned forest one way or another. And that 120k hectares isn't all commercial forestry at all - it's forestry with commercial _potential_ - something entirely different.



I mention in my post the real concern is the extent of the powers granted to minister in the public bodies bill. Charitable trusts means people like the National Trust or anyone else who sets up a chartiable trust.


----------



## big eejit (Jan 28, 2011)

"This could be their poll tax," says Lord Clark of Windermere http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/28/cameron-forests-protests-grizedale?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Today’s papers are pretty much confirming the point that there never has been a plan to sell off all of England's forests. There has been a massive knee-jerk bit of reactionary thinking towards the consultation paper.
> 
> Th Graun who have been leading the populist misunderstanding are describing it as a partial climb down thanks to the Lib Dems and Activists. I don't thik it has much to do with Lib Dems at all, other than perhaps they sought to clarify the consultation document.
> 
> ...



Codswallop.


----------



## moon23 (Jan 29, 2011)

So these big nasty private interests will be...er... the National Trust


----------



## creak (Jan 29, 2011)

Don't be so disingenuous moon. There will of course be a few organisations like the NT that will make the right noises and be grabbed by the Tories as fig leaves for this policy, but that doesn't change the overall trajectory of where it's going.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 30, 2011)

It couldn't _possibly_ be that the brouhaha has forced the government to seek a face-saving way to back down, could it?


----------



## big eejit (Jan 30, 2011)

Economics of public forest selloff doesn't add up. Who can afford to manage woodlands without huge public subsidy? Forestry Commission offers good value for money.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jan/30/forest-sell-off-woodland-conservation


----------



## Quartz (Jan 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> remember most forestry commission land is pine forest planted on mass by the state to insure Britain had a strategic supply of wood in event of a war or breakdown in international trade.


 
The original reason was indeed to provide timber for warships, but that ceased to be relevant when the navy switched to steel.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So these big nasty private interests will be...er... the National Trust



Er...no


----------



## monkeyhead (Jan 31, 2011)

had a quick look, don't think anyone has posted this yet

write to your MP

http://www.38degrees.org.uk/page/speakout/MP-forests


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Jan 31, 2011)

If forest and woodland ownership is such a non issue (which is the contention of many proponents of the proposed change) then why the need to get rid of them? I haven't heard a convincing case as to why the current set up isn't working, let alone why the intended 'sell off' will be better.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## monkeyhead (Jan 31, 2011)

get rid of the Forestry Commission, sell it off to your mates, give all the grants to them, in effect they get the land for nothing, let's go shooting, hurrah !


----------



## kabbes (Feb 1, 2011)

The saving of £15 million per year is equivalent to 25p -- that's £0.25, folks -- per person.  25p each for access to thousands and thousands of acres of woodland.  Yeah, that's worth binning off 

This is nothing to do with saving money and everything to do with allowing their rich cunt friends to fuck us all over by taking the land for tax dodges and exploitation.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 2, 2011)

Official: England's forest sell-off will cost more than it saves



> Selling off England's public forests could cost the nation more than it would save, according to an official government document that emerged last night.
> 
> The Coalition Government's own impact assessment cast doubt over claims by ministers that the controversial sale would raise between £140m and £250m, helping the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) meet its spending cuts target.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 2, 2011)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12343835


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 2, 2011)

Mr.Bishie said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12343835


 
Cunts


----------



## big eejit (Feb 5, 2011)

Local Tory MP in Forest of Dean getting it in the neck over his unstinting support for the sell off:

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co...eeting-MP/article-3188709-detail/article.html

http://www.handsoffourforest.org/

What a codpiece.


----------



## nino_savatte (Feb 5, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So these big nasty private interests will be...er... the National Trust



That isn't true though, is it?


----------



## Bahnhof Strasse (Feb 5, 2011)

My cunt of an MP voted in favour of flogging off the forests


----------



## Quartz (Feb 7, 2011)

The start of a climbdown?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Related:

Coalition scraps plans for disposal of nature reserves


> Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman has scrapped plans to dispose of publicly-owned national nature reserves following the furious backlash over the forest sell-off.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 7, 2011)

Bahnhof Strasse said:


> My cunt of an MP voted in favour of flogging off the forests


 
Mine too.


----------



## weltweit (Feb 7, 2011)

I think it is quite likely there will be a U turn. 

After all, it is not going to make much money and it is only a consultation paper and public opinion has been firmly against the idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

weltweit said:


> I think it is quite likely there will be a U turn.
> 
> After all, it is not going to make much money and it is only a consultation paper and public opinion has been firmly against the idea.



If there's a u-turn it won't be because of public opposition - it will be because public opposition _allows_ them the PR opp to say _look, we are listening to your concerns_...


----------



## weltweit (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> If there's a u-turn it won't be because of public opposition - it will be because public opposition _allows_ them the PR opp to say _look, we are listening to your concerns_...


 
Well of course  they would say that wouldn't they!


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

Quartz said:


> The start of a climbdown?


 
An attempt to point out it's a consultation, and that most of 'sell-off' is nothing more than hysterical 'wild speculation'


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

Quartz said:


> The original reason was indeed to provide timber for warships, but that ceased to be relevant when the navy switched to steel.


 
Quite, just as the orginal purpose of the Forestry Commision was to provide a strategic supply of wood incase we got shut-off by U-Boats.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Quartz said:


> The original reason was indeed to provide timber for warships, but that ceased to be relevant when the navy switched to steel.


 No it wasn't, that was the later planting of the still existing original Forest of Dean.


----------



## likesfish (Feb 7, 2011)

fuck off moon you twat
http://libcom.org/news/article.php/land-ownership-right-roam-uk-10032006

the idea that land is still in the same families that seized in in 1066 is outrageous

any defence of that and I'm going to kill you


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't, that was the later planting of the still existing original Forest of Dean.


 
Before that it was used as a royal hunting ground, and before that something else. If you go back far enough most of the UK was forest. The idea of pristine countryside is largely a fabrication; most land in the UK has been developed for industrial purposes. Even Dartmoor, which is considered by many a bit of pristine countryside, was cleared by man to improve its agricultural potential. Often such clearing leads to unique and wonderful habitats, such as the biodiversity rich Sussex grass down lands. 

If the government does sell of land (and I haven’t seen much evidence it will) then the roof won’t cave in. There will still be lot’s of forest to enjoy.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

likesfish said:


> fuck off moon you twat
> http://libcom.org/news/article.php/land-ownership-right-roam-uk-10032006
> 
> the idea that land is still in the same families that seized in in 1066 is outrageous
> ...



Whereas if it was in the hands of the families that seized the land before 1066, the Saxon invaders that would be ok? I don't get what your point is?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 7, 2011)

point is a country where a massive amount of land is in the hands of a tiny amount of families and has been for over a 1000 years is hardly rewards merit does it


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Before that it was used as a royal hunting ground, and before that something else. If you go back far enough most of the UK was forest. The idea of pristine countryside is largely a fabrication; most land in the UK has been developed for industrial purposes. Even Dartmoor, which is considered by many a bit of pristine countryside, was cleared by man to improve its agricultural potential. Often such clearing leads to unique and wonderful habitats, such as the biodiversity rich Sussex grass down lands.
> 
> If the government does sell of land (and I haven’t seen much evidence it will) then the roof won’t cave in. There will still be lot’s of forest to enjoy.



No one mentioned pristine countryside - they mentioned specific forest. One that had been a working forest for hundreds of years before the napoleonic bloody wars or whenever the later planting took place. You even admit that it existed was used before the date at which you claimed it came into existence ffs. I've never seen anyone ever make an argument about public or social ownership on the basis of pristine countryside - it was actually your hated left-wingers who established the idea that the lay of the land is a result of industrialisation as against the whig lie that _no this is how it always was, look at our great british traditions_. Yet another area on which you know very little and are blagging. I note that you just skipped over the deatailed criticisms of your earlier post about the ceontents of both the bill and the public 'consultation'.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whereas if it was in the hands of the families that seized the land before 1066, the Saxon invaders that would be ok? I don't get what your point is?



Is that your only working model of land ownership then - families seizing it and then keeping it? No other option? See if you can think of another one, then you may start to get the point.

You've made some shit posts, but that i think, is your worst yet.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 7, 2011)

Sorry, late to this thread. Is there any evidence that this proposal has been thought through at all?


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

likesfish said:


> point is a country where a massive amount of land is in the hands of a tiny amount of families and has been for over a 1000 years is hardly rewards merit does it


 
I don't so much care who owns land, of much more importance is what rights ownership grants, and what rights people have to use land in private ownership. 

You get much better rights as a tenant in a tithe cottage on an estate (say Glenbourne as an example) then you do anywhere else. State collective ownership I find distasteful, as it tends to get placed under the control of an undemocratic bureaucracy. However I’m all for communities, charities coming together to run and manage woodland themselves.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 7, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sorry, late to this thread. Is there any evidence that this proposal has been thought through at all?


 
Well for starts there is evidence of this consultation that is part of the 'thinking through'.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

You mean the time buying PR consultation thrown into the pot after public outrage and not part of the original plan? So actual evidence of _not_ thinking through? Is that what you mean?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Before that it was used as a royal hunting ground, and before that something else. If you go back far enough most of the UK was forest. The idea of pristine countryside is largely a fabrication; most land in the UK has been developed for industrial purposes. Even Dartmoor, which is considered by many a bit of pristine countryside, was cleared by man to improve its agricultural potential. Often such clearing leads to unique and wonderful habitats, such as the biodiversity rich Sussex grass down lands.
> 
> If the government does sell of land (and I haven’t seen much evidence it will) then the roof won’t cave in. There will still be lot’s of forest to enjoy.


 
Don't be a twat. How can you defend this proposal. How on earth can you say that it is right that a few groups of aristocrats have ownership of all these forests in some sort of a throw back to feudalism? How can it be right to sell off common land that people have established rights to for centuries? It's really fucked up


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't so much care who owns land, of much more importance is what rights ownership grants, and what rights people have to use land in private ownership.
> 
> You get much better rights as a tenant in a tithe cottage on an estate (say Glenbourne as an example) then you do anywhere else. State collective ownership I find distasteful, as it tends to get placed under the control of an undemocratic bureaucracy. However I’m all for communities, charities coming together to run and manage woodland themselves.


 
Eh? I'm sure that buckingham palace's servants probably have better job protection etc than some other workers. It doesn't mean that those sort of class/property relations are OK does it?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 7, 2011)

Are there legal issues involved in selling off common land?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2011)

Yes, which is why the public bodies bill allows the lib-dems and tories to by-pass all laws.


----------



## creak (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whereas if it was in the hands of the families that seized the land before 1066, the Saxon invaders that would be ok? I don't get what your point is?


 
Because even for a liberal this is dodgy ground. Got some issues with the justice of the initial acquisition here, haven't you?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 7, 2011)

I see why liberal is such a dirty word on here now.
  arstcos holding land for over a 1000 years is to be applauded.

for ffs when I though they were just the dregs of antiquity did'nt really give them much thought.
 now really beginning to hate them


----------



## ohmyliver (Feb 7, 2011)

haven't read all the thread, but has anyone mentioned that buying forests is a way of circumnavigating inheritance tax?
http://www.whereonearthgroup.com/inheritance-tax-free-investment.php


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 7, 2011)

Christ sake. War!!


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> An attempt to point out it's a consultation, and that most of 'sell-off' is nothing more than hysterical 'wild speculation'


oh come off it! That's a bloody blatant panicky retreat!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 8, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whereas if it was in the hands of the families that seized the land before 1066, the Saxon invaders that would be ok? I don't get what your point is?


It is only a theory that Saxons invaded, and an old and largely unfavourable one at that, not borne out by any scientific or material culture (artfactual) evidence.  

The early medieval Saxons (Angles/Jutes/Saxons) were definitely small-scale migrants, or settlers if you'd prefer that term.

And it may well  be that older 'Germanic' languages were already spoken here in Britain, even before the Romans invaded. And by the way, the Romans definitely DID invade, as did the Normans.


----------



## bi0boy (Feb 11, 2011)

Plans postponed so they can be "re-examined": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814


----------



## big eejit (Feb 13, 2011)

bi0boy said:


> Plans postponed so they can be "re-examined": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12428814



That's just the plans to sell off the 15% over the next few years. The selling off of the whole public forest estate is still on the cards. But they're on the run.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 15, 2011)

Far spread the moory ground, a level scene
Bespread with rush and one eternal green,
That never felt the rage of blundering plough,
Though centuries wreathed spring blossoms on its brow.
Autumn met plains that stretched them far away
In unchecked shadows of green, brown, and grey.

Unbounded freedom ruled the wandering scene;
No fence of ownership crept in between
To hide the prospect from the gazing eye;
Its only bondage was the circling sky.
A mighty flat, undwarfed by bush and tree,
Spread its faint shadow of immensity.

And lost itself, which seemed to eke its bounds,
In the blue mist the horizon's edge surrounds.
Now this sweet vision of my boyish hours,
Free as spring clouds and wild as forest flowers,
Is faded all—a hope that blossomed free,
And hath been once as it no more shall be.

Enclosure came, and trampled on the grave
Of labour's rights, and left the poor a slave;
And memory's pride, ere want to wealth did bow,
Is both the shadow and the substance now.
The sheep and cows were free to range as then
Where change might prompt, nor felt the bonds of men.

Cows went and came with every morn and night
To the wild pasture as their common right;
And sheep, unfolded with the rising sun,
Heard the swains shout and felt their freedom won,
Tracked the red fallow field and heath and plain,
Or sought the brook to drink, and roamed again.

While the glad shepherd traced their tracks along,
Free as the lark and happy as her song.
But now all's fled, and flats of many a dye
That seemed to lengthen with the following eye,
Moors losing from the sight, far, smooth, and blea,
Where swopt the plover in its pleasure free.

Are banished now with heaths once wild and gay
As poet's visions of life's early day.
Like mighty giants of their limbs bereft,
The skybound wastes in mangled garbs are left,
Fence meeting fence in owner's little bounds
Of field and meadow, large as garden-grounds.

In little parcels little minds to please,
With men and flocks imprisoned, ill at ease.
For with the poor scared freedom bade farewell,
And fortune-hunters totter where they fell;
They dreamed of riches in the rebel scheme
And find too truly that they did but dream.

John Clare


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Feb 15, 2011)

There once were lanes in nature's freedom dropt,
There once were paths that every valley wound-
Enclosure came, and every path was stopt;
Each tyrant fixed his sign where paths were found,
To hint a trespass now who crossed the ground:
Justice is made to speak as they command;
The high road now must be each stinted bound:
Enclosure, thou'rt curse upon the land,
And tasteless was the wretch who thy existence planned.
O England, boasted land of liberty,
With strangers still thou mayst thy title own,
But thy poor slaves the alteration see,
With many a loss to them the truth is known:
Like emigrating bird thy freedom's flown,
While mongrel clowns, low as their rooting plough,
Disdain thy laws to put in force their own;
And every village owns its tyrants now,
And parish-slaves must live as parish-kings allow.
Ye fields, ye scenes so dear to Lubin's1 eye,
Ye meadow-blooms, ye pasture-flowers, farewell!
Ye banished trees, ye make me deeply sigh-
Enclosure came, and all your glories fell:
E'en the old oak that crowned your rifled dell,
Whose age had made it sacred to the view,
Not long was left his children's fate to tell.
Where ignorance and wealth their course pursue,
Each tree must tumble down - old Lea-close Oak, adieu!
Lubin beheld it all, and deeply pained
Along the paled road would muse and sigh,
The only path that freedom's rights maintained;
The naked scenes drew pity from his eye,
Tears dropt to memory of delights gone by
The haunts of freedom, cowherd's wattled bower,
And shepherds' huts, and trees that towered high
And spreading thorns that turned a summer shower,
All captives lost, and fast to sad oppression's power.

John Clare


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 15, 2011)

Ta Louis, great stuff. I once saw a play about John Clare and his 'breakout'.

Harper, the tory MP for the FOD is having his constituency windows put through almost every night now, they've given up making a fuss of it. That is one 100% sure ex-mp.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 15, 2011)




----------



## Fedayn (Feb 16, 2011)

Caroline Spelman, the environment secretary, will announce on Friday that a consultation on the sale of forests will be ended


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2011)

TIMBER......

Camerons cutting her loose, he needs middle england...


----------



## big eejit (Feb 17, 2011)

Great news. Who's going to mention piss-ups and breweries?


----------



## likesfish (Feb 17, 2011)

radio 4 had some right winger furiously back pedalling saying it was an ill thought idea to save some cash that really was indefenisable and was basically pants.
 now there is apprantly going to be a debate.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

Promising sign:This lot wet themselves when "MiddleEngland" gets agitated


----------



## treelover (Feb 17, 2011)

BBC are leading with Smiths rehashed welfare reforms,  I wonder why?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Not out of the woods yet. Eyes peeled for fall back plan. There's a reason they keep coming back to this.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Promising sign:This lot wet themselves when "MiddleEngland" gets agitated


 
don't agree - I don't think they ever intended to sell them off - floated it - people protested - they stopped a sell off they never intended - to give the impression they listened to the public


----------



## spacemonkey (Feb 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> don't agree - I don't think they ever intended to sell them off - floated it - people protested - they stopped a sell off they never intended - to give the impression they listened to the public


 
Maybe. I think occam's razor suggests they just fucked up and backed down.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> don't agree - I don't think they ever intended to sell them off - floated it - people protested - they stopped a sell off they never intended - to give the impression they listened to the public


 
 Most Governments struggle to control anything let alone execute some master conspiracy.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> don't agree - I don't think they ever intended to sell them off - floated it - people protested - they stopped a sell off they never intended - to give the impression they listened to the public


you could be right(but more likely it was them chancing their arm...)


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm disappointed by the back tracking as I don't think the Forestry commission is the best protector of our woodland. For starters it only controls 18% of woodland, most of which is sterile pine forest with a very poor ecology. As i've said before this was planted on mass after WW2 to provide a 'strategic stockpile' of timber. It resulted in large chunks of natural woodland being ripped up. 

Dr Oliver Rackham, Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, and acknowledged authority on the countryside and its history, has said: “The greatest threats to ancient woodland for a thousand years came from the destructive courses which forestry took in Britain after 1945. Many hundreds of woods were grubbed out and thousands more were wrecked by replanting.”

I think there is certainly a case for selling on this type of forestry commission land, and think we need to have a debate where we don't conflate pine plantations with ancient woodland.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

It isn't 1945 now, moon23. Planting policies have changed. You might as well argue that rail should never be nationalised because of the Beeching report.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

This is the same 'acknowledged authority' who has argued today that:



> A public body is better able to cope with these matters than random private landowners..."


.

Good choice of expert moon.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not out of the woods yet.


*groan*


----------



## marty21 (Feb 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Most Governments struggle to control anything let alone execute some master conspiracy.


 
I don't think they were that bothered by this 'u-turn' Cameron seemed very relaxed about it in the commons - it was never going to make much money - it can be spun as listening to the results of 'consultation' - it's a minor win for Cameron - 'look we're listening to you, we care'


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't think they were that bothered by this 'u-turn' Cameron seemed very relaxed about it in the commons - it was never going to make much money - it can be spun as listening to the results of 'consultation' - it's a minor win for Cameron - 'look we're listening to you, we care'


 
It's not a minor win, I don't think. It may only be a minor loss, but it doesn't make the govt look good, and it got a fair few Tory voters riled, which isn't a very clever thing to do.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It isn't 1945 now, moon23. Planting policies have changed. You might as well argue that rail should never be nationalised because of the Beeching report.


 
Yes, that quote offered context free is worthless. It doesn't take a few minutes searching to find the same author arguing that the growth of deer (and to a much lesser extent grey squirrels) and imported diseases are today the 'greatest threat' to woodland, whilst also arguing that the general situation is one of woodland health.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

And there are several projects now reintroducing lowland heath to woodlands. There's quite a big one in Tintern Forest.


----------



## marty21 (Feb 17, 2011)

littlebabyjesus said:


> It's not a minor win, I don't think. It may only be a minor loss, but it doesn't make the govt look good, and it got a fair few Tory voters riled, which isn't a very clever thing to do.


 
true - but it's all history now - I didn't see too many Ministers or back benchers supporting it whole heartedly - I don't remember seeing much Lib Dem activity on it - it makes the Government look slightly better than before - gives the illusion that they can be persuaded to change direction, when it was only a minor cul-de-sac, they've reversed out of it - and now will plough on regardless


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Talking of fall back plans:

Victory over forests sell-off but spending axe still hangs



> Even though the sell-off is now dead in the water, cuts of 25% in Forestry Commission England announced in the 2010 spending review will severely compromise the commission’s ability to retain a decent forestry estate with protected access and services, and to protect biodiversity, wildlife and the environment.
> 
> As a result of the spending review, the commission has announced plans to cut 500 jobs in England and Edinburgh.
> 
> The union, which represents 950 staff at the Forestry Commission, says it will be impossible to adequately manage publicly-run forests if these cuts are allowed to go through.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Talking of fall back plans:
> 
> Victory over forests sell-off but spending axe still hangs


might that have been the real objective,all along?Or am I trying too hard to 2nd-guess them?


----------



## Teaboy (Feb 17, 2011)

So drive the forestry commision into the ground until a partial sell off looks a better prospect?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Well, it's a long established model - look at the Royal Mail for example.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Feb 17, 2011)

And British Rail...


----------



## marty21 (Feb 17, 2011)

Interesting that this u-turn was announced at the same time as another one 
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/news...s-benefit-cuts-for-unemployed/6513688.article which in my opinion is a much bigger one - yet the forests took all the headlines 


> Inside Housing understands that ministers have decided to amend a 10 per cent cut to housing benefit for tenants who have been claiming jobseeker’s allowance for more than a year. The deeply unpopular cut was due to be included in the Welfare Reform Bill, due this morning, but it is understood ministers have accepted last minute changes



Clegg is taking the credit for a 'last minute intervention'   so he gets a bone - but not the good publicity he might have wanted


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

marty21 said:


> I don't think they were that bothered by this 'u-turn' Cameron seemed very relaxed about it in the commons - it was never going to make much money - it can be spun as listening to the results of 'consultation' - it's a minor win for Cameron - 'look we're listening to you, we care'


 
It was a consultation thought, and government's should listen to people even though personaly I think the sell-offs were a good idea.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

No it wasn't. It was a piece of legislation called the public bodies bill - the consultation was the attempt at a backsliding face-saving manouvere that came later.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it wasn't. It was a piece of legislation called the public bodies bill - the consultation was the attempt at a backsliding face-saving manouvere that came later.


 
You are conflating issues; there was a consultation on the plans and The Public bodies bill. The later is only related to the Forestry sell-off,  in that it would grant ministers powers to undertake the sell-off if that was the chosen course of action.

The real issue here is that the Public Bodies Bill gives ministers Henry VIII style arbitrary powers that circumnavigate parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Oh well done, you've finally googled for the problem with the bill. I'm not conflating issues. There was/is one. The public bodies bill which gave ministers the power to sell off all sorts of shit despite primary legislation. The consultation was, as i said, an attempt at a backsliding face-saving manouvere that came later. It's the exact same issue. 

So you've finally found your civil liberties boots now then? Yet you still support the use of the proposed powers that you now oppose against things that you don't agree with. What a mess you are.


----------



## stethoscope (Feb 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It was a consultation thought, and government's should listen to people even though personaly I think the sell-offs were a good idea.


 
Christ almighty.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

stephj said:


> Christ almighty.


 
Rather like people who wear _Hang mandela _ and _The poll tax was right_ badges today. Is this really where 'pragmatism' gets you? Isolated and alone? Good move moonie. Right into the mainstream.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Oh well done, you've finally googled for the problem with the bill. I'm not conflating issues. There was/is one. The public bodies bill which gave ministers the power to sell off all sorts of shit despite primary legislation. The consultation was, as i said, an attempt at a backsliding face-saving manouvere that came later. It's the exact same issue.
> 
> So you've finally found your civil liberties boots now then? Yet you still support the use of the proposed powers that you now oppose against things that you don't agree with. What a mess you are.


 
I've always said that the real issue here is about the powers the public bodies bill introduces. I support selling of the plantation woodland that the Forestry Commision owns, but not by means of a bill that grants so much power.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

No you haven't. You said almost the exact opposite above on repeated occasions and tried to limit discussion to the forest consultation. As i said, those nasty arbitrary powers that you now have decided to moan about you supported previously when you thought they could achieve an outcome you support. Civil liberties? They're in real danger with people like you.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No you haven't. You said almost the exact opposite above on repeated occasions and tried to limit discussion to the forest consultation. As i said, those nasty arbitrary powers that you now have decided to moan about you supported previously when you thought they could achieve an outcome you support. Civil liberties? They're in real danger with people like you.


 
This is just factually incorrect, I mentioned that these powers were the real problem back in post #143. It was one of the first things I said about the topic. 

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...get-active?p=11464051&viewfull=1#post11464051


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Whilst defending the use of those powers to achieve specific aims that you support! That's the bloody point. You're still at it.


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm disappointed by the back tracking as I don't think the Forestry commission is the best protector of our woodland. For starters it only controls 18% of woodland, most of which is sterile pine forest with a very poor ecology.
> [omit]
> I think there is certainly a case for selling on this type of forestry commission land, and think we need to have a debate where we don't conflate pine plantations with ancient woodland.


Sterile pine forest with a very poor ecology? When was the last time you went into pine forest? 



















All images © invisibleplanet (yes this does include the small industrious formidicae, lol)


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It was a consultation thought,


ooh no, there's no chance the Condems were using this' consultation as an insincere comsetic exercise....


----------



## moon23 (Feb 25, 2011)

invisibleplanet said:


> Sterile pine forest with a very poor ecology? When was the last time you went into pine forest?


 
Showing me some pretty pictures in which I can count about 8 species is not convincing me of a rich bio-diversity.


----------



## Streathamite (Feb 25, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Showing me some pretty pictures in which I can count about 8 species is not convincing me of a rich bio-diversity.


Pine forests do NOT have 'poor ecology', ffs!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 25, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Pine forests do NOT have 'poor ecology', ffs!


 
Quite so, dear Streathamite.


----------



## moon23 (Feb 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Pine forests do NOT have 'poor ecology', ffs!



To be fair It depends somewhat on the planting, quite a few pine species are allelopathic and will kill nearby plants that are not adapted to grown near them. So you have to plant them with the right species. Also because they keep their pines all year around pine forests do not enjoy the burst of early spring flowers that tend to take advantage of the higher levels of light in early spring before deciduous trees are in leaf.

This Blog post below sums up how I feel about Forestry Commision land

http://www.landsendjohnogroats.info/northern_scotland/62_inverness.html







Walking through Forestry Commission land is, frankly, pretty tedious


----------



## invisibleplanet (Feb 28, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Walking through Forestry Commission land is, frankly, pretty tedious


Walking with you through any Forestry Commission land would be tedious. 
Walking through most Forestry Commission land with almost anyone else is pretty enjoyable, to be frank.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

You're not defending this are you?


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You're not defending this are you?


 
Who are you talking to, frogwoman?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

Moon23 - although the answer to my question is obvious isn't it


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

moon23 said:


> To be fair It depends somewhat on the planting, quite a few pine species are allelopathic and will kill nearby plants that are not adapted to grown near them. So you have to plant them with the right species. Also because they keep their pines all year around pine forests do not enjoy the burst of early spring flowers that tend to take advantage of the higher levels of light in early spring before deciduous trees are in leaf.
> 
> This Blog post below sums up how I feel about Forestry Commision land
> 
> ...


 
Not as tedious as ploughing through your "literature" every fucking election


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Moon23 - although the answer to my question is obvious isn't it


It is now  I didn't like to assume!


----------



## invisibleplanet (Mar 6, 2011)

Anyway, I got an update letter from my MP last week. I'll type it here after dinner.


e2a: i'll do it another time. stuff happened.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Pine forests do NOT have 'poor ecology', ffs!


 
This is the guy who said that you had to be twisted and perverted to go into Forestry Commission land.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2011)

telegraph report today that the torys will still sell of 15% off public forests - the minimum they are allowed to do without changing the law.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8416926/Some-public-forests-will-still-be-sold-off.html
One of the comments below it gets it right: "The people made clear they don't want the forests sold off, so they are going to do it anyway in chunks we can do nothing about."

how often they can sell 15% isnt made clear


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 31, 2011)

It seems to be over the period of this government. The transcript of the 'Environment Select Committee' isn't up yet, but there's vid of it here.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 14, 2015)

HOOF, who i mentioned earlier in the thread have just made a video about the battles (and more) in this thread - it's not the usual doc though it does tell the stories:


----------

