Riedquat Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Ok, so we've now established that the FC does indeed charge for using/access to their land, some of it at least. It charges for the installation, upkeep and operation of the services on the land so state ownership does not result in free access/use. Therefore, even if new private owners started charging it would not be anything that isn't already happening now. As I say, I haven't really made a decision either way (not that I think it actually matters too much, like your self) but I'm not seeing many pressing reasons not to do it. All the problems which people seemed to have brought up are fairly easily avoided by the methods above and, as pointed out, they actually provide a greater degree of protection than is currently the case. No, we've established that you might get charged to park there. You can access the land for free if you can get there by some other means. Plenty of reasons have been given for not selling the forests, but you've dismissed them as being of minor inconvenienvce or worrying about nothing. There's certainly a concensus that there's a good chance of it being a little worse (might have to have some legal wrangling where currently there's none). Even the existence of the possibility of problems is, to me, a good reason not to sell if it's not balanced by some improvements, and I've not seen any improvements being offered to the public by selling. What do we gain? As I said earlier, I feel that a short-term shot is a very bad reason for flogging off assets. I despise short-termism. If we were further back in time I might agree, when the FC was simply a government-owned forestry company, planting dull, gloomy plantations wherever they could, but they seem to have moved on a bit more. All a commercial company would be interested in is surely going back to that, as much as they could get away with. Remember they'll need to make a profit, whereas that pressure doesn't exist with a government-owned body, although if times are tight it's nice if it's not actually costing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6538 Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 No, we've established that you might get charged to park there. You can access the land for free if you can get there by some other means. As someone has pointed out, in reality the charge is a charge for "parking" in pretty much name only. It's a charge for operating the site. Yes, you might get in free if you park elsewhere but in many cases "elsewhere" will be a long way from where the facilities are so most people won't. Even then, the fact is that they do charge. The fact is that one of the concerns people had about them being sold was that private owners would charge. Given that the FC already charges to some degree that issue is dealt with. Plenty of reasons have been given for not selling the forests, but you've dismissed them as being of minor inconvenienvce or worrying about nothing. No, a few reasons have been given, not very many. They all seem to revelove around access, loss of the forests or charging. I haven't simply dismissed them out of hand I've given solutions to them. These are perfectly reasonable solutions from tried and are tried tested methods of how to control the use of land. No one has actually put up sensible arguments as to why they are unsatisfactory. The replies have always been of the nature of "Well, it just wouldn't work" or "I don't just landowners or the government to do the right thing". The latter is an intertesting attitude as they seem to be perfectly trusting of the Governent when in actual ownership of the forests. How about coming up with actual reasonas as to why these forests can't be adequately protected in private hands? There's certainly a concensus that there's a good chance of it being a little worse (might have to have some legal wrangling where currently there's none). Even the existence of the possibility of problems is, to me, a good reason not to sell if it's not balanced by some improvements, and I've not seen any improvements being offered to the public by selling. What do we gain? As I said earlier, I feel that a short-term shot is a very bad reason for flogging off assets. I despise short-termism. I do too and I do see your point. Lets remember though that this is just a consultation exercise so perhaps it would be prudent for people making submissions that if the sale route was the route taken then it should be conditional to some site specific improvements taking place? I suspect though that even that won't appease some people as, like I say, it appears that this is a point of principle rather than actually doing what is best for particular pieces of public land. Some people simply do not want to see them in private hands and will try to get them to remain in state hands at any cost. Winkie being a case in point. If we were further back in time I might agree, when the FC was simply a government-owned forestry company, planting dull, gloomy plantations wherever they could, but they seem to have moved on a bit more. All a commercial company would be interested in is surely going back to that, as much as they could get away with. Remember they'll need to make a profit, whereas that pressure doesn't exist with a government-owned body, although if times are tight it's nice if it's not actually costing. But that's still what the majority of the FC is about. It manages man-made forests which were planted for profit or the national interest like keeping industry going. I do not believe for one second that a commercial owner would have any interest what-so-ever in chopping down Sherwood forest for timber 'nor would any Government allow them to. Anyone who think otherwise is not living in the real world, to be honest, and giving the impression that this is going to be the case is deceptive, I think. It's the Washington Monument syndrome we were talking about on another thread the other day. Why would you when you get chop down a nice man-made one, at far less expense, which was planted for profit in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 How about coming up with actual reasonas as to why these forests can't be adequately protected in private hands? Because there's no need to unless you can come up with an adequate reason as to why they should be in private hands in the first place. Sure, there are means that could be used to protect them, you've mentioned them, but they add in beurocracy, because they are going against what the private owner would ideally want to do with them. That means there will be a permanent uneasy conflict. It may or may not cause any real problems, but it's not a good situation to be in. But that's still what the majority of the FC is about. It manages man-made forests which were planted for profit or the national interest like keeping industry going. I do not believe for one second that a commercial owner would have any interest what-so-ever in chopping down Sherwood forest for timber 'nor would any Government allow them to. Anyone who think otherwise is not living in the real world, to be honest, and giving the impression that this is going to be the case is deceptive, I think. It's the Washington Monument syndrome we were talking about on another thread the other day. Why would you when you get chop down a nice man-made one, at far less expense, which was planted for profit in the first place? Different wood, would probably fetch a far higher price - there will certainly be someone who would very happily destroy them given the chance. But if they aren't given the chance why would they even want to buy the forest? Only because they think profit could be made some other way, and a few parking charges doesn't seem likely to be enough to do that. They will have some scheme in mind which will be beneficial to their pocket and detrimental to the forest. At least with them remaining government-owned that pressure isn't there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 For anyone who is interested, I plan to visit the right of way access that is blocked again before I complete The Ramblers Association, Access Problem Report form trickster kindly sent me. They are asking for quite specific information about the location and as I have only been there once before and it is a good hours walk before you reach the obstruction I have penciled in a date in my diary to take a stroll over to see if still blocked. Popped out today the sun is out and the sky is bright blue all the little wild snowdrops are on the verges the sheep are out on the hill, from the top you can see for miles around.......I passed the place where the missing signs were pointing out the direction of the right of way, down between two large houses, a new sign was erected and underneath it said: 'Do not remove, you are being watched' a country version of the CCTV it did made me smile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 8, 2011 Share Posted February 8, 2011 Popped out today the sun is out and the sky is bright blue all the little wild snowdrops are on the verges the sheep are out on the hill, from the top you can see for miles around.......I passed the place where the missing signs were pointing out the direction of the right of way, down between two large houses, a new sign was erected and underneath it said: 'Do not remove, you are being watched' a country version of the CCTV it did made me smile. There's no requirement for rights of way to be signed as far as I know. Just as well too, otherwise there would be signs springing up all over places like the top of fells in the the Lake District. IIRC the path you mentioned was just blocked by a fallen tree, i.e. not deliberately. Before setting the nutters from the Ramblers on them consider that the landowner might not even know about it, particularly if it's recently fallen and a not very often used path. I was with some people once who lost a footpath across fields, and one of the people with us was the farmer's son - they don't always know where they go, they're not just being awkward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 There's no requirement for rights of way to be signed as far as I know. Just as well too, otherwise there would be signs springing up all over places like the top of fells in the the Lake District. IIRC the path you mentioned was just blocked by a fallen tree, i.e. not deliberately. Before setting the nutters from the Ramblers on them consider that the landowner might not even know about it, particularly if it's recently fallen and a not very often used path. I was with some people once who lost a footpath across fields, and one of the people with us was the farmer's son - they don't always know where they go, they're not just being awkward. ...the signs are colour coded and form set routes or walks, they are on certain maps you can get from the tourist board and other places I am sure. Like I said it could have been blocked by a fallen tree, but the tree was a different type and thickness to those around it.....maybe the owner doesn't know about it, maybe they do, maybe it is not there anymore I will not report it until I visit again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 8, 2011 Author Share Posted February 8, 2011 This place is an awesome sight to see when the snowdrops are out. Snow drop valley. http://www.devon-holiday.com/information/snowdrop-valley.htm A beautiful part of the country, when you see places like that you realise how important it is to preserve what we have for future generations to appreciate and gain pleasure from....what a wonderful part of the world we live in, it is all out there if we look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 9, 2011 Share Posted February 9, 2011 A beautiful part of the country, when you see places like that you realise how important it is to preserve what we have for future generations to appreciate and gain pleasure from....what a wonderful part of the world we live in, it is all out there if we look for it. Unless it's more important to build houses or an airport on it, or a railway through it. This site is far too full of posters who'll start ranting if you object to such things. NIMBY will probably get mentioned, as if living nearby means your opinion matters less. Most of the country could've looked similar to that if we hadn't been far too obsessed with "development". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 11, 2011 Author Share Posted February 11, 2011 Breaking news! The government have announced they will pause forest sell-offs for a few months. It's a brilliant sign, but our forests are still in danger. If we keep working together, we can save our forests forever - not just for a few months.The government is still going full steam ahead with changing the law to clear the way for a 100% sell-off. It looks like they hope the fuss will die down if they pause a few sales here and there - so they can press on with quietly scrapping legal protection for our public woodlands. Our petition is now 490,000 strong. Let's show the government we will keep campaigning until English forests are safe, by making sure the petition passes half a million signatures today. Please forward this email and ask your friends to sign: http://www.38degrees.org.uk/save-our-forests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted February 17, 2011 Author Share Posted February 17, 2011 I hear the trees had a good day today..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.