This is very bad news

[Neil]

I dont recall people getting 500 pounds to kit out their nursery under the tories........

I don't recall getting £500 to kit out my nursery under Labour either?

I have always thought that if you cant afford to bring up your own children you are not ready to have any......

No argument with that. Same for fags, booze, Sky TV...

Anyway labour voters,I will leave you to fight it out yourselves

You didn't address any of the points I made on the war, though - which is odd, because you previously sounded to have such strong feelings on it...

 

[marin man]

The reason you didnt get 500 for free is because you are not a single mother as far as I know......

do you work for a political party....or do you work come to think of it


I do and am now going to do some work

which,for the people who dont know,is what you have to do to earn money...........bye bye

 

[cyfa2809]

when is the bill being debated/passed on this?

 

[reanimation]

Oh dear, this party political stuff is interesting but messy!

In the meantime Single track have exposed this problem and another with the MoD by sound of it.
http://www.singletrackworld.com/2011/01 ... ew-threat/

 

[Dr S]

Unless there's some big money changing hands with the funny handshake brigade(s) any change of use for woodland will most likely be met with a rather solid wall.

I suspect the location and local geography would make the majority wholly unsuitable (for developing) anyway.

What I'm wondering, then - given what you've written - is what's in it for the buyer?

Tax breaks a plenty. No capital gains tax when selling off woodland, nor any death duty or inheritance tax when you croak it and pass it on. Any proffits from the use of / materials extracted from woodland is exempt from income tax and corporation tax. Then there is the 300% increase in demand for wood that has taken place over the last 6 years and it is expected that the demand from countries such as China and India will send prices spirralling in the next decade.
So plenty of plus points.

Most of the woodland 'under threat' is commercial woodland and goes through a cycle of plant/ grow/ extract. Selling to private companies that will actually make a profit rather than drain public coffers due to ineptitude has to be a good thing. Ancient woodland, rights of way etc will not be affected so why get your knickers in a twist folks?
As for trail centres? Well, there are other places to ride your bikes. Just like we did bitd.

 

[Dr S]

Look at it this way. For the price of a decent family car you can buy 80-100 acres of prime woodland. You pay no stamp duty and solicitors fees are minimal / no survey fees.
Now then. This is where it gets interesting. You can only constuct a building if it serves a purpose for the use of the site, eg. A tool shed, parking for vehicles etc. You can do that without planning permission. Why is that good? Well i will return to that shortly.
You can build or make paths and tracks in your woodland, again without any permission. So, taking your woodland, build a few miles of tracks, build a big shed for fixing and storing bikes ( you will need a toilet and somewhere to feed and water yourself because of H&S regs.). Then promote it as a private mountain biking mecca- team building days for the city types, stag do's etc.
The best bit is your profits are exempt from income tax and VAT. Then when forrestry prices go through the roof, sell it on and reap a tidy profit ( exempt from tax again remember!).

Not all that bad is it? Your own private trail centre for you and your retrobike buddies?

Nice!

 

[Neil]

The FC run many areas as public amenity, carrying out lots of work to improve access and provide facilities.

£15 million a year of our money to pay for this seems a bargain to me, and it should be remembered these are OUR forests.

The idea that the sixty odd million that FC make is an indication of a poor business plan is akin to throwing the same accusations at any other service that has responsibilities to meet the needs of the public who pay for them.

Such as the NHS.

There is no getting them back once they are lost.

A compelling argument - that I can't fault - deficit or no deficit.

Whether services needed to take on board business practices and / or modernisation, or not - what they've become is a tragedy compared to what they were.

 

[silverclaws]

Ok, if the forests cost so much to maintain, why maintain, just let the things grow as they have always done before officialdom decided to get nature in order. Nature maintains itself, it does not need us.

Both my local forests have been heavily maintained, so maintained that one can see from one side to the other, whereas in my childhood, it was a jungle in there. The reason given for the heavy maintenance was it was not safe for people, not safe in that people could get attacked with such dense vegetation. Now there is a shingled road through it from one end to the other. Pity there is no decent road underfoot approaching the wood, for the approach is slippy mud and clay in wet weather.

A wood that used to be a sea of bluebells and snow drops at differing times of year, is now totally devoid of both species and the foragers are coming up blank in there, the wood has been well and truly stuffed up.

Is there any wild forest in Britain ?

 

[IDB1]

Is there any wild forest in Britain ?

Yes.

 

[cyfa2809]

silverclaws do you talk of plym valley?

taking a suposed step back and its easy to see feelings from the dont sell our forests side
and easy to see how it could go on the other side
without massive research into by laws etc. i dnt think many single persons can comprehend the full scale of either party

i feel that currently its a 6 of 1 half dozen of the other type thing

i was siding with dont sell our forests but wthout reasons, i am however a prolific fence sitter