Woodland Threatened (again!)

[Neil]

Why the hell should the government be allowed to sell of large swathes of publicly owned amenity property?

Agreed.

Not specifically this government, but governments in general - it's often done with some spurious arguments on revenue, on cost - but speaking personally, I don't want public resources flogged off cheaply to suit some politic agenda - I want them to work smarter, use it better, and make a profit - even if that involves partnerships, rather than just simply asset-stripping lots of publically owned property, amenities, resources or organisations, simply because of political leanings.

Public rights of access were hard won through many years of campaigning, why sit on our hands when there is a challenge to the principal?

Personally, I've had enough of selling England by the pound. The public as a whole are being sold a wooden nickel, whilst chosen few benefit from it.

 

[highlandsflyer]

It is also the case that the FC in England, Wales and Scotland have been proactive in encouraging amenity use, and have put huge resources into providing accessible trails and associated facilities.

My experience over many years is that access is near complete; all bar areas where deer fencing needs to be secured to protect saplings or active forestry work is underway.

So my take is that we may go from a situation where we are more or less guaranteed access to one where it will vary from case to case.

That is worrying, given the number of forestry developments I have seen that seem to be being used to block public rights of way and render them no longer under the habitual use clauses.

I am aware things are different in England and Wales, we more or less have the right to go anywhere here in Scotland, but the rules change when a landowner is using their land for commercial this or that. That is when our rights get suspended.

Mark my words, if this all goes ahead we will see nearly all amenity land being 'pay to play', (however this is executed - be it compulsory parking charges or plain old ticketing).

I have no problem paying for excellent facilities provided on land that I would otherwise not have any access to, but I am certainly not happy at the idea of paying to go over a hill I once communally owned.

 

[yagamuffin]

I think the main point is that while the woodlands are publicly owned there is something of a guarantee that we, the public can use them. If that ownership changes to private hands then yes, we may still be able to access them but we lose that guarantee we currently have.

Further more, given the current state of privatised industries in this country - NHS trusts on the verge of insolvency, prohibitively high public rails costs, water companies losing more water in a day than they supply in a week - I really would think the Government would be thinking twice before placing anything else into the hands of the greedy private sector.

 

[suburbanreuben]

I think the main point is that while the woodlands are publicly owned there is something of a guarantee that we, the public can use them. If that ownership changes to private hands then yes, we may still be able to access them but we lose that guarantee we currently have.

.

Precisely. We "may" lose the right of access. It is by no means a foregone conclusion.

 

[Neil]

I think the main point is that while the woodlands are publicly owned there is something of a guarantee that we, the public can use them. If that ownership changes to private hands then yes, we may still be able to access them but we lose that guarantee we currently have.
.

Precisely. We "may" lose the right of access. It is by no means a foregone conclusion.

The public will have most definitely lost public resources, though - if previous form is anything to go by, sold off on the cheap for the benefit of a small number of people, at the obfuscated cost of a large number of people.

 

[barry2017]

It's something that has happened with subsequent governments.

Sell off cheap. Live well now. Pay later.

This will come and bite us all on the bum in the future.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I think the main point is that while the woodlands are publicly owned there is something of a guarantee that we, the public can use them. If that ownership changes to private hands then yes, we may still be able to access them but we lose that guarantee we currently have.

.

Precisely. We "may" lose the right of access. It is by no means a foregone conclusion.

It is a case of going from "will not" to "maybe not".

Is that a step forward?

 

[silverclaws]

The government will do exactly what it wants to do, it will even pretty what it does up with promises which which we know will all turn to crap, but what people have to understand is Britain is a commodity, not an idyl for the inhabitants to live in and enjoy.

But as it seems the government understand workers do not work well if they do not have any down time and access to open spaces and nature, open spaces and nature will always be available to us, even if we have to pay admission, but whatever machiavellian plans those in power have, they will always achieve in the end as they that do this have plans within plans to get what they want, they are after all masters at it as they have been doing it a long time.

As lets face it, what buys and sells this nation is the same as it always ever was, what has changed, is people, as no longer they are cap in hand glad to have a job mill workers buying from the company shop.

Undoubtedly there are many who would like to see a return to those dark days of old.

 

[tintin40]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18690019

Report

 

[highlandsflyer]

The news is good, but like all things we must remain vigilant because they will try to slide it in the back at some point, repeatedly.