Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

I vote no for a number of reasons. The main one being "haven't we learnt yet that selling the family silver once (often to Johnny Foreigner) just doesn't work"

plenty in the press e.g. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/29/uk-government-forest-sell-off

[Banjax]

its a no-brainer - i dont see the point in selling no matter what way you cut it 

[Kevin Wood]

Given that these areas are supposed to be preserved and protected from development I can't see the carrot that would attract private investment, personally (unless it's ripping off the government / EU for "maintaining" them then doing the bare minimum and pocketing the profits).

Suffice to say there will be a carrot somewhere, and it won't be in the public interest, so no.

Kevin

[Seth]

Same here - NO!

[Lizzie_Zoom]

.............and here, NO!!!

[Nickbat]

Resounding "No" from me. 

[Richie London]

if they have decided to sell now rather than let the national trust or the forestry commision take over them i would say someones got there mind set on redevelopment somewhere.

[Vamps]

Surly they are ours; not the Governments to be sold off.......Resounding No from me too......

[albitz]

According to Damien Green on Thursday night - The forestry commision "owns" on our behalf 18% of the forests in the country, the subject currently under discussion is whether it would be worthwhile allowing private companies to "own" some of this 18% as an alternative to see if they could be managed more effectively. So something more than 82% of forests wont be affected.
Labour complained that the result would be "pay as you park" type car parks etc at forest sites, and indeed locked gates to stop people from accessing them.
They were reminded that they had already put some forests into private hands and allowed similar parking arrangements, and residents near one such area had complained that the new "owners" had installed gates and locked them to prevent access. He said that this type of management would not be allowed if the govt. decided to go ahead with such a scheme.
So - Labour are hypocrites.
Facts dont make good headlines.
The Tories may be lying, time will tell. They have lied about plenty of other things since the election.

[Tony H]

Given that these areas are supposed to be preserved and protected from development I can't see the carrot that would attract private investment, personally (unless it's ripping off the government / EU for "maintaining" them then doing the bare minimum and pocketing the profits).

Suffice to say there will be a carrot somewhere, and it won't be in the public interest, so no.

Kevin

Totally agree Kevin, the clues in the title private investment no business is going to buy into something that isn't going to yield a return for it's shareholders, which will no doubt be at the detriment of the public.

[Omegatoy]

Absolutley not!!!!!! there is to much land in england in private hands already which we are not allowed access!!
whole idea stinks!!

[CaptainZok]

Tories selling off the family silver, now where have we heard that one before.

[r1]

lots of people moan about selling but when was the last time you went to a wood?

[hotel21]

lots of people moan about selling but when was the last time you went to a wood?

I spy a city dweller.   

I drove through Nottingham the other week and there were signs for Sherwood Forest all over the place.

And to add, I am out in the woods with the hound a number of times a week.

[cem_devecioglu]

although not my country, I answered.. if it was my country, I would vote definitely NO.. the forrests belong to everyone and the next generations..