Government scraps plans to sell off New Forest

Government scrap plans to sell off New Forest

Government scrap plans to sell off New Forest

First published in News
Last updated

THE Government has scrapped proposals to sell or lease part of the New Forest.

Environment Secretary Owen Paterson has today confirmed that the Forest and many other areas of woodland across the UK will remain in public ownership.

And the Forestry Commission, which manages state-owned woods, will be given an extra £3.5m this year to help it look after Britain's trees.

The announcement was welcomed by the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association (CDA), which represents the owners of the ponies, cattle and donkey that roam the area.

Reacting to Mr Paterson's statement CDA chairman Graham Ferris said: “That's splendid news.

“The outcome is very favourable for the New Forest and is exactly in line with what we would have wished for.”

Mr Paterson's predecessor Caroline Spelman sparked a national outcry after unveiling proposals to dispose of publicly-owned woodland to businesses, communities and charities.

Campaigners claimed that public access to the New Forest and other recreational areas across the UK could be restricted.

The Government was forced to make a U-turn and set up an independent panel on forestry to examine the long-term future of Britain's forests.

Mr Paterson said: “I want to put the future of our public forests on a clear and firm footing.

“Our forests and woodland will remain secured in public ownership for the people who enjoy them, the businesses that depend on them and the wildlife that flourishes in them.”

Comments (11)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:07pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Linesman says...

Is nothing sacred!

Is there nothing that this Tory-led government would not consider selling off?

The fact that they have decided against offers little comfort to the fact that they considered doing so in the first place.

We, the people, own the New Forest.

Who would they sell it to?

Us?

Sell us something that we already own?

That would be another Con trick!
Is nothing sacred! Is there nothing that this Tory-led government would not consider selling off? The fact that they have decided against offers little comfort to the fact that they considered doing so in the first place. We, the people, own the New Forest. Who would they sell it to? Us? Sell us something that we already own? That would be another Con trick! Linesman
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Maine Lobster says...

Linesman wrote:
Is nothing sacred! Is there nothing that this Tory-led government would not consider selling off? The fact that they have decided against offers little comfort to the fact that they considered doing so in the first place. We, the people, own the New Forest. Who would they sell it to? Us? Sell us something that we already own? That would be another Con trick!
It might have a lot to do with the fact that most of the M.P's in & around the New Forest are Tories! This and the contrick over the Europe vote is aimed at protecting the vote in these areas defecting to UKIP in large numbers. Next election campaign in the sights of Cameron!
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: Is nothing sacred! Is there nothing that this Tory-led government would not consider selling off? The fact that they have decided against offers little comfort to the fact that they considered doing so in the first place. We, the people, own the New Forest. Who would they sell it to? Us? Sell us something that we already own? That would be another Con trick![/p][/quote]It might have a lot to do with the fact that most of the M.P's in & around the New Forest are Tories! This and the contrick over the Europe vote is aimed at protecting the vote in these areas defecting to UKIP in large numbers. Next election campaign in the sights of Cameron! Maine Lobster
  • Score: 0

2:13pm Thu 31 Jan 13

sparkster says...

Here here Linesman, we are lucky to have the New Forest to enjoy, I think the Government would try and sell anything off if they could, let them concentrate on things like helping small businesses, getting people back to work that cant get it and the economy
Here here Linesman, we are lucky to have the New Forest to enjoy, I think the Government would try and sell anything off if they could, let them concentrate on things like helping small businesses, getting people back to work that cant get it and the economy sparkster
  • Score: 0

2:45pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Stephen J says...

A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

6:56pm Thu 31 Jan 13

The Wickham Man says...

Stephen J wrote:
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.
[quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.[/p][/quote]At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Thu 31 Jan 13

Linesman says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.
A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed.

I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.

Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.[/p][/quote]At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.[/p][/quote]A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed. I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement. Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'? Linesman
  • Score: 0

9:07am Fri 1 Feb 13

The Wickham Man says...

Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.
A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed.

I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.

Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?
Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.[/p][/quote]At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.[/p][/quote]A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed. I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement. Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?[/p][/quote]Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that. The Wickham Man
  • Score: 0

9:57am Fri 1 Feb 13

Linesman says...

The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.
A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed.

I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.

Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?
Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that.
"The government has scrapped proposals to sell or lease part of the New Forest."

Perhaps you could tell me which other organisation could sell or lease part of the New Forest, if it were not the Tory-government?

If it were not the Tory-led coalition government that proposed the sell-off or leasing of parts of the New Forest, which group did the proposing?

It was obviously NOT the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and as I understand it from a friend who is a Commoner, the Verderers are also against any sell-off or lease.

"....and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off."

Although I THINK that New Forest Tory voters would be against any sell-off or leasing, nowhere did I make that claim.

When you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that 'I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.'

Whether or not they are members of the Tory party, they were against the original proposal, and are pleased that the government has changed it's mind.

With the Echo's headline,

"Government scraps plans to sell off New Forest."

Have you contacted the Editor to complain that this is misleading, and that it was not a Government plan in the first place?

If you do, perhaps you would advise him whose plan it was.

Please! Please! Please!

Do not blame it on Gordon Brown!
[quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.[/p][/quote]At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.[/p][/quote]A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed. I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement. Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?[/p][/quote]Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that.[/p][/quote]"The government has scrapped proposals to sell or lease part of the New Forest." Perhaps you could tell me which other organisation could sell or lease part of the New Forest, if it were not the Tory-government? If it were not the Tory-led coalition government that proposed the sell-off or leasing of parts of the New Forest, which group did the proposing? It was obviously NOT the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and as I understand it from a friend who is a Commoner, the Verderers are also against any sell-off or lease. "....and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off." Although I THINK that New Forest Tory voters would be against any sell-off or leasing, nowhere did I make that claim. When you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that 'I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.' Whether or not they are members of the Tory party, they were against the original proposal, and are pleased that the government has changed it's mind. With the Echo's headline, "Government scraps plans to sell off New Forest." Have you contacted the Editor to complain that this is misleading, and that it was not a Government plan in the first place? If you do, perhaps you would advise him whose plan it was. Please! Please! Please! Do not blame it on Gordon Brown! Linesman
  • Score: 0

10:44am Fri 1 Feb 13

one in a million says...

hardly a suprise as it is mostly only rich tory voters can afford to live in the forest.
hardly a suprise as it is mostly only rich tory voters can afford to live in the forest. one in a million
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Fri 1 Feb 13

Stephen J says...

There seems to be great rejoicing now that proposals for the "great forest sell-off" have finally been abandoned. Forests will remain in public ownership. Phew! But the future governance of forests will not simply be a continuation of the present situation. Now that special interest groups have had a day to absorb the new proposals, the alarm bells are starting to ring.
There seems to be great rejoicing now that proposals for the "great forest sell-off" have finally been abandoned. Forests will remain in public ownership. Phew! But the future governance of forests will not simply be a continuation of the present situation. Now that special interest groups have had a day to absorb the new proposals, the alarm bells are starting to ring. Stephen J
  • Score: 0

3:29pm Sun 3 Feb 13

Torchie1 says...

Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Linesman wrote:
The Wickham Man wrote:
Stephen J wrote:
A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.
At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.
A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed.

I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.

Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?
Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that.
"The government has scrapped proposals to sell or lease part of the New Forest."

Perhaps you could tell me which other organisation could sell or lease part of the New Forest, if it were not the Tory-government?

If it were not the Tory-led coalition government that proposed the sell-off or leasing of parts of the New Forest, which group did the proposing?

It was obviously NOT the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and as I understand it from a friend who is a Commoner, the Verderers are also against any sell-off or lease.

"....and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off."

Although I THINK that New Forest Tory voters would be against any sell-off or leasing, nowhere did I make that claim.

When you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that 'I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.'

Whether or not they are members of the Tory party, they were against the original proposal, and are pleased that the government has changed it's mind.

With the Echo's headline,

"Government scraps plans to sell off New Forest."

Have you contacted the Editor to complain that this is misleading, and that it was not a Government plan in the first place?

If you do, perhaps you would advise him whose plan it was.

Please! Please! Please!

Do not blame it on Gordon Brown!
Don't use the CDA or the Verderers in your argument as they oppose everyone and anyone who they see as a threat to their ancient ways and inward views.
[quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Linesman[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Wickham Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stephen J[/bold] wrote: A victory for sentimentalism and the media. This was an attempt to get forestry ownership (in the widest possible sense), management and accountability down to a local level, wherever possible. Instead, we will get another quango, the trustees or "Guardians" of which will be accountable upwards to Parliament, not downwards to communities. We should be careful what we wish for.[/p][/quote]At last someone who actually read the proposals rather than spouting a load of ill informed rubbish having read nothing more than a few pages of tabloid headline. The Forestry Commission was set up to increase Britain's timber production and it is the Forestry Commission that replaced native hardwoods with endless ranks of conifers - even in places like the Lake District and the New Forest - but suddenly we've got braindead labourites on here simpering about "Our wonderful forests" when they are the same people who will be moaning about boring dark silent sinister spruce plantations (have they ever been in one - No sun or wildlife anywhere). What is even more stupid is we've got Linesman and Maine Lobster banging on about selling off "our forests" when that is what is NOT being done! Duh.....make your bloody minds up.[/p][/quote]A lot of the forest was cut down for use during WWII and much was replanted with spruce and pine because it grew far quicker than the hardwoods that were removed. I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement. Could it possibly be that they are not as aware of what is going on as is The Wickam Man, who could hardly be described as 'the man on the spot'?[/p][/quote]Well try using a bit of common sense - your entire first note was based on old line of the tories selling off the national silver and when you bother to read the story it is the tories NOT selling it off ..... and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off. So just what exactly are you objecting to and moaning about? And you rightly point out that conifers were planted because of their value as lumber, so the Forestry Commission was supposed to be all about Commerce, and would have flattened more of the forest if it could, not protected all those lovely oaks. Your knee jerk anti tory interjection was worthy of Paramjit or Southy - I thought you were better than that.[/p][/quote]"The government has scrapped proposals to sell or lease part of the New Forest." Perhaps you could tell me which other organisation could sell or lease part of the New Forest, if it were not the Tory-government? If it were not the Tory-led coalition government that proposed the sell-off or leasing of parts of the New Forest, which group did the proposing? It was obviously NOT the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and as I understand it from a friend who is a Commoner, the Verderers are also against any sell-off or lease. "....and now you've just confirmed that (according to you) tory voters didn't even want it to be sold off." Although I THINK that New Forest Tory voters would be against any sell-off or leasing, nowhere did I make that claim. When you bother to read what I wrote, you will see that I said that 'I note that the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, that is certainly not noted for having a membership consisting of Labour supporters, supports this latest announcement.' Whether or not they are members of the Tory party, they were against the original proposal, and are pleased that the government has changed it's mind. With the Echo's headline, "Government scraps plans to sell off New Forest." Have you contacted the Editor to complain that this is misleading, and that it was not a Government plan in the first place? If you do, perhaps you would advise him whose plan it was. Please! Please! Please! Do not blame it on Gordon Brown![/p][/quote]Don't use the CDA or the Verderers in your argument as they oppose everyone and anyone who they see as a threat to their ancient ways and inward views. Torchie1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree