Urgent....!!! Please sign up ASAP...!!!!!!

Not totally unexpected to be honest I'm still of the opinion that there's two types of MP, the ones that screw you over to your face and the ones who screw over when your got your back to them... (was going to say "screw you over from behind" but it just didn't sound right )

 

It seems my local MP, Ian Swales, has supported the government. To be honest that doesn't surprise me (I won't say why on a public forum).

I've emailed him again so he knows we know, although I doubt the emails will even be read.

Just as a tip (I didn't realise until after I'd sent the message), if you use the template email system (38 degrees), change the default subject to something else of your choice. By leaving the default subject (that many others will use) it is all too easy to set up a filter to direct all messages with that subject straight to the bin.

 

My MP Mr Michael Gove has chosen not to reply to the original letter so have sent him a more personalised response to his negative vote.......

 

Today I've received a letter (by post, not email) from my MP, Ian Swales.

Given that he has my email address because he was replying to my email, I find it interesting that he chose to send it on posh 90GSM paper, by post. That's an effective way to save tax payer's money, and the environment I must say, but that's an entirely different story.

The letter is two pages of him (or his PR team) saying how brilliant they are and how bad Labour was, while trying to put the best possible spin on something they surely know is fundamentally wrong. A more gullible reader, or someone who is not used to reading between the lines might have easily been put at ease, but I've dealt with these kind of people before in my previous job, so have learnt to see what they're really saying (or not saying) at first glance without having to thoroughly scrutinise it.

I'll be writing to him again after my son goes to bed, when I can get some peace, and will pick up on each and every point in his posh letter. I'll let you all see what I put when I do it.

Suffice to say that any PR assurances we might have seen on TV are clearly rubbish. The letter practically admits that its a done deal, and that biodiversity will not be protected.

 

I totally agree with you Marley, and perhaps I was careless in my wording on my last post. I didn't mean to say that it is a done deal, just that my local MP seems to think it is.

I for one will keep on at them, as I hope we all will.

We have seen in the past that public opinion can make the government back down. Remember the petition against 'pay as you go' road tax that would have forced many people off the road and out of work? That plan was shelved after about a million of us complained. Before that (and before the internet), there was the poll tax demos that may have been the cause of Thatcher's demise.

This issue is more important than either of those two. Ok, it doesn't have the same immediate cost implications to us but it has a bigger cost associated with it. As a dad, I can't bear the thought of my son growing up in a country where there is no nature left. And that's what will happen if the government win. They say they only own 18% of the woodland, but after they've sold that they'll just look for something else to sell.

And just to chuck in one quick point from the letter I received which was supposed to assure me that the woods will be ok, here is a quote from the letter: "...and it [the forestry commission] will continue to ensure that the our forests will not be sold to purchasers who have no intention of using the land for forestry".

I interpret that as saying two things. First, in order to buy the land a buyer must state that they will use the land for forestry, but that doesn't stop them later from applying for a change of category for the land so they can do what they like. Secondly, how do they define 'forestry'? It would be forestry to strip out mature broad leaf trees and replace them with a single species of conifer for timber. It also implies that the woods will be turned to a commercial enterprise, and then you get all the Health and Safety issues which will result in restrictions in access.

Just a final point before I do my letter to my MP, a private company isn't going to by some woodland unless they can make a profit from it. To make that profit, they can't just leave nature to do what it does best. Of course the government knows this.

 

The only forestry commission land that I have ever used was Bedgebury pinetum.

I used it for years to walk the dog.

Suddenly they decided it would be a good idea to make the place "trendy", involving all kinds of restrictions and massive car parking fees.
Not been to the place for about five years now and dont think I ever will again.

So I cant see it matters much who owns the forests.
But I'm sure thats just my view.

The government will do as they want, they were elected by the population, and thats how British democracy works.
A sad fact, but I've never seen anything to make me change my mind.

 

Here's my latest note to my MP. Sorry it is a bit wordy.

 

I hate to back track in a battle, but I've had another letter from my MP.

He has answered all my points, and clarified what the vote was about, and what his personal stance is. I must admit that it sounds ok.

The proposal was not to sell off the land, but to consider selling it off, and to bring in new laws to give further protection to the natural ecosystems, and for access for all.

When I get some time later, I'll type up the text of the proposal.

I'm not saying I've done a U turn, just that his latest letter paints a very different picture to what the media has.

 

Not sure if this is old news or not... but sky news is reporting:

Well 15% is a start... but there is still a long way to go

I'd love to know how they can guarantee that for the 85% that they have confirmed can be sold has significant protection, but not on the 15% they have put on hold? :th_scifD36:

- Luke -

oh... full story here: SKY NEWS REPORT