Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 5:50 pm
But think of the expenses you'd be able to claimFelix wrote:Who'd be a politician eh? not me for one, not on that salary...
Cheers,
- Pete
Cheers,
- Pete
www.ukbutterflies.co.uk
UK Butterflies Discussion Board
https://ukbutterflies.co.uk/~ukbutte1/phpBB/
Forest sell-off
https://ukbutterflies.co.uk/~ukbutte1/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4729
Page 7 of 12
Cheers,
- Pete
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:01 pm
I have never quite understood why the term "U-turn" is treated with contempt. After listening to the debate, or become in possession of more facts, it is realised that the initial position had been wrong, then that should be a reason for praise not condemnation.
I recently kept having a go at BC HQ Management. When I was pointed to certain information that I had overlooked, I was quite prepared to tone down my criticisms. So yes, I made a U-turn. I didn't for one moment feel that I had "failed". It is difficult to admit you are wrong, but in reality I felt quite pleased with myself that I was man enough to recognise that.
Jack
I recently kept having a go at BC HQ Management. When I was pointed to certain information that I had overlooked, I was quite prepared to tone down my criticisms. So yes, I made a U-turn. I didn't for one moment feel that I had "failed". It is difficult to admit you are wrong, but in reality I felt quite pleased with myself that I was man enough to recognise that.
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:19 pm
Oh pure speculation obviously! Martin Warren must have been wasting his time at the meetings where this proposal was discussed.Pete Eeles wrote:An interesting development, or perhaps pure speculation!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12377215
Cheers,
- Pete
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 8:46 pm
Felix:
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).The media (and the opposition parties) then screech "U-Turn", or at best accuse Jack of watering down his proposals.
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Sun Feb 06, 2011 9:46 pm
Next you'll be admitting to watching Sky newsJack Harrison wrote:My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:55 am
...surely you mean Fox newsJohnR wrote:Next you'll be admitting to watching Sky newsJack Harrison wrote:My "media" are "The Times" @ £1.00 per day and the "I" @ 20 pence (mini Independent).
I like to keep myself informed like. Know what I mean? Yeah. OK?
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Mon Feb 07, 2011 12:04 pm
The political situation about the proposed sell off is changing rapidly so maybe we can all calm down for a while. However let me give just two examples of my experiences when a wood is not managed sympathetically or there are no access arrangements.
Shaves Wood near Henfield had thriving colonies of Pearl Bordered and Small PB Frits as well as Duke of Burgundy from 1977 to 1981 when I lived in the area. I have no idea how the ownership/management changed, but I was horrified during a visit to Sussex circa 1989 to see that the entrance had been boarded up. I drove past again in 2010, it was still closed off and the wood by now looked to be an overgrown jungle.
Kingspark Wood near Plaistow was must-visit locality from 1972 – 81. I achieved my best ever day total of 24 species in 1976 (and I missed the Small Copper). I had moved away from the south but a return visit to Kingspark in 1985 showed that little had apparently changed by then. But sometime later (I was away from the area so didn’t know exactly when) it was closed off by the owners. I drove past Kingspark in 2010 and it then it certainly didn’t look a prime site. I do believe there have been some specially arranged visits by Sussex Branch members since it was closed off so maybe we can be told more about the findings. But I find it very hard to believe that it is anything like it was in its heyday.
The point I am making is that unless naturalists – birders, butterflyers, botanists, etc – are able to monitor what is going on in a wood, habitat is almost certain to deteriorate.
However, Government Officials promise us that access and biodiversity will be assured for any FC land that is sold off.
It’s not as if I am in any way suspicious of politicians’ promises........
Jack
Shaves Wood near Henfield had thriving colonies of Pearl Bordered and Small PB Frits as well as Duke of Burgundy from 1977 to 1981 when I lived in the area. I have no idea how the ownership/management changed, but I was horrified during a visit to Sussex circa 1989 to see that the entrance had been boarded up. I drove past again in 2010, it was still closed off and the wood by now looked to be an overgrown jungle.
Kingspark Wood near Plaistow was must-visit locality from 1972 – 81. I achieved my best ever day total of 24 species in 1976 (and I missed the Small Copper). I had moved away from the south but a return visit to Kingspark in 1985 showed that little had apparently changed by then. But sometime later (I was away from the area so didn’t know exactly when) it was closed off by the owners. I drove past Kingspark in 2010 and it then it certainly didn’t look a prime site. I do believe there have been some specially arranged visits by Sussex Branch members since it was closed off so maybe we can be told more about the findings. But I find it very hard to believe that it is anything like it was in its heyday.
The point I am making is that unless naturalists – birders, butterflyers, botanists, etc – are able to monitor what is going on in a wood, habitat is almost certain to deteriorate.
However, Government Officials promise us that access and biodiversity will be assured for any FC land that is sold off.
It’s not as if I am in any way suspicious of politicians’ promises........
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:17 pm
[quote="JohnR"]Thanks for posting the FC link because it shows that almost all of the Botany Bay/Oaken Wood complex is Heritage Woodland.
I have yet to read all of this thread so apologise if the topic is covered but my understanding was that the Botany Bay complex is managed but not owned by Forest Enterprise with the exception of Oaken Wood that was chosen as the BC reserve because it was owned by FC. Another part of Chiddingfold Forest that was managed by the FC - Kings Park - has been closed for a number of years. A lot of FC woods have been privatised by the last two governments such as Bentley Woods that remains open access. Hopefully WT, NT, BC etc can afford to buy the rest of our woods.
Terry Hotten
I have yet to read all of this thread so apologise if the topic is covered but my understanding was that the Botany Bay complex is managed but not owned by Forest Enterprise with the exception of Oaken Wood that was chosen as the BC reserve because it was owned by FC. Another part of Chiddingfold Forest that was managed by the FC - Kings Park - has been closed for a number of years. A lot of FC woods have been privatised by the last two governments such as Bentley Woods that remains open access. Hopefully WT, NT, BC etc can afford to buy the rest of our woods.
Terry Hotten
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 2:36 pm
It will surely help if the most-important butterfly sites are bought/saved. (And an important tactic for the government to deflect criticism and bribe our conservation organisations with...)
However, in the end it will be of little import, as our butterfly zoos will become increasingly isolated and vulnerable, if the rest of the countryside outside these areas becomes a desert of monocultures which do not support the conditions our butterflies require.....
However, in the end it will be of little import, as our butterfly zoos will become increasingly isolated and vulnerable, if the rest of the countryside outside these areas becomes a desert of monocultures which do not support the conditions our butterflies require.....
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 3:27 pm
Hi Terry, Bentley Wood has been in privately owned for nearly 30 years now. In this instance FC agreeing sell it, was the best thing that could ever of happened to it.tmhotten wrote:A lot of FC woods have been privatised by the last two governments such as Bentley Woods that remains open access
Kind Regards Gruditch
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 4:51 pm
Nick, you're so anti-establishment! You remind me of...NickB wrote:It will surely help if the most-important butterfly sites are bought/saved. (And an important tactic for the government to deflect criticism and bribe our conservation organisations with...)However, in the end it will be of little import, as our butterfly zoos will become increasingly isolated and vulnerable, if the rest of the countryside outside these areas becomes a desert of monocultures which do not support the conditions our butterflies require.....
- citizensmith.jpg (16.82 KiB) Viewed 363 times
I do agree with your second sentiment though, as I imagine do we all. However, I think in another thread (which ICBA to locate at the moment) I intimated that we are all to blame for this (to a greater or lesser extent) in our lifestyle choices; where we purchase our food, our aspirations for a higher standard of living, economic growth etc....
Felix.
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:26 pm
I am not anti-anything, unless I see a situation where natural justice, in my eyes admittedly, has not been served.......
Such as our supine politicians giving in to the banks - rather than let them go bust and their bond-holders take the pain with the rest of us - and leaving the bill for future generations to pay. And worse than this, the bankers turn round and start to behave just as they did before the crisis - "Crisis? What crisis?" - by taking billions in bonuses to boot! I am definitely anti that! And is it not a rather curious coincidence that the financial institutions in the City gave £42m to the Conservative Party in the last 5 years? Let's face it, bankers don't invest that sort of money unless there's a real return.....
Nick "Citizen" Smith
Edit: Actually Felix I am a supporter of the principle of a constitutional monarchy where the executive is not in control of our judiciary and our army. There are too many examples of so-called democracies where such separation between the State and the government in power is not as distinct as it is here. That is one of the things that helps make the UK the place to live that it is today; so, yes to the Queen; but I agree with Jack - we should adopt the European model, where the head of state provides purely a symbolic separation of power by living as a relatively normal person. Dare I say it, like any citizen of this land . (That way me and Jack WILL get our Royal Disneyland Experience and be quids in as well 
)!
Such as our supine politicians giving in to the banks - rather than let them go bust and their bond-holders take the pain with the rest of us - and leaving the bill for future generations to pay. And worse than this, the bankers turn round and start to behave just as they did before the crisis - "Crisis? What crisis?" - by taking billions in bonuses to boot! I am definitely anti that! And is it not a rather curious coincidence that the financial institutions in the City gave £42m to the Conservative Party in the last 5 years? Let's face it, bankers don't invest that sort of money unless there's a real return.....
Nick "Citizen" Smith
Edit: Actually Felix I am a supporter of the principle of a constitutional monarchy where the executive is not in control of our judiciary and our army. There are too many examples of so-called democracies where such separation between the State and the government in power is not as distinct as it is here. That is one of the things that helps make the UK the place to live that it is today; so, yes to the Queen; but I agree with Jack - we should adopt the European model, where the head of state provides purely a symbolic separation of power by living as a relatively normal person. Dare I say it, like any citizen of this land
. (That way me and Jack WILL get our Royal Disneyland Experience and be quids in as well )!Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 7:55 pm
Nick had a go at politicians and bankers.
It has never been explained, as far as I know, why the profession of banker is so special or so difficult. Surely being a doctor, architect, engineer, pharmacist, research scientist - you name the profession - is just as skilled in their own fields? Bankers always go on about "risk taking" but that risk is making more or less money. They don't risk lives if they get it wrong. They just disappoint their clients and crucially THEMSELVES. If a bomb-disposal soldier gets it wrong he pays with his life and his widow is left to live on a pathetic annual pension, perhaps the equivalent to one day of a banker's bonus. We need to call the bluff of these money grabbers. If they want to go abroad, then so be it. There are plenty of skilled unemployed graduates who could quickly learn the job and meanwhile, get paid sensible salaries.
It beats me why politicians just don’t want to know about the public’s anger.
Jack "Citizen" Harrison
It has never been explained, as far as I know, why the profession of banker is so special or so difficult. Surely being a doctor, architect, engineer, pharmacist, research scientist - you name the profession - is just as skilled in their own fields? Bankers always go on about "risk taking" but that risk is making more or less money. They don't risk lives if they get it wrong. They just disappoint their clients and crucially THEMSELVES. If a bomb-disposal soldier gets it wrong he pays with his life and his widow is left to live on a pathetic annual pension, perhaps the equivalent to one day of a banker's bonus. We need to call the bluff of these money grabbers. If they want to go abroad, then so be it. There are plenty of skilled unemployed graduates who could quickly learn the job and meanwhile, get paid sensible salaries.
It beats me why politicians just don’t want to know about the public’s anger.
Jack "Citizen" Harrison
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:07 pm
And what kind of risk-taking is it if when you get it wrong, someone else bails you out? That's no risk at all.
Dave
Dave
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:09 pm
I think we have the germ of a solution to the bankers' bonus issue:Jack Harrison wrote:Nick had a go at politicians and bankers.
They don't risk lives if they get it wrong. If a bomb-disposal soldier gets it wrong he pays with his life and his widow is left to live on a pathetic annual pension, perhaps the equivalent to one day of a banker's bonus.
Jack "Citizen" Harrison
If the bankers are so vital to our security, then let them pick-up their bonuses, after they have completed a tour of duty in Afghanistan as a bomb-disposal private. They can pay for their own training - they can afford the best kit - and if they do make it through a tour, then they may have done something useful for their money. Of course, the bonus of those that don't make it goes to the Forces Benevolent Fund. If they don't want to go, then they can forfeit their bonus and it goes into hospitals and schools, etc.
What do you think, Jack? Can we run with that, citizen?
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:10 pm
Rightly or wrongly (very much wrongly actually) the Financial Services ARE this country's economy, and if they fail then so shall our economy. Besides, as a tax payer I have a stake in a number of large banks now and I want them to be in real profit as soon as possible so I can see a return upon my investment. God forbid we loose what the industry delivers to our economy in tax revenue alone!
The salaries of footballers however, well that's a slightly different matter. Joe Public doesn't object to that though, because footballers are celebrities and as such are to be lauded.
Personally, it really doesn't bother me in the least if Bankers achieve significant bonuses; the bonuses are relative to the business that these individuals do for their employer.
I do find the culture of jealousy that exists in this country and the duality of most of it's inhabitants somewhat distasteful however. I simply fail to understand why so many people are so obsessed with the life styles of such a tiny minority of citizens.
Felix.
The salaries of footballers however, well that's a slightly different matter. Joe Public doesn't object to that though, because footballers are celebrities and as such are to be lauded.
Personally, it really doesn't bother me in the least if Bankers achieve significant bonuses; the bonuses are relative to the business that these individuals do for their employer.
I do find the culture of jealousy that exists in this country and the duality of most of it's inhabitants somewhat distasteful however. I simply fail to understand why so many people are so obsessed with the life styles of such a tiny minority of citizens.
Felix.
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:12 pm
As my chaplain friend said: " It is Socialism for the rich and Capitalism for the poor!"millerd wrote:And what kind of risk-taking is it if when you get it wrong, someone else bails you out? That's no risk at all.
Dave
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:26 pm
Hmmm. Charley Chaplain by the sound of it.
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:39 pm
Felix:
Jack
I am not in the least obsessed with celebs who have opulent life styles. But I do have a code of ethics. Astronomical pay levels for bankers who are doing "just another job" is quite simply immoral.fail[s] to understand why so many people are so obsessed with the life styles of such a tiny minority of citizens.
Jack
Re: Forest sell-off
Posted: Wed Feb 09, 2011 8:50 pm
Jack Harrison wrote:Astronomical pay levels for bankers who are doing "just another job" is quite simply immoral in my opinion.
Jack