Is there anything the tories won't sell?

[Skashion]

It is ok to criticise both the tories and Labour, and the Lib Dems, and the BNP, and the Greens etc. Honestly, it's allowed. Just thought I'd mention that. Some people don't get it.

 

[BTH]

Mate, i have made a fantastic living, directly from the privatising of the rail network. For a numpty class clown who left school with no gcse's, to be able to own his own home, take as many holidays as the school holiday programme allows, and be able to buy what i want when i want, (within reason) is all good by me. Oh and i'm not a poncy broker or analyst, but a grafter who started out 12 years or so ago, digging out sleepers and shovelling shit, untill i was recognised as a better delegator!

THIS. Well done that man.

Here comes the sun king....

 

[Anonymous]

Okay BB2.0 so you've made yourself look a fucking tool as usual. So instead of answering any points or backing up your Tory rhetoric for reasons why you think it's a good idea to sell our forest parks, you start a new thread about 'Socialism/Liberalism being a mental illness' and your well constructed idea is a copy and paste job of a long winded article which nobody will fucking read anyway. Your dickheadedness knows no bounds, you brainless oaf.

But my dumb chum thats not the case is it? Just because you say or even believe you have slain me, it does not make it tru....

You have posted the same politically jealous sensationalist anti Tory arguments based on your own insecurities and fears-again.

Where is there a shred of evidence that this land will be built on? There is not any. The forests will remain untouched and you know it. When I called you out on the first reply to your thread you realised your anti Conservative rhetoric had been rumbled, you panicked and started calling names.

A lot of you anti Thatcher types are class warriors.....it makes me laugh that the likes of you who probably have a nice cosy little life get upset because maybe a family member or friend were miners/public sector workers or another area that Thatcher rightly crushed as they were inefficient -big deal, move on. My family got rich, fucking rich under Thatcher so we're always going to differ, but I look beyond that and study facts, not emotion.

You're either a wum,or a bored Daily Express editor's forum alter-ego...you've just got to be coming out with Alan Partridge style shite like that.
Nobody seriously believes that's how people in a civilised society should operate in 2011,surely?

I've asked you this question before-and you refused to answer it then.
Your workhouse master Dave's vision of "Big Society" to replace the jobs that people are currently paid to do-you know,like sweep the streets and stuff.....where do you see your place in it?Obviously having the financial means to assist (as you keep on telling us,over and over again)...how about driving a mobile library to replace the ones closing down,or teaching kids in Moss side or Harpurhey a "how I made all my money(tax paid)" course?
After all,as Dave says-"We're all in this together."
Err...but we're not,are we Dave...

We're obviously going to need all this fantastic free mentoring experience from life's "success stories"-seeing as how this shower of Lib-dem frauds and Eton-educated Tory landowners like Soames are about to cut an entire generation of poorer kids adrift in an ideological nuclear assault they've waited 20 years to launch...all dressed up in the name of "reducing the deficit."

Won't affect you though,will it?

Or will it......?

 

[Swales lives]

!st it was Labour who started the sales of the forests. They did it in private and they did it without a clause keeping the public access.

secondly the Forestry Commission owns 2 million acres of forest it not only makes the rules for all the other commercial timber producers in this country but even has 50% of the market. Year last year and in the years before it has made a loss.
They lost £75million last year. Of OUR money. The taxpayer foots the bill. And yet timeber prices were up last year.
How does anyone who has 50% of the market lose that much money.

It is outdated and unfair that they exist in this way. It's a beauracratic mess.No accountability whatsoever, people in cushy jobs who think they are untouchable. A Commission set up to make sure we had enough timber for pit props if we ever went to war. It was set up in 1919.
By all means there is a need for the Forestry Commission to exist in a regulatory capacity. But it is time to make money from 50% of the market.
The Tories have written clauses for public access. It's just typical Labour scaremongering again. If they are sold they would be developed at a better standard.

Oh dear...... looks like I was correct...again. Where is the OP now calling me names?! Priceless.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE[/youtube]

First of all PJMCC, your figures are distorted. The cost of running the Forestry Commission was £75million. Off-set this with £60million of revenue made by them and the cost to the Tax payer is £15million. Which works out at 30p each per head for us citizens. I don't mid paying for that.

Also Labour didn't come up with the idea of selling off our forest land, it was a Tory action going back to 1981 and was halted in 1997 when Labour got in. It was looked at again in 2007/08 again by Labour looking at privatising certain areas, but this was to be a minor bit of tweaking. A House of Commons briefing paper at the time stated that there should be "Heavy emphasis upon overall management remaining in the public sector, citing that Forestry Commission should retain control."
As usual the right-wing media portrayed it as something it wasn't. "Labour sell our forests aaaarrgghh!!!". And you obviously believe your Daily Mail half baked sensationalism. What the Tories are proposing now is a fire sale for their friends' benefit.

As for you BB2.0 you sad cretin, are you trying to claim some kind of victory over me?
You believe the first set of figures that fall in-line with your immature, uneducated doctrine and you claim some kind of deflected glory and make me look a fool? Think on ginge, I have owned you more times than I've wiped my arse.
You were right again? How? Another one bites the dust indeed.

 

[JoeMercer'sWay]

I dunno what they'd personally sell but I've auctioned their back doors off on Ebay...

 

[NPBlue]

I dunno what they'd personally sell but I've auctioned their back doors off on Ebay...

I hope they were plastic doors!

 

[ifwecouldjust......]

I can't believe you are defending the decision to privatise rail, Glen. I imagine it's because you made money, but you should understand that 99% of the people in this country lost out.

EXACTLY

If the government (any colour) sell off shares in a nationalised industry or a part of the Government in a way that 'Joe Public' can afford, its because the industry concerned

1)is a mess (Nuclear) and will cost a fortune to sort out.
2)Has had Nil Investment for years (Rail Track) and will cost a fortune to sort out
3)Has a pension deficit the size of france (Post office)and will cost a fortune to sort out.

They do it this way to raise money but pass the liabilities to the share holders.

When its not a mess like

DVLA
Learning and Skills Council
Forestry Commission

they either

outsource it (to their buddies at Capita usually)
Or sell it in such a way that Joe Public can't afford to buy it (franchise of the rail network)

Probably sell the woodlands in lots of 10,000 square acres or similar

Understand this

Liars Thieves and Cheats the lot of them

 

[brooklandsblue2.0]

Oh dear...... looks like I was correct...again. Where is the OP now calling me names?! Priceless.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE[/youtube]

First of all PJMCC, your figures are distorted. The cost of running the Forestry Commission was £75million. Off-set this with £60million of revenue made by them and the cost to the Tax payer is £15million. Which works out at 30p each per head for us citizens. I don't mid paying for that.

Also Labour didn't come up with the idea of selling off our forest land, it was a Tory action going back to 1981 and was halted in 1997 when Labour got in. It was looked at again in 2007/08 again by Labour looking at privatising certain areas, but this was to be a minor bit of tweaking. A House of Commons briefing paper at the time stated that there should be "Heavy emphasis upon overall management remaining in the public sector, citing that Forestry Commission should retain control."
As usual the right-wing media portrayed it as something it wasn't. "Labour sell our forests aaaarrgghh!!!". And you obviously believe your Daily Mail half baked sensationalism. What the Tories are proposing now is a fire sale for their friends' benefit.

As for you BB2.0 you sad cretin, are you trying to claim some kind of victory over me?
You believe the first set of figures that fall in-line with your immature, uneducated doctrine and you claim some kind of deflected glory and make me look a fool? Think on ginge, I have owned you more times than I've wiped my arse.
You were right again? How? Another one bites the dust indeed.

ONCE AGAIN-I AWAIT YOUR INFORMATION ON WHERE AND WHEN THE FORESTS WILL BE BUILT ON OR ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP AVOIDING THE ISSUE??

 

[Swales lives]

First of all PJMCC, your figures are distorted. The cost of running the Forestry Commission was £75million. Off-set this with £60million of revenue made by them and the cost to the Tax payer is £15million. Which works out at 30p each per head for us citizens. I don't mid paying for that.

Also Labour didn't come up with the idea of selling off our forest land, it was a Tory action going back to 1981 and was halted in 1997 when Labour got in. It was looked at again in 2007/08 again by Labour looking at privatising certain areas, but this was to be a minor bit of tweaking. A House of Commons briefing paper at the time stated that there should be "Heavy emphasis upon overall management remaining in the public sector, citing that Forestry Commission should retain control."
As usual the right-wing media portrayed it as something it wasn't. "Labour sell our forests aaaarrgghh!!!". And you obviously believe your Daily Mail half baked sensationalism. What the Tories are proposing now is a fire sale for their friends' benefit.

As for you BB2.0 you sad cretin, are you trying to claim some kind of victory over me?
You believe the first set of figures that fall in-line with your immature, uneducated doctrine and you claim some kind of deflected glory and make me look a fool? Think on ginge, I have owned you more times than I've wiped my arse.
You were right again? How? Another one bites the dust indeed.

ONCE AGAIN-I AWAIT YOUR INFORMATION ON WHERE AND WHEN THE FORESTS WILL BE BUILT ON OR ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP AVOIDING THE ISSUE??

Here you go dick-splash, this is an article from the Daily Torygraph, not some left-wing tree hugging yogurt-knitting apologist rag like The Guardian.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, is expected to announce plans within days to dispose of about half of the 748,000 hectares of woodland overseen by the Forestry Commission by 2020.

The controversial decision will pave the way for a huge expansion in the number of Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, adventure sites and commercial logging operations throughout Britain as land is sold to private companies.

Legislation which currently governs the treatment of "ancient forests" such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest is likely to be changed giving private firms the right to cut down trees.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/8082756/Ministers-plan-huge-sell-off-of-Britains-forests.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countr ... rests.html</a>
This is the full article. Satisfied or are you going to ask for the details of the number of squirrels who will have to find new houses?

 

[Swales lives]

ONCE AGAIN-I AWAIT YOUR INFORMATION ON WHERE AND WHEN THE FORESTS WILL BE BUILT ON OR ARE YOU GOING TO KEEP AVOIDING THE ISSUE??

Here you go dick-splash, this is an article from the Daily Torygraph, not some left-wing tree hugging yogurt-knitting apologist rag like The Guardian.

Caroline Spelman, the Environment Secretary, is expected to announce plans within days to dispose of about half of the 748,000 hectares of woodland overseen by the Forestry Commission by 2020.

The controversial decision will pave the way for a huge expansion in the number of Center Parcs-style holiday villages, golf courses, adventure sites and commercial logging operations throughout Britain as land is sold to private companies.

Legislation which currently governs the treatment of "ancient forests" such as the Forest of Dean and Sherwood Forest is likely to be changed giving private firms the right to cut down trees.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countryside/8082756/Ministers-plan-huge-sell-off-of-Britains-forests.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countr ... rests.html</a>
This is the full article. Satisfied or are you going to ask for the details of the number of squirrels who will have to find new houses?

Hahaha, I've just read your PM to me telling me that you've owned me on this thread. You absolute berk. Don't even try to 'joust' with me. I own your ginner ass. Ha!