vivid wrote: On a more positive note, shouldn't 'the wider us' hatch a plot to buy the woodland from under their noses? If so, could we guarantee to keep the developers and hunters at bay?
Trouble is, "the wider us" is the Forestry Commission, which was effectively set up "to keep the developers and hunters at bay". We couldn't possibly afford it but if we did we'd be buying what's ours to prevent a cabinet of millionaires flogging it to their millionaire mates.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by nigelswift
27th October 2010ce
06:13 |
Living Heritage Threat (The Sea Cat, Oct 25, 2010, 07:36)- Re: Living Heritage Threat (tjj, Oct 25, 2010, 06:49)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (Sanctuary, Oct 25, 2010, 07:16)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (tjj, Oct 25, 2010, 21:29)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (Kozmik_Ken, Oct 25, 2010, 22:41)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (drewbhoy, Oct 26, 2010, 00:40)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (moss, Oct 26, 2010, 05:43)
- Says it all (nigelswift, Oct 26, 2010, 11:30)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (Kid Calamity, Oct 26, 2010, 12:44)
- Re: Statement from the Woodland Trust (tjj, Oct 27, 2010, 12:18)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (tjj, Oct 29, 2010, 09:25)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (megadread, Nov 10, 2010, 18:02)
- Elephants & tigers & hens & other Tory targets (nigelswift, Nov 14, 2010, 06:16)
- Re: Roaches up for sale (tjj, Nov 29, 2010, 19:17)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (tjj, Dec 03, 2010, 10:00)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (The Sea Cat, Dec 20, 2010, 11:00)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (The Sea Cat, Jan 21, 2011, 13:27)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (Sanctuary, Feb 02, 2011, 13:09)
- Re: Living Heritage Threat (The Sea Cat, May 01, 2011, 08:25)
|
|
Head To Head 
Re: F/T (Fox topic) (now Deer) (vivid)