Government selling Britains forests and kicking out homeless

About the forests.

Grr, can't find anything on the homeless front.

Essentially, to summarise, I saw a BBC report that says that the Conservatives are planning to sell off 15% out of the 18% of the forests controlled by the forestry commission charged with keeping these forests well managed and open to the public in order to raise money. Apparently when this was tried in another forest (I can't remember the name) the forest ended up having its visitor centre closed, and was all but shut off to the public.

There is apparently an appeal going around, and 75% of the country are against it, but the Conservatives are probably going to press it through anyway; Cameron seems to have adopted a strategy of getting the really mean cuts done in the first half of his term.

To add to this a far more serious issue, the way the government has reorganised Londons homeless shelter system so that appeals for funding are done at the level of individual boroughs rather than at a city-wide level. Apparently, however this actually works, this is in fact going to cause an 87% cut in real funding for shelters in London. Due to a reorganisation problem. Then again, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics perhaps. But you see my concern.

Is it just me, or is anyone else picturing Cameron wearing a Sith mask while booting puppies into oncoming traffic?

I was behind the new government until they started actions like this; they'd preserved the health service and I'd interpreted the many service cuts, even cuts to university educations, as being Necessarily Evil because, you know, we'll be broke otherwise. And I figured that two years on, we'll start getting some of those services back. (Though not all of them.)

But the sale of forests, and the health benefits and wildlife preservation that goes with them (do you want more people to take up walking or not?) seems irrevocable or inordinately expensive to take back, and cutting the real-term budget for the homeless by 87% in London... come on, we don't need the money ''that'' badly... do we?

If Cameron keeps that up, he'll alienate a lot of support... and more seriously, inflict serious harm on the most vulnerable citizens of Britain in the process.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Don't count on getting those services back in two years, if ever.

Maybe he's going to take some of the savings, and get some jobs by building up debtors prisons?

edited 23rd Jan '11 6:58:45 AM by BlueNinja0

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

You'd think they'd have learned by now that selling off every single good thing we have doesn't work out so well for us in the long run. :/

I think the homeless thing is just sheer thoughtlessness. Or possibly callousness, which is worse.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

David Cameron loves Britain so much, he's carving it up and selling it to his friends.

Groovy.

Cripes. D:

The title made it sound like Britain's forests were populated with homeless people.

“Love is the eternal law whereby the universe was created and is ruled.” — St. Bernard

You're suggesting they aren't?

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

^^Ouch. You're right.

edited 23rd Jan '11 11:52:23 AM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Me Too!.

Fight smart, not fair.

I thought it meant he was going to try to force homeless people to accept forest land as a place to live in.

But how does the government get to make a decision like that for the london homeless shelters? I though that that, for the public shelters, would be the domain of the Mayoralty. Especially when I can also read on something like this.

Yes, God forbid politicians cut the budget for worthless money sinks, or even try to get something worthwhile out of it. Next thing you know, they'll start being honest, and then where will we be?

I... hope you mean the forests, not the homeless.

Welcome To TV Tropes | How To Write An Example | Text-Formatting Rules | List Of Shows That Need Summary | TV Tropes Forum | Know The Staff

Eh, mostly. I don't have enough knowledge about homelessness on any level to have a really informed opinion on shelters beyond a general uneasiness along the lines of "fish vs fishing poles."

Oh, yeah. That was the Mayors decision, or at least part of that organisations domain.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Firstly, I admit to being on the edge of this process, due to some Volunteering work I'm involved with...

Anyway, my view is mostly on the Museums side of things. Well, I've heard of management mergers, and several sites being run by one person (and management staying and lower levels disappearing). Anyway, several have already been closed (even in this area, one in particular that they couldn't sell off), and in some parts of the country, some being shut and collections sold off (and obviously not coming back).

Anyway, Game Chainsaw, it IS that bad, according to the Government. I wouldn't be surprised that even members of the Government don't like some of the cuts taking place.

It's just the way it is these days.

Keep Rolling On

This is a stupid, short-termist idea. The coalition government has no right, no mandate to sell off the family silver to fulfill its ideologically-driven policies.

edited 24th Jan '11 4:15:40 AM by Shichibukai

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

But who could stop them?

Keep Rolling On

Determined public outrage, if that's even possible with the docile, lobotomised British masses.

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

But they voted for Cameron, thus giving him legitimacy to do anything he wants. That's democracy. You don't want to be undemocratic, do you?

...except a majority of them didn't vote for Cameron. The government was handed to him by Clegg.

Groovy.

Irrelevant, he's Prime Minister, which means whatever he does is what the people of Britain want him to do. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been elected.

By what mandate, exactly? The majority of the british electorate did not vote for the tories.

Requiem ~ September 2010 - October 2011 [Banned 4 Life]

Technically, they voted for nobody  ^*

— nobody won, after all — that's why the Coalition's there in the first place.

It's a Government nobody wanted, it's just one that had to appear due to the circumstances — and cuts were going to happen, whoever "won" the Election...

Keep Rolling On

Yeah, but I would like to see the cuts being handled by a government with a modicum of restraint, not the gleeful hacking away of the coalition.

edited 24th Jan '11 6:16:42 AM by pagad

With cannon shot and gun blast smash the alien. With laser beam and searing plasma scatter the alien to the stars.