WHEN I read David Norman's recent letter in your paper I thought it was a fair view of the three Forest of Dean district council meetings I attended regarding the Forest of Dean being protected against sell off.

The contributions by the Conservative councillors in their replies to Mr Norman did not represent the picture I had over the three district council meetings I attended.

At the first meeting Cllr Marion Winship put forward a motion whose wording satisfied the Labour, Lib Dems and Independents in its aim to protect the Forest of Dean. It satisfied many, maybe all, of the public in the viewing area.

But an amendment was put forward by Cllr Peter Amos, Conservative and Leader of the council. I believe the label 'wrecking' is applied to such amendments for some reason.

Fortunately Cllr Bruce Hogan was aware of the political ways these things can be done and asked for the council to have the precise wording of the amendment put up on the screen, in order for the councillors to fully understand the effect of this possibly putative wrecking amendment. I seem to recollect some blustering ensued, but the precise wording was required, that which they did not have, not very reassuring. Bruce Hogan pointed out that almost anything can be construed at a later date in any act/motion/modification due to some of the vagueness held within the words/grammar used. The term 'loophole' comes to mind here

So they had an adjournment in order to get their amendment in order. Finally the amendment was presented on the screen so that we could appreciate the full import. The wisdom of asking for the precise wording was so very clear. This was all most illuminating, as was the clinical way parts of the amended motion were so well opened out by the opposition to the majority Conservatives.

However with their majority the Conservatives, voting as a party, could and did vote Cllr Amos's amendment in place of Mrs Winship's motion. This block voting along party lines did not please some of the public.

It was unnecessarily late so the rest of the meeting was then adjourned to another date in order for a motion from Independent Councillor A Gardiner to be discussed. Only item 5, could be given fair consideration.

At the second meeting Cllr Gardiner's motion incurred much discussion, much of which was trying to argue against and seemed to me to have little, if any, value. It was a bit nerve-wracking watching how the voting went. And dramatic when, thanks to just one Conservative voting against the Conservative Party line, the motion was passed to send a deputation to the House of Lords.

It was this mission which strangely had within its ranks a certain Cllr Amos who had voted against the mission. And it was on the occasion of the visit that a Cllr Amos detached himself from the group, in contradiction to an agreement to leave the presentation to Cllr Gardiner and HOOF, and he, Cllr Amos, gave his own interview with the media.

– Martin Rudland,?Cinderford.