Oh dear, my letter on how the government's possible disposal of English public forests could affect the local election has clearly touched the nerves of those ex-councillors I suggested were not wholehearted in their opposition to it.

Their letters tell me that I hadn't checked my facts, quote bits from council motion 11.3 and three even that I'd "defamed" their writers. (If accusing someone of siding with the government was defamation then I'd plead guilty – but it isn't.)

I had, of course, been through the minutes carefully, not only for the December 2 meeting to which my critics all referred, but also, as I said in my letter, for the December 8 meeting. The December 2 minutes tell us the motion quoted by my critics was passed, with their support – so far, good for them.

The words in the motion are a bit weasely – opposing 'any selling off that would compromise the forest's protection' leaves a few holes – but it was a promising start.

However, at the same meeting, another motion, concerned at the lack of legal rights for local people using the forest, which would have asked the government to exclude the Forest of Dean from the Public Bodies Bill was defeated with the help of my critics – not good for our forest.

So now on to the December 8 meeting at which Andrew Gardiner proposed that the council do its best to exempt the forest and contiguous woodlands from sale so as to avoid privatisation; to exclude or protect the forest from sale under the Public Bodies Bill by writing to the PM, ministers, Lords, Commons and local authorities; and to send a deputation to meet the appropriate law-makers before the passing of the Bill. His motion was passed, just – much better for our forest, but my critics all opposed it.

And finally another motion: "This council believes that the publicly owned woodlands currently managed by the Forestry Commission are a precious national asset. This council aligns itself with the local campaign to prevent the sale or transfer of ownership of the Forest of Dean, (Hands Off Our Forest), and invites our Member of Parliament to a meeting with all elected members so that there can be a full and frank exchange of views. Furthermore this council makes clear that in its stated opposition to privatisation of any publicly owned forest land in the Forest of Dean, privatisation means the transfer of the ownership of forest land to any body or organisation other than a public body under the control of a democratically elected government of the United Kingdom."

This one was passed by a large majority – but my critics (with the honourable exception this time of Alastair Fraser) all opposed it.

Support as councillors is what I mean by standing up for the forest. So, while my critics express love for the forest and may well have signed petitions and so on as individuals, when it comes to publicly supporting motions as part of the district council, their record is, to say the least, rather sporadic. That was, and still is, my point.

I don't think it's inaccurate, defamatory, inflammatory or any of the other literary crimes of which I'm accused.

I therefore just have one apology to make. When checking through the lists of district council nominations I failed to spot that Georgina Bensted was not standing – right last name, wrong Bensted – sorry!

– David Norman, Longhope.