No, not at all.

The well meaning thrust of your post comes over loud and clear. Also, the principle rather than the detail is a matter that could be debated?

However, on the back of that, I am using it as an example of voices being heard on the basis of facts, real hard facts. As you say, the actual amount is a matter for concern anyway.

That said, selling off woodland is not in itself a bad thing in principle. The woodland is in the main cash crop rather than ancient heritage site. I have yet to see a government agency look after commercial interests better than private enterprise. Horses for courses.

When the government sold off British Rail precast concrete yards, two things happened. 1) the tax revenue was higher than the gross profit the had managed to get beforehand. 2) The increase in production through finding new markets managed to employ more local people, buy from suppliers etc etc. Competing with and winning against foreign suppliers.

In that case, selling off assets was a wise move.

In this case? Perhaps, if it is cash crop. Not if it is woodland to be preserved. (Good job this is England though. Have you seen the state of National trust Scotland accounts? Can't be trusted with a pocket watch, let alone a country estate....)