# National Trust Members, is it true?



## NicknClair

Hello,

Any of you guys out there are National Trust Members? Is it worth it?

Is it also true that some of the Houses/Places of Interest are allowing Motorhomes to stay overnight?? This rumor has been floating around and just wondered it anyone on here is a member and has indeed stayed overnight in some of their locations.
Me and the wife do like visiting all sorts of places, so to know they will allow you to stay as well seems somewhat of an added bonus.

Ta in advance


----------



## Wind Dancer

I am a member and have chosen the NT as one of my designated charities, so from that point of view it is worth it alone 

I have found it to be a rewarding organisation and there are various perks, like free parking and entry to great (dog) walking places (and properties too of course).

I have not had the requirement to overnight on a NT property so am looking forward to other replies about that.

There are a vast variety of NT places, some that are free to everyone, and some that would be difficult to get MH access to.

I alternate my membership between NT and Scottish NT (so as to be fair to both - I am Scottish living in England).   Ether way, the membership entitles you to entry in the other countries properties (though the Scottish one is cheaper).

:dance:


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

I am a member of the Scottish National Trust, I did an 8 week tour of England and Wales this year and prior to leaving I emailed the NT properties individually and asked for permission to park up overnight and all but one refused because we posed a security risk and I could see their point, also we would be parking inside grounds that we locked at night. The one that did say it was ok was a NT forest of thousands of acres.

Join the Scottish NT and save some money - remember your SNT or NT membership also gets you into some English Heritage properties such as Stonehenge.

Membership is well worth it even if it just for a day out.

Hope this helps a little.


----------



## NicknClair

I'm just going to sign up anyway, the more I keep looking into it, the more it will give us the perfect excuse to be out in the van more in 2012!!! Does anyone know the name of the Island that is off Poole, that is owned by them??

Nick


----------



## scampa

It's Brownsea Island off Poole that's owned by the National Trust.  

I'm thinking of joining for the first time in the new year.  Even without the possibility of wildcamping on their property, the savings in daytime car parking fees (of £5 or more) would pay for the membership fee. Plus there's the free access to all their properties included!


----------



## brynric

Some NT properties have cl type sites linked to them. We stayed at Ilam Hall a couple of years ago, Clumber park has a full CC Site. Recently we stayed at Stourhead in Wiltshire on their CL. It was busy during the day but quiet at night when we could wander some of the grounds. Although we stayed on the CL, each night we were there at least one van stayed on the overflow car park, a very spacious orchard like space. I didn't meet the vanners so I don't know the basis of their stay, but it was a good spot. One family I noticed were German so I wouldn't imagine they were members.


----------



## adamhh

I'm an on and off member since I like to cycle memberships. If you just visit 2 or 3 places, membership pays for itself. It's only a couple of English Heritage sites you can access gratis - one of them being Stonehenge (no where near as impressive as the NT owned Avebury just down the road). I think they miss a trick with not allowing overnighting. A few years ago in Southern Sweden we would overnight in the car parks of castles/palaces etc and inevitably ended up paying to visit them in the morning since our evening stroll would make us curious to see inside.

The Scottish NT need your cash - they are very poorly organised and cash poor right now.


----------



## NicknClair

And done, one joint membership paid up. Looks like another worthwhile membership i've paid for.

Thanks very much for all your input guys, valuable as always :cool1:


----------



## Amethyst

NicknClair said:


> I'm just going to sign up anyway, the more I keep looking into it, the more it will give us the perfect excuse to be out in the van more in 2012!!! Does anyone know the name of the Island that is off Poole, that is owned by them??
> 
> Nick



We went to Brownsea Island this year....fabulous place free for NT members. You pay  a little extra to get to the hides  which are

run by Dorset wildlife trust but well worth it. Allow lots of time.

The only downside is the price of parking and general bias against motorhomes that is prevalent down that coast .

Rob


----------



## Drew

I work for the NT and the general rule about overnight camping/parking is that you can't. The NT have By-laws and they state that car parks are closed between dusk and dawn, however there has been a shift in thinking recently and the powers that be are trying to make the Trust appeal to a wider audience. The best bet is to do as Guernsey Donkey suggests and email/phone and ask.  

Most, but not all, countryside sites with car parks don't close them so you would have to hope the warden/ranger (that's me) doesn't come along to move you on. I know of a couple of mansions that don't stop overnight camping but don't promote it either so best to ask. 

As far a security goes my feeling is that a MH overnighting in the car park is as good as a security guard because most of us are good law abiding citizens and would report any bad behaviour, vandalism, theft etc., also they would be a deterrent just by being there. 

I am hopeful that there will be a change in policy centrally that will make it easier for properties to accept MHs in our car parks but we will have to wait and see.

One other thing to mention, if you aren't a member many car parks are now pay and display and if you overnight you will need to pay for 2 days, our parking fees are £3.50 - £5 per day.


----------



## Bernard Jones

wind dancer said:


> I alternate my membership between NT and Scottish NT (so as to be fair to both - I am Scottish living in England).   Ether way, the membership entitles you to entry in the other countries properties (though the Scottish one is cheaper).
> 
> :dance:



The English National Trust are the greediest of all, and hardly need the money when they can pay over £300k for a painting.
Cheapest is the New Zealand National Trust which still gets you into UK properties.

I don't give them any more money than I have to.  They see their role as taking the best areas of the countryside and preventing the plebs from  parking there overnight, let alone buiding a house there.  Its because of selfish Nimbys like the National Trust that most of Britains countryside cannot be lived in, and people are crammed into extortionately priced inner city slums.  But I have no doubt the National Trust Bods are comfortably housed in the nicest areas themselves, and don't want to let others build a house so they can enjoy it too.    They have taken huge areas of the countryside, like Wickham Fen, and taken it out of production at great expense, even now when our economy and balance of payments are in dire straits.  Last winter Shelter told us of people dying on the streets of Britain from malnutrition, We have got food bank collections in the supermarkets for them, yet The National Trust make it their business to take the best farming land out of production, and then want our money to help them do it!!!  They are like the RSPB who care more about wild bird habitat, than people!!!!


----------



## Viktor

That's an encouraging post from Drew...however trying to play devils advocate I can see a car park with perhaps a dozen MH sitting in it, and car owners complaining of the space being taken up because the immediate thought going through their heads will be they are here overnight...perhaps they'll see some of us in them too.....making them think 'camping'.......regardless of the fact the car owners are just as likely to leave their cars parked for hours on end just the same as the MHs.

As for security yes .......but better if there was a couple of service points and perhaps a small hard standing area for MHs and larger people carriers
with a max overnight stay of 1 day (Free and for members only - badge displayed).


----------



## Bernard Jones

Viktor said:


> and car owners complaining of the space being taken up .



....... as if the National Trust hasn't got enough land to make big enough car parks?
Rather than ask us for money to fence it off and stop us using it.


----------



## Amethyst

Bernard Jones said:


> The English National Trust are the greediest of all, and hardly need the money when they can pay over £300k for a painting.
> Cheapest is the New Zealand National Trust which still gets you into UK properties.
> 
> I don't give them any more money than I have to.  They see their role as taking the best areas of the countryside and preventing the plebs from  parking there overnight, let alone buiding a house there.  Its because of selfish Nimbys like the National Trust that most of Britains countryside cannot be lived in, and people are crammed into extortionately priced inner city slums.  But I have no doubt the National Trust Bods are comfortably housed in the nicest areas themselves, and don't want to let others build a house so they can enjoy it too.    They have taken huge areas of the countryside, like Wickham Fen, and taken it out of production at great expense, even now when our economy and balance of payments are in dire straits.  Last winter Shelter told us of people dying on the streets of Britain from malnutrition, We have got food bank collections in the supermarkets for them, yet The National Trust make it their business to take the best farming land out of production, and then want our money to help them do it!!!  They are like the RSPB who care more about wild bird habitat, than people!!!!



|I agree that the National Trust have their own agenda and like a lot of these organisations do not represent their members aspirations.

Interesting New Zealand beeing cheaper than UK ...how do you join that one in the UK?

Rob


----------



## Bernard Jones

Amethyst said:


> |I agree that the National Trust have their own agenda and like a lot of these organisations do not represent their members aspirations.
> 
> Interesting New Zealand beeing cheaper than UK ...how do you join that one in the UK?
> 
> Rob




Hi,

I just do it online, pay by card, and they post it out to me in England.  New Zealand dollar is about 50p, so it works out cheaper.  But I don't do it for the money saving.  I do it for the satisfaction of knowing I am Not supporting the English National Trust.  - link: http://www.historic.org.nz/Membership.aspx


----------



## Amethyst

Hii 
I am the same and at the moment subscribe to the Scottish one. So I might alternate each year....can you still use the car parks with NZ membership?

Rob


----------



## Viktor

Had a quick look at the site...if I'm not mistaken the Scottish site will allow you a monthly Direct Debit of about £6 whereas the rest appear to be a Direct Debit Annual payment of around £68..


----------



## n brown

Bernard Jones said:


> The English National Trust are the greediest of all, and hardly need the money when they can pay over £300k for a painting.
> Cheapest is the New Zealand National Trust which still gets you into UK properties.
> 
> I don't give them any more money than I have to.  They see their role as taking the best areas of the countryside and preventing the plebs from  parking there overnight, let alone buiding a house there.  Its because of selfish Nimbys like the National Trust that most of Britains countryside cannot be lived in, and people are crammed into extortionately priced inner city slums.  But I have no doubt the National Trust Bods are comfortably housed in the nicest areas themselves, and don't want to let others build a house so they can enjoy it too.    They have taken huge areas of the countryside, like Wickham Fen, and taken it out of production at great expense, even now when our economy and balance of payments are in dire straits.  Last winter Shelter told us of people dying on the streets of Britain from malnutrition, We have got food bank collections in the supermarkets for them, yet The National Trust make it their business to take the best farming land out of production, and then want our money to help them do it!!!  They are like the RSPB who care more about wild bird habitat, than people!!!!



i started to write in agreement with this but found just thinking about the nt made me foam at the mouth.still i'm sure they've got someone's best interests at heart


----------



## Bernard Jones

Amethyst said:


> Hii
> I am the same and at the moment subscribe to the Scottish one. So I might alternate each year....can you still use the car parks with NZ membership?
> 
> Rob



National Trust is a civil penalty like the private car park operators, so there is practically nothing they can do if you simply ignore their car park ticket.  I guess thats why they have someone on the gate collecting the money at busy times.


----------



## Bernard Jones

n brown said:


> i started to write in agreement with this but found just thinking about the nt made me foam at the mouth.still i'm sure they've got someone's best interests at heart



Its staggering how much they are spending at Wickham Fen.  The Fens are drained for agriculture, most productive land in Britain.  But the National Trust have built a barrier round their own vast site, and actually pump water back into it to return it to unfarmable marshland. When, according to Shelter, we have people dying of malnutrition on the streets.  
They hold hundreds of miles of spectacular coastline where millions of people could enjoy fabulous and affordable homes, parking areas, whatever, instead of spending their lives crammed into urban slums.  But they won't allow us to build on any of it, because they want to keep it for the few selfish people who are already there.
Bad enough that the National Trust gets charitable tax status to do this.  They are certainly not getting my money as well.


----------



## jann

If you enjoy visiting historic properties and countryside, it is well worth it. If not , then it isn't.Try it for one year and see. We used to alternate between the two to get up to date books. 14 years ago We became life members of NTS and now enjoy free entry and parking in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland


----------



## vwalan

hi, right on bernard . i dont know which is worse nt. or heritage coast. they both seem to stop us going places . i think its about time folk woke up to this heritage trust line your own pockets  brigade. 
i remember camping on stonehenge etc as a child ,its there when its gone its gone . let folk have entrance to these places and stop ripping them off.


----------



## n brown

wonderful institution for some obviously,but when i think of all the places i used to go with my kids that are now denied to me and thousands like me for financial reasons i could weep.going to stonehenge to look from a distance,a place built by my ancestors and now fenced off for the tourists, made me feel gutted and thats why i left the following morning


----------



## Dezi

Madam gave me a life membership card for my 60th birthday. Its a win win situation for her because if I kick the bucket first she 

can carry on using it for the rest of her natural. Every long trip we make in England , we try to visit a NT site. 

We have parked overnight at one or two sites without problems, but possibly thats because we are discreet.

Dezi


----------



## Deleted member 21686

*national trust*

Could I just correct you.
The National trust is not the English National trust.
It is the National trust for England, Wales and Northen Ireland.


----------



## mrbigglesworth

NT membership   for 2 peeps  £62.63 with direct debit plus 20% back through Quidco.

Excellent value esp. when touring for a few weeks in crappy weather. We visited about 10 properties in Scotland last "summer" and another half dozen in Northumberland and Yorkshire on the way home.  

It would be really good if overnight parking was allowed for NT members. 


MR B.


----------



## Bernard Jones

n brown said:


> wonderful institution for some obviously,but when i think of all the places i used to go with my kids that are now denied to me and thousands like me for financial reasons i could weep.going to stonehenge to look from a distance,a place built by my ancestors and now fenced off for the tourists, made me feel gutted and thats why i left the following morning



National Trust / English Heritage is a stark contrast to what I have found across the channel.  We were visiting historic battlefields in Normandy for example.  Mid June and light till 10pm, you could still go in and walk round anytime.  Only the visitor cente was closed. If that had been an English Heritage / National Trust job it would have been fenced off and closed about 5pm, closed altogether about half the days in the year. And you would have had to pay.
I can see a reason for that when its something thats easily damaged.  But not when its castle ruins, stonehenge etc.  Seems to me they are just running it for their own benefit, fencing it off so they can charge us to see it - when it belongs to us!!!


----------



## Bernard Jones

MORGANTHEMOON said:


> Could I just correct you.
> The National trust is not the English National trust.
> It is the National trust for England, Wales and Northen Ireland.



If you want to be pedantic they call themselves 'The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty' 

They manage land and properties which supposedly belong to the public, and claim charitable tax status, so have to show accounts with the charity commission. 

Last year; 
85 were paid over £60k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
18 were paid over £100k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
3 were paid over £200k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified

They are about as forthcoming over their expenses as Members of Parliament.

source: View accounts


----------



## coolasluck

Cant see the problem,lets face it any trust or charities are just out to line their pockets and just like the catholic church and christianity with their fantastic cathedrals its all about wealth and bull****.
Charity begins at home,although we do donate blankets and food to the local animal rescue centres. 
I am a trust member and have really enjoyed the membership but we make sure that we really do get our moneys worth and visit as many as we can in a year.For us its a bargain and well worth it,at least you wont have to put up with the likes of Bernard and VWalan with his caravan there.
Yes...... an excellant way to spend your day


----------



## Bernard Jones

coolasluck said:


> ,at least you wont have to put up with the likes of Bernard and VWalan with his caravan there.
> Yes...... an excellant way to spend your day



Au contraire, I have been to just about all the National Trust sites.

Another similarity with the political parties, is that the people at the bottom are often the best people, believing in what they are doing, often working for nothing.  Its the ones at the top who are taking the p*ss.


----------



## coolasluck

Bernard Jones said:


> If you want to be pedantic they call themselves 'The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty'
> 
> They manage land and properties which supposedly belong to the public, and claim charitable tax status, so have to show accounts with the charity commission.
> 
> Last year;
> 85 were paid over £60k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 18 were paid over £100k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 3 were paid over £200k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 
> 
> source: View accounts







Tell me a charity where no-one gets rich,they are all at it,how much of your money ever gets to feeding the starving in Africa,and how much aid ends up for sale in the shops and blackmarkets of these same countries.
Show me a charity and you will also find  corruption and greed with them all.
Unless it serves your purpose you are better keeping your money in your pockets.


----------



## coolasluck

Bernard Jones said:


> National Trust / English Heritage is a stark contrast to what I have found across the channel.  We were visiting historic battlefields in Normandy for example.  Mid June and light till 10pm, you could still go in and walk round anytime.  Only the visitor cente was closed. If that had been an English Heritage / National Trust job it would have been fenced off and closed about 5pm, closed altogether about half the days in the year. And you would have had to pay.
> I can see a reason for that when its something thats easily damaged.  But not when its castle ruins, stonehenge etc.  Seems to me they are just running it for their own benefit, fencing it off so they can charge us to see it - when it belongs to us!!!






I agree with much of what you state,although i would advise that you enjoy it whilst it lasts,because i bet the charges and levies are no doubt around the corner.
I do remember being very suprised that their was quite a lot of places you could go and visit in Italy and Greece that were free to visit.Not something that you find very often in the greedy u.k


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> National Trust is a civil penalty like the private car park operators, so there is practically nothing they can do if you simply ignore their car park ticket.  I guess thats why they have someone on the gate collecting the money at busy times.



Actually when you use National Trust property you agree to abide by the terms and conditions posted and to the NT by-laws. Failure to do so is a breach of contract and subject to legal proceedings, although in fact the NT don't enforce this with regard to car parks as a rule.

you should also be aware that the NT is a charity and the largest conservation organisation in Europe. It was set up to protect the countryside from over development and make beautiful places available to everyone for ever. As you obviously don't enjoy the countryside that the NT protect you won't be visiting it so why bother to be a member of the NZ NT?


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> Actually when you use National Trust property you agree to abide by the terms and conditions posted and to the NT by-laws. Failure to do so is a breach of contract and subject to legal proceedings, although in fact the NT don't enforce this with regard to car parks as a rule.
> 
> you should also be aware that the NT is a charity and the largest conservation organisation in Europe. It was set up to protect the countryside from over development and make beautiful places available to everyone for ever. As you obviously don't enjoy the countryside that the NT protect you won't be visiting it so why bother to be a member of the NZ NT?





Bernard Jones said:


> The English National Trust are the greediest of all, and hardly need the money when they can pay over £300k for a painting.
> Cheapest is the New Zealand National Trust which still gets you into UK properties.
> 
> I don't give them any more money than I have to.  They see their role as taking the best areas of the countryside and preventing the plebs from  parking there overnight, let alone buiding a house there.  Its because of selfish Nimbys like the National Trust that most of Britains countryside cannot be lived in, and people are crammed into extortionately priced inner city slums.  But I have no doubt the National Trust Bods are comfortably housed in the nicest areas themselves, and don't want to let others build a house so they can enjoy it too.    They have taken huge areas of the countryside, like Wickham Fen, and taken it out of production at great expense, even now when our economy and balance of payments are in dire straits.  Last winter Shelter told us of people dying on the streets of Britain from malnutrition, We have got food bank collections in the supermarkets for them, yet The National Trust make it their business to take the best farming land out of production, and then want our money to help them do it!!!  They are like the RSPB who care more about wild bird habitat, than people!!!!



Which part of the above don't you understand?

I have never been to New Zealand in my life and am unlikely to. 
I buy a New Zealand NT Membership card to visit English NT properties because its cheaper, and because I profoundly disagree with the National Trust policy which prevents people building affordable homes, or growing more affordable food.
One reason its cheaper is because they don't pay £200k+++ salaries.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> Actually when you use National Trust property you agree to abide by the terms and conditions posted



... and when you read my posts you agree to pay me £50


----------



## Teffy

vwalan said:


> hi, right on bernard . i dont know which is worse nt. or heritage coast. they both seem to stop us going places . i think its about time folk woke up to this heritage trust line your own pockets  brigade.
> i remember camping on stonehenge etc as a child ,its there when its gone its gone . let folk have entrance to these places and stop ripping them off.



There are places not far from here where the same applies, used to be free or cost very little until the National Trust took them over and started "improving" them.  Now we just don't go there any more. :mad2:


----------



## vwalan

hi teffy . i know one of my dads aunties used to live at pateley bridge . we used to go up there and set up camp anywhere . spent quite a few weekends up there. they had a shop in harrogate .walkers but it was a long time ago. nice area . i,m a donny lad really . well lived in warmsworth. 
 but its the same every where. also lived in dorset we used to be able to cycle to the sand banks etc and camp all over  studland etc . here incornwall its heritage coast that sneaks about there are NT, but its the coast here thats been stolen. or is it being kept for someone else that might never get to see it.


----------



## steco1958

NicknClair said:


> I'm just going to sign up anyway, the more I keep looking into it, the more it will give us the perfect excuse to be out in the van more in 2012!!! Does anyone know the name of the Island that is off Poole, that is owned by them??
> 
> Nick



Do you shop at Tesco ??

Tesco rewards used to offer NT membership


----------



## coolasluck

vwalan said:


> hi teffy . i know one of my dads aunties used to live at pateley bridge . we used to go up there and set up camp anywhere . spent quite a few weekends up there. they had a shop in harrogate .walkers but it was a long time ago. nice area . i,m a donny lad really . well lived in warmsworth.
> but its the same every where. also lived in dorset we used to be able to cycle to the sand banks etc and camp all over  studland etc . here incornwall its heritage coast that sneaks about there are NT, but its the coast here thats been stolen. or is it being kept for someone else that might never get to see it.






These lovely coastlines and areas of outstanding beauty were ruined by large breast screening caravans and trucks that people thought it was ok to park up willy-nilly to do a spot of wilding.Disgusting.
I feel the need for a leaflet campaign............MOTORHOMES AND SMALL VANS ARE COOL

                                                              ARCTIC CARAVANS AND LARGE TRUCKS ARE OUT

                                                                           LOBBY YOUR M.P NOW!!!!:lol-053:


----------



## vwalan

hi coola . just as well i have my nice small green bongo to use locally then . worse is them multi coloured hymers . dont even blend in with anything . 
the trucks ideal i wasnt going to menton the breast screening bit its abit of a hand full sometimes . or mouthfull. must wash that white warehouse coat and get new batteries in the head torch. bet youve spoilt it now . will have to go back to disguise of a polite incident room. 
keep smiling i know you want one really. xx
darent make it into a gynocology unit you might turn up. hee hee 
nnnight. sleep tight .


----------



## Wind Dancer

Bernard Jones said:


> The English National Trust are the greediest of all, and hardly need the money when they can pay over £300k for a painting.
> Cheapest is the New Zealand National Trust which still gets you into UK properties.
> 
> I don't give them any more money than I have to.  They see their role as taking the best areas of the countryside and preventing the plebs from  parking there overnight, let alone buiding a house there.  Its because of selfish Nimbys like the National Trust that most of Britains countryside cannot be lived in, and people are crammed into extortionately priced inner city slums.  But I have no doubt the National Trust Bods are comfortably housed in the nicest areas themselves, and don't want to let others build a house so they can enjoy it too.    They have taken huge areas of the countryside, like Wickham Fen, and taken it out of production at great expense, even now when our economy and balance of payments are in dire straits.  Last winter Shelter told us of people dying on the streets of Britain from malnutrition, We have got food bank collections in the supermarkets for them, yet The National Trust make it their business to take the best farming land out of production, and then want our money to help them do it!!!  They are like the RSPB who care more about wild bird habitat, than people!!!!




Others have said this, but there are plenty of charities that have fat cats. In fact I was shocked to discover some goings on in a charity that is currently very close to the nations heart. 

Never the less, some good comes out of all charities, and I would rather give money to them than not.  

NT is one charity that I get something tangible back from, and I get to enjoy properties (inside & out) that I may NOT otherwise have access to.  There are also plenty of free NT places to go to, that are maintained, but don't charge.   

I have also been grateful for security/officials on some sites that have been able to step in and curb destructive and/or threatening behaviour.  Sadly the increase of yobbish behaviour in this day and age calls for increased protection and security, and results in limitations to access.

IMHO there are far far worse causes for lack of housing than the NT, but that is a different can of worms best kept closed.

As for farming, I know several (well about 6) people who farm on NT properties throughout GB.  I also know of a number of farmers who have been driven out of business by well known supermarkets.

The more I think about your reply, the more I think you are barking up the wrong tree and that the NT are a small cog in a much greater wheel responsible for your complaints.

I normally don't get sucked into posting messages like this, but as you put this comment as a reply to my post I made an exception. :idea-007:

That said, I respect your entitled to your opinion and I hope you appreciate I'm entitled to mine.  I may however support Scotland more, but personally I see no benefit to funding a different continent.

:wave:


----------



## Wind Dancer

*Stonehenge*

I used to live not far from there and loved going up to visit the stones regularly.  I also went during summer solstice, and that was an enlightening experience :dance:

I still go these days, and still love it.

With the comments made on here about Stonehenge, I googled to see if I could find out why it was fenced off (I remember the fence being remove, but then it went back up again) and found the following information:


Stonehenge: The Last 100 Years | Heritage Key
(excerpt from above)
Stonehenge was, to put it mildly, a British treasure in a real mess. And its predicament came to the fore at the turn of the 20th century, when sarsen stone number 22 fell from its position and took a lintel with it. A public outcry at Stonehenge’s desertion, twinned with media pressure from the famed archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie, led to the government taking action to find someone who could restore the ailing monument to its past glory.
snip
An appeal for money to buy back the area resulted in its ownership by the National Trust, who have since maintained its relative purity and added facilities such as a visitor centre, security and admission prices. This has helped the maintenance of the site immensely.

------------------------------

Also in 2008 VANDALS used a hammer and screwdriver to damage the Heel Stone at Stonehenge
The suspects were caught on CCTV going to the stones on another day but were chased off by security.


----------



## Drew

A couple of facts for those that like them.

The New Zealand Historic Places Trust, like many similar bodies around the world, is a government funded organisation.
The CEO of the National trust is paid £115,000 which is 0.38% of the organisations income.
The National Trust is not funded by the government but is a totally autonomous organisation.
Nearly all property owned by the National Trust is held for the nation and is inalienable, which means that it cannot be sold without an act of parliament being passed. This means that it has no value and cannot therefore be mortgaged. All the costs of running the organisation, including clearing up after ignorant people abuse their privilege and leave litter everywhere, creating car parks and footpaths, insuring against idiots who wear the wrong clothing and fall over, restoring historic buildings and artefacts, looking after our rare and wonderful wildlife, preserving stunning landscapes that we all obviously enjoy, campaigning for the preservation of rural life for those people who live and work in it, education work, events, guided walks...................  ALL OF THAT AND MORE is paid for from the income of the charity.
Membership, car parking charges, admission fees, retail, donations, bequests etc. help to pay for all this. 
4,000,000 members aren't all wrong.

Drew


----------



## Dezi

As mentioned previously I am a life member of the NT & we visit its sites when travelling around the County.

Like democracy, the NT is not perfect,but it does a good job. In my notsoumble opinion.

The main problem with our ancient & beautiful locations is that visitors often have little or no knowledge of the history behind them.

This leads to vandals chipping bits off stonhenge & carving intials into trees at Stourhead.

Dezi


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> A couple of facts for those that like them.
> 
> The CEO of the National trust is paid £115,000 which is 0.38% of the organisations income.
> 
> 4,000,000 members aren't all wrong.
> 
> Drew



Which part of this didn't you understand;



Bernard Jones said:


> If you want to be pedantic they call themselves 'The National Trust For Places Of Historic Interest Or Natural Beauty'
> 
> They manage land and properties which supposedly belong to the public, and claim charitable tax status, so have to show accounts with the charity commission.
> 
> Last year;
> 85 were paid over £60k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 18 were paid over £100k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 3 were paid over £200k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified
> 
> They are about as forthcoming over their expenses as Members of Parliament.
> 
> source: View accounts



How can you assume all the 4 million people who are forced to buy admission tickets if they want to get in, are members who agree with you?


----------



## Bernard Jones

wind dancer said:


> I also know of a number of farmers who have been driven out of business by well known supermarkets.



Thats a bit of a red herring because farmers (like shops) are more likely driven out of business by high rents.

But at least supermarkets bring food prices down.

National Trust push food prices UP  - by taking farmland out of production.

But with salaries of £200k+++ why would they care?


----------



## Wind Dancer

*Supermarkets V's Farmers*



Bernard Jones said:


> Thats a bit of a red herring because farmers (like shops) are more likely driven out of business by high rents.
> 
> But at least supermarkets bring food prices down.
> 
> National Trust push food prices UP  - by taking farmland out of production.
> 
> But with salaries of £200k+++ why would they care?



Trouble is Bernard, the complete opposite is true  

1) Supermarkets are driving farmers out of business
In January the Competition Commission released a report stating that the trading practices of the biggest supermarkets may be leading to the loss of farmers and small shops. Because the big supermarkets have a monopoly of such a large part of the wholesale food buying market, they can dictate prices and force farmers into trading for less and less profit. The Competition Commission found evidence that certain chains including Asda and Tesco, were bullying producers into lowering prices, with dairy farmers now receiving 20% less for milk than they did 19 years ago. 1,000 dairy farmers in England and Wales have gone out of business in the last year alone.

5 Reasons not to shop in supermarkets
-----------------

Tyrrells was started by potato farmer Will Chase after big supermarkets' purchasing-power almost put his farm out of business. He started Tyrrells to gain greater margin by selling directly, and only sold through delicatessens and Waitrose supermarket.

Criticism of Tesco - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

------------------------------------------
These and many more restrictive and potentially illegal practices are blamed for driving 3,000 small and medium-scale farmers in Britain into poverty or out of business over the past decade. 

British farmers forced to pay the cost of supermarket price wars | Environment | The Observer
------------------------

THE CASE AGAINST SUPERMARKETS
---------------------------

BBC News - Revealed: The truth about supermarket 'bargains'

------------------------------

I know of a local pig farmer who supplied the supermarket, he got sufficient stock to meet their requirements, then the prices were driven down where he made no profit for two years, :hammer: then the supermarket reduced further what they would pay, :hammer: thus forcing him out of business. :mad1:

Tesco's ceo takes earnings far in excess of 200k, in fact it's £1.3 million, :scared: and if you think they are doing things for the good of the nation, then a brief research into supermarkets will likely get you even more hopping mad about them than you are about the NT.

:drive:


----------



## Viktor

Interesting post there Wind dancer...I didn't realise some of that (from not reading the papers)..thanks for that.


----------



## runnach

So far no one seems to have raised the point in respect of NT salaries, and that is to attract these people from commercial organisations its the going rate.

The basic economic concept of 'opportunity cost' at work.

Whether they justify the salaries in terms of contribution to the organisation is a different matter.

Channa


----------



## Bernard Jones

Of course Supermarkets drive down prices.

Buty you completely ignore the cost of rents.

Farmers are basically in 2 categories;

1) Those who rent their land.  As they become more profitable, their rents are increased, and they are back to square one.  Thats why this supermarket business is a bit of a red herring. Increased food prices would find their way to the landowners, not the farm workers.  Another robbing from the poor to give to the rich.

2) Those who own the land.  Many of whom are extremely wealthy, and would become more so without supermarkets to drive food prices down.


----------



## runnach

Bernard Jones said:


> Of course Supermarkets drive down prices.
> 
> Buty you completely ignore the cost of rents.
> 
> Farmers are basically in 2 categories;
> 
> 1) Those who rent their land.  As they become more profitable, their rents are increased, and they are back to square one.  Thats why this supermarket business is a bit of a red herring. Increased food prices would find their way to the landowners, not the farm workers.  Another robbing from the poor to give to the rich.
> 
> 2) Those who own the land.  Many of whom are extremely wealthy, and would become more so without supermarkets to drive food prices down.


Bernard, this principle is true in every business, what is your point ? 

Channa


----------



## Deleted member 967

Bernard Jones said:


> National Trust / English Heritage is a stark contrast to what I have found across the channel.  We were visiting historic battlefields in Normandy for example.  Mid June and light till 10pm, you could still go in and walk round anytime.  Only the visitor cente was closed. If that had been an English Heritage / National Trust job it would have been fenced off and closed about 5pm, closed altogether about half the days in the year. And you would have had to pay.
> I can see a reason for that when its something thats easily damaged.  But not when its castle ruins, stonehenge etc.  Seems to me they are just running it for their own benefit, fencing it off so they can charge us to see it - when it belongs to us!!!




Lots of good nickable stone in these castle ruins, Stonehenge etc.! 

We have visited the battlefields of northern France and apart from concrete block houses and gun emplacements everything was in museums which I recall we paid for entry.  It wasn't expensive, eleven euro's for access to several sites, I remember.

I don't think you can really compare  such things.

We are members of NT .  Some years we use it a lot and other years not at all but we don't begrudge our yearly fees.
We agree that they could be more amenable to members with motorhomes, perhaps it might help if all members with a motorhome email them.
John and Joan.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

Another point to remember when visiting is that the National Trust now allow photography inside NT owned buildings but NOT in privately owned buildings run by the NT. 
Neither is photography allowed where groups of children will be included in you photograph i:e a school trip. 
One NT property I visited last year had a young school party all dressed up in period dress, as I was about to take a photograph of them I was promptly approached by a NT leader and stopped, no reason give, but when thinking about it, each of these children would have been easily identified if I lived in the vicinity of local school, need I say any more, I think not.
At least the NT take seriously the safety of our children when visiting, for that I say - WELL DONE the NATIONAL TRUST and thank-you.


----------



## runnach

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Another point to remember when visiting is that the National Trust now allow photography inside NT owned buildings but NOT in privately owned buildings run by the NT.
> Neither is photography allowed where groups of children will be included in you photograph i:e a school trip.
> One NT property I visited last year had a young school party all dressed up in period dress, as I was about to take a photograph of them I was promptly approached by a NT leader and stopped, no reason give, but when thinking about it, each of these children would have been easily identified if I lived in the vicinity of local school, need I say any more, I think not.
> At least the NT take seriously the safety of our children when visiting, for that I say - WELL DONE the NATIONAL TRUST and thank-you.



Of course any sound human being should be allowed to take photos of children immersed in a period of the past and sharing their experience of the lives of their forefathers. I personally dont see any sexual connotation at all.

for those that do a bullet is too good a piece of rope is recyclyble..........

What is happening ? when we reach the stage innocent photos need to be considered re their application I think society has a real problem.

The destruction of mankind is exactly that, and it appears amongst us.

If I were our god , I would have snuffed the lights out long ago 

Channa




Channa


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Another point to remember when visiting is that the National Trust now allow photography inside NT owned buildings but NOT in privately owned buildings run by the NT.
> Neither is photography allowed where groups of children will be included in you photograph i:e a school trip.
> One NT property I visited last year had a young school party all dressed up in period dress, as I was about to take a photograph of them I was promptly approached by a NT leader and stopped, no reason give, but when thinking about it, each of these children would have been easily identified if I lived in the vicinity of local school, need I say any more, I think not.
> At least the NT take seriously the safety of our children when visiting, for that I say - WELL DONE the NATIONAL TRUST and thank-you.





channa said:


> Of course any sound human being should be allowed to take photos of children immersed in a period of the past and sharing their experience of the lives of their forefathers. I personally dont see any sexual connotation at all.
> 
> for those that do a bullet is too good a piece of rope is recyclyble..........
> 
> What is happening ? when we reach the stage innocent photos need to be considered re their application I think society has a real problem.
> 
> The destruction of mankind is exactly that, and it appears amongst us.
> 
> If I were our god , I would have snuffed the lights out long ago
> 
> Channa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Channa



Hi Channa 

Thanks for your comments and although I don't completely agree with them, they are your views and I respect that, everybody is entitled to an opinion whether correct or not so I am not getting at you or anybody else at all. 
Some years ago I was involved in a situation involving the fathers who took photographs of his own child and a friend undressed which involved a long police investigation and the outcome was just. Since then I have been involved in other situations involving children and all I can say is it is better to be safe than sorry.
I even had to pass security check to be Santa and then told that all the children had to be 3ft or more away from me and under no circumstances was I allowed to sit them on my knee (some Santa I would have been) so to get round it I had to ask each parent/s permission first but as I said before, better safe than sorry. I would hate it to happen too one of mine.

Channa. May I wish you a Happy New Year  and hope you have a good year travelling wherever it may take you.

Take care and travel safe.

John


----------



## runnach

Guernsey Donkey said:


> Hi Channa
> 
> Thanks for your comments and although I don't completely agree with them, they are your views and I respect that, everybody is entitled to an opinion whether correct or not so I am not getting at you or anybody else at all.
> Some years ago I was involved in a situation involving the fathers who took photographs of his own child and a friend undressed which involved a long police investigation and the outcome was just. Since then I have been involved in other situations involving children and all I can say is it is better to be safe than sorry.
> I even had to pass security check to be Santa and then told that all the children had to be 3ft or more away from me and under no circumstances was I allowed to sit them on my knee (some Santa I would have been) so to get round it I had to ask each parent/s permission first but as I said before, better safe than sorry. I would hate it to happen too one of mine.
> 
> Channa. May I wish you a Happy New Year  and hope you have a good year travelling wherever it may take you.
> 
> Take care and travel safe.
> 
> John



I too have worked with young people and one has to be careful and considered so as to not compromise ones integrity.

I just find it very sad and indicitive of our society when we cant take a snapshot of Jeremy or Jemima in the school play because other kids may be in the background.

In my mind it is political correctness gone mad,It seems there is no opportunity for children to be children anymore I find that sad ....very sad.

It seems to me that to tackle paedophilia we are concentrating on the prey rather than the hunter.

We seriously live in bad times, 

But are our times any worse than what went before ? modern communications send a bad story in a gist .....times gone by all was localised.

i dont know any answers, but I hope that children have the opportuity to be children before all the bollocks steeped upon them in their teens and beyond .

Channa


----------



## vwalan

there was no crime till the year 2000. 
jack cohen should have been punished years ago ,starting a business from a barrow and letting it grow into a nationally big super market. tesco. 
the other ones again should never have been allowed to get bigger . keeling and tonge for one. 
should have collapsed like the uk industrial giants . 
come on wake up. get real they all started small .
crime as always been with us . was there not sexoffenders in the 50,s and 60,s .
as for the NT i try no to go anywhere near them , on the pretence of preservation they stop more going .
some certainly have a strange look to life.
not me i,m always correct . ha ha .


----------



## Bernard Jones

I don't know how we got on to this.  I get the impression that to take out a camera when there are children on a NT site would be like taking out a loaded gun.  But the biggest threat to children is other children.  Bullying amongst children has led to many suicides. Unfortunately that is difficult to tackle.  Its easier to show how much they care by banning the taking of photos.
Just like its easier to prove and therefore prosecute the motorist for parking or speeding, than it is to prove dangerous driving - like the tailgating we see every day of the week, and which caused the recent horrendous pile up on the M5.  

Of course not all photos are innocent.  But, as far as that goes, I don't think anything has changed since this was written ten years ago? link: Ian Buruma: Why I'm wary of child porn prosecutions | Society | The Guardian


----------



## n brown

just read that bj,that'll put the cat amongst the pigeons!flak jackets on.


----------



## runnach

Bernard Jones said:


> I don't know how we got on to this.  I get the impression that to take out a camera when there are children on a NT site would be like taking out a loaded gun.  But the biggest threat to children is other children.  Bullying amongst children has led to many suicides. Unfortunately that is difficult to tackle.  Its easier to show how much they care by banning the taking of photos.
> Just like its easier to prove and therefore prosecute the motorist for parking or speeding, than it is to prove dangerous driving - like the tailgating we see every day of the week, and which caused the recent horrendous pile up on the M5.
> 
> Of course not all photos are innocent.  But, as far as that goes, I don't think anything has changed since this was written ten years ago? link: Ian Buruma: Why I'm wary of child porn prosecutions | Society | The Guardian



The link you have suggested is seriously flawed, Whilst Johnny journalist expounds the whats and wherefores of merit to use ones imagination ..NO MENTION of unwilling children to participate is offered neither is the mental stresses suffered at the hands of those that peddle this insult to humanity.

I cannot be convinced that a minor is capable or even perceptive enough to endorse an act of sexual activity ...and the emotional consequences that ensue.

Any adult that believes a child can rationilize sexuality is seriously flawed in their judgement and needs help ...naturally if I were in charge it would be a rope ....far more effective than a bullet you can use it twice 

Channa


----------



## Bernard Jones

channa said:


> .NO MENTION of unwilling children to participate is offered neither is the mental stresses suffered at the hands of those that peddle this insult to humanity.Channa





he says _'paedophilia is commonly regarded as one of the most heinous crimes..... There is no doubt that children should be protected against abuse. Adults who use their authority to press children into having sex with them have to be stopped,........Cracking down on people who abuse children for sex, whether for their personal pleasure or as a business, is necessary. _

I think we are all agreed on that.

But then he asks the question *what if no children were involved in making the 'pornographic' images?*

And *how do you define whats 'pornographic'?*

Do you have the answers to the questions he was asking? 

Another complication is that those who are abused, and the abusers, are often the same people.  Because those who have been abused turn into abusers themselves.  What would you do with them?

-------

Back to topic.  When I asked about photos at the National Trust, I was told it was OK to take photos outside, but not inside.  When I asked why no photos could be taken inside I was told the light from flash photography could damage things.  So why not just ban flash photography?  Don't know, its just National Trust policy that no photos could be taken inside.  
Yet its common practice to allow photos in public museums etc.
So *why no photos inside National Trust properties?*
Is it just so you have to buy their overpriced guide books to contribute towards the £200k+++ salaries?
Or is there another reason?


----------



## Dezi

channa said:


> The link you have suggested is seriously flawed, Whilst Johnny journalist expounds the whats and wherefores of merit to use ones imagination ..NO MENTION of unwilling children to participate is offered neither is the mental stresses suffered at the hands of those that peddle this insult to humanity.
> 
> I cannot be convinced that a minor is capable or even perceptive enough to endorse an act of sexual activity ...and the emotional consequences that ensue.
> 
> Any adult that believes a child can rationilize sexuality is seriously flawed in their judgement and needs help ...naturally if I were in charge it would be a rope ....far more effective than a bullet you can use it twice
> 
> Channa



Hi, I have no intention in joining in this offshoot topic other than to say that dismissing Ian Buruma simply as a Johnny journalist is harsh.

Having read many of his books over the years I can assure you that he is a heavyweight thinker who's viewpoint should not be chucked in the bin lightly. 

Dezi  c:

p.s. I still think that the NT is doing a good job.


----------



## oldish hippy

This topic has strayed slightly off track,The New Zealand N/T do a reduction for thos who are un waged ok i fall in to that catergory not though choice,The UK N/T do not do any thing similar not banging the drum but there are a few of us who do fall into that catergory


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

Bernard Jones said:


> Back to topic.  When I asked about photos at the National Trust, I was told it was OK to take photos outside, but not inside.  When I asked why no photos could be taken inside I was told the light from flash photography could damage things.  So why not just ban flash photography?  Don't know, its just National Trust policy that no photos could be taken inside.
> Yet its common practice to allow photos in public museums etc.
> So *why no photos inside National Trust properties?*
> Is it just so you have to buy their overpriced guide books to contribute towards the £200k+++ salaries?
> Or is there another reason?



I too was surprised that we were aloud to take photographs in NT, but no flash inside, I am not sure but I think last year was the first time it was allowed -  I found that the NO FLASH inside was not a  problem with my camera and nobody within the NT properties had any objections at all except the privately owned but run by the NT. I know membership is costly to some but we pay by 12 monthly installments of £4-95 with the SNT  because we are over 60 and £4-95 a month is easier to find and well worth it.


----------



## bodgeitnscarper

We got family membership with quidco and 3months free which worked out at £46 for a year. We visited as many properties as possible during the year and overnighted  at 3 places with large carparks.

We didn't ask permission we just hung around until everyone had gone home and chilled.
We were approached on one property by a staff member the next morning asking if we had stayed the night, I told him we had and that we had had a wonderful time cycling around the woodland trails and around the estate.
He told us we were not allowed to 'overnight' and definately not allowed to cycle anywhere on the estate. As I apologised for our crimes against the NT my 10 year old lad came into view on his bike steaming down a track and performed an impressive rear wheel skid/slide/stop resting to a halt a couple of feet away from the NT guy, who just smiled wished me a good day and went on his way.
He obviously wasn't that bothered but was just quoting company policy.

We have cancelled our membership now and may renew in a year or 2 if a similar deal comes along. We made our money back within 2 visits not including the overnighting.
Cragside in Rothbury is worth the fee alone, but beware you aren't allowed to drive around the huge estate in anything larger than a people carrier so we missed quite a bit of
the estates' outdoor attractions. We didn't pay for any carparks even if they said members had to.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> A couple of facts for those that like them.
> ......
> The CEO of the National trust is paid £115,000 which is 0.38% of the organisations income.
> 
> Drew




So no comment on the 3 who were paid over £200k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified?
source: View accounts

.........

Incidentally, the contrast between the National Trust and the charity I support could not be more stark.  Nobody at Amnesty International was paid over £60k, and they do far more good - source: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends81\0001051681_ac_20101231_e_c.pdf


----------



## scampa

Excuse this silly question, but how do National Trust members actually avoid paying for a parking ticket in NT car parks?  I'm thinking of the more remote, unstaffed ones in woodlands etc that only have a pay and display machine.  Is a NT membership windscreen sticker sufficient, and if so, how does that prevent any unscrupulous ex-members from using their old sticker to park for free?


----------



## Drew

Car parking stickers are issued each year and dated. One reason given for not allowing monthly DD subscription is that some unscrupulous persons may cancel their membership having received there parking pass, last year members handbooks were being sold on Ebay for next to nothing before the powers that be stopped it.


----------



## scampa

Drew said:


> Car parking stickers are issued each year and dated. One reason given for not allowing monthly DD subscription is that some unscrupulous persons may cancel their membership having received there parking pass, last year members handbooks were being sold on Ebay for next to nothing before the powers that be stopped it.



Thanks for that Drew.  It was just one of them odd queries that entered my head!  I'll be joining the NT soon and look forward to visiting plenty of their properties in the coming year.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

scampa said:


> Thanks for that Drew.  It was just one of them odd queries that entered my head!  I'll be joining the NT soon and look forward to visiting plenty of their properties in the coming year.




Sent you a PM


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> A couple of facts for those that like them.
> 
> The CEO of the National trust is paid £115,000 which is 0.38% of the organisations income.
> Drew



The National Trust Accounts show 3 people on about double that.
Perhaps you were looking at the accounts of the homeless persons charity 'Shelter' instead?
The highest paid person at Shelter gets about half that at the National Trust and there are only one of them instead of three.
The National Trust must consider themselves more important?
Preventing Shelter building housing for the homeless.
View accounts

Those who liked your post should read the accounts as well.
Talk about the blind leading the blind.


----------



## Somelier

Guernsey Donkey said:


> I too was surprised that we were aloud to take photographs in NT, but no flash inside,



The ban on flash photography inside houses is a sensible one in terms of the preservation of artefacts. The ultraviolet light from flashguns can have a detrimental effect on paintings and tapestries and if you think of how many flashes would be used if it were allowed, then the damage would be cumulative.

There was a move by the NT to limit the ability of the public to take photographs of anything on land owned by them, I'm not sure what became of it. As I enjoy wildlife and particularly wild flowers, I visit NT properties a lot. I used to work for the NT as an estate warden and believe me, they were a dreadful organisation to work for - a real "us & them" attitude between the titled people at the top and us plebs doing the work. I hope things are better now. At least they've stopped being an organisation which helps out aristocrats who have fallen on hard times by buying their houses and letting them live there afterwards!

I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned, but as well as free parking to NT members, many properties have excellent cafes, so while there is some ambivalence about being a member of a rather socially outdated organisation, it's worth it for other reasons.


----------



## Donk

We bough or NT (or was it English Heritage ?) membership using Tesco vouchers 
I think they were worth about 3 times their face value so good value.  and only visiting a couple of places returned the outlay.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Donk said:


> We bough or NT (or was it English Heritage ?) membership using Tesco vouchers
> I think they were worth about 3 times their face value so good value.  and only visiting a couple of places returned the outlay.



Bear in mind that all these places have been left to the public, as well as vast amounts of land to produce an income.  *The National Trust are charging us to visit our own property*.  They get charitable status so they don't pay tax.  As well as all the estate income.  So it should be cheap.  But its the most expensive National Trust I know of.  Not surprising when you look at the accounts and see what the directors are helping thhemselves to. Thats why I join the New Zealand one, and use it to visit UK National Trust properties.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Somelier said:


> I used to work for the NT as an estate warden and believe me, they were a dreadful organisation to work for - a real "us & them" attitude between the titled people at the top and us plebs doing the work. I hope things are better now. .



I don't think they are.  The people who used to own these stately homes were often the most obnoxious people imaginable.  Estate workers were forced to worship in the squire's church, whether they believed in it or not.  Workers were frequently abused, mentally and physically. A bride's first night had to be with the squire.
But you don't see any mention of anything like that in the National Trust Guides, or information panels in their twee little teashops.


----------



## Eve

How the hell did we mange to get from discussing the National Trust to Paedophiles and Suoermarkets puting farmers out of business?

Let us keep to the subject that started this thread.

Thankyou
Eve     :cheers:


----------



## Drew

Somelier said:


> The ban on flash photography inside houses is a sensible one in terms of the preservation of artefacts. The ultraviolet light from flashguns can have a detrimental effect on paintings and tapestries and if you think of how many flashes would be used if it were allowed, then the damage would be cumulative.
> 
> There was a move by the NT to limit the ability of the public to take photographs of anything on land owned by them, I'm not sure what became of it. As I enjoy wildlife and particularly wild flowers, I visit NT properties a lot. I used to work for the NT as an estate warden and believe me, they were a dreadful organisation to work for - a real "us & them" attitude between the titled people at the top and us plebs doing the work. I hope things are better now. At least they've stopped being an organisation which helps out aristocrats who have fallen on hard times by buying their houses and letting them live there afterwards!
> 
> I'm not sure if it's already been mentioned, but as well as free parking to NT members, many properties have excellent cafes, so while there is some ambivalence about being a member of a rather socially outdated organisation, it's worth it for other reasons.



There have been huge changes in recent years, most for the better. Up until the mid 90's properties were run much as they had been since they were passed to the Trust, many in lieu of death duties. 
The Trust was originally conceived to protect our heritage from development and is enacted by the National Trust Act of 1907 National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Properties are now far more autonomous, although there are national policies and guidelines which we have to follow.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Eve said:


> How the hell did we mange to get from discussing the National Trust to Paedophiles and Suoermarkets puting farmers out of business?
> 
> Let us keep to the subject that started this thread.
> 
> Thankyou
> Eve     :cheers:



The National Trust banning us from taking non flash photos when visiting our properties, (whats that all about? - are they obsessed with paedophilia?)  and the National Trust increasing food prices by restricting farming (as well as increasing house prices by restricting building)


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> The National Trust Accounts show 3 people on about double that.
> Perhaps you were looking at the accounts of the homeless persons charity 'Shelter' instead?
> The highest paid person at Shelter gets about half that at the National Trust and there are only one of them instead of three.
> The National Trust must consider themselves more important?
> Preventing Shelter building housing for the homeless.
> View accounts
> 
> Those who liked your post should read the accounts as well.
> Talk about the blind leading the blind.



Salary survey: charity chief executives' pay sorted alphabetically | Society | SocietyGuardian.co.uk


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> So no comment on the 3 who were paid over £200k plus expenses and pension contributions unspecified?
> source: View accounts
> 
> .........
> 
> Incidentally, the contrast between the National Trust and the charity I support could not be more stark.  Nobody at Amnesty International was paid over £60k, and they do far more good - source: http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends81\0001051681_ac_20101231_e_c.pdf



Revealed: Amnesty International's £800,000 pay-offs to two bosses | Mail Online


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> Hi,
> 
> I just do it online, pay by card, and they post it out to me in England.  New Zealand dollar is about 50p, so it works out cheaper.  But I don't do it for the money saving.  I do it for the satisfaction of knowing I am Not supporting the English National Trust.  - link: Membership: New Zealand Historic Places Trust Pouhere Taonga



The current Chief Executive was appointed in May 2006 and is currently employed in the
remuneration band $230,000-240,000 (2010: remuneration band $230-240,000).
Page 51 http://www.historic.org.nz/en/Publications/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/2011AnnualReport.ashx

= £120,338.49 at todays exchange rate


----------



## Drew

Sorry about all that but I just needed to get it off my chest.:heart:


----------



## Northerner

The thing that surprises me about the salaries list is how low they are. Why do people expect top executives to work for peanuts just because they're running a charity? Some charities are massive organisations and need top managers just as any other organisation or business does.

Compare the salaries of many of those people with what's earned in the private sector or even in local councils where six figures is the norm.

Far better to pay someone £150K and get a top manager than £50K and get a second-rater. Sometimes I suspect that envy plays a big part in people's views when they whinge about anyone who earns more than they do.

Anyone can earn six figures. All you have to do is get a good degree, follow it up with an MBA and work hard and slowly climb the corporate ladder. Or you can mortgage your house, start a business and work even harder and one day you may be rich. Nothing to it really!

On the subject of photography I suspect that the NT bans it because many people don't know how to turn off their camera's flash! Most cameras use an auto flash system which fires the flash if the light is too low. How often do you see people taking flash pictures of something fifty yards away? The average compact camera has a flash range of about ten feet.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey

In answer to the question about taking photographs on/in NT property. I have received the following from :
Grace Ballance
Member Services Assistant
National Trust (Heelis)



Thank you for your email of the 17 January.

In answer to your question, we permit photographers to take photos of our properties and places for personal use, but when it comes to commercial purposes we do require them to seek permissions first before any uses are granted.

We only request that any one taking photos for commercial purposes, such as using photos to promote a service or company, campaign, sell a product, or is part of a product for sale gain our permission before they take pictures at any of our places. Photos for private collections are of course no problem at all. If you happen to have lots of professional looking equipment, then a colleague might ask what you intend to do with your pictures.

I do hope this answers your question. Please do get back in touch if I can be of any further assistance.

Kind regards

Grace

Grace Ballance
Member Services Assistant
Members & Donors, Whole Trust
National Trust (Heelis) 
following from:
Grace Ballance
Member Services Assistant


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> Salary survey: charity chief executives' pay sorted alphabetically | Society | SocietyGuardian.co.uk



Your link is 'salary survey' dated 2003
Mine is to the Charity Commission audited accounts for last year


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> Revealed: Amnesty International's £800,000 pay-offs to two bosses | Mail Online



another link here The Daily Mail Song - YouTube


but I prefer to rely on the audited accounts on the charity commission website, in preference to 2003 newspaper surveys, or the Daily Mail.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> The current Chief Executive was appointed in May 2006 and is currently employed in the
> remuneration band $230,000-240,000 (2010: remuneration band $230-240,000).
> Page 51 http://www.historic.org.nz/en/Publications/~/media/Corporate/Files/Publications/2011AnnualReport.ashx
> 
> = £120,338.49 at todays exchange rate



You didn't say it was the New Zealand National Trust.  In that case it sounds about right.  New Zealand has a higher standard of lving than England, but the New Zealand National Trust Cheif Execs on about half the salary of the English National Trust, like their admission charges.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Northerner said:


> The thing that surprises me about the salaries list is how low they are. Why do people expect top executives to work for peanuts just because they're running a charity? Some charities are massive organisations and need top managers just as any other organisation or business does.
> 
> Compare the salaries of many of those people with what's earned in the private sector or even in local councils where six figures is the norm.
> 
> Far better to pay someone £150K and get a top manager than £50K and get a second-rater..



.... just like the Bankers eh?


----------



## Bernard Jones

Guernsey Donkey said:


> In answer to the question about taking photographs on/in NT property. I have received the following from :
> Grace Ballance
> Member Services Assistant
> National Trust (Heelis)
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your email of the 17 January.
> 
> In answer to your question, we permit photographers to take photos of our properties and places for personal use, but when it comes to commercial purposes we do require them to seek permissions first before any uses are granted.
> 
> We only request that any one taking photos for commercial purposes, such as using photos to promote a service or company, campaign, sell a product, or is part of a product for sale gain our permission before they take pictures at any of our places. Photos for private collections are of course no problem at all. If you happen to have lots of professional looking equipment, then a colleague might ask what you intend to do with your pictures.
> 
> I do hope this answers your question. Please do get back in touch if I can be of any further assistance.
> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Grace
> 
> Grace Ballance
> Member Services Assistant
> Members & Donors, Whole Trust
> National Trust (Heelis)
> following from:
> Grace Ballance
> Member Services Assistant



Interesting reply, Thank You.
But it conflicts with what I have been told by some English National Trust Stewards when visiting National Trust houses.


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> Your link is 'salary survey' dated 2003
> Mine is to the Charity Commission audited accounts for last year



The point is not how much but the percentage of total income and the comparison to other charities salaries. Anyone can throw figures about without context.
No organisation can afford not to pay a realistic salary to it's top executives, I don't like it but that's the world we live in.


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> another link here The Daily Mail Song - YouTube
> 
> 
> but I prefer to rely on the audited accounts on the charity commission website, in preference to 2003 newspaper surveys, or the Daily Mail.



The fact is that there are many people taking money from charities and they are not all good people, if you want to throw stones make sure you are not standing in the greenhouse.


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> You didn't say it was the New Zealand National Trust.  In that case it sounds about right.  New Zealand has a higher standard of lving than England, but the New Zealand National Trust Cheif Execs on about half the salary of the English National Trust, like their admission charges.



Sorry, if you opened the link you would see that it is the annual report for the NZHPT, or as you call them the New Zealand National Trust.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Drew said:


> The point is not how much but the percentage of total income and the comparison to other charities salaries..



Well then The English National Trust must have too much income.  If they halved their admission charges to match the New Zealand National Trust, they would be able to halve the executive's salaries to match the New Zealand National Trust as well.

Is there any reason to think the New Zealand National Trust is not managed as well as the English National Trust?


----------



## Drew

Bernard Jones said:


> Well then The English National Trust must have too much income.  If they halved their admission charges to match the New Zealand National Trust, they would be able to halve the executive's salaries to match the New Zealand National Trust as well.
> 
> Is there any reason to think the New Zealand National Trust is not managed as well as the English National Trust?



This is a pointless statement and I see no reason to continue


----------



## Viktor

Decided to join the National Trust today after about a 10 year absence.  I went for the latest offer to pay by direct debit so now will also have a spare pair of binos for the camper lol.

Thanks for posting Drew.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Viktor said:


> Decided to join the National Trust today after about a 10 year absence.  I went for the latest offer to pay by direct debit so now will also have a spare pair of binos for the camper lol.
> 
> Thanks for posting Drew.



We might see you there when we visit with our lower price New Zealand National Trust Membership card

We won't miss the English National Trust binoculas because we have tried them and can see better without.

We prefer the comfort of knowing we are supporting a more egalitarian organisation.


----------



## Wind Dancer

Viktor said:


> Decided to join the National Trust today after about a 10 year absence.  I went for the latest offer to pay by direct debit so now will also have a spare pair of binos for the camper lol.
> 
> Thanks for posting Drew.



Good for you 

My new handbook has arrived, I'm looking forward to another year of enjoying my NT membership :dance:
......... and it wont be long until I start!

:drive:


----------



## Bernard Jones

Interesting article in todays Guardian showing National Trust directors with their £220k+++ incomes forcing others to live on 62p a day.
From Drews 2003 newspaper survey National Trust directors must have helped themselves to double their incomes over the last 8 years.   
Keep paying your subscriptions and maybe they can double it again over the next?
Meanwhile the public can't afford to visit the properties which supposedly belong to them

Quote: _Even better would be to allow more houses to be built in the south-east, over the objections of organisations such as the CPRE and the National Trust. Standard supply and demand tells us that more houses mean lower prices and lower rents. Lower rents mean lower housing benefit bills without making a single poor family suffer. _

Housing benefit cap: can you live on 62p a day? | Tim Leunig | Comment is free | The Guardian


----------



## Northerner

God, here we go again. Why are people so bitter and envious about anyone who earns a decent salary? The National Trust should be thanked, along with all those other organisations that oppose building on beautiful green belt countryside. If it wasn't for them we'd all be living in a concrete jungle.

The NT and others do not oppose building per se. They do not oppose building on the thousands of acres of brownfield sites, just where it will impinge on our ever-diminishing and most beautiful countryside, to the detriment of everyone, rich or poor.

Three things I've learned in life: All those who bang on about allowing more building are the most vociferous when the building site eventually ends up at the bottom of their garden.

All those who bang on about Britain's 'Compensation Culture' and Greedy Lawyers' are the first to run to a law firm when they've suffered an accident.

All those who bang on about greedy businesses and excess profits (I wish!) are usually the meanest and greediest people themselves who'll go to inordinate lengths to save a penny!

Funny old world isn't it, full of hypocrites and mean-spirited folk whose main passion is the politics of envy and who can accuse an organisation such as the NT of 'forcing people to live on 62p a day' just because they (the NT) believe that Britain will be a better place for all if we keep some green spaces! That's one hell of a leap of logic!

One thing's for sure, the owner of this site will never take a massive salary whilst there are people out there too mean to pay a measly fifteen quid a year to help support it. Perhaps they think that it's already making him a millionaire? After all, all businessmen are filthy rich aren't they? It's really easy in business and none of us ever go bust!


----------



## steco1958

Northerner said:


> God, here we go again. Why are people so bitter and envious about anyone who earns a decent salary? The National Trust should be thanked, along with all those other organisations that oppose building on beautiful green belt countryside. If it wasn't for them we'd all be living in a concrete jungle.
> 
> The NT and others do not oppose building per se. They do not oppose building on the thousands of acres of brownfield sites, just where it will impinge on our ever-diminishing and most beautiful countryside, to the detriment of everyone, rich or poor.
> 
> Three things I've learned in life: All those who bang on about allowing more building are the most vociferous when the building site eventually ends up at the bottom of their garden.
> 
> All those who bang on about Britain's 'Compensation Culture' and Greedy Lawyers' are the first to run to a law firm when they've suffered an accident.
> 
> All those who bang on about greedy businesses and excess profits (I wish!) are usually the meanest and greediest people themselves who'll go to inordinate lengths to save a penny!
> 
> Funny old world isn't it, full of hypocrites and mean-spirited folk whose main passion is the politics of envy and who can accuse an organisation such as the NT of 'forcing people to live on 62p a day' just because they (the NT) believe that Britain will be a better place for all if we keep some green spaces! That's one hell of a leap of logic!
> 
> One thing's for sure, the owner of this site will never take a massive salary whilst there are people out there too mean to pay a measly fifteen quid a year to help support it. Perhaps they think that it's already making him a millionaire? After all, all businessmen are filthy rich aren't they? It's really easy in business and none of us ever go bust!



So eloquently put !!


----------



## Bernard Jones

Northerner said:


> God, here we go again. Why are people so bitter and envious about anyone who earns a decent salary? The National Trust should be thanked, along with all those other organisations that oppose building on beautiful green belt countryside. If it wasn't for them we'd all be living in a concrete jungle.
> 
> The NT and others do not oppose building per se. They do not oppose building on the thousands of acres of brownfield sites, just where it will impinge on our ever-diminishing and most beautiful countryside, to the detriment of everyone, rich or poor.
> 
> Three things I've learned in life: All those who bang on about allowing more building are the most vociferous when the building site eventually ends up at the bottom of their garden.
> 
> All those who bang on about Britain's 'Compensation Culture' and Greedy Lawyers' are the first to run to a law firm when they've suffered an accident.
> 
> All those who bang on about greedy businesses and excess profits (I wish!) are usually the meanest and greediest people themselves who'll go to inordinate lengths to save a penny!
> 
> Funny old world isn't it, full of hypocrites and mean-spirited folk whose main passion is the politics of envy and who can accuse an organisation such as the NT of 'forcing people to live on 62p a day' just because they (the NT) believe that Britain will be a better place for all if we keep some green spaces! That's one hell of a leap of logic!
> 
> One thing's for sure, the owner of this site will never take a massive salary whilst there are people out there too mean to pay a measly fifteen quid a year to help support it. Perhaps they think that it's already making him a millionaire? After all, all businessmen are filthy rich aren't they? It's really easy in business and none of us ever go bust!



Your cynicism explains your attitude.
I have news for you.
Not everyone is only out to look after themselves.
I am very comfortably housed.
But it doesn't stop me caring about those who aren't.
Can't you understand that at all?
Or do you really believe everone only cares about themselves?


----------



## Northerner

Bernard Jones said:


> Your cynicism explains your attitude.
> I have news for you.
> Not everyone is only out to look after themselves.
> I am very comfortably housed.
> But it doesn't stop me caring about those who aren't.
> Can't you understand that at all?
> Or do you really believe everone only cares about themselves?




Yes, I care about the unhoused but I'm not so daft as to blame their plight on the National Trust! And from the attitude of some on this forum towards some very worthwhile charities, which they seem to despise simply because the chief executive is paid a decent salary, yes, there does appear to be people who are only interested in themselves. What give to Oxfam! No way, did you know that the chief executive gets £150K p.a.? It doesn't matter if children starve, I'm not supporting a charity where they actually pay people the going rate. My socialist principles far outweigh dying Africans!

And here's another bit of news for you. You constantly bang on about how, as 'we' own the National Trust properties, we should be allowed to view them free of charge or without paying an annual membership fee.

Can't you see that the only reason the NT has these properties, is because of the funds it obtains from membership and admission fees? If it didn't have this income how could it purchase more and extend its portfolio?

Perhaps you'd rather have free entry to no properties than pay a small amount to visit hundreds?

I know, we could all get New Zealand membership because it's half price and then the NT would have no income and have to close down? Never mind though, we could all go to New Zealand I suppose and view their massive range of castles and stately homes. Remind me, how many castles and stately homes does the N.Z. N.T. have? I think that you may well find that, when it comes to the number of attractions pro rata to the cost of membership, that the N.Z. N.T. membership is damn expensive!

But what does that matter, they pay their top people less than here in the U.K. and that's all that's important!


----------



## jeffers

Northerner said:


> One thing's for sure, the owner of this site will never take a massive salary whilst there are people out there too mean to pay a measly fifteen quid a year to help support it. Perhaps they think that it's already making him a millionaire? After all, all businessmen are filthy rich aren't they? It's really easy in business and none of us ever go bust!



This makes very uncomfortable reading for me, as a new and thus far free member. Is this the kind of site that looks down on free members as mean?
I dont take kindly to that sort of insinuation.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Northerner said:


> And here's another bit of news for you. You constantly bang on about how, as 'we' own the National Trust properties, we should be allowed to view them free of charge or without paying an annual membership fee.



I have better things to do than to work through all that diatribe, so I will just pick that bit out.

WHERE DID I SAY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VISIT NATIONAL TRUST PROPERTIES FREE OF CHARGE?? 

Go fight your straw men somewhere else.

May I also inform you that you we have to pay £150k +++ salaries to Oxfam to feed the starving.  If you didn't go round with your nose in the air you would see we have got them here in Britain. Both the big issue and Shelter have documented people dying on the streets of Britain from hyperthermia and malnutrition. We have food bank collections in supermarkets. Just go out on the streets and give them a few quid.  At least then you can see where your money is going.


----------



## Bernard Jones

jeffers said:


> This makes very uncomfortable reading for me, as a new and thus far free member. Is this the kind of site that looks down on free members as mean?
> I dont take kindly to that sort of insinuation.



Its not site policy I am sure, its just ad hominen from one member, because he is losing the argument he resorts to a personal attack.

Either that or he only understands the sort of respect you can buy.


----------



## Admin

Ok I think that this thread is now close to moderation. Please please let's be nice to each other and if we you cannot please do it in private and not on a public forum.


----------



## Bernard Jones

Northerner said:


> Yes, I care about the unhoused but I'm not so daft as to blame their plight on the National Trust!



OK.  Can I just ask you nicely what you don't understand about the National Trust preventing house building and thereby restricting the supply of housing forcing up house prices?  Basic supply and demand?
Can you not see any connection between high house prices and homeless people?
Nobody is suggesting demolishing any National Trust properties to build housing. Just build on a little of the 91% of this countries land area that is undeveloped.  Just look on Google Maps.  We are not short of land.
When the National Trust spend millions of pounds on taking vast areas of land like Wickam Fen out of production, can you really not see the effect that has on food prices?


----------



## runnach

jeffers said:


> This makes very uncomfortable reading for me, as a new and thus far free member. Is this the kind of site that looks down on free members as mean?
> I dont take kindly to that sort of insinuation.


jeffers i think it would be fair to suggest every full member was a free member before electing to subscribe,

indeed prior to free membership lurked as visitor

this current debate it seems is being exchanged by two folk with very forthright views, thats all,

new members, status aside i am sure are always welcome,everyone has something to contribute

for yourself and others dont let one thread or comment prejudice your opinion of the site

channa


----------



## Wind Dancer

Bernard Jones said:


> WHERE DID I SAY WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO VISIT NATIONAL TRUST PROPERTIES FREE OF CHARGE??



To be fair BJ, you said it several times in your previous posts.  

I know because I could not understand why you wanted to turn NT sites into building sites, but yet you also wanted to enjoy visiting them - for free  

As I looked back in the thread to find these comments, I see that you have 'edited' several of your posts.

When you took exception to my post about the NT, I said that I respected people had differing views.  I still do.  I cannot understand why you feel that you have to (single handedly), oppose EVERYbody who says something positive about this national charity.

I think it is time to agree to to differ and put this to rest.  :cool1:

The only reason I am posting this on the forum is because I cannot PM you.

Wind Dancer - Author of posts 41 & 42. :wave:


----------



## Bernard Jones

wind dancer said:


> To be fair BJ, you said it several times in your previous posts.
> 
> I know because I could not understand why you wanted to turn NT sites into building sites, but yet you also wanted to enjoy visiting them - for free
> 
> As I looked back in the thread to find these comments, I see that you have 'edited' several of your posts.



I sometimes write things in a hurry, then when I read them realise they could be misinterpreted so edit it. But I never said all NT sites could be free, only that some sites abroad, like Normandy Battlefields, (not Stately homes which are obviously expensive to maintain) are free.   I understand moderators can read what has been edited, and as they are obviously covering this thread they will see that.

The NT has huge income from estates they have inherited, they don't only have admission charges etc.  And as three Directors have doubled their income to well over £220k in the last 8 years they are not my idea of a charity.

Sure I enjoy visiting NT properties, but when they prevent houses being built or food being grown on unused areas of land I think they are doing more harm than good.  Because, although I am well fed and housed myself, I agree witht he Guardian article in that affordable food and homes for them is more important than my Nimby National Trust View


----------



## Bernard Jones

wind dancer said:


> I used to live not far from there and loved going up to visit the stones regularly.  I also went during summer solstice, and that was an enlightening experience :dance:
> 
> I still go these days, and still love it.
> 
> With the comments made on here about Stonehenge, I googled to see if I could find out why it was fenced off (I remember the fence being remove, but then it went back up again) and found the following information:
> 
> 
> Stonehenge: The Last 100 Years | Heritage Key
> (excerpt from above)
> Stonehenge was, to put it mildly, a British treasure in a real mess. And its predicament came to the fore at the turn of the 20th century, when sarsen stone number 22 fell from its position and took a lintel with it. A public outcry at Stonehenge’s desertion, twinned with media pressure from the famed archaeologist Sir William Flinders Petrie, led to the government taking action to find someone who could restore the ailing monument to its past glory.
> snip
> An appeal for money to buy back the area resulted in its ownership by the National Trust, who have since maintained its relative purity and added facilities such as a visitor centre, security and admission prices. This has helped the maintenance of the site immensely.
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Also in 2008 VANDALS used a hammer and screwdriver to damage the Heel Stone at Stonehenge
> The suspects were caught on CCTV going to the stones on another day but were chased off by security.



Is this a joke?

I have never stopped at Stonehenge, only driven past when it was closed so you couldn't get near it, but keep seeing it voted the worst place to visit in Britain
Here is one link, I have seen others - 
Where not to spend your bank holiday: a guide to Britain's worst days out | Travel | The Observer


----------



## scampa

Bernard Jones said:


> Is this a joke?
> 
> I have never stopped at Stonehenge



No doubt _some_ of your points may be valid, and like each of us you are fully entitled to share your views.  Personally though, I'm not impressed with the way that you seem to treat some other members views with utter contempt.

I suspect that the only way to please you would be for everyone here to pretend to agree with you, and to promise to join the Timbukto NT instead of the NT for England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

Thanks to everyone who has given constructive info in response to the OP's original question, I've found it all very useful!


----------



## Admin

scampa said:


> Thanks to everyone who has given constructive info in response to the OP's original question, I've found it all very useful!



So I guess this means this thread has served its purpose and is now closed


----------

