National Trust Members, is it true?

[Wind Dancer]

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]

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;

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]

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

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.

 

[Channa]

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.

 

[Channa]

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]

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.

 

[Channa]

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]

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

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

 

[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

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.

 

[Channa]

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