National Trust Members, is it true?

[Bernard Jones]

.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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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