The National Trust is under attack

Siope

The opposite has not happened. The membership numbers and growth rate are public information.

It will have to be seen if numbers increase with the cost of living crisis.

English Heritage are supposed to be better places to visit.

The opposite has not happened. The membership numbers and growth rate are public information.

Primrose53

Yes and he was doing it for free therefore saving them a massive amount of money. It doesn’t mean he has to agree to wear a Pride badge and they realised very quickly that a lot of people feel the same when people cancelled their memberships.

They immediately did a U turn before they lost even more members.

You don’t know the answer to your last statement either. 😉

I agree with you.
In the days when I had more money we joined for a few years and did see some lovely houses and gardens, but even if I had the money now I wouldn’t rejoin.It’s been taken over by woke managers in a misguided attempt to attract more members and am sure the opposite has happened.
When they finally realise this it might go back to what it used to do best.

Yes and he was doing it for free therefore saving them a massive amount of money. It doesn’t mean he has to agree to wear a Pride badge and they realised very quickly that a lot of people feel the same when people cancelled their memberships.

They immediately did a U turn before they lost even more members.

You don’t know the answer to your last statement either. 😉

Primrose53

Whitewavemark2

I am a long standing member and I think that there can be little doubt that the age profile has got much younger than when i first joined. Young families are much more in evidence now. They are the ones who appreciate the more progressive attitude that the NT has adopted, and are the future of the NT.

Old fogeys like the chap who refused to support the LGBT are a dying breed.

The NT will not survive just attracting people like that.

That’s where you’re wrong! Over 200 people immediately revoked their NT membership because they agreed with “the old fogey” (as you called him, despite him probably being younger than you.)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-uturn-volunteers-wear-gay-pride-badges-lgbt-felbrigg-hall-robert-wyndham-kettoncremer-a7878546.html#comments-area

Absolutely ludicrous to expect people to wear badges or lanyards supporting something you feel no connection with or have no interest in.

Wasn’t he, as a volunteer representing the NT whilst on duty?

200 out of 6000000 members, is a drop in the ocean, what you do not know is the amount of new members they have attracted as a result of their progressive agenda.

Whitewavemark2

I am a long standing member and I think that there can be little doubt that the age profile has got much younger than when i first joined. Young families are much more in evidence now. They are the ones who appreciate the more progressive attitude that the NT has adopted, and are the future of the NT.

Old fogeys like the chap who refused to support the LGBT are a dying breed.

The NT will not survive just attracting people like that.

That’s where you’re wrong! Over 200 people immediately revoked their NT membership because they agreed with “the old fogey” (as you called him, despite him probably being younger than you.)

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/national-trust-uturn-volunteers-wear-gay-pride-badges-lgbt-felbrigg-hall-robert-wyndham-kettoncremer-a7878546.html#comments-area

Absolutely ludicrous to expect people to wear badges or lanyards supporting something you feel no connection with or have no interest in.

M0nica

Casdon The voting papers come with a self-written profile for every person standing for election. Anyone voting should read these and then choose the 5 who most represent the voters views. This is what I, and many others have done.

Those choosing the QuickVote are voting for the 5 people the NT executive want because they reflect their views or are yes people. It is not good for any organisation to have its main governing council formed from insiders. There should always be a range of views exxpressed onany Council that represents the varying views of a societies members.

let me be clear, I definitely think that the history of slavery and how slaves provided the wealth of many estates is a clear and necessary part of their history. As i said my own disenchaantment with the NT has little to do with content just the way the NT corporate image and branding is sucking all the interest and originality out of so many of their properties.

I know Monica, I’m a member. What I meant was that I google the candidates to see if there is anything nefarious before I make my mind up, not just for this vote but for any vote I make. They always give the gloss image of themselves on the pen portraits.

I am a long standing member and I think that there can be little doubt that the age profile has got much younger than when i first joined. Young families are much more in evidence now. They are the ones who appreciate the more progressive attitude that the NT has adopted, and are the future of the NT.

Old fogeys like the chap who refused to support the LGBT are a dying breed.

The NT will not survive just attracting people like that.

My neighbour and her partner paid £2,500+ for a lifetime membership with the NT. that was 2 years ago and I doubt if she would have spent £100 on admission fees during that time.

To get your money’s worth you need to live in an area with plenty of NT properties or travel around the UK extensively.

Casdon The voting papers come with a self-written profile for every person standing for election. Anyone voting should read these and then choose the 5 who most represent the voters views. This is what I, and many others have done.

Those choosing the QuickVote are voting for the 5 people the NT executive want because they reflect their views or are yes people. It is not good for any organisation to have its main governing council formed from insiders. There should always be a range of views exxpressed onany Council that represents the varying views of a societies members.

let me be clear, I definitely think that the history of slavery and how slaves provided the wealth of many estates is a clear and necessary part of their history. As i said my own disenchaantment with the NT has little to do with content just the way the NT corporate image and branding is sucking all the interest and originality out of so many of their properties.

I don’t like the way the NT operate at all.

A very nice retired gentleman over the road volunteered for them for several years at a NT property but when they tried to get all staff and volunteers to wear Pride rainbow badges he refused and stopped going. He must have saved them thousands of pounds for all the work he did unpaid but said this was a step too far.

The membership fees to join are ridiculous now.

I shall not vote for any right wing nutters. I think it's important to draw attention to the slavery-funded estates but I want the NT to give absolute priority to conserving the properties and that includes fully rebuilding Clandon House after the fire as it did Uppark after the fire there.

If they are NT stooges, then it up to the members to become more active. It is complacency that allows extremists to enter, become active and ruin things. Perhaps this will be a wake up call.

It seems to me that if you care about the NT's continued existence in its current manifestation then you should select at least some of their "stooges".

After the demutualisation and flotation of the building societies organisations such as the Co-op came under attack by sharks who wanted to take advantage of the Co-op's assets. At the same time, The Wine Society, of which I am a member, also came under attack. Luckily the membership fought off the predators and the Wine Society remains a mutual.

I haven't been to an NT property for a long time but I cannot believe that they are making each house identical. We first joined when we decided to holiday in England and the annual fee was £10 each. We recovered our subscription in a week. This was back in the 70s. I also remember going to a property that had been built on the proceeds of the sugar trade and this was clearly pointed out 40 odd years ago.

I see absolutely no reason why the cafes shouldn't all have similar decor and the shops have similar stock. If children are able to dress up and there is story telling - why not? At least it make visiting a stately home more interesting and may set the seeds for a lifelong interest. Who knows?

I have a number of dislikes and concerns about the National Trust, primarily with the way it limits access to public land and assets via parking charges and membership fees.

Despite that, I would strongly urge NT members to vote against Reform Trust candidates.

The NT is a conservation (of the environment, built and natural) and history charity, with a responsibility to deliver against its aims in both areas. The Reform Trust - with support from the culture war creators in the Tory party - wanting only sanitised history is both ludicrous and offensive, as are its recent objections to the NT commenting on Sunak’s proposals and comments on the environmental agenda.

Quick lists are common, and provided that ahead of opting to vote that way, members can see what individual proposed Trustees believe, I think they are fine.

M0nica

This thread isn't about slavery, it is about an organisation that hides the names of its organisers and the source of its funding from even its supporters, who wish to take over the national Trust and bend it to represent its ultra right wing view of the world.

Unfortunately the NT has responded in a way that is undemocratic and deeply unfair in response.

I have been very critical of how the NT has seen itself as greater than the sum of its parts, for some years now, but that does not mean that I in any way support the group trying to become right wing fifth columnists within the organisation and I am with Whitewave when she says that all members should get their voting papers out, or go online and do so, and make thetime to read and choose the people you support and do not just vote for the NT stooges on the Quick Vote list

I’d rather vote for a National Trust stooge than a right wing nutter though. It behoves all members to find out for themselves the background and hobbyhorses of the candidates before they vote.

It's the slavery aspect that the right wing group are objecting to, MOnica.

Did anyone say that you had to vote for the NT choices ?🤔

This thread isn't about slavery, it is about an organisation that hides the names of its organisers and the source of its funding from even its supporters, who wish to take over the national Trust and bend it to represent its ultra right wing view of the world.

Unfortunately the NT has responded in a way that is undemocratic and deeply unfair in response.

I have been very critical of how the NT has seen itself as greater than the sum of its parts, for some years now, but that does not mean that I in any way support the group trying to become right wing fifth columnists within the organisation and I am with Whitewave when she says that all members should get their voting papers out, or go online and do so, and make thetime to read and choose the people you support and do not just vote for the NT stooges on the Quick Vote list

I did post a link to the list of NT properties earlier

One of the largest landowners in the United Kingdom, the Trust owns almost 250,000 hectares (620,000 acres; 2,500 km2; 970 sq mi) of land and 780 miles (1,260 km) of coast. Its properties include more than 500 historic houses, castles, archaeological and industrial monuments, gardens, parks, and nature reserves

It owns far more than I realised,

We visit a lot of NT houses, one of the questions we ask is where did the money come from, sometimes it’s obviously directly from slavery, others indirectly. I would say that 80% of the wealth came from exploitation or forced labour.

The biggest crime of all was parliament paying compensation to its own members whose families owned slaves, some of the records have been published more have been successfully hidden or withheld. Each house should now be open just where the money came from to build it, if that embarrasses the aristocracy or indeed polititians today that’s tough.

Of the houses, some have architectural merit and did provide employment for the builders but the money was largely frittered away on high living, a lot fell into disrepair and were demolished. I can think of a few that should be demolished now.

Freya5

MaizieD

The National Trust doesn't just own country houses, does it? It owns small dwellings associated with famous figures from the past and large tracts of countryside.

In fact, a staggering variety of properties:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Trust_properties_in_England

Just because its product in some areas has become bland and 'samey' doesn't mean that one should vote for the nutters who want to deny the less savoury aspect of Britain's past. Or does it?

Do you mean people who disagree with you, and others on here. Slavery of black people does not exist in this country, no African heritage person alive today, unless living in some parts of Africa, suffer slavery. Ho w many of you admire Roman ruins, and Anglo saxon burials, those invaders who enslaved the inhabitants of these islands people, took them into slavery, sold them on the continent to Arab and African traders. Your sense of history seems to be , and the NT, obsessed with only one aspect of that terrible part of most countries history. How many holiday in Portugal,do you take note of their instigation of the European slave trade. Why are you concerned that a black parent wouldn't want their children to know ,,the past history of some of their possible ancestors. Do those who suffered the holocaust turnaway. I would like history to be truthful, about every aspect, not just the one that is in vogue to suit a minority.

I really don't know WTF you are talking about, Freya.

I've explained how I feel about those grand old country houses, for long before the slavery aspect came to the fore.

I didn't say anything about black parents not wanting to know about the past history of some of their ancestors. I have both slave and white ancestry and I know quite a lot about it...

I think that the people who want to cut out part of the grand houses' history are nutters.

MaizieD

The National Trust doesn't just own country houses, does it? It owns small dwellings associated with famous figures from the past and large tracts of countryside.

In fact, a staggering variety of properties:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_National_Trust_properties_in_England

Just because its product in some areas has become bland and 'samey' doesn't mean that one should vote for the nutters who want to deny the less savoury aspect of Britain's past. Or does it?

Do you mean people who disagree with you, and others on here. Slavery of black people does not exist in this country, no African heritage person alive today, unless living in some parts of Africa, suffer slavery. Ho w many of you admire Roman ruins, and Anglo saxon burials, those invaders who enslaved the inhabitants of these islands people, took them into slavery, sold them on the continent to Arab and African traders. Your sense of history seems to be , and the NT, obsessed with only one aspect of that terrible part of most countries history. How many holiday in Portugal,do you take note of their instigation of the European slave trade. Why are you concerned that a black parent wouldn't want their children to know ,,the past history of some of their possible ancestors. Do those who suffered the holocaust turnaway. I would like history to be truthful, about every aspect, not just the one that is in vogue to suit a minority.

If the wealth wasn’t there then the artists and artisans would have no one to pay them and we would have lost wonderful things. I don’t feel offended by past slavery . It happened and it was horrible but I feel outraged by present day slavery- young men and women trafficked for cannabis farms or prostitution .