National Trust: photography persecution

[pressld2]

Nah, not since Magna Carta. Or possibly Oliver Cromwell. (History is not my strong suit).

Dave P.

P.s. I'm coming round to photograph your garden tomorrow!

[Chris Yeates]

Originally Posted by PMG

I don't want to cause a row or fall out with you Chris - you're much too nice a chap for that - but I must disagree. The British are well known for saying nowt and getting on with whatever wool is pulled over our eyes, until we find ourselves and our civil liberties bound and gagged ...... Those of us that have complained noisly here and elsewhere have got this particular matter down to storm in a teacup level - without us and other forums and newspapers picking up on it the NT would be enforcing something they have no right to - that something would be a monoply of who can and can't take photos in the countryside (which is in 'trust' for the public) and sell those photographs if we wish. You're right in saying it is the principal which matters and that is what I have stood up for . . . .

I certainly don't want to cause a row either (the potential for a continuation of the Wars of the Roses is to be avoided at all costs - I'm currently getting on very well with Lancashire Lad)

I certainly bow to you knowing far more about this issue than I do; I think I was just trying to register the viewpoint that at the moment we are living in a bit of an over-the-top world

e.g. while an unseemingly large number of MP's are rightly being held up for scorn (and worse) they are not 'all at it'

e.g. there are many diseases we could die from in this country and swine fever is probably number 87 - and where is condemnation of the nonsense anti-MMR vaccine which is causing measles outbreaks?

sorry I do not want to start lots of boring political posts (which is definitely what WAB is not about) but there is this crazy climate in which we are all caught at the moment and I was trying to suggest (gently?) that this NT stuff might be caught up in it

OK that's the last of my thoughts (such as they are) on this one - I shall leave it to others who, as I say, know more about it than me

sorry for sticking my oar in

C

[solus]

Originally Posted by kiltoncomp

(this was mentioned on Martin Clunes tv program about the islands of Britain where some mega rich family had bought an island(one of the scilly isles if i remember rightly) where they had barred anyone from landing on or flying over it)

It's the Barclay Brothers and one of the Channel Islands close to Sark.

[PMG]

Originally Posted by Chris Yeates

I certainly don't want to cause a row either (the potential for a continuation of the Wars of the Roses is to be avoided at all costs - I'm currently getting on very well with Lancashire Lad)

I certainly bow to you knowing far more about this issue than I do; I think I was just trying to register the viewpoint that at the moment we are living in a bit of an over-the-top world

e.g. while an unseemingly large number of MP's are rightly being held up for scorn (and worse) they are not 'all at it'

e.g. there are many diseases we could die from in this country and swine fever is probably number 87 - and where is condemnation of the nonsense anti-MMR vaccine which is causing measles outbreaks?

sorry I do not want to start lots of boring political posts (which is definitely what WAB is not about) but there is this crazy climate in which we are all caught at the moment and I was trying to suggest (gently?) that this NT stuff might be caught up in it

OK that's the last of my thoughts (such as they are) on this one - I shall leave it to others who, as I say, know more about it than me

sorry for sticking my oar in

C

Oh Chris no need for an apology - oars are exactly what is needed to make a rounded debate, make a point, provide a point of view, keep a state of balence and perspective - and your oar is as valid as anyone elses

I apologise for getting very heated and forceful but the subject of civil liberties is one that makes my hackles rise and I will fight and keep banging on both for myself and on behalf of others when I see things as blatant as this particular bit of 'wool pulling' by the NT. I get really angry when I see any organisation using underhand clever means to bamboozle the general public.

Yes there are a lot of disgraceful and disgusting things going on around the world (some of which I have also complained and banged on about here and elsewhere) and some of these things are hard, nearly impossible to get changed because they are not in our jurisdiction. But this one is on home turf and should be complained about - if the British Nation doesn't complain about the Nation Trust then who should?

Whilst there is always hype esp by the press it still remains a fact that the NT have tried to use a by law to monopolise monies and 'ring-fence' a few select photographers in the vague hope that the rest of us will buy only those products - that is just not allowed in a free state with freely commercial trading. If the land they owned was private and soley owned and financially supported by their shareholders/owners then that is a different matter altogether. Then they could fence the whole lot off - but this is not the case here - they hold this land in perpetuity for the rest of us and people support it by subscription - they do not have the right to stop people taking photographs while there and selling them at a later date - just cos they want to! And them having to be dragged over the coals when caught out trying to do this and leaving a vague threat hanging of 'revisiting the issue at some later date' is shoddy and overbearing and its time to knock them down to size

Like Mike it will make little difference to what I do or where I go in future - when I want to visit the Lakes or any other NT land I will - this is the country where I was born and it is still a reasonably free country even with a nanny-state money-grabbing govenrment in charge - but lets not get onto that subject

Pauline

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by PMG

The NT is an entirely different kettle of fish - public money goes into the upkeep of land for people to enjoy

If, by public money, you mean tax payers money, then not so, the National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of Government, and its money comes from subscribing members, entrance money, sales of it's goods and other supporters. So it is, to all intents & purposes, a private landowner, is it not ??


I'm not a member, by the way.

[kiltoncomp]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Nah, not since Magna Carta. Or possibly Oliver Cromwell. (History is not my strong suit).

Dave P.

P.s. I'm coming round to photograph your garden tomorrow!

And how did the monarchy get it in the first place?
by having a bigger sword than joe peasant and taking it from him by force, then keeping him under with crippling taxes,

mmm, is'nt that how it still is today??

Brian.

P.s you can come and photograph my garden anytime you want , and do whatever you like with the pics, with no comebacks at all,

but there is an entrance fee of £1,000.00

[Meta menardi]

Originally Posted by pressld2

Nah, not since Magna Carta. Or possibly Oliver Cromwell. (History is not my strong suit).

Dave P.

P.s. I'm coming round to photograph your garden tomorrow!

Can you cut the grass while you are here, and water the tomatoes. Please.

[Garden Carpet]

I havnt read all the posts on this thread and it may be that someone else has made the same response... my apologies if this is so.

It seems to me that a trust is for the benefit of the trustee/s and that we are those trustees. The NT manages these properties on OUR behalf and for our benefit.

They are going to lose a lot of revinue from this action. I counted at least 6 people on this thread and on the linked site who are cancelling or not renewing their subscription.. and I only scanned the first pages.

Talk about turning the public against the NT... shot in the foot or what?

jaki

[Tormentil]

Originally Posted by Garden Carpet

... I counted at least 6 people on this thread and on the linked site who are cancelling or not renewing their subscription.. and I only scanned the first pages.

Talk about turning the public against the NT... shot in the foot or what?

jaki

The NT has over 3 million members, so they're gonna have't lose quite a lot before they see a drop in revenue.

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

If, by public money, you mean tax payers money, then not so, the National Trust is a charity and is completely independent of Government, and its money comes from subscribing members, entrance money, sales of it's goods and other supporters. So it is, to all intents & purposes, a private landowner, is it not ??


I'm not a member, by the way.

See page 54 of the 2007/2008 National Trust Annual Report at

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main...intversion.pdf

This shows the grants received in the 2007 and 2008 financial years and details where those grants came from. The vast majority of the sources look like tax-payers money to me. Including the Heritage Lottery Fund. In spite of Pete's views above I still say that's public money. The Lottery was set up in 1994 to pay for things that really ought to be provided out of general taxation but which the government claimed it could not afford. The funds collected are administered and distributed by the Heritage Lottery Fund who say...

"We are officially known as a ‘non-departmental public body’. This means that, although we are not a government department, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport issues financial and policy directions to us and we report to Parliament through the department."

So in a nutshell the lottery funds are raised by government and distributed by government. In my view the fact that playing the lottery is voluntary doesn't alter that.

Having said all that, in 2008 the grants amounted to just 5.6% of the NT's income (9.3% in 2007).

Dave P.