Just Cancelled My National Trust Membership

[right_freds_dead]

My other biggest annoyance.

That and footpaths covered with stone chippings that are not the indiginous rock

Gates that now have been renewed with so much furniture they need a degree to open

Footpaths re-routed or closed lest someone fall off the cliff edge. Its now NT property you see. FFS I want to teeter on the edge and look down. Otherwise i might as well do a virtual walk on my ipad.

yes. its as much YOUR land as it is theirs. they want to simply control and profit from your use of it to pay themselves. it is YOUR land. if you want to teeter, its YOUR RIGHT. your right to roam.

or, as you say. it will end up with a visitor centre at the foothills (£7 entry + £5 park) and they will show you a film about the walk you nintended to partake in, and some local history in a rather expensive visitor centre, which will exit through a gift shop of kendal mint cake and ornaments carved from local slate.

[right_freds_dead]

if this last point is hpow they are being used, it is wrong, and the 170k p.a. salary of the chair of the National Trust is indeed obscene - the initial basis of the fees can of course be twisted, I am sure this is an issue

its sad when you think about how things have turned on us.

the NT at one time were a good moral guardian of bad and wreckless big developers. now you can see they have become corrupt. at one time journalists used to break stories, now they make them and are corrupt. politics has become hollow and useless. you cannot rely on anything. universities are for profit. everythings for profit but the NHS.

all the things that were fought for in WW2 are one by one reverting back to victorian times and serfdom.

ultra rich supported by the gutter poor, and guess which one you will be ?

[LiveinHope]

NO THEY HAVEN'T

an army of enthusiastic volnteers cannot repair the worn out roads

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot supply the helicopters YES HELICOPTERS that fly in the extra rock needed to maintain the remote footpaths

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot do anything to fix the hydrological damage to the stream ecosystems that comes from altered run off patterns from massive path erosion - providing a short cut path to runoff, reducing summer river base flows to a trickle and wi[ping out salmon and trout

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot accomodate the sheer weight of numbers that enter certain national parks, there are some issues that become exponentially expensive to deal with, most notably due to volume of cars - but do bear in mind that it makes more sense, by such demand management, to push people towards the OTHER areas of outstanding natural beauty that see much lower numbers - the Dales, wolds, north York Moors, Snowdonia, Black Mountains etc. Additionally dissuade day trippers (who generate so much traffic) in favour of encourasging longer stays and better public transport use.Ie if you have to pay for parking for the day why not pay for camping instead and make a few days of it?

All those points are very valid. But I would also argue that the NT is also part of the problem, often creating the draw to some places, specifically to raise revenue.

Nevertheless, explain to me why a plot of land that a landowner let be used for parking until very recently and then bequeathed to the national trust, which until then had served perfectly acceptably as a car park for people to access the coast, should suddenly require a pile of chippings and a fee of 4 quid.

[right_freds_dead]

NO THEY HAVEN'T

an army of enthusiastic volnteers cannot repair the worn out roads

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot supply the helicopters YES HELICOPTERS that fly in the extra rock needed to maintain the remote footpaths

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot do anything to fix the hydrological damage to the stream ecosystems that comes from altered run off patterns from massive path erosion - providing a short cut path to runoff, reducing summer river base flows to a trickle and wi[ping out salmon and trout

an army of enthusiastic volunteers cannot accomodate the sheer weight of numbers that enter certain national parks, there are some issues that become exponentially expensive to deal with, most notably due to volume of cars - but do bear in mind that it makes more sense, by such demand management, to push people towards the OTHER areas of outstanding natural beauty that see much lower numbers - the Dales, wolds, north York Moors, Snowdonia, Black Mountains etc. Additionally dissuade day trippers (who generate so much traffic) in favour of encourasging longer stays and better public transport use.Ie if you have to pay for parking for the day why not pay for camping instead and make a few days of it?

how do you think the footpaths got there in the first place ? volunteers. most of those paths were made by volunteers.

and the used to army use its own helicopters for training to get the rocks up there.

its all written.

[right_freds_dead]

Nevertheless, explain to me why a plot of land that a landowner let be used for parking until very recently and then bequeathed to the national trust, which until then had served perfectly acceptably as a car park for people to access the coast, should suddenly require a pile of chippings and a fee of 4 quid.

it would be fine as it was. an open area. there are no need for wood chippings and some fancy wooden beams. they would tend to use hard surfaced areads of crushed rock, often maintained by volunteers of the area who enjoyed it.

in the 70s, you could go to stone henge for free. yet the visitor numbers were very similar than today.

the money they raise from fleecing the public is used for salary, pensions and marketing their cause.

its just become yet another gravy train for you to pull. hot air fuels it.

[Olebrum]

That's obnoxious, offensive, and pathetic. You need to see a shrink.

How exactly would you go about reducing the population then?

Just curious.

[right_freds_dead]

How exactly would you go about reducing the population then?

Just curious.

round them up into micro cities (ghettos) and ignore the screams ?

[Si1]

how do you think the footpaths got there in the first place ? volunteers. most of those paths were made by volunteers.

and the used to army use its own helicopters for training to get the rocks up there.

its all written.

nope - initially the footpaths were drovers paths, farmers paths, mountain passes, etc

they were documented by the likes of Wainright etc

those that have seen heavy use have been maintained by volunteers, but the pressure is taking it's toll

those that see less heavy use (ie further away from the M6 - go figure) should be encouraged more, this is where demand management plays a role

i wasn't aware of the army getting the rocks up there to fix the footpaths, for whatever reason that is not done anymore (perhapos it does not suit the army's traioning needs any more?), nevertheless there is stil a cost/erosion problem on the highly used sections of the Lakes and other areas, worsening footpath erosion and traffic congestion is simply a fact

that you deny this is breathtaking

[Riedquat]

nope - initially the footpaths were drovers paths, farmers paths, mountain passes, etc

they were documented by the likes of Wainright etc

those that have seen heavy use have been maintained by volunteers, but the pressure is taking it's toll

those that see less heavy use (ie further away from the M6 - go figure) should be encouraged more, this is where demand management plays a role

i wasn't aware of the army getting the rocks up there to fix the footpaths, for whatever reason that is not done anymore (perhapos it does not suit the army's traioning needs any more?), nevertheless there is stil a cost/erosion problem on the highly used sections of the Lakes and other areas, worsening footpath erosion and traffic congestion is simply a fact

that you deny this is breathtaking

I don't think that the army has ever been involved in path work unless you're going back a long time to, for example, Wade building roads all over the Scottish Highlands. Perhaps there's a bit of confusion here between helicopter search and rescue done by the RAF, which as well as being useful for people getting themselves stuck also provides better training than can be done with an artificial scenario.

Not just further from the M6, go to the Lakes back of Skiddaw area and it's usually very quiet, even on a bank holiday. It's not the most exciting part (which is why it's much quieter) but is pleasant enough, and Bowscale Tarn is worth a visit.

[right_freds_dead]

nope - initially the footpaths were drovers paths, farmers paths, mountain passes, etc

they were documented by the likes of Wainright etc

those that have seen heavy use have been maintained by volunteers, but the pressure is taking it's toll

those that see less heavy use (ie further away from the M6 - go figure) should be encouraged more, this is where demand management plays a role

i wasn't aware of the army getting the rocks up there to fix the footpaths, for whatever reason that is not done anymore (perhapos it does not suit the army's traioning needs any more?), nevertheless there is stil a cost/erosion problem on the highly used sections of the Lakes and other areas, worsening footpath erosion and traffic congestion is simply a fact

that you deny this is breathtaking

i can only speak from my own experience of walking the hills and looking around at what i saw. erosion has been an ongoing issue. what used to happen is people would walk around that area making a fresh route and the erosion would take its natural course. now its fenced off and £££s poured onto it. its not how it used to work, so why does it need it now ?

perhaps its about money, pay and pensions ?

[Si1]

i can only speak from my own experience of walking the hills and looking around at what i saw. erosion has been an ongoing issue. what used to happen is people would walk around that area making a fresh route and the erosion would take its natural course. now its fenced off and £££s poured onto it. its not how it used to work, so why does it need it now ?

perhaps its about money, pay and pensions ?

the problem with that kind of erosion is it that the topsoil does not get replaced it does not grow back with plant litter fast enough, thus permanently degrading both the physical structure of the hillside, promoting landslides, and also polluting the rivers with excessive soil loads, and altering the annual flow regimes thus killing off salmon and trout

these are diffuse affects that you cannot see as a walker, but they are know by the science and land management community and have become recognised as an issue since about 1990, mainly because the results (massivelty different river flows, major hillside mass movements as they become unstable and the top soil slips down the hill) have started to show up significantly in this time

but again, it is sufficiently technical and therefore hard to communicate to laymen that of course it also provides cover for excessive spending to justify pay and pensions, i agree with you that that is clearly possible and likely given the corporate society we live in

[Riedquat]

How exactly would you go about reducing the population then?

Just curious.

I answered that one earlier. The birth rate is such that it would fall naturally if we got a grip on immigration although the way things are going perhaps before long no-one will want to come here anyway. Seems straightforward enough, quite why some people automatically jump to the conclusion that I want to round people up or anything like that speaks volumes about them.

[VacantPossession]

English Heritage doesn't get much of a mention but they have a similar financial model to that of the NT. A couple of weeks ago I was in a Dorset village and parked at the only available car park to get some lunch. It was owned by English Heritage and they wanted £2 to park. I pointed out that I didn't require their car park for more than half an hour, but they only offer it for "all day" at one price. Families were queuing up to see a not very prepossessing heritage building for which they paid £8 per adult and £3 per child. A family of 3 adults and 2 children were therefore paying £32 to park then wander round a mediocre "site" for an hour. Guide leaflets were an extra £3. Snacks and tat were on offer at the shop for a premium.

Many heritage sites are a rip off, and seem to get away with ever increasing entry fees.

[Riedquat]

English Heritage doesn't get much of a mention but they have a similar financial model to that of the NT. A couple of weeks ago I was in a Dorset village and parked at the only available car park to get some lunch. It was owned by English Heritage and they wanted £2 to park. I pointed out that I didn't require their car park for more than half an hour, but they only offer it for "all day" at one price. Families were queuing up to see a not very prepossessing heritage building for which they paid £8 per adult and £3 per child. A family of 3 adults and 2 children were therefore paying £32 to park then wander round a mediocre "site" for an hour. Guide leaflets were an extra £3. Snacks and tat were on offer at the shop for a premium.

Many heritage sites are a rip off, and seem to get away with ever increasing entry fees.

They're the ones who wouldn't let some church bells be touched to be returned when some new ones were added (tuning them involves chipping bits off) despite them having marks where that was done in the past. You'd have thought that they'd be happy with something still doing what it's supposed do, as well as possible, after a few hundred years but they don't want old stuff to carry on working, they want it purely as a museum. In this case I think they were ignored and the bell was tuned anwyay

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Anyone who is not a NIMBY is a hypocrite. I don't believe in altruists.

[Si1]

Anyone who is not a NIMBY is a hypocrite. I don't believe in altruists.

I am heavily invested in the economy via the stockmarket, therefore I am neither an altruist nor a nimby, but that is a very thought provoking post so thanks for challenging me

[Dorkins]

Anyone who is not a NIMBY is a hypocrite. I don't believe in altruists.

Fine, but the political system needs to balance the wants and needs of settled people with the wants and needs of those who have yet to set up a home for themselves. At the moment the latter are being offered housing of a much worse quality than the former already enjoy. That's not balance.

[MrPin]

I don't like the National Trust. They were always beating up black people in the 1970s.

[Crazy88s]

I love the countryside, deeply., but I'm just not a nazi

Glad to hear it.

[Crazy88s]

do you prefer a broken country for the next 15 years and no pension - or your view from your window ?

call it.

call IT. friend o

Undoubtedly the view from my window. Building more crappy houses will not fix a broken country

[Crazy88s]

so you yourself live in a tent on a field or in a house that is made with a concrete foundation on a former field. or do you hover in mid air ?

A line has to be drawn in the sand. It is simply unsustainable to dig up and destroy more and more land. I am not against more housing, there is plenty of brownfield sites and lots of older housing stock that needs replacing. And none of this affordable nomsense, all new houses should have minimum room sizes double that of what the arsehole builders pass off as liveable units now. You lot are so ####ing blinkered and in capable of seeing alternatives

[right_freds_dead]

Undoubtedly the view from my window. Building more crappy houses will not fix a broken country

so was your own home built on a field at one time or does it just hover ?

[right_freds_dead]

A line has to be drawn in the sand. It is simply unsustainable to dig up and destroy more and more land. I am not against more housing, there is plenty of brownfield sites and lots of older housing stock that needs replacing. And none of this affordable nomsense, all new houses should have minimum room sizes double that of what the arsehole builders pass off as liveable units now. You lot are so ####ing blinkered and in capable of seeing alternatives

whats become clearly unsustainable is the model of not building, forcing prices up to the point its bankrupted the nation and taken down many jobs and posibbly the fabric and fairness of our society.

with idiots like you about, i have reduced my business income to the point of paying little or no tax. there is no motivation to expand or export the product because theres no personal reward for me - the one doing the work. in the end ill walk away. if there is no mass building program there wont be any carpet or furniture sales. a dying population and a very angry generation of wokers unwilling to pay tax or have any moral duty to look after anyone else. you want to live in a country ike that, i dont. ill leave.

Edited September 23, 2011 by right_freds_dead

[phead]

(Looks out of the window)

Nope, still no-one sleeping in the gutter! Can anyone actually prove why we need to built the huge amount of houses that the government keeps trotting out? It seems to have been based on the whole of eastern europe moving here, when in reality they are going in the opposite direction. I know the crashionista in here love to think that building will cause oversupply and lower prices, yet are unable to counter the argument that there are too many interested parties who will never allow this to happen.

I know loads of people who want to buy a house, and every single one of them are living in ...... *drumroll* ........ a house! Can you people not remove your blinkers and see that you are being led around by the nose by barretts, this is nothing to do with house building, its about who owns the houses we already have.

[Crazy88s]

whats become clearly unsustainable is the model of not building, forcing prices up to the point its bankrupted the nation and taken down many jobs and posibbly the fabric and fairness of our society.

with idiots like you about, i have reduced my business income to the point of paying little or no tax. there is no motivation to expand or export the product because theres no personal reward for me - the one doing the work. in the end ill walk away. if there is no mass building program there wont be any carpet or furniture sales. a dying population and a very angry generation of wokers unwilling to pay tax or have any moral duty to look after anyone else. you want to live in a country ike that, i dont. ill leave.

Your first point is OK. Yes buildingis needed, just not on greenfield.

But your second point, Ha ha LOL, if you cant expand probably your business is not viable, more than likely you are a one man band with perhaps a couple of low paid slaves, my company however has expanded by 15 employees this year alone. Rather than spending endless hours posting here I am doing something about my business, some of you should focus on using your hours more productively and maybe just maybe you might not be in the shit that you are in! If you want to leave, great good for you at least you will be doing something positive if you think you can make it elsewhere, however having done that grass is not always greener (and much less green if you have your way). In fact about 20 million of you are needed to leave to make this place pleasent again.