UKC

...or at least its sense of direction? First the news that the National Trust for Scotland are claiming copyright on the name "glencoe" ( and as far as I'm aware they didnt personally dig out the glen, build the village or invent the name)...now the news that the National Trust are claiming the right to impose charges on a commercial photographer to take pictures in Snowdonia http://tohatchacrow.blogspot.co.uk/ £250 to £400 per hour apparently!!!!
High handed, and frankly daft - the sort of thing you might expect from an arrogant landowner but not an organisation which claims its role is to "protect the UK's best-loved places, and ensure they remain special for everyone to enjoy"

In reply to pebbles:

Yes. I believe it's all part of the same vicious, self-centred, greedy, xenophobic disease that seems to have gripped the entire western world over the last year or two. We really mustn't give in to it. Speaking as a professional photographer now, the rates (per hour) are quite absurd.

In reply to pebbles:

So much for being a bloody charity! The needs of the country house preservation lot and the landscape ownership part really need to be differentiated and split apart.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I'm curious how they would distinguish between walking around with a camera, and photography. Pressing the button takes a fraction of a second, say 1p at those rates, which isn't so bad!

In reply to MG:
Woe betide the night time photographers and their long exposures!

Fairer to charge by the photon.

In reply to pebbles:

I think them, and other big charities or state institutions rspca, NPs, rspb, FC etc.. need some sort of different regulation or over arching principles. They are becoming very big brother in telling the population, what is right for us, how we should use our wild spaces, whilst at the same time spending our money to do it.

In reply to summo:

I was going to say "the NT have that already" and post a link. But I can't find anywhere they actually say what they are about!

In reply to MG:

Of course. But who is actually behind their desire to buy up land, control it's use etc..

There was a case recently with a farm for sale in the lakes.. watendlath, where local farmers were out bid and blocked from purchasing. Any local farmer buying it would still have to follow the NPs rules etc.. So why does the NT need to empire build.

Really all this land if it is special, should be state owned for the people. Not charities with agendas.

Edit .. sorry it was thorneythwaite, not watendlath. https://www.google.se/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/03/nat...

In reply to pebbles:

I remember my unkle, a former BBC cameraman, director, editor and producer, telling a story of a run in that he had with them in the 80s. They were filming on private non-NT land, having paid the landowner a small fee and they received an invoice for about £400 from the NT for commercial use of the view. As you would imagine, the bill was not paid.

In reply to summo:

I agree, some of their behaviour is very odd, certainly that case.

However, if you compare the condition of council owned historic buildings (falling to bits and abused) vs NT ones, Ill happy enough to support them for now. They are semi governmental anyway in that there are.acts.of parliament about them specifically.

In reply to MG:


I agree with the building maintenance, but i don't understand the land grab. It's not like they are buying up some sssi etc.. like rspb has done to protect migrant birds or nesting. NT is just hoovering up anything. The idea of rewilding won't ever happen because of the old school out look of these organisations.

In reply to MG:

Interesting comparison between Council owned and NT historic buildings, I would disagree with the general assertion that Council ones ones will always be in much worse condition, but of course Councils are often owners of last resort and don't get to pick and choose the buildings they take on. The NT very much do, I have even on behalf of my employer offered a few buildings to the NT, they are not generally interested unless it is already restored or comes with a multi-million pound sweetener, sometimes both.

In reply to The New NickB:

I appreciate the different contexts but basically councils don't have the funds or skills to run buildings and they end up ruined.

In reply to summo:




State owned?? In the hands of the government, who were planning to sell off their forests...the 'state' is probably less a reliable pair of hands unless protection provided in law (and then you need someone to monitor the state) and, as for agendas...do you think in terms of a benevolent state, motivated to do the best for the people and the country.

In reply to pebbles: this isn't particularly new.this has been the case on NT property for some years. I'm not sure if there was an resolution of the issue of photography from PROWs was resolved. Incidentally, does Rockfax owe then anything for all those photo topos?

It's an absurd situation, made worse by the Trust being something of an unstoppable behemoth once it gets an idea into its head. Given the useless state of our government, I can't see any review of legislation anytime soon (NT has its own act of parliament), but some sort of review of governance is way overdue

In reply to MG:


Another huge generalisation. Look at Manchester City Council's investment in Manchester Town Hall, I was in another stunning Grade I Council owned building this morning, it was thriving. It's probably worth having a look at Historic England's buildings at risk register and looking at the ownership history.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

Agree except on the last year or so. The decline has probably been going on since Thatcher was in power. Free market and privatisation init?

In reply to toad:


I know what you mean, I've been trying to cancel my membership for four years. Every year I think I've cracked it only for another handbook to arrive!

In reply to The New NickB:

Yes,.I'm sure there are few buildings have looked after a few the NT have cocked up. But in general it's true.

(Oddly, I have just had a text from the NT asking for feedback on my recent contact. They have yet to reply...!)

In reply to philipivan:


Yes. V bad in the 80s, then seemed to get a bit better, now much worse again, IMHO ...

In reply to pebbles:

It's not just the National Trust. The Weld Estate, who 'own' Durdle Door and Lulworth Cove in Dorset, have had a sign forbidding the taking of photographs for commercial purposes erected at the Durdle door site for several years. A few years ago, while training Scout Leaders in navigation techniques on the lower slopes of Moel Siabod, I was approached by the farmer who basically said, if you are getting paid for what you are doing I want paying as well (which is, of course, a clause in the CROW Act). I wasn't, as I am a volunteer.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

I know, I think Blair/ Brown lulled everyone into a false sense of security. Cameron is surely the worst leader in memory, very weak.

In reply to pebbles:
Forget photography. They've gone and changed the flapjack recipe. Good God, what next!!?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/08/the-national-trust-ha...

In reply to pebbles:

Not really what you think they are - speaking as someone who supports the good work they do - presumably someone's got to pay for the shortfall in the pension scheme for the great and the good. Plus it's a currently a fiscally neoliberal social authoritarian government - what do you expect?

D