Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

National Trust under scrutiny

Interesting how "out of date" the figures are - National Trust 2012!

Wifey works for a small but international charity running all the support services. She's on OK money but not equivalent to commercial sector and she has turned don pay rises to use the money to bring her team up in pay. In her time there she has curtailed a lot of superfluous travel and expenses (domestic and foreign) by employees and rationalised services to manage costs down. Previous CEO had a company Audi usually driven by his wife. New CEO travels second class on the train. Wifey's team really do put in extra, especially now they are mostly working at home because they believe in what they are doing so work into the evening.

She knows exactly how much donated money goes in runnin the charity and a lot of the running cost is funded by rent from property donated or acquired in the early years of the charity so almost self funding.

Get her started on the funds retained and lack of transparency of big charities like Oxfam, RSPCA, RNLI, RBL and she goes full on agnry mode. They have huge funds, senior staff are very well paid and they give out funds to "pet projects" rather than individual causes. We give to local charities where we can see the transparency and where the money goes like the village hall run by volunteers etc.

Three generations of my family have run the local poppy collection.

I have now given up completely on the Royal British Legion – in my experience, it has become a faceless, uncommunicative, corporate bureaucracy.
 
To be honest, I'm okay with an executive of a given calibre getting a commensurate rate.

An example is my brother's former boss, who started his business in his parents' attic and retired a multi-millionaire (with emphasis on the 'multi').

He's precisely the sort of person that government should be bringing in at the top of the civil service - and when people complain that he's on a huge salary, point to the 'millions but he generates billions' reality.

Contrast that with the sell-offs of public utilities a few decades back, when anonymous civil servants were suddenly on huge salaries "because that's the market rate for someone of that seniority" - yes, the market rate for a successful individual with a proven track record.

Not everyone can afford to be altruistic. Were I financially comfortable enough to run a charity free, I probably would. The reality is that I have bills to pay, and I don't see why if I work hard - really hard - my only reward is a tiny flat above a chip shop.

As ever, it's about balance. Reward should match effort and I don't see an issue with that just because it's in a charity environment.

Just don't kick the árse out of it. For instance, I stopped supporting H4H when I saw how much the people at the top had unilaterally decided to pay themselves. Yes, the organisation was making money hand over fist and the people who originated it had a good idea, but...

...

The bit that's gripping me as much at the moment is the politicisation. The seemingly unilateral decisions from the top that organisations have to get Woke. The National Trust has a remit, and the current chief is stretching interpretation of that to the limit... which is a polite way of saying I feel that he's taking the píss. @Truxx nails it in the post you're responding to: it's become too much about egos.

I am glad you posted this.

A couple of months ago, I did a charity walk on behalf of a small organisation which helps the elderly (including some ex-Services people) in a far away land.

The founder of the charity, who is still the Chairman in his late 70s (he’s not slow to talk about his successful business and – briefly – political career) let slip that he “gets paid the same as an MP”.

I had assumed – in the several years I have been involved with it – that he donated his time, merely receiving expenses.

There is an audit committee, but several people close to him sit on it.

I am now hesitant about my future involvement and support.
 
1605104563196.png
 
Well this is an about turn - right winger ex vote leave lobbyist called in to de Wok the National Trust.
For a curry and a few pints I could give them a couple of pointers.
The National Trust has hired a lobbying firm run by a former Vote Leave executive to “de-woke-ify” the charity in an apparent admission that it needs to cool the political row surrounding its controversial colonialism and slavery report.
Hanbury Strategy - whose company motto is "The world is changing. We can help you understand it, navigate it, shape it" - is understood to have hired in recent weeks after the publication of the 115-page report in September.
The Trust hired the PR firm after its members condemned the study which implicated Winston Churchill.

The charity commission also raised concerns about it and ministers said in a Commons debate this month that the report had been "unfortunate" and "caused offence" and urged the Trust to focus on its "core functions".
Hanbury Strategy, a strategic advisory company, was co-founded four years ago by Paul Stephenson, a former communications director in the Vote Leave campaign, and Ameet Gill, director of strategy in 10 Downing Street when David Cameron was Prime Minister.
 

4(T)

LE
Well this is an about turn - right winger ex vote leave lobbyist called in to de Wok the National Trust.
For a curry and a few pints I could give them a couple of pointers.
The National Trust has hired a lobbying firm run by a former Vote Leave executive to “de-woke-ify” the charity in an apparent admission that it needs to cool the political row surrounding its controversial colonialism and slavery report.
Hanbury Strategy - whose company motto is "The world is changing. We can help you understand it, navigate it, shape it" - is understood to have hired in recent weeks after the publication of the 115-page report in September.
The Trust hired the PR firm after its members condemned the study which implicated Winston Churchill.

The charity commission also raised concerns about it and ministers said in a Commons debate this month that the report had been "unfortunate" and "caused offence" and urged the Trust to focus on its "core functions".
Hanbury Strategy, a strategic advisory company, was co-founded four years ago by Paul Stephenson, a former communications director in the Vote Leave campaign, and Ameet Gill, director of strategy in 10 Downing Street when David Cameron was Prime Minister.


IMHO this is simply about using PR and spin to try and recover some of the subscriptions damage. Expect to see more drivel about "balanced viewpoint" or "changing with the times", "sorry but not really sorry" etc.

As with any organisation, there is essentially zero chance of changing the belief system of a management team who are all part of the same cultural group think.

In the short term, the only thing that'll save the NT is for its entire board to be removed, and new ones appointed under a new and fairly stiff apolitical charter.

As this sort of malicious cultural revisionism is now endemic (universal, almost) across virtually every institution in the country, its overdue for government to form some sort of legislation that ring fences the nation's culture and heritage as it is seen by the overwhelming majority of the native population. Not that that will happen of course.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
IMHO this is simply about using PR and spin to try and recover some of the subscriptions damage. Expect to see more drivel about "balanced viewpoint" or "changing with the times", "sorry but not really sorry" etc.

As with any organisation, there is essentially zero chance of changing the belief system of a management team who are all part of the same cultural group think.

In the short term, the only thing that'll save the NT is for its entire board to be removed, and new ones appointed under a new and fairly stiff apolitical charter.

As this sort of malicious cultural revisionism is now endemic (universal, almost) across virtually every institution in the country, its overdue for government to form some sort of legislation that ring fences the nation's culture and heritage as it is seen by the overwhelming majority of the native population. Not that that will happen of course.
You don't see the pendulum swinging, then?
 

4(T)

LE
You don't see the pendulum swinging, then?


No, not really. Where will the impetus come from? The progressives who now run the NT (and most other institutions) are not open to debate or reflection, or sensitive to majority sentiment - they are part of a belief system in which their creed is "right", and any conflicting opinion is "wrong".

In the NT's case, I expect that they'll blame fall in revenues on C19, push out some glossy PR to pull the wool over the eyes of the prols - but won't be removing any of their leftist social commentary and displays from the properties in their trust. Given that there seems to be no oversight of public Trusts these days, I expect they'll make up any losses by flogging off a few assets (probably starting with the non-PC ones).


Taking a wider view, I don't see it as a cyclical or pendulum motion; the progressive "march through the institutions" has been underway for half a century or so, and its been a one-way street - not uncoincidentally directly correlated to the ongoing shift of UK's political base to the Big State/liberal-socialist left.

The "silent majority" are silent because they are thoroughly disenfranchised at the ballot box and without representation in the media, government or any public institution. In fact the "silent majority" are openly held to be the enemy of progressive change. and in need of cultural re-education.

Dunno. Perhaps if a new political party stand up on the right (actually the former "centre") and attracts enough support to split away the few remaining conservatives from the Tories, perhaps a leader will arise who seeks to represent the "c"onservative native population and Britain's great heritage. We can always dream on, I suppose.
 
IMHO this is simply about using PR and spin to try and recover some of the subscriptions damage. Expect to see more drivel about "balanced viewpoint" or "changing with the times", "sorry but not really sorry" etc.

As with any organisation, there is essentially zero chance of changing the belief system of a management team who are all part of the same cultural group think.

In the short term, the only thing that'll save the NT is for its entire board to be removed, and new ones appointed under a new and fairly stiff apolitical charter.

As this sort of malicious cultural revisionism is now endemic (universal, almost) across virtually every institution in the country, its overdue for government to form some sort of legislation that ring fences the nation's culture and heritage as it is seen by the overwhelming majority of the native population. Not that that will happen of course.
They could make a start by allowing field sports back on their vast acreages.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
No, not really. Where will the impetus come from? The progressives who now run the NT (and most other institutions) are not open to debate or reflection, or sensitive to majority sentiment - they are part of a belief system in which their creed is "right", and any conflicting opinion is "wrong".

In the NT's case, I expect that they'll blame fall in revenues on C19, push out some glossy PR to pull the wool over the eyes of the prols - but won't be removing any of their leftist social commentary and displays from the properties in their trust. Given that there seems to be no oversight of public Trusts these days, I expect they'll make up any losses by flogging off a few assets (probably starting with the non-PC ones).


Taking a wider view, I don't see it as a cyclical or pendulum motion; the progressive "march through the institutions" has been underway for half a century or so, and its been a one-way street - not uncoincidentally directly correlated to the ongoing shift of UK's political base to the Big State/liberal-socialist left.

The "silent majority" are silent because they are thoroughly disenfranchised at the ballot box and without representation in the media, government or any public institution. In fact the "silent majority" are openly held to be the enemy of progressive change. and in need of cultural re-education.

Dunno. Perhaps if a new political party stand up on the right (actually the former "centre") and attracts enough support to split away the few remaining conservatives from the Tories, perhaps a leader will arise who seeks to represent the "c"onservative native population and Britain's great heritage. We can always dream on, I suppose.
Don't underestimate the level of anger. As I've remarked on other threads, people are fed up to the back teeth of being told how awful they are. People are angry, and rightly so. They are not racist or sexist or Islamophobic or transphobic. They're just people.

The silent majority are not disenfranchised. They voted quite emphatically at the last election.

The NT's membership is collapsing. And here's a thing: our society does not need 'progressive' change. Not least because the change being suggested is not progressive. It's regressive and spiteful. It's controlling. People are stopping going not because they resist change. They're just fed up. Again, as with all things Woke, if this were being done on a commercial basis the man at the top would be out because he's failed.

The thing that the Tories need to do, urgently, is get Brexit out of the way and get past the next few months of this pandemic, and then start kicking very hard at the small core of idiots who are behind all this.
 

4(T)

LE
The thing that the Tories need to do, urgently, is get Brexit out of the way and get past the next few months of this pandemic, and then start kicking very hard at the small core of idiots who are behind all this.


I think that there are a lot of us who'd regard them as very much part of the problem. For all his pish and wind about Churchill, BJ hasn't made the slightest effort to stand up for the nation and its heritage - in fact the only tub-thumping we've had from him is green wokery.

I don't think its down to a small core of idiots either: this is more akin to a proselytising religious belief system, and it now dominates the entire public and not-for-profit sectors.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I think that there are a lot of us who'd regard them as very much part of the problem. For all his pish and wind about Churchill, BJ hasn't made the slightest effort to stand up for the nation and its heritage - in fact the only tub-thumping we've had from him is green wokery.

I don't think its down to a small core of idiots either: this is more akin to a proselytising religious belief system, and it now dominates the entire public and not-for-profit sectors.
They've certainly not been any part of the solution so far. But then Brexit and Covid are big time-consumers.

You're right, it's not a small core of idiots. But perhaps @Ortholith can hold forth about the education system.
 
I think that there are a lot of us who'd regard them as very much part of the problem. For all his pish and wind about Churchill, BJ hasn't made the slightest effort to stand up for the nation and its heritage - in fact the only tub-thumping we've had from him is green wokery.

I don't think its down to a small core of idiots either: this is more akin to a proselytising religious belief system, and it now dominates the entire public and not-for-profit sectors.
Indeed, Boris has been spectacularly disappointing and the mess surrounding him is not only embarrassing but worrying.

Certainly not the Churchill or Thatcher we desperately need.
 
That so many who one would think, could stand up and relatively safely face off the stupidity and dangers of 'woke' communist propaganda. Douglas Murray is rightfully angry in his observation that these children are tantrum like screaming and need to told to shut up sit down, rather than as they are now being enabled by adults.


Standing up is for some difficult and dangerous but as long the silent majority stays silent it will both continue and become more dangerous in affect.


grrrrl clip start midway rather the beginning its worth watching from the beginning.
 
Indeed, Boris has been spectacularly disappointing and the mess surrounding him is not only embarrassing but worrying.

Certainly not the Churchill or Thatcher we desperately need.
Oh no no. Churchill was apparently a racist and white supremacist, and Mrs Thatcher did untold damage to Labour supporting areas of the country.
Please choose your names from the approved Left Wing Rule Book.
 
Top