Hot threads > [Soapbox]

The National Trust have launched an initiative to promote more vegetable growing in urban areas, using window sills.

It's a great idea, but is this what the National Trust is really for or just another example of the urbanisation of outdoor bodies, similar to the way in which The Ramblers has closed down its Scotland office while massively supporting the expansion of schemes for urban residents?

?

growing stuff in a window box and closing an office down; not quite a comparison.

Dave, I think you have a point there.

The crux of the matter is when organisations get involved in no doubt worthy schemes outside of their normal remit, and then turn around pleading poverty. In the case of the Ramblers there have been various walking for health schemes and lots of encouragement for local groups to lead shorter walks so that people outside of the normal catchment area of members get to join. That's all fine, but not when the finances appear to be in such a perilous state that a recession kicking in within a year causes them to close down the Welsh and Scottish offices and lay off staff with key skills to the overall organisation.

Being a member of the NT as well, I also have an interest in what they do. So why are the NT involved in this scheme, where is the direct value for the NT and what does it mean for the finances?

should the NT be promoting walking? in "urban" areas?

how may urban footpaths are there that are constantly under threat and should these be preserved and what's the best way of preserving them? how are "country" footpaths managed?

would promoting urban footpaths get people out walking? would they then like to go somewhere else to walk? nah! crap idea so don't bother.

will growing something in a window box make someone appreciate plants more? where could they go to look at plants? an NT property? whilst looking at the NT site would people look at other things on their site and find things to do? nah! crap idea. don't bother.

is "outdoors" confined to non-urban areas or anywhere outside of home?

Parky,

I think you've misunderstood. I am drawing parallels between the Ramblers lack of money and those schemes - outside of their financial remit as far as I am concerned - in which they have been involved and the NT, which it could be said may be in danger of doing something similar.

So, in your own language, it is a crap idea (as someone who partially funds these organisations through my membership) if getting involved in something outside of the group's remit means you have to cut part of the heart out of your organisation. I hope the NT is not in danger of doing this and then coming back cap in hand saying they've oops! overspent.

Dave Mycroft wrote (see)

It's the way major organisations like the NT and The Ramblers are becoming more urban based and more urbancentric (especially London). I was under the impression these organisations were there to protect our countryside and access to it, not how to improve life for city dwellers.

mick dray wrote (see)

Dave Mycroft wrote (see)

It's the way major organisations like the NT and The Ramblers are becoming more urban based and more urbancentric (especially London). I was under the impression these organisations were there to protect our countryside and access to it, not how to improve life for city dwellers.

No INCOMERS in OUR countryside then

Mick, I think they're in London for ease of communication with Westminster. The ideal place for the whole of England would surely be somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham?

As access and conservation is a devolved matter for Scotland closing the Scottish office removes the Ramblers from being close to the government.

As to the NT's window boxes I guess they're okay as long as they don't detract from more important issues. As far as I know the National Trust for Scotland, a completely separate organisation, hasn't suggested this. The NTS does have the same tensions between its wild land work and its stately homes/buildings work.

but just what is NT's remit?

should they not do anything that may increase membership and thus funding?

sticking a few pages on their web site and promoting it a bit is hardly a ruinous financial advertising campaign which has nothing to with them. or has getting people to visit their site have something to do with the remit? how do you get new people to visit your site? people who don't know who you are? what you do?

how do they promote their properties, the ones that cost joe public nothing directly and those that do. promote walks.  outside of remit? wasting money?

"expensive offices hundreds of miles from the nearest wilderness." eh? how far from a footpath? how far from a thousand miles of footpath? or is "outdoors" confined to "wilderness"? can nothing operate unless there is an office next to it?

conservation applies everywhere doesn't it? 

I would suggest that the main thrust of Ramblers campaigning in recent years has been for access legislation. The Ramblers Association was set up as a campaigning organisation indirectly as the result of the mass trespass in Derbyshire. There are footpaths and routes in most places, but those generally regarded as in need of assistance or support from the RA generally tend to be unpaved; the density of such areas is much higher outside of London. It does seem peculiar to have an office so removed from such areas, and particularly peculiar to continue to maintain that office when it may be better suited (both financially and functionally) elsewhere. Most of these things don't tend to irritate quite so much until there is a shortage of funding and so the Scottish office gets the chop.

Until a few years ago I had the slightly misguided thought that the NT was a group set up to ensure the aristocracy could continue to live in their houses when their rubber plantations ran out of money. This was somewhat based on visiting such places as Plas Newyyd. Then we visited The Giant's Causeway, the penny dropped and we joined up there and then.

Membership of these organisations is not for everyone, but when one is a member one takes particular interest in how the money is being spent. Mainly this is spent in amazingly cool ways with lots of big heared volunteers at the centre of it.

The National Trust sort of states its remit on its website here:

We work to preserve and protect the buildings, countryside and coastline of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in a range of ways, through practical conservation, learning and discovery, and encouraging everyone to visit and enjoy their national heritage.

But it doesn't stop there.

We also educate people about the importance of the environment and of preserving our heritage for future generations, we contribute to important debates over the future of the economy, the development of people’s skills and sense of community, and the quality of the local environment in both town and country.

They do go on - as pointed out by Parky - to say:

In order to survive as a charity, we constantly have to look at new ways of inspiring supporters and visitors, to ensure that our vital work continues in protecting our heritage for future generations.

However I would say that an organisation has to stay within its stated aims, and that in the case of the RA they seem to be actively trying to increase membership at any cost.

I'm now way way off topic! Thanks Dave for raising it and Parky for the debate. Suffice to say, I bow to Chris' presence [totally bowed, Blackadder style, and backing out of the room]

are the RA london offices expensive? does anyone know how much the RA london offices cost and how many staff they have and would it be cheaper to site them elsewhere? probably in the long term but short term?

back to the NT. they do inspiring and much experimental work in changing/preserving habitat which impresses me a lot as no one else would do it and they are under no pressure to bow to perceived wisdom.  cheap long term "scientific" investigation that benefits everyone.

> should the NT be promoting walking? in "urban" areas?

I'd prefer to see the NT stick to its remit of looking after properties and land that have been entrusted to its care.  Not to give free rein to every pet scheme of every Jocelyn and Jeremy on NT's board...

Now if the NT are using these schemes to increase donations and membership, then maybe that's okay.  But how are they going to determine if they're cost-effective?  The same question could be asked about any publicity activity, I guess...

> The National Trust sort of states its remit on its website

It would be interesting to compare those statements with NT's charter...  They may well be identical; I don't know.

they do capt. and they encourage people to go walking in them. no other way to enjoy the spaces i guess.

are the schemes cost-effective? only one way to find out. some will be and some won't be. can't pick a winner every time. if the overall result is a winner then what they're doing is a winner.

lol. i've got a lot to say for someone who isn't a member of the NT. too expensive and car-centric.

I'm a member of the NT because of the land in their care that I use; I rarely visit properties unless when visiting M&D.

I'm not sure about the car-centric bit.  Unless they start running their own public transport system, I'm not sure how they are expected to be less car-centric.  Adopting only properties near existing public transport links?