National Trust Pilot Scheme

[marra33]

I'm with you joonsey, lets take for example the lake district.
if lets say me and three friends are out walking, to all intents and purposes, it may look like the one in front is some sort of team leader lets call it, showing his friends some things, now if observed from a distance, someone MIGHT think that he is being employed as a team leader, and not a friend, so who would be the judge jury and executioner on that, who would be checking the license ?, where will the licensing stop, if they can police it for paid events, how long will it take for mission creep, and the honest dog walker has to pay a fee to walk up a hill ?
I do object to this sort of thing, I think it is completely and unjustly out of order, do they hike the prices up to stop undesirables, then before you know it, there are only rich people enjoying the great outdoors, nope not for me, this should be firmly nipped in the bud for me

 

[dwardo]

I see a protest where we all go for a walk and pay each other a quid, buy each other a butty en route?

 

[boatman]

Interesting linky

I agree that the National Trust doesn't go into the history of the estates before THE FAMILIES took over but I wasn't unaware of the enclosures and vagabondage etc. Nor should anybody else who had a decent history education. Years ago even Children's Hour on the radio would include the odd item, perhaps based on the old rhyme, "Hark, hark, the dogs do bark. The beggars are coming to town." If people are ignorant then it is the duty of the NT and schools and the BBC to educate them. Of course there are lessons learned by any receptive visitor who contrasts the starkness of servants' quarters with the opulence of the above stairs.

 

[Tomteifi]

The purpose of the National Trust is to *preserve* lands and buildings. Not necessarily to provide access. Don't get deceived.

Ah but, preserve them for whom?.........thieves in suits?

 

[Tommyd345]

They surely wouldn't be able to police this. The amount of people that visit these areas, it would take the fun out of it if you had to pass check points or something daft like that! Plus what's there to stop the 'paid instructor' just lying about it?

 

[Richard Francis Burton]

They surely wouldn't be able to police this. The amount of people that visit these areas, it would take the fun out of it if you had to pass check points or something daft like that! Plus what's there to stop the 'paid instructor' just lying about it?

How would they Police it.... with Cameras & Drones, and yes, with Checkpoints or such like. This is only just the beginning of a technological clamp-down. It wouldn't be too much trouble for them to facilitate containment... they have the desire & will to do so, they have unlimited funds of Fiat currency, they have the time, they have control of the Information through the mainstream to con people into believing this is the correct course of action.

They will police it... no problem.

 

[Richard Francis Burton]

I'll say this again... This is Agenda 21. The ultimate goal is prevention. Ultimately No-one will be going to the country side. It will all be closed off... and they'll use platforms of coercion to achieve it in the form of the propaganda of Climate Change, Health & Safety, Environmentalism to bull-dose it in the unsuspecting brains of the masses...

 

[Miniwhisk]

I think this should be strongly resisted. All livelihoods are already subject to income tax. National Trust is a charity and as such, should not effectively make 'contributions', mandatory. The trust will need to have it's 'charity' status removed; this is a serious shift of 'ownership'! They will then be required to pay commercial tax, as is appropriate to any other business. This means of course, that the 'trust', currently operating as the custodian of public land, automatically turns that land over to either 'government property' or, entrenches as franchise to government - not the public. Should that not be the case they would, legally, have no right to demand a 'License' fee.

 

[Wayne]

The cost will be an admin fee of £50-100 per activity plus 3% of the cost to the clients.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/outdoor-activity-licence-faqs

 

[Herbalist1]

The cost will be an admin fee of £50-100 per activity plus 3% of the cost to the clients.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/outdoor-activity-licence-faqs

This might not be an issue for companies or larger established businesses but will really penalise and discriminate against smaller operators/individuals. I can imagine taking someone out on a herb walk over NT land and charging a small fee for my time, travel expenses. It would be overly beuracratic to have to apply for a license for something I might do only occasionally and financially unsustainable to pay £50-100 for the privileged. This will really put a limit on people like me who are keen to share knowledge but don't want to be out of pocket (or need to make a little). We need to be able to help educate people to be able to enjoy the countryside in a responsible and sustainable way and this policy could put a real limit on many knowledgeable people's ability to do so!

on the whole I think the NT do a great job and because of them, we do have access to a lot of land that we wouldn't do if it was in private hands - most of it free of charge (excepting the houses and estates and car parks). I've had very good use out of NT membership and don't mind helping to support the maintenance of countryside through membership fees. Howevet I do think this particular scheme has been badly thought out and does represent the start of a slippery slope towards charging for access to the countryside. It's already happening in other ways. I used to live in Cumbria and throughout the Lake District there were loads of free county council car park where people could park up and get easy access to the countryside. Virtually all of these now charge - and a fairly hefty rates too unless you are planning to stop all day. For many, esp. those on low incomes, this must be a financial disincentive for getting out in the country which is very sad!

 

[Dave]

The cost will be an admin fee of £50-100 per activity plus 3% of the cost to the clients.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/outdoor-activity-licence-faqs

Thats outrageous. Start a petiton someone, quick! 38 degrees.

 

[Laurentius]

Interesting article on the BMC website...
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/national-trust-activity-licence-update

I expect we are going to see more of this sort of thing, have you seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-36030582

 

[Dave]

All this [and lots more] because banks were allowed to create too much debt without deposits, out of thin air. Nice.

 

[bearbait]

I find it difficult to understand how they feel they can charge some group if they are are on public rights of way, e.g. Public footpath or Bridleway. Similar if they are on any of their land that has been declared Open Access.

I can understand a charge, for example, in the grounds of a stately home where some of the facilities may be used by the event. But not, e.g. mountain walking training in open country miles from a loo!

It's also real snub to charities such as Help for Heroes and so on.

Slippery slope.

As Dave says 38 Degrees may be a good start.

And perhaps if thousands of NT members indicated their intention to turn up to the AGM it may give them some cause for concern?

Also events such as the mass tresspass on, I think, Kinder Scout that gave us plebs wide access to the countryside would be much easier to organise these days with the pervasive use of social media.

 

[Janne]

I wish England had a law similar to the Swedish ( Scandinavian) Allemans ratten. But then the people needs to be more respectful to the environment.
To charge for use of land is criminal.

 

[baileyrorys]

The unfortunate decline of governing body's ability to protect the needs of the people.

 

[Wayland]

The National Trust have been banning phototography on thier pay for entry sites for years.

Since then it has crept up to prohibiting commercial photography, which includes professional landscape photography, on thier land. ( Which didn't stop them trying to steal some of my work.)

Now we have this sort of proposal.

We are much further along than the thin end of the wedge.

 

[boatman]

I wish England had a law similar to the Swedish ( Scandinavian) Allemans ratten. But then the people needs to be more respectful to the environment.
To charge for use of land is criminal.

I agree on the Allemns ratten idea but the stinger in that comment is that people should be more respectful. The right to use and how it is used are two separate things. The opponents of freer access use the second point as part of their argument against, wrongly. As do some on this forum.

 

[Fadcode]

It is important to fight these moves that the NT intend to take, and also to ask why after all these years they intend to make these changes, it is also quite easy to stop them, for instance if they charge people to use the land, etc, then it would seem to me that they then become a commercial enterprise and as such should fall within the confines of employment law, eg.. they should stop using the goodwill of volunteers, and preservation groups, and pay ALL LAND WORKERS...............the minimum wage, and also afford them the same rights as other workers, pension, holiday entitlement etc..........otherwise we will have a situation where they have too much advantage over other establishments where a charge for entry is usually based on the cost incurred, stately homes etc.
One other point of ensuring their is both verbal and visible resistance to these plans, is that this resistance works, The Poll Tax................scrapped after protests, forcing all schools to become academies........scrapped..............................Doctors Agreements for 7 day NHS.................to be re-written, all because these people had the gumption to say, No this isn't right and fair.
The least we could do is to write to our MP and demand, and I do mean demand, that he/she does something about it.
The crux of this matter is that the hierarchy do not want you to be able to roam free, and possibly look over their fences, lean on their gates, spoil their view, i mean I live in Cornwall and the local council here as virtually banned the use of Laybys, car parks etc, for overnight stopping in a motorhome, in fact they would rather these campers stayed away from Cornwall, as they cause road bottlenecks, and they give Cornwall a bad name(I got this quote from a Councillor).
So if you are interested in living in a land where freedom to rove, and freedom to enjoy nature is important to you........Do something about it before its too late

 

[Rosemary7391]

The Lake District is a huge area.. surely they won't manage it due to sheer impracticality? I notice they don't suggest how it might be enforced. I don't see that it is their place to ensure appropriate insurance and risk management of events organised by other people - it'd be different if those people were trying to use the NT name to promote things as if they were involved, but until today I didn't realise they had control over such vast swathes of ground. Damage through overuse is a legitimate concern - but does that mean they'll try and stop people who are otherwise fully prepared to jump through whatever hoops?

This thread is a little old now - has anyone run across this in practice and can say how it's going?