![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nineveh_ukIf you're a National Trust member, don't forget to vote by the deadline of 28 October. If, like me, you never used to think it mattered that much, things have changed - now it really does, as private lobby groups attempt to gain influence under the fig leaf of pushing back at "woke" policies (which actually have widespread member and visitor support).
The AGM information booklet is large and comprehensive, and you can read details statements by all candidates and vote on them individually. If you don't have time for this, there is also a 'Quick Vote' option for a slate recommended by the Board, for candidates and AGM resolutions. Having read the whole booklet, I decided to do that. While other candidates might have been potentially interesting, and in other years I could have spent more time looking into them and considering whether to give one or two a vote, this year that was not my priority. I felt happy with the recommended candidates and felt that in this case my priority was in maximising the vote for the Council-recommended slate, in favour of bunch of people who were definitely not interested in covering up the crimes of the British Empire, in favour of workplace discrimination, climate change denialists, or generally supported by a shady lobby organisation getting a lot of free advertising from the Telegraph despite representing 0.1% of members. That said, some people will want to look more at the candidates not recommended by either group, to ensure they vote in line with their own priorities, and I support everyone who does that. Just before you vote for anyone not on the slate I do recommend due diligence and searching out more info about them. E.g. make sure they aren't fundamentalist Christians opposed to criminalising marital rape (Stephen Green), which funnily enough you won't find in his candidate statement.
More info on the efforts of deeply shady lobby group "Restore Trust" to hide the source of their own funding, misrepresent National Trust activity and policies, and take over the organisation despite representing only a minute proportion of members. They aren't interesting in restoring anything but the nineteenth century, and just where does their money come from? They certainly aren't telling you. For an organisation that claims to want transparency to choose not to file its accounts is an interesting statement.
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/21/national-trust-members-get-ready-to-choke-on-your-carrot-cake
- https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/national-trust-hits-back-paid-for-campaign-influence-its-governance/governance/article/1796749
- https://leftfootforward.org/2021/10/who-exactly-are-restore-trust-the-anti-woke-campaign-group-targeting-the-national-trust/
The AGM information booklet is large and comprehensive, and you can read details statements by all candidates and vote on them individually. If you don't have time for this, there is also a 'Quick Vote' option for a slate recommended by the Board, for candidates and AGM resolutions. Having read the whole booklet, I decided to do that. While other candidates might have been potentially interesting, and in other years I could have spent more time looking into them and considering whether to give one or two a vote, this year that was not my priority. I felt happy with the recommended candidates and felt that in this case my priority was in maximising the vote for the Council-recommended slate, in favour of bunch of people who were definitely not interested in covering up the crimes of the British Empire, in favour of workplace discrimination, climate change denialists, or generally supported by a shady lobby organisation getting a lot of free advertising from the Telegraph despite representing 0.1% of members. That said, some people will want to look more at the candidates not recommended by either group, to ensure they vote in line with their own priorities, and I support everyone who does that. Just before you vote for anyone not on the slate I do recommend due diligence and searching out more info about them. E.g. make sure they aren't fundamentalist Christians opposed to criminalising marital rape (Stephen Green), which funnily enough you won't find in his candidate statement.
More info on the efforts of deeply shady lobby group "Restore Trust" to hide the source of their own funding, misrepresent National Trust activity and policies, and take over the organisation despite representing only a minute proportion of members. They aren't interesting in restoring anything but the nineteenth century, and just where does their money come from? They certainly aren't telling you. For an organisation that claims to want transparency to choose not to file its accounts is an interesting statement.
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/21/national-trust-members-get-ready-to-choke-on-your-carrot-cake
- https://www.thirdsector.co.uk/national-trust-hits-back-paid-for-campaign-influence-its-governance/governance/article/1796749
- https://leftfootforward.org/2021/10/who-exactly-are-restore-trust-the-anti-woke-campaign-group-targeting-the-national-trust/
(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-25 03:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-25 06:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-25 11:51 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 09:05 am (UTC)And as for going back to the nineteenth century, I think the founders would have skorned them utterly: viz: Octavia Hill: 'New circumstances require various efforts, and it is the spirit, not the dead form that should be perpetuated'. (Bless.)
(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:27 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 09:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:32 pm (UTC)I did see the RSPB tweets - a clear response indeed.
(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:01 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 05:31 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2022-09-26 07:44 pm (UTC)