The National Trust Are Bullies

[chrissa1]

[chrissa1]

If they are open to "talking" O_G. That remains to be seen.

[agchristie]

OG > Unless he knows something the rest of us don't the criticism seems rather over the top.

These are fiery and impassioned comments from Lord Bragg.He knows a lot of people and the area very well indeed.He will be privy to info we don't have.

It's going to be interesting to see how this develops..

[woofgang]

I really think that something is missing from this story.....I mean even the NT can’t just go tossing money around unnecessarily; also it doesn’t do its rep much good to be publicly castigated in this way. Its just odd......

[Gromit]

Surely if the land was being sold separately by the owner, and not with the farmhouse, then it is the fault of the owner that the farming tradition is being threatened.
No doubt the building is worth a fortune, and will be sold as a house rather than a working farm. I don't see how that is the fault of the NT.
At least by acquiring the land, the NT are ensuring it will be maintained when it ceases to be farmed.

[melv16]

I cancelled my membership with the NT when I found out they allowed deer hunting with hounds on their land.

[agchristie]

Lord Melv himself has spoken o:)

[chrissa1]

According to the article, the NT didn't want the house, just the land.

[jambutty]

I'm surprised at that melv, I thought they DIDN'T allow hunting on their land ..... ?

[woofgang]

no one does. Its now illegal. The do allow shooting and fishing.

[melv16]

This was some years ago on Dartmoor and Exmoor. The regulations must have changed.

[Gromit]

The Express report is not a proper article. Bragg had a letter published in the Times, and they have concocted an article out of it. Which is why we do not hear the National Trust's response.

[woofgang]

the law changed melv. Their position at the time was that they would not act in advance of a change in the law. It was the same in the New Forest. Hunting with hounds was not stopped until it became illegal. While I deprecated the attitude at the time, I can kind of see why. If you try and stop something that is not illegal is such a hot issue, as it was at the time, you will end up with legal challenges, disregard of your ban, the risk of violence etcetera with no legal or police support. Once the legal ban was enacted, its possible to say "its against the law, therefore we cannot allow it, no point taking legal action against us and if you do it, the law will be used against you"

[Gromit]

// Peter Nixon, the trust’s director of land, landscape and nature, defended the purchase in a letter in the Times. “The trust successfully bid for the land, based on external independent valuation, using its limited charitable funds to secure its permanent protection,” he wrote.

A spokesperson for the National Trust said there were no plans for “rewilding” the 300-acre site at the moment and it would continue to be farmed.

He said: “The land at Thorneythwaite will remain a farmed landscape, but we will consider carefully how we can best manage the land for nature, for the local community and visitors. We will be speaking to a wide range of stakeholders to understand the options and won’t be rushing into any immediate plans (ie it will still be a farm and we won’t be rewilding).

“We will be looking to continue the woodland restoration work commenced by the previous owners and their tenants. We will also explore how we may be able to use the land to slow the flow of the upper river Derwent, thereby contributing to the prevention of flooding downstream in communities such as Keswick and Cockermouth. This is an action included in the Cumbria Flood Partnership’s Action Plan. Many of the habitats, including the rare and important wood pastures, have been sustained with traditional grazing by the Herdwick flock, and that will be part of the management mix too.” //

[chrissa1]

Hmmm, Gromit. Only time will tell, I guess. However, it was a subject that was covered in our local BBC, Look North programme the other evening which I must say, didn't convince me.

[chrissa1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-37219512

[Mamyalynne]

Let's hope the Charity Commission looks at this carefully as they say they will.

[Old_Geezer]

A farmhouse sitting on land that the owner of the house doesn't own, seems a poor deal to me. Surprised it wasn't part of an indivisible lot. Did the NT threaten to not bid if forced to take it too ?

[Gromit]

I suppose a private owner can sell this how they like, in two lots. And can sell to whoever they like. It might help to know who the seller was and why they sold.

[Gromit]

Just found the property on RightMoves.

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-42434253.html#historyMarket

It went to auction either as one lot, the property and land, or split into two lots.
I wonder if this was the result of a bankruptcy. Seems odd that it was auctioned instead of a straight sale. I doubt there would be a problem selling it normally in such a saught after location.

[woofgang]

Reading between the lines there....if the house and land had been sold together, at auction, what would there have been to stop anybody wealthy enough bidding the price up beyond the reach of local farmers? The land access would have been lost to the community and still no guarantee that the Herdwicks would have been safe or the land farmed....instead there might have been a helicopter pad...an olympic sized swimming pool...you name it. I honestly cannot see the owner turning down a millionaire’s money because he won’t farm the land.
The newspaper article, and the discussion here both assume that if the NT hadn’t bought the land, it would have gone to a poor but deserving young farmer.....well on which planet?