National Trust AGM

[PRAMtran]

I’ve received an email from the National Trust inviting me and all other members to vote in their AGM. Does anyone know if there are any things a woman’s rights advocate should vote for or against. Eg TWAW by stealth.

Yes, I transferred to a Scottish uni and took up Literature there - I remember it well. In fact one of my favourite, most memorable novels, as a result, is Memoirs and Confessions of a Justied Sinner' by James Hogg. Fantastic book.

Justified

Or me. Legitimate slavery connections would be fact(s) about the land/property owner(s) which forms part of the story, so no knees would jerk about this.

All you’ve argued, alongside others on your side is:

• Cos scones
• Want nice day out
• The problem is everywhere but I can’t actually name anywhere
• The source of a family’s wealth isn’t relevant to the history of a house
• Mention of slavery is being championed by people who also mention queer ergo I don’t like
• Want more ‘humour’ while discussing the deaths of 400,000 people, enslavement of of 3.1 million, rape etc.

Confirmation that you don't read posts and/or think everyone disagreeing with your dull, predictable opinions in any way is part of a hive mind and project your bias onto them.

I hope all the randoms using your gender neutral toilet aren't writing wrongthink graffiti on its walls.

You say you curated exhibitions - was that after you stopped recruiting people into media and marketing posts?

This poster worked in marketing? Lol. I wouldn't buy anything they were selling, unless I had some sort of masochistic need to be condescended to by mediocre thinkers.

Thanks all , I’ve found this thread very educational, I’ve cast my vote, after never before hearing of Restore Trust, I went on their website voted for their recommended candidates. I also voted against the quick vote option . Thanks again everyone who took the time .

This seems to be a very pertinent question.

Thanks for starting the thread. I didn’t know about the AGM or that Quick Vote issue, and wouldn’t have found out about it without this thread. Neither did DP who is now taking an interest, because of the governance issues with the handling of the AGM such as the failure to publish the annual report before opening the online vote.

Membership organisations should never take their members for granted so it’s good that a light is being shone on the governance issues.

Personally, I can’t say I was swayed by the DT article’s description of the RT candidates so I’ll be reading all of the candidates’ biogs and making my own mind up.

Just a note that this thread is now being picked over on the 'Chat' board.

'this thread showcases white mumsnet at its very worst'

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4877808-white-feminism?reply=128997674&utm_campaign=thread&utm_medium=share&utm_source=copylink

I don’t think that’s a good faith reading of this thread. You’re building up a cartoon villain.

In any case, any historical document, including historic monuments, usually allows multiple readings. I don’t mean this in a facile ‘good past vs. bad past’ way. Curators and historians can’t 100% control what visitors or readers take away with them. As I’ve said before, I don’t have strong views on the NT but it seems to me that introducing new material, relevant to current debates (e.g. on racism and legacies of slavery) is positive but handwringing over ignorant audiences will probably not result in the desired effect. And what is the desired effect anyway?

Sorry, this was a reply to GoT

Looking at the 5 candidates endorsed by the NT, 3 are standing for re-election so presumably have demonstrated whatever qualities the Trust is seeking (whether or not those qualities are the same as the ones advertised). One preferred candidate has only attended 11 out of 14 meetings (although maybe for good reason, we don’t know). It’s not immediately obvious why the other 2 preferred candidates have been selected to benefit from the Quick Vote option. Restore Trust say that the NT invite a shortlist of candidates to interview in person so maybe they impressed at this stage or offer skills in short supply on the current board. Jonathan Sumption, one of Restore Trust’s recommended candidates, was not invited for interview despite his hugely impressive legal career and experience of restoring historic properties so perhaps they ruled him out as a potential trouble maker.

How ridiculous to hoik up your judgy pants and go over to another thread to complain about this thread. Just because things aren't going your way.
Pathetic.

Thanks for the update OP. I’ve yet to receive my voting papers but I’ll give them a good read through when they arrive. I voted for some of the Restore Trust candidates last year. I find it hard to understand why some people with that experience aren’t snapped up by the NT. Edward Bulmer stood last year (he of the cider dynasty and now eco paint manufacturer and advisor on historic house restoration) yet the NT didn’t seem interested.
@FigRollsAlly from what I’ve heard you’d be right about Sumption!

The desired effect is to leave people with an accurate understanding of the history of the house. Not all will read or care, of course, but for those that do they will have a more accurate picture.

@GodessOfThunder

Admire your tenacity with this.

It's grim when historical accuracy is treated as some kind of malign, "agenda".

If it possible to have a career that encompasses more than one phase and role you know.

And heritage requires marketing, plus have you not noticed there’s quite a bit of history in the media - on the telly and in books, and often those books can relate to exhibitions?

I’ll take your attempt to rummage through my post history as a sign you’ve exhausted any actual argument.

I'm loving the double act here between GoT and DT. Never seen wuite so much cheerleading between two posters before

It's cute 😍

Why on earth the repeated hostility towards posters on this thread, though?

Why no discussion? Why no good faith disagreement? Instead, you report posts, run off and comment on other boards and smear posters on here.

repeated ad homs and 'gotchas' are not terribly convincing.

Think Maggie T said something about if they run out of arguments, they make it personal.

Aw c'mon. They won , remember.