13th December 2005, 02:10 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by kevin wooldridge
I think that some kind of accommodation should be reached between EH and the National Trust so that neither body duplicates the work of the other. Also that if they remain as two bodies, there should be a single membership scheme covering all sites and properties. Also that a more democratic system is introduced to appoint members to the board or commissions of each organisation.
Here, here! I would much rather that EH concentrated on its core role of protection and study of national heritage rather than promotion of events and scenic castles. In recent years, I have gained the distinct impression that EH has been mutating into a second-rate imitation of the NT; all tea rooms and castles, and seems to have lost interest in the more serious archaeological, planning and sustainability issues facing heritage in the UK.
On your other point, there is a democratic process for election to the board of the NT. You get yourself proposed by (not sure how many) other members and stand at the AGM. To be fair, it does seem to be dominated by extremists from either end of the conservation and countryside spectrum but I don't think that 'normal' people are excluded. EH on the other hand is a QUANGO and appoints who it likes.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the IFA