- I consider the National Trust is compromised by central funding.

- The NT have achieved a great deal on behalf of our nation but do need to take stock of its current position relative to the UK's whole population.Whether theough finance or obstruction a significant wedge of our population have been excluded "for ever,for many".

Says Steve Yandall

I consider the National Trust is also compromised by central funding.

"For ever for everyone" or some such wording is carried by this charity but is this,in effect,what is achieved?

1. fencing/grazing and exclusion has followed the HLS 'gold rush'.
2. holiday accomodation and heritage attractions are beyond the means of "everyone".
3. Carn Galva(Cornwall) was neglected by the NT to the extent that Peter Bowden of Natural

England called it "criminal".ESA funding had been provided over previous decades but the area had been biologically depleted and neglected.Despite this former neglect the NT was eligible for HLS on behalf of its tenant.Where did the opportunities provided by ESA go?Had Carn Galva been invested in as a part of NT's bio obligations would fencing be necessary?If historic receipt of public support is not followed by visible benefit then how is current and future support to be accounted for.

My point?

From Natural England's 'birth' in 2006 no accountability for ESA failures has been established despite this being public money and NE being publicly funded.Could it be that the failure of ESA was needed to justify HLS?

In no public document we(Save Penwith Moors) have seen is there any reference to the failure of existing schemes being caused by lack of central monitoring or enforcement which would,of course,require an admission of failure of both administrator and recipient!

We instead found public erosion etc used as justification.

Every organisation involved KNOWS that the key feature that would support greater access is enhanced parking.I have found NO examples in my area of any parking improvements but have found plenty of evidence of fencing and cattle restricting access.Neither have I found,contrary to dictat and law,evidence of "being aware of the disabled".

Look however toward the facilities provided to "everyone" to access heritage sites where door payments are required!

Quite a contrast of approach I would suggest and symptomatic of business not a charitable approach.

I finish by making it clear that the NT have achieved a great deal on behalf of our nation but do need to take stock of its current position relative to the UK's whole population.Whether theough finance or obstruction a significant wedge of our population have been excluded "for ever,for many".