So some of you may recall a couple of posts about tenders and Studland beach. I have just received what would appear to be the National Trust's final word on the matter. In short, the answer seems to be "we can't be bothered talking to you any more, and anyway, it's up to us what we do".
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
The good thing about them is that they have no arrogance.
I wouldn't put money in their coffers. How do they end up with what appear to be almost statutory powers. Guardians of Britains heritage - I don't think so.
Seeing as they're so co-operative, perhaps everyone should stop paying the fees to anchor in Newtown creek - seeing as they have no statutory right to collect fees (unless you're using their buoys)?
Don't know if you saw a series about the NT a while back, at least one episode of which was devoted to Studland and which ended with the then person responsible for the area leaving (for New Zealand, I think!). He was, let's say, rather lacking in interpersonal skills and it sounds as if things haven't improved much since he left................
"Unfortunately I feel that it is not prudent of my time to reply to all your points raised."
"I am afraid the list of possible offences and occasions is too long to note as with up to a million visitors per year all sorts of incidents occur that have to be taken on a case by case basis."
"As I am sure you are aware from the media anti social behaviour comes in many guises nowadays."
"I feel that the need for access to land for people does not extend to vehicles/boats being invited on which would devalue natutral areas greatly."
So, they have unwritten rules that they can't be bothered to explain and which they enforce arbitrarily, they infer that I am guily of anti-social behavour, and don't believe I have any right to be there if I arrive from the sea. Nice. I have responded, and cc'd the Director General of the NT.
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
Location: Porthmadog / Jawhara Smir / Port Leucate
Posts: 7,397
Re: Furious! NT response
Well Wiggo, I thought of you only yesterday when I pulled up at a motorway services. As usual, I was pounced upon by some girl trying to flog me credit cards that were issued by MBNA but the affinity holder was....NT.
"Would you like to help the NT? - all you need to do is sign up for this card and every purchase you make"NO...At this point, I stated my dislike of the arrogant NT and in my best Basil Faulty, went off on one, and the poor girl didn't know where to put herself. Good for a laugh! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]
If I may digress a little, I was on Studland for BH and was told NT had banned BBQs even in the BBQ area. You are only to use a BBQ after 1800 hrs in the BBQ area.
Not sure if this is a 'Law' but we didnt take any notice, the tender was on the beach and we made loads of smoke !
Dave, they aren't even civil servants. The organisation's a bloody charity. The public's donations pay these jobsworths to dictate how, where and when we can access land that was entrusted to them.
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
Actually the NT and its management has been one of my bugbears for a very long time. The NT is actually a registed charity with no democratic control or accountability.
The Governance Structure is or will be soon
A small Board of Trustees made up of about 12 members with the very best balance of skills and expertise. It will be responsible for the running of the charity and for making sure that the organisation works as well as possible to deliver its core purposes. The majority of the Board of Trustees will also be Council members.
A strong, representative Council which will appoint the trustees and make sure they discharge their responsibilities properly. As now, the Council will be made up of 52 members, 26 elected by the members of the National Trust and 26 appointed by organisations whose interests coincide in some way with those of the National Trust.
I feel such a huge organisation purporting to serve the public interest should have a more open and democratically accountable management structure.
I think you should get an ASBO just think of the damage your dinghy could cause if one of the naturist got his dick round yer prop, and I dread to think what might happen if some woman fell on yer anchor. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
Well, I'm going to put my head above the parapet and say that I think that the NT does an excellent job. Just look at the size of its "estate" and ask yourselves why so many people have been prepared to hand over/bequeath their properties for the enjoyment of us all. As was said earlier "For everyone, for ever"; it's not just there to indulge a few boaters.
The rules are no different from the "No picnicing" rules which they understandably have in most of the inland sites. There are many beaches in the Poole area, and you've got boats to get there. Why not?
Exit, stage left, waiting to be flamed! [img]/forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]
Ah, well, Joe. The same jobsworth actually went the extra mile, and pointed out that I wasn't welcome by boat on any of the Poole or Bournemouth beaches either. I'm sure they do an excellent job overall, but the Studland lot seem to be particularly zealous, shall we say. Have you read of some of their rather heavy handed tactics with the naturists? See here for a bit of the history. Even the Dorset Police have stopped supporting the NT...
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
I haven't read about the nudist problems; it doesn't really interest me what a few so called naturists get up to. I just think that moaning about the NT all the time is a bit OTT. There's plenty of places to go to in a boat; boating doesn't end at Studland!
With all due respect, Joe, I'm not particularly interested in the naturists' problems per se either, but it seems that our dearly beloved NT has decided to take what has historically been a large area of outstanding beauty (which is why we go there, funnily enough) that has enjoyed unrestricted public access, and systematically tried to enforce its own form of political correctness.
No-one's "moaning about the NT all the time". I tried to get a straight answer out of them and have been given a string of confusing and conflicting information, and then told that they were no longer interested in discussing the matter.
Yes, there are plenty of other places to go in a boat, but if this attitude is allowed to take over, all we'll bloody well be able to do is look at them from below MLWS!
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
The problem with Studland is that it is so popular. That's why they have to attempt to control things, otherwise the place becomes overrun. It may not be popular with some interest groups but it has to be done.
It's quite likely that the letter you've had was designed to say exactly what you have read into it. (i.e. "**ss off"; but they can't put it like that!) They don't agree with you, and they don't want to spend more time on the matter. Sorry, but in some ways I can understand their position.
Why not organise a mass "invasion" of studland beach from the sea. Say 500 Mobos and yachts all anchored just off the beach then all go ashore in their tenders - can't arrest saw 1500~2000 people can they?
---------- "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
__________________ Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
Why do you need to go to a beach for a BBQ, you have a lovely boat with a nice dining area, if you had a cuddy perhaps so.
Are you saying that you lug all that kit around on your boat (beds, galley, heads) for for nothing then want to go out and stink out other members of the public by BBQing on the beach and peeing in the sea for your self gratification? I am an NT member and have to pay to clean up your mess and rubbish you no doubt leave. Why not have a communal BBQ area on your boat and let all and sundry use it and abuse it as and when they wish and see how you would feel, same principle really.
Not sure on that one. Anyway, she did offer to send me a copy of the byelaws, but wouldn't answer questions such as "What constitutes an offence?" or "What is the definition of a 'conveyance'?" ('Conveyances' are excluded from National Trust land, it seems).
The naturists have been fighting the NT since the early 80's, when they took over the land. The naturist area has been dramatically reduced in size, and at one stage the NT were using the local police to harass the naturists into submission. In the end, the Divisional Superintendent of Dorset Police said they "will no longer be used as 'National Trust Puppets' (his exact words!)"
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
Errm, actually I didn't go to the beach at all, that was someone else, but as you replied to one of my posts, here we go...
We don't BBQ on board, on the grounds that (IMHO) it's criminally dangerous (have you seen how GRP burns?). To be honest, we hadn't thought of BBQing in the heads or beds either (not sure if you'd light a BBQ in the bog at home, would you?). We 'lug all that kit around' because we use it extensively (more than 100 days aboard last year).
We do BBQ on the beach, and either dispose of the remains in the bins provided, or bag it and take it back to the boat.
We don't 'pee in the sea' for our or anyone else's gratification, as we have a holding tank.
Perhaps you may like to think before posting, next time?
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
cliff that would be any normal sunny weekend in August then!
I haven't experienced any problems taking the dingy in to the Southern most beach yet, which is the least family sunbathing orientated one, but can understand the potential issue if all the boats normally anchored there decided to shift over to the more touristy beaches and plonk a tender in the middle.
re the comment about 'go somewhere else' in practice the only places to land families from small craft are either owned by the NT - Brownsea, Shell Bay and Studland or the main Poole / Bournemouth beaches. Compared to the Solent we have quiet a lot of good places really but the NT does have a very large proportion!
Makes two of us Haydn. I feel exactly the same. A lot of these jumped up tin hitlers need sorting out big time and made to remember that we actually pay their wages.
But they are not Public Servants, and 'we' don't pay their wages. Actually I do cos I'm a member, but many people seem unaware they are independent of government, and are a charity, and don't have a duty to the general public
It dont make any difference. There all in a position of authority, without any comercial restraint. I've seen it all the way up from the local British legion club comittee, to Tony Blure. With few exceptions, there all folk who failed, or gave up before they started, in the real world. So picked Politics, Charities, or even Scout Master, inorder to persue there chosen perversions. Usually the control of others, with little or no restraint, aided and abetted by there cronies in this new Beurocratic ecconomy based on control. Speed cameras, Trafic Wardens, thought police. None of it voted for, none of them accountable.
They are self procreating. First create more rules/ laws. Then employ more folks to enforce them with zellous behaviour. Loose money, invent more rules/laws to keep there heads above water and so it permitates the whole of society. Health and safety turned me into a jibbering wreck, how many others gave up on british industrie. Move into other areas and it's not long before all the parasites are there again, all hell bent on control.
Left to natural selection, if a road gets to busy, to many parked cars. Folk move to some place else. Same with the beach, you find a clear spot or eventualy stop going and find another place. Trouble is now, nearly every where is controled.
I gave up on Windermere years ago because of NT and there Stalinistic control, looks like there now fighting over the rest of the country with the other slothes.
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
I quite like the way that the NT run most of their properties, and it balances protection with public access, and I've visited many of them. Studland is a bit unusual in their portfolio.
What problems did you have with National Trust in Windermere? I thought most of the issues there were due to other bodies
You used to be able to drive round Windermere, take a picnic, drive off the road into the trees by the lake. Every one spread out, so no one bothering each other. Then they invented WARDENS and put piles of earth between all the trees and forced folk to the PAY AND DISPLAY car park. This created a CROWD, so many more money making and CONTROL situations were created. Every one herded into conrol areas. Think the final nail in the coffin was. We took the dog to an island for a pee. But he swam to a deserted shore. We went to collect him in the dinghy and were emmediatly accosted by a warden for £2 quid. Dont sound much now. But who wants the interference or the contol.
What I like about France is the councils seems to be there fore the people. Hanging baskets, nearly no yellow lines, less absollutly necessary.
It's not as though the beaurocracy of whatever persuasion is actually achiveing anything. Nor does it want to.Why not ban junk mail? No it preferse to charge house holder £1000 for putting it in the wrong bin!
Drive down an autoban, theres picnick areas, small filling stations. Hamburger joints and cafe's. All free to come and go. Here your hearded from one beaurocratic zone to the next. M6 control, Services contol, NT Windermere CONTROL!!
Do you want me to go on???
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
Difference is that France is much bigger than UK, with similar size population, so much less problems with density of population on the whole, with a different approach to EU regulations
I can see the NT approach in Windermere. Their job is to preserve the properties they own, and control of environmental damage is one of the things they have to consider.
That's why in Lake District, there are 'motorways' up Hellveyn and the like, as erosion due to so many walkers was damaging surrounding areas. If it had been left without any work, the damage would have been considerable. You have to face the fact that Lake District is popular. In many ways too popular, and too many people want to go there.
Other places have introduced similar measures. Many national parks try to encourage people not to drive in, and to use public transport etc. Many other countries have similar schemes. Even in places like Alaska, where when I went to one national park, you have to book months in advance, and the controls are strict. All to try and preserve the place so it continues to sustain the environent that makes it look so attractive now
No I think there preseving there own existance and presevation. Not sure they give a toss about the county. (us) But course they believe they are, cos there steaped in there own propaganda.
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
environmental damage at many NT and national park properties is an issue, whether you like it or not, and it's part of their responsibility to manage it.
Can't see how this equates to tenders at Studland though, as this is not an environmental damage issue.
I strongly object to this inclusion. Scout Leaders (they have not been called Scout Masters for 30 years)are not in the same category, they are not paid and their role in youth work is completely different to the others included in these postings.
The NT have the right to charge admission to property in their care however, and I am sure someone will correct me on this one, I always understood the shore between MLWS and MHWS was Crown property and the adjacent land "owners", or should one say "carers" as in the case of the NT, had no jurisdiction on this inter-tidal zone. If this is the case, provided you did not cross the MHWS line the NT would have no jurisdiction over you whatsoever. Bearing in mind the laws up here in God's country are different from those south of the border in England and Wales (or even Cornwall).
---------- "Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
__________________ Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
I'm not sure what incident was in the original post but have my own views re the NT and Srudland from way back when the land was handed over to them from the Bankes Estste. The NT tried charging us then 50p I think to land with a dinghy - they were told a few home truths then by quite a few folks. Next they built carparks where none previously existed, so more and more people arrived in their cars and not surprisingly walked the walk up to Old Harry. The NT said all those visitors they were now getting were damaging the footpaths so they widened them and reinforced bits, cutting away the natural hedges in the process and spoiling IMO part of the natural beauty.
Similar result too in North Wales where as a yoof I used to mountain walk/climb, the paths were getting worn. Paths were wearing for centuries, that is how they were made. So what if bits crumbled and new route arounds were made - that is natural progression in my view. Otherwise just take a few pics and ban visitors.
__________________ Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!
Thats my point, whether it be Windermere Wales, Studland and no matter which beaurocratic body. Firstly they restrict access, then parking, till they have herded every one into a controlable area.
Thats of course why they dont want boats or dinghys, They are to free and difficult to regiment them into the overall master plan, whatever this maybe.
Suppose it's why most of us bought boats in the first place. To get away from the ever pervading encrochement of officialdom.
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
Obviously the metaphor is lost on you. Of course it is and the NT has decided that it's also not for inflatables. All this fuss about "thin edge of the wedge" etc is ridiculous. The NT has every right to manage the properties which are in its care as it sees fit. People can go elswhere if they don't like it.
Ang on a minute. Int NT supposed to mean, in trust for the nation. I might be nieve but I thort that was us?? We are now hearded about like sheep, it what I thought was our green and pleasant land. Or should that read. Green and Peasant land. [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]
__________________
No one can force me to come here. I'm a volunteer!!.
It is for us; all of us, not just boaters. The NT is trying to manage things for as many people as possible not just particular interest groups. Personally I think they do an excellent job.
Your arguement is the same one the travellers used when they wanted to do just as they wished at Stonehenge a few years ago. (I know Stonehenge isn't NT property, but the point remains).
I actually live very near Stonehenge .. and the whole thing has been a dreadful case of mismanagement and inappropriate objectives by both the NT and English Heritage for the last 20 yrs. Not a good example.
And there I was thinking you were from somewhere North of Watford. Now you tell us that you're a druid!
In some ways I agree with you about the place, but the problem is that it has become swamped by visitors. The new visitor centre was not the best planned thing and having to use both sides of the road is a planning nightmare. Now that the proposed road tunnel has been stopped it's difficult to see what they will do.
However, I wasn't saying that Stonehenge was a good example of management. I was simply pointing out that the travellers were pillocks; and I hope that you wouldn't blame either NT or English Heritage for them.
Well get going then. Real Romany gypsies are wonderful fun and can put their horse drawn caravans on my property for as long as they want to stay!
I don't usually buy lucky heather from those delightful ladies and children in the street though, as I've my own collection of extremely rare heathers I've personally dug up from barren heathlands, and transported here to the care of my garden.
I remember as a kid we were travelling through Romania. Following my dads job through E. Europe. Anyhow, we pulled over to the side of the road so my mum could take some photographs of Real Romany gypsies!
For payment to them, she turned around to me in the back and took my bag of sweets giving them to the kids. I have never forgiven her or them for this atrocious action, nor my sister who would not then share her sweets with me, as she said 'no, you had some of your own!' (she has not changed much [img]/forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img])
As always there are some photographs!
If they move to your back garden, remind them they owe me some sweets!
Good try, Cliff. Turns out the NT also owns the foreshore, all the way down to MLWS. Which, given how shallowly Studland shelves, is a bloody long way out...
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
[ QUOTE ]
It is for us; all of us, not just boaters. The NT is trying to manage things for as many people as possible not just particular interest groups. Personally I think they do an excellent job.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hit the nail squarely on the head, there, Joe. Although I suspect by accident. Yes, indeed, it is for all of us, not just boaters. Except they seem to think it's for everyone except boaters. That's what gets my goat...
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
Don't know exactly as never been involved but don't most of these "bequests" come about as a response to death / inheritance tax and a means for a family to retain a home albeit with restrictions on their former freedoms and the need to accept "visitors".
Recent TV prog had a property on their that they had taken over as family could not pay taxes and NT was a way of staying "in residence".
Would be a little surprised if they all left property to NT as they were so good? I used to be a member and found the organisation was on occasion blooming awful.
P
[ QUOTE ]
......Except they seem to think it's for everyone except boaters. That's what gets my goat...
[/ QUOTE ]
No, boaters are allowed, they just can't have their boat with them. Just like drivers aren't allowed to have their cars with them.
The numbers of boats on some of the more popular beaches is starting to take over and I think there will be more restrictions soon if it carries on, they are in danger of pushing out other beach users. I went to Mudeford, on the seaward side, on bank holiday monday (by ferry - left the boat in Christchurch) and was hard pushed to find a place to swim safely because of the number of boats.
The small beach at Yarmouth has the right idea. Part of the beach is roped off and out in the water for about 100 yards and boats can land on a seperate section of the beach. I personally don't think boats and swimmers should share the same area under any circumstances - there are too many irresponsible people in both groups.
__________________ Warning - Internet forums may contain nuts
[ QUOTE ]
No, boaters are allowed, they just can't have their boat with them. Just like drivers aren't allowed to have their cars with them.
[/ QUOTE ]
'cept the NT provides car parks for the motorsist, but no tender parking area. And I agree, boats and swimmers don't mix, which is why there's a 6 knot limit within 300m of the beach, and an area where boats are totally banned.
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
[ QUOTE ]
[...'cept the NT provides car parks for the motorsist, but no tender parking area...
[/ QUOTE ]
So if you want to go to Studland, go in your car. If you are in your boat, go somewhere else. Newtown for instance - there's no public car park there. You can't go everywhere you want, there are always going to be restrictions and there are a lot of places you can go in a boat that are difficult to get to any other way.
I don't understand this umbilical to a boat, it seems a bit like the people who picnic next to thier car in the car park instead of walking a few hundred yards to get somewhere much more pleasant.
__________________ Warning - Internet forums may contain nuts
[ QUOTE ]
So if you want to go to Studland, go in your car. If you are in your boat, go somewhere else. Newtown for instance - there's no public car park there.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's no landing there by tender, either. Guess what? It's National Trust land...
So, given that we own a boat, and would rather go places by boat than car, would you care to suggest a sandy beach that I can take my children to by tender?
Studland's out, Poole harbour is out, Bournemouth is out. Mudeford may or may not be out, I'm not sure. Can anyone tell me the status of Ryde? Bembridge? Whitecliff Bay? East Head (think that one's NT, too, isn't it)?
There's no 'umbilical to the boat'. I just don't see why the NT should use land designated an SSSI to build a car park on, then exclude a subset of those who don't arrive by car.
__________________
The nicest thing about not planning is that failure comes as a complete surprise, and is not preceded by a period of worry and doubt.
<span style="color:blue"> Nereid Charter
</span>
[ QUOTE ]
There's no landing there by tender, either. Guess what? It's National Trust land...
[/ QUOTE ]
The only place with any restriction at Newtown is the Eastern side, it is a nature reserve and military range. You can land on the Western side.
[ QUOTE ]
So, given that we own a boat, and would rather go places by boat than car, would you care to suggest a sandy beach that I can take my children to by tender?...
[/ QUOTE ]
I own a boat too and if I want to go somewhere that tenders aren't allowed, I park the boat and get there by other means.
[ QUOTE ]
...then exclude a subset of those who don't arrive by car.
[/ QUOTE ]
They basically only have provision for those who arrive by the main forms of transport - road or foot. An option that is available to everyone, without exception.
__________________ Warning - Internet forums may contain nuts
[ QUOTE ]
Hit the nail squarely on the head, there, Joe. Although I suspect by accident. Yes, indeed, it is for all of us, not just boaters. Except they seem to think it's for everyone except boaters.
[/ QUOTE ]
There's little point in trying to discuss it with if you are going to try to twist things in that silly way.
You obviously have some kind of obsession with the situation at Studland. They aren't going to allow you to use your tender. Live with it.
There are plenty of beaches elsewhere. Look on your charts.
[ QUOTE ]
Don't know exactly as never been involved but don't most of these "bequests" come about as a response to death / inheritance tax and a means for a family to retain a home albeit with restrictions on their former freedoms and the need to accept "visitors".
Recent TV prog had a property on their that they had taken over as family could not pay taxes and NT was a way of staying "in residence".
Would be a little surprised if they all left property to NT as they were so good? I used to be a member and found the organisation was on occasion blooming awful.
P
[/ QUOTE ]
That's certainly one of the reasons property is left to NT, but there are many others too. Frequently it is done simply because somebody wants to ensure that a property is not divided up or they want to hand it to the nation for genuinely benevolent reasons.
at 2130, there was a program on this exact topic, I only caught it by accident.
[ QUOTE ]
The National Trust
The Beach: A prime piece of beach area, Studland Bay in Dorset, may look idyllic, but it's at the centre of a conflict between the Trust and those who want to use it.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was a guy called Julian who appears to be the head honcho for that area in the NT. How the villagers managed not to knock his head into tomorrow I will never know.
The program was mostly focused on the fact the NT want to move their offices into a an old farm barn in the village, using the farm yard as the car park. They had a town meeting where this Julian just patronised the community and sneered at the people who were unhappy, especially with the prospect of 100 odd cars trying to park in the sleepy village.
Their application was turned down, even though out of around 100 people at the meeting 94 odd said they did not want it, the NT still applied. So the meeting was ignored, shocks. The camera now on the Julian chap, who smirked saying we will just keep applying until it is accepted, what a ****!
Then they had a meeting with a stables near by, one of the ladies complaining that the bridle path on the heather had been concreted. She was told pretty much to stop winging and that heaths had to be maintained or they WILL turn to forest. hm, ok, I can point the NT to quite a few that have not. The lady turned around and said she had been riding it for something like 35 years before the NT got to it and started fencing and concreting and it had not changed yet in the last 12 months the NT had ruined it. He (Julian) just blurted back about managing heath land.
The final part was on the beach, the sea had eroded the sand hills and a few of the huts had collapsed. The huts belonged to villagers who had been protesting at the village meeting. Julian was laughing in a kind of ha ha karma type of way.
He was really condescending about the naturists, pretty much it seemed, they are trying to get rid of them, because, he, Julian does not like it. Since when does the concerns of a community fall to one prat who was not even elected.
I will never ever donate to the NT again, I was shocked and now I see what people have been saying on here.
If it is repeated I will try to video it for those without digi boxes.
Yeah, that programme has been repeated a few times. A massive own goal for the NT - as they came over as arrogant tossers in a number of the programmes (if it was part of the series I think it was).
Furious! NT response
"Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity"
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
Sermons from my pulpit are with tongue firmly in cheek and come with no warranty!
Linear Mode
