The National Trust: one small step for man, one giant car park for mankind.

[pwa]

I just wonder why Oxfam are campaigning on this issue, which seems to me to be outside their normal area of activity. Are there other important causes and concerns, like animal rights or domestic abuse, that they will be campaigning about next? Or will the RSPCA be campaigning on race equality? These are charities aimed at particular issues and for the sake of clarity and focus they would be best sticking to their own areas of concern. After all, we the punters can support and listen to numerous charities at the same time, covering a portfolio of issues we are concerned about. We don't need Oxfam to be a do-it-all charity covering every single issue for us.

I'm curious, what do you think Oxfam is about? We all know it stood for Oxford Famine Relief when first set up. But many years later we see the broader picture - the teach a person to fish rather than just give them a fish or two.
People who are marginalised for one thing - such as sexuality - will then inevitably experience poverty, which leads to hunger. That's not hyperbole, not some theoretical fanciful thinking. By campaigning about LGBTQIA+ rights, Oxfam are indeed working at just one of the many causes of hunger. Clearly climate change is another, as is war and refugee displacement, or international corporate malfeasance. When some international chemical, mining or other company leaves a ship load of hazardous waste to leak into a local water source, that causes hunger, as the water becomes unusable, and so fields can't be watered, or no one can tend to them.

So LGBTQIA+ rights are Oxfam's concern very much so. Or waste in effect donations by only feeding a starving unemployed gay/lesbian/trans person, and ignore that they are unemployed due to stigma.

Does cycle uk only stick to rights of cyclists as they cycle down the road, or widen the remit to consider air pollution, road design, laws, education in schools, representation in parliament, etc etc.

I take your point about sexual orientation leading to discrimination and hardship in some countries where Oxfam delivers aid. But is Oxfam just putting out its equality message there, or is it also putting it out here, in the UK, where it is not delivering aid? I fully accept that if they are helping communities in Uganda they will have to say to people in Uganda that all people need to thrive, regardless of their race, sexuality or whatever. You make a convincing argument.

[harriedgary]

Right now the problem is ultra right wing US based religious organisations (in my own opinion) These groups have started using their not inconsiderable wealth to actively promote their version of good and evil around the world. Almost as if they have given up on making America into a fundamentalist Christian nation, as they once dreamed of back in the early days of the Pilgrim Fathers etc.
So now, like countless missionaries before them, they are spreading their toxic blend of distorted opinion and hate into African countries which they have no business in.
Oxfam work in African countries to alleviate poverty, and do so with as little bias as they can. Oxfam for a while have used local people and businesses to distribute and perform aid duties, rather than parachuting do-gooders from England all over the place. Why? because outsiders don't know the locale well enough, and have higher welfare needs, i.e less preparation for the climate and local diseases, than a local person.
However these fundamentalist organisations are putting boots on the ground in countries like Uganda, Kenya and Ghana and actively persuading local politicians to discriminate against minorities. If you read the news, you'll know, new laws to make simply being gay a crime are been enacted.
Oxfam as an aid organisation is limited in what it can do. Clearly it can't risk campaigning vocally on the ground, as that will muddy it's aid efforts. The right wing religious types though have no such qualms though, especially as they can "bribe" local politicians with financial aid dressed up as education schemes. There is a tide of misinformation and distortion which threatens to turn ordinary people against minorities they don't understand. Whether it's against the LGBTIQA+ or against immigrants, or cyclists (don't forget we have to continuously fight for our rights on the road in the face of vocal car nuts who want us run off the roads)
But these education schemes aren't like teaching the 3 Rs, or modern technology and IT skills to people, they're indoctrination classes in their own brand of Christianity, a heaven and hell version. Which makes them very dangerous.
It's a really big issue, and far too complicated to explain here. And I'm biased of course, just as they are.
The difference is, they want to make homosexuality against the law with extreme punishments, whereas I am happy for you to have personal beliefs, as long as you don't allow any bias into any work or public duty that you do, i.e you're not a cop who bashes gays, or a teacher that rubbishes evolution theory in favour of a book written by men over 2,000 years, based on a few experiences in the desert when hungry and thirsty, which as cyclists, we all know can alter our perceptions of reality (that hill is really steep/why does the wind always blow against me)
You might be straight, cis, married christian. Maybe not know many people who aren't. But as I argued before, just imagine that you as a straight cis married person, was in the minority. Wouldn't you feel persecuted, if you were been persecuted, wouldn't you feel threatened, if you were been threatened. Of course you would. Well, gay and non cis people around the world are been actively targeted. They are experiencing everything from basic negative portrayal in press and media, all the way to actual and serious violence.
The bible says a few things. But near the top of the list, and repeated by all the disciples and gospel writers is this. Thou shall not judge for only God can judge. Thou shall not kill. And thou should treat all as you would have yourself treated. Jesus did not stutter when preaching. Love thy neighbour didn't include any caveats like love everyone except everyone you don't like.
But somehow the words of God/Jesus have been distorted and used to justify abusing and killing millions.

So, even if you personally don't agree with LGBTQIA+ people, restrict that view to how you wish to live your personal life, and allow others to have their personal life. And maybe stick up for LGBTQIA+ rights, see it as part of the overall struggle of good Vs evil, because unlike 80 years ago, cyclists are in a minority. We have to fight government and local policy as well as so called drivers rights groups. They spread false information about us. Just as the far right is spreading false information about the LGBT community.
We can try and win our fight by ourselves, sure. But are we going to? Or should we ally ourselves with other minorities. Because divided we fall.

[pwa]

I haven't read every post in this thread, but I'm not aware of anyone here disputing the fact that all people deserve respect, regardless of sexuality. Just to be clear on that. We have made a lot of progress on this in the UK over the last few decades, but I know there is still an issue here, and elsewhere there are countries still in the Dark Ages on this. Anyway, perhaps this is a digression that could end here?

[pwa]

Regarding the National Trust and car parking, I have visited a few NT places in recent weeks, in a camper van, and wouldn't have gone to any of them if the parking had not been available. I'd have done something else instead. Culzean Castle, Cragside, Fountains Abbey and Chirk Castle. In the past I have been to Fountains Abbey by bike without a problem. I'd have done so again if I had been staying a little closer and hadn't had the whippet with me.

At Culzean our camper was based at the camp site adjacent to the castle grounds, so we just walked in. By the side gate, rather than by the front gate, because the side gate incurs no charge. Bizarre, by hey-ho, that's how it is.

[Nearholmer]

Resurrecting this to point anyone who is a member to an interesting article in the latest (Spring 2024) magazine.

One of the NT Directors has cycled to all 624 places in the NT guide, covering 5900 miles, and he gives quite a good view of both the positives and the deficiencies of cycling provision, including mentions of my hobbyhorses: lack of secure bike storage, and lack of clarity (meaning supervising volunteers make it up as they go along) about where one is and isn’t allowed to cycle (he says 79% of locations fail on that one). It’s almost as if he read this thread.

[roubaixtuesday]

Resurrecting this to point anyone who is a member to an interesting article in the latest (Spring 2024) magazine.

One of the NT Directors has cycled to all 624 places in the NT guide, covering 5900 miles, and he gives quite a good view of both the positives and the deficiencies of cycling provision, including mentions of my hobbyhorses: lack of secure bike storage, and lack of clarity (meaning supervising volunteers make it up as they go along) about where one is and isn’t allowed to cycle (he says 79% of locations fail on that one). It’s almost as if he read this thread.

So, how long have you been a director of the National Trust?

[Nearholmer]

I think he did the 5900 miles in three months, taking a sabbatical to do so, although the article is a bit ambiguous. If I did that it would take me a heck of a lot longer, so I guess I’m not director material.

[drossall]

Resurrecting this to point anyone who is a member to an interesting article in the latest (Spring 2024) magazine.

One of the NT Directors has cycled to all 624 places in the NT guide, covering 5900 miles, and he gives quite a good view of both the positives and the deficiencies of cycling provision, including mentions of my hobbyhorses: lack of secure bike storage, and lack of clarity (meaning supervising volunteers make it up as they go along) about where one is and isn’t allowed to cycle (he says 79% of locations fail on that one). It’s almost as if he read this thread.

Is that just out or has it been around for a while? Don't recall seeing it, but don't always look at it closely.

[roubaixtuesday]

I think he did the 5900 miles in three months, taking a sabbatical to do so, although the article is a bit ambiguous. If I did that it would take me a heck of a lot longer, so I guess I’m not director material.

[Nearholmer]

Is that just out or has it been around for a while?

Arrived today.

[mattheus]

Resurrecting this to point anyone who is a member to an interesting article in the latest (Spring 2024) magazine.

One of the NT Directors has cycled to all 624 places in the NT guide, covering 5900 miles, and he gives quite a good view of both the positives and the deficiencies of cycling provision, including mentions of my hobbyhorses: lack of secure bike storage, and lack of clarity (meaning supervising volunteers make it up as they go along) about where one is and isn’t allowed to cycle (he says 79% of locations fail on that one). It’s almost as if he read this thread.

May i be the first to point out that it is not - by any definition - Spring yet.
Thankyou.

[ratherbeintobago]

Anyone know what’s actually happening with the Lyme Park car park proposal?

Apparently they’ve moved to pay on exit for the car park, which is meant to reduce the queues out onto the main road.

[cycle tramp]

Deleted

[rareposter]

Anyone know what’s actually happening with the Lyme Park car park proposal?

Apparently they’ve moved to pay on exit for the car park, which is meant to reduce the queues out onto the main road.

They've withdrawn the planning application for the new larger car park. There was a load of accompanying blurb about how they remain committed to green/active travel, sustainability, the environment blah blah which rather disguised the fact that they've had nothing but opposition to their insane plan.