Forum Home» UK Holidays, Days Out & Entertainments

Any tips for getting National Trust membership discounted? - Page 13

New Post Advanced Search
Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.

UK Hols and Theatre


Please check the MSE coronavirus guides that contain all the confirmed info we have – these guides are being constantly updated:
Coronavirus Help & Your Rights * Coronavirus Travel Rights

For any specific Coronavirus related queries please post on the Coronavirus Boards on the forum:
Coronavirus Support & Help * Coronavirus Travel Help & Info

Any tips for getting National Trust membership discounted?

224 replies 244.5K views
1101113151623

Replies

  • beefturnmailbeefturnmail Forumite
    822 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    Once again you are distorting what people have said. I would just like to correct some points of fact:
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    I really need to start a list.

    Reasons to rip off National Trust - a charity

    Directors are paid too much
    They charge more for GA admission than normal admission
    They sell off land they are bequested

    I never said directors are paid too much. What I actually said was "...or cut a few director's salaries" meaning that if too many people took advantage of this loophole, the national trust would not 'have' to close some properties as you stated - they could choose to cut the salary of a few directors (or more likely, pull out of the reciprocal arrangement)

    I didn't say (and nor has anyone else) said that the NT charge more for GA admission is a reason to 'rip them off'. What I actually said was that they are not as transparent as they could be when advertising the two separate prices.
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    As for me, Sky had a choice whether to send out an engineer or to let me cancel my account. They choose to send out an engineer.

    National trust has a choice whether the maintain a reciprocal arrangement with other organsiations, or not to. They choose to maintain this arrangement.
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    Unfortunately, NT's only way to stop you and your like ripping them off (remember NT is a charity, it is a charity you are ripping off) is to not allow genuine NZ members to visit UK properties.

    Sleep well, I dare say you will with your logic. I just wonder what other charities you and your like would rip off............

    You seem to be following the logic that electing to not be a member of the National Trust is ripping them off. By this logic you are ripping off every charity which you don't donate too (and you are ripping-off those you do donate to as you don't donate more).

    You keep emphasising that they are a charity, but so what? I might not support their 'charitable' agenda and would rather the money I have saved on their membership fees, is spent on cancer research.
  • edited 3 October 2012 at 1:14PM
    qetu1357qetu1357 Forumite
    1K posts
    edited 3 October 2012 at 1:14PM
    Once again you are distorting what people have said. I would just like to correct some points of fact:



    I never said directors are paid too much. What I actually said was "...or cut a few director's salaries" meaning that if too many people took advantage of this loophole, the national trust would not 'have' to close some properties as you stated - they could choose to cut the salary of a few directors (or more likely, pull out of the reciprocal arrangement)

    I didn't say (and nor has anyone else) said that the NT charge more for GA admission is a reason to 'rip them off'. What I actually said was that they are not as transparent as they could be when advertising the two separate prices.



    National trust has a choice whether the maintain a reciprocal arrangement with other organsiations, or not to. They choose to maintain this arrangement.



    You seem to be following the logic that electing to not be a member of the National Trust is ripping them off. By this logic you are ripping off every charity which you don't donate too (and you are ripping-off those you do donate to as you don't donate more).

    You keep emphasising that they are a charity, but so what? I might not support their 'charitable' agenda and would rather the money I have saved on their membership fees, is spent on cancer research.

    "You seem to be following the logic that electing to not be a member of the National Trust is ripping them off. By this logic you are ripping off every charity which you don't donate too (and you are ripping-off those you do donate to as you don't donate more)"

    What!? And this you think is logic? No wonder you don't get it.

    I don't honestly think I can explain it so you do get it but here goes anyway.

    You are using the NT services without paying them a membersip fee.

    This is different from not using a charity's services and not paying for it.

    So once more in another way:-

    If you think not paying for something you get is the same as not paying for something you don't get, well words almost fail me!
  • beefturnmailbeefturnmail Forumite
    822 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    qetu1357 wrote: »

    You are using the NT services without paying them a membersip fee.

    This is different from not using a charity's services and not paying for it.

    So once more in another way:-

    If you think not paying for something you get is the same as not paying for something you don't get, well words almost fail me!

    No I am afraid it is YOU who does not get it. I am NOT using the NT services without paying them a membership fee. I am using the services of the New Zealand Historic Trust (membership, one of the benefits of which is entry to NT properties) and I am paying for this.

    I know you don't like this and/or it is too subtle for you to understand but it IS FACT, not opinion.

    You are trying to argue that not paying (the NT) for something I don't get (NT membership) is 'wrong'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument.
  • No I am afraid it is YOU who does not get it. I am NOT using the NT services without paying them a membership fee. I am using the services of the New Zealand Historic Trust (membership, one of the benefits of which is entry to NT properties) and I am paying for this.

    I know you don't like this and/or it is too subtle for you to understand but it IS FACT, not opinion.

    You are trying to argue that not paying (the NT) for something I don't get (NT membership) is 'wrong'. This is a fundamentally flawed argument.

    Like I said, I don't think that I can get you to get it.

    But the reason I can't is not down to what I am saying is wrong.

    But remember, the NT themselves don't think what you are doing is right.

    They may clampdown on the loophole you have exploited. I would suspect that they won't in the near future because the numbers who are exploiting it are small.

    And I would suggest the reason why they are small is not because people don't realise that there is a loophole but because the overwhelming majority of people still think it would be wrong to exploit a charity in such a way.
  • dazzer68dazzer68 Forumite
    1.2K posts
    And the thread is still at the top. Lets hope the m.s.e'ers here, can make up their own minds, whether or not to join.
    It is what is it is. If anyone disagrees with it, either don't join, and or contact the nt. I have infact rung both national trust's (yes and the nz one) involved and both are quite happy with the agreements they have all set up.
    I'm sure qetu is still here banging on about charities, fraud etc.but no body is frauding any body. All national trusts around the world are involved in this scheme.its hardly sneaking in through the back door.
    All national trust property's are staffed by the amount of visitors they get, not by how many pay at the door. I'm sure qetu will be back with a reply.....keeping this afloat.
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • dazzer68dazzer68 Forumite
    1.2K posts
    Actually still waiting for a proper reason why this isn't a good idea.
    Not just bleating on about ripping of charity. Maybe some could give qetu a hand?
  • beefturnmailbeefturnmail Forumite
    822 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    Like I said, I don't think that I can get you to get it.

    I get that you don't like the fact that the reciprocal agreement exists, and you think it is immoral to take advantage of it. This is however, your opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion.
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    But the reason I can't is not down to what I am saying is wrong.

    The reason you can't defend your opinion is becasue you are choosing to ignore points of fact which other people have made and then claiming people have said things which they have not.
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    But remember, the NT themselves don't think what you are doing is right.

    Please can you substantiate this claim? Your e-mail from the NT does not say this. Just because they don't say 'we think this is right' it doesn't necessarily mean they think it is wrong. Again, this is FACT, not opinion.

    Even if they did think it was 'wrong', so what? As I have said previously, they are not the judges of morality.
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    They may clampdown on the loophole you have exploited. I would suspect that they won't in the near future because the numbers who are exploiting it are small.

    I agree they may withdraw from the reciprocal arrangement at some point in the future, but this has no relevance on whether it is morally 'right' or 'wrong' to take advantage of the existing loophole
    qetu1357 wrote: »
    And I would suggest the reason why they are small is not because people don't realise that there is a loophole but because the overwhelming majority of people still think it would be wrong to exploit a charity in such a way.

    Please can you substantiate this claim? I would argue the overwhelming majority of people would not agree that this loophole 'exploits' the NT, but may, however, choose not to take advantage of it as they want to donate money to the NT anyway. This does not, however, make those who do choose to take advantage of the loophole immoral.
  • I get that you don't like the fact that the reciprocal agreement exists, and you think it is immoral to take advantage of it. This is however, your opinion, which is no better than anyone else's opinion.



    The reason you can't defend your opinion is becasue you are choosing to ignore points of fact which other people have made and then claiming people have said things which they have not.



    Please can you substantiate this claim? Your e-mail from the NT does not say this. Just because they don't say 'we think this is right' it doesn't necessarily mean they think it is wrong. Again, this is FACT, not opinion.

    Even if they did think it was 'wrong', so what? As I have said previously, they are not the judges of morality.



    I agree they may withdraw from the reciprocal arrangement at some point in the future, but this has no relevance on whether it is morally 'right' or 'wrong' to take advantage of the existing loophole



    Please can you substantiate this claim? I would argue the overwhelming majority of people would not agree that this loophole 'exploits' the NT, but may, however, choose not to take advantage of it as they want to donate money to the NT anyway. This does not, however, make those who do choose to take advantage of the loophole immoral.

    I have no problem with the reciprocal agreement in anyway whatsover.

    My problem is with how people are unfairly exploiting it.

    I think it's a good idea that UK NT members can visit NZ sites and NZ members can visit UK sites. But when I mean NZ members I mean people who joined the NZ trust not as UK citizens just doing to get cheaper access to UK sites.

    The NT did not say, when I emailed then, that it was perfectly OK for you to do this. The inference is then they think it is not OK.

    Example

    Me "Do you think it is right I do this?"

    You "Yes I do"

    Any other reply infers you do not think it is right.

    And your point "Even if they did think it was 'wrong', so what?" says it all.

    And as to substantiating my claim that most people think it is wrong. I've been keeping this thread going - at the risk that other people may do the same as you - as I am curious to what people actually think. Only 2 or 3 people have agreed with you, if what I was saying was so wrong there would be many more. I am worried, TBH, about how no-one has agreed with me on this forum.

    However, I've also asked numerous people face to face as a moral dilemna whether what you are doing is right. All, and I repeat all, think it is dodgy at the very least and stinks at the very worst. Maybe my social circle contains different people from this forum.

    I agree that what is immoral differs from people to people and there is a difference from immoral and illegal but for example if you watch rogue traders some of the rogues aren't behaving illegally but are behaving immoraly.

    Exploiting a loophole that a charity has not intended and has not agreed is acceptable is immoral.

    I have asked MSE to make this a moral dilemna of the week, let's hope they do, then we will get a better flavour of whether this is immoral or indeed acceptable.

    I'm prepared if they do and the majority agree with you to accept that I am wrong.

    If they side with me, are you prepared to accept that you are wrong?
  • edited 3 October 2012 at 9:07PM
    beefturnmailbeefturnmail Forumite
    822 posts
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭
    edited 3 October 2012 at 9:07PM
    Oh come on - don't be naive. The reason they did not explicitly say it is OK is becasue it draws attention to the fact that their membership fees are substantially greater than equivalent organisations across the world. This would not be good for them from a PR perspective and when justifying their fees to existing/prospective members.

    Actually (and sadly), presented in the way in which you have on here, I think a large number of the general population would probably agree with you as they have been seduced by the image that the National Trust projects and the 'charity-guilt factor' they use to get people to donate. This does not change the fact that exploiting the loophole is not deception or fraud.

    Whether it is morally right to do so or not rests on whether it is morally right or not to choose to keep hold of spare money rather than donating to one specific charity. What if I only had £80 spare cash for the year - Is it morally more 'right' to buy NT Membership or to buy NZ NT membership and give £50 to a homeless person so that they can get a bed one winter's night and not freeze to death? Actually I could say it stinks (of hypocracy) to try and argue that exploiting this loophole is morally wrong.
  • So lets just recap.

    1. This is a money saving forum
    2. NZ NT allow UK residents to purchase membership, which is cheaper than UK NT.
    3. UK NT allow free entry using NZ membership.

    What is the problem with saving money on the membership!

    Between my wife and I we cancel each year and re-join using a cashback site to save the 25% new members discount and receive maybe £10 cashback plus a free gift (wish they would change this - fed up with a drawer full of binoculars :):)).

    UK NT should look after existing members better and encourage them to renew!

    At the end of the day we spend more at each property we visit on drinks and gifts than we save over the year anyway.

    If you can't agree then that's just tough! We all can't agree on everything but this is a money saving forum and we all do what we can to save money (legally) or we wouldn't even look on this site!!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support