The leaves are starting to change and there’s autumnal coolth in the air. Which means that the opaquely funded private organisation called Restore Trust is once again making its annual attempt to take over one of the country’s most successful and best-loved institutions, the National Trust. Burning with unquenchable resentment about a 2020 report that truthfully stated that Winston Churchill opposed Indian independence; armed with inflated stories about mushroom bans, cancelled Easters and vote-rigging; and furious about a single disco ball in one room of one of the National Trust’s 230 historic houses, Restore Trust has once again put up a slate of candidates for the National Trust’s council, with a view to turning their grievances into policy. If you’re a member of the National Trust, and you’d rather not see it turned into a platform for an angry minority, vote now for its recommended candidates.
Selective memory
It must be terribly hard being Sodali & Co, an agency paid to defend the reputation of Kingspan, the building materials company found responsible in last week’s Grenfell Tower report for “deeply entrenched and persistent dishonesty”. But if, as Sodali puts it, you “advise corporate clients worldwide as they navigate the complex dynamic of shareholder and stakeholder interests”, you don’t quit. When I wrote about the disaster last week, its “head of special situations” sent me a near-instant email minimising Kingspan’s culpability and requesting a change to my online copy. I had told how they buried the results of a 2007 test of their insulation which threatened to burn down the laboratory where it was taking place. I should also say, Sodali argued that the test was for a “whole cladding system” of which Kingspan’s product was only one (albeit highly combustible) part.
“Journalist mis-describes type of iceberg, says communications agency for the White Star Line” might be some sort of equivalent. What makes this request utterly brazen is the fact that Kingspan was happy to use a 2005 test to give the false impression that its insulation was safe on tall buildings. It glossed over that this too was a test of a whole system, one whose components were not (as the inquiry said) representative of a typical external wall. Its concern for precision as to the nature of a given test is, in other words, selective and self-serving.
Hoodwinked
One of the more risible skirmishes in the culture wars came when the TalkTV presenter Kevin O’Sullivan, apparently unaware that the BBC series Sherwood is not really about Robin Hood, lamented its portrayal of the Sheriff of Nottingham as a gay woman. GBNews then used the occasion as flimsy pretext to beat up the corporation.
What’s odd is the sudden insistence on historical accuracy in such a mythologised story as that of Robin Hood. Where, pray, was O’Sullivan when Disney represented the outlaw as a fox?
after newsletter promotion
Winds of change
On Shetland, my heart stirred to the majestic sight of wind turbines. The knowledge that they’re not oil rigs, nor power stations, nor fracking installations, nor coalmines, makes me happy. But I’m aware that many Shetlanders don’t feel the same, enraged not only by the turbines but the infrastructure that comes with them. Most of all, they don’t see much benefit. Most of the energy generated will go to mainland Scotland. So it was good to hear that the profits from a community windfarm in the Hebrides are paying for the planting of a million native trees. If all such facilities led to palpable local and environmental benefits, much of the opposition to them would melt away.
