Scone rip-off.
- Thread starter RED-DOT
- Start date
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
There has been so much..... how's this to be getting on with. " What have the GCWT done for my shoot?"
If that is the case, I was always, told its better to keep your gob shout and let them think you a fool than to continually argue the toss and confirm it for them. As has happened in this case.
As has already been said. You can't get into any top flight sporting event in the UK for the money charged to attend the Scottish GF. A family ticket( 2 adults+2childeren) for a day out at Alton Towers would cost you £120. By comparison the SGF was a relatively cheap day out. IMO
Oh my you guys are getting upset about a charity that employs quite a few people that have to get a wage and a company car expense and a pension all to save a wee bird that is doomed because of land owners that spry and plough stuble to early.
The same guys that stand and shoot the same wee bird at a peg and and when the drive is finished moan about the lack of the said wee bird and lament its passing. Well no wonder they have to charge £18 to get in and £2 to park your car.
charities we support them and are continualy conned by them and the good they do, trust me I have worked with them in the past and the people employed by them are interested in one charity and that is there owen.
If they all worked for free I would be the first to support them.
singed untrusting old fart.
The same guys that stand and shoot the same wee bird at a peg and and when the drive is finished moan about the lack of the said wee bird and lament its passing. Well no wonder they have to charge £18 to get in and £2 to park your car.
charities we support them and are continualy conned by them and the good they do, trust me I have worked with them in the past and the people employed by them are interested in one charity and that is there owen.
If they all worked for free I would be the first to support them.
singed untrusting old fart.
norma 308
Well-Known Member
We can say the same about politicians ,police chiefs in fact anyone looking after or in charge of organisations that we the public "pay " into .they are charged to look after these orgs and I'm sure it's a career and job with company perks don't mean they're not all passionate about what they do does it ! Someone has to do it quite often putting their heads on the chopping blocks I'd much rather they did it than not and rather them than me ! What I mean is tese orgs / charities are not all bad and it's upto you who you support .
norma
norma
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
"If they all worked for free I would be the first to support them."
Do you work for free?? I seriously doubt that you do........
Why am I getting a sense of disgruntlement at not being able to dip one's bread in the "gravy train", you claim, they are all on?
Define charity or charitable work??? I am not claiming to be a charity, I run a business. I charge for my services and if people want those services they either pay for them or not. You misinterpret disgruntlement for a sense or realism through many years of dealing with such organisations, and more importantly knowing personally one or two people well ensconced within similar organisations, like the polititions referred to too many are not involved for the greater good, but more that is in it for them.
I was a member of the trust for many years by the way and have also traded at Scone Fair. My own experiences mean never again. However, each to their own...
I have no issue in people discovering for themselves, no need to make a decision based on my experiences.
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
You'll find that the Charities Act 2011 along with the Charity Commision can define what constitues a charity and like wise what defines charitable work far better and in much greater detail than I can. I think you will also discover that neither the Act nor the commision insist or require the employees of any charity to work for free. Although it would appear that you most certainly do in order to solicite your support..
You call it a potatoe, I call it a cucumber...... Your disgruntlement at not being asked to be part of the "gravy train" is self evident to all that care to read between the lines. But as you say "each to his own".
The GCWT charitable, not for profit status has always and will continue to stand it, and us the shooting community, in good stead in the political arena. A fact not lost on the likes of the RSPB and RSPCA.
So you have been a GCWT member and traded at Scone. I too have been a memebr of the GCWT for many years. 46 to be exact. I too have in the past manned stands and traded at various shows, fairs, exhibtions, and trade shows. I find these fact have little relivence to the discussion. Other than to show that your disgruntlement is not soley restricted to the GCWT and you lack of a seat on the "gravy train".
You call it a potatoe, I call it a cucumber...... Your disgruntlement at not being asked to be part of the "gravy train" is self evident to all that care to read between the lines. But as you say "each to his own".
The GCWT charitable, not for profit status has always and will continue to stand it, and us the shooting community, in good stead in the political arena. A fact not lost on the likes of the RSPB and RSPCA.
So you have been a GCWT member and traded at Scone. I too have been a memebr of the GCWT for many years. 46 to be exact. I too have in the past manned stands and traded at various shows, fairs, exhibtions, and trade shows. I find these fact have little relivence to the discussion. Other than to show that your disgruntlement is not soley restricted to the GCWT and you lack of a seat on the "gravy train".
jamross65
Well-Known Member
Tankgunner
Sikaman didn't say they should work for free, he said if they did he would be the first to support them.
There are thousands of premises throughout the country manned by workers taking no payment for their time in selling goods, the cash flow from which goes to heart disease and cancer research. But that's just getting a bit silly using that as a comparison in this argument. A bit like mentioning Alton Towers...
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
If, should, could, would...... mere semantics. But as an associate of Sikaman, I understand your willingness to argue the toss.
It appears that you are implying that the volunteers working the till or sorting stock in some charity shop, admirable as they might be. Are the same as those employees working in the teams that are carrying out leading, peer reviewable scientific study. Sorry, but I find that comparison laughable. For a start... there seems to be some confusion on your part regarding the differences between an employee and a volunteer.
I agree it is silly to use such an example.....however the Alton Towers comparison is valid. As it was used to provide a current example of what a family of 4 are likely to spend on a day out at a popular commercial enterprise.
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
You had best buy a ticket before the train leaves...... we wouldn't want to see you being disappointed again.
I never said I was disappointed what I should have said is that charities can get greedy and top heavy.
i did not man a stand at the fair I was there trying to make a living after attending the fair for 5 years they moved my stand off fishermans row because a big trader wanted the space the same trader that only attended that one time.
So yes I was angry and I suppose disappointed considering we had supported the fair for the 5 years but hay ho that's life.
my opinion differs from yours so I think I will agree to disagree and will continue to seek that gravy train.
stevie
jamross65
Well-Known Member
Right, I'm bowing out after this post because its getting silly, never mind petty. You did claim he said should work for free when that was entirely inaccurate, just like the inaccuracy suggesting the difference in meaning between should and if in the context it was used is mere semantics. I mean, you cant even add on the bit he said about 'I would support them should they worked for free'... as opposed to, 'I would support them if they worked for free'... Can you see the difference in the meaning poor grammar and context??? Not semantics at all really...
Its because he is a very good friend of mine that I happen to know where his attitude towards some charities is coming from and also know about his experiences. I was not arguing the toss, simply pointing out the error of the accusation you made. However, as you have apparently picked up the flag for the cause of the GWCT (who I personally have nothing against, except the prices at Scone), I'm not even going to try and explain the reason I mentioned the charity shops as its now running completely off course from the original post, except to say who has the strongest conviction in what they do, those earning a wage working for a charity or those volunteering for a worthwhile cause for free?
And what exactly do you get in Alton Towers after paying the entry fee? Is it free access to all the rides within the park? All you then have to pay for is food or take your own? I must have missed the roller coasters etc at Scone???
So, to get it back on track. My first post stated £18 for a pensioner is not acceptable. I stand by that. Charging £2 for parking this year whilst a paltry amount, I also feel is taking the mick a bit. Why, after years of free parking was that necessary?
And don't think for a minute that because he is my mate I agree with him on everything he says, we disagree and argue constantly...
Your getting too serious, it was fairly lighthearted earlier....
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
Right, I'm bowing out after this post because its getting silly, never mind petty. You did claim he said should work for free when that was entirely inaccurate, just like the inaccuracy suggesting the difference in meaning between should and if in the context it was used is mere semantics. I mean, you cant even add on the bit he said about 'I would support them should they worked for free'... as opposed to, 'I would support them if they worked for free'... Can you see the difference in the meaning poor grammar and context??? Not semantics at all really...
Its because he is a very good friend of mine that I happen to know where his attitude towards some charities is coming from and also know about his experiences. I was not arguing the toss, simply pointing out the error of the accusation you made. However, as you have apparently picked up the flag for the cause of the GWCT (who I personally have nothing against, except the prices at Scone), I'm not even going to try and explain the reason I mentioned the charity shops as its now running completely off course from the original post, except to say who has the strongest conviction in what they do, those earning a wage working for a charity or those volunteering for a worthwhile cause for free?
And what exactly do you get in Alton Towers after paying the entry fee? Is it free access to all the rides within the park? All you then have to pay for is food or take your own? I must have missed the roller coasters etc at Scone???
So, to get it back on track. My first post stated £18 for a pensioner is not acceptable. I stand by that. Charging £2 for parking this year whilst a paltry amount, I also feel is taking the mick a bit. Why, after years of free parking was that necessary?
And don't think for a minute that because he is my mate I agree with him on everything he says, we disagree and argue constantly...
Your getting too serious, it was fairly lighthearted earlier....
JR
I'll have one final try at this as I agree " its getting silly" as you desperately try to find some gap in the shield wall.
it works like this. 'I would support them if they worked for free'... or "should they work for free, I would support them!'. You simply rearrange the words and lose 'ed' off worked. Like I said pure semantics. Same context. Granted the grammar could do with some help.
Who would you rather be doing your scientific research professional scientists and researchers or unqualified volunteers with strong convictions. Like I said a laughable comparison, as we all know the answer.
Cost of attendance to modern events be they of a musical, sporting, or countryside related are spiralling. We recently had a musical festival close by the cost for the 3 days was £70. It didn't matter if you went for 3 days or 1. £18 for an OAP is peanuts. We are no longer in the 1980's when IIRC the entrance charge to the SGF was £6. Have you tried booking a ticket for any of the London shows recently? You had better be sitting down if and when you do. Perhaps a little pre attendance research would have been in order. That way the entrance/parking charges wouldn't have been such a shock and disappointment.LO L
I agree the £2 per car, is as you say paltry. They should have just stuck an extra £1 on the gate charge and kept the "free parking" Thereby making an additional £2 per 4 person vehicle.It would have raised additional income and the amount of petty grumbling over entrance costs would have been no greater. Like I said, there's no such thing as a free lunch in this world.
TankGunner
Well-Known Member
Steve
I agree that a poorly managed charity can get top heavy and those that run them can appear greedy. However, the GWCT has never has been a poorly managed charity! It has always provided tremendous VFM for its members and the wider shooting community. Some of whom are happy to benefit from all of the work the GCWT are doing and have done, yet squark like a pulled chicken if they are asked to pay £18 gate and £2 for parking at a GWCT fund raising game fair.
I appreciate your frustrations regarding loosing your preferred pitch at the SGF. But its a hard nosed commercial world out there and tough decisions sometimes have to be made. There are no exclusive rights the stands at these events, and you can't please everyone. As a business you just have to tough it out.
Similar threads
