In reply to G4OIG:
I remain convinced that the problem with NT wardens is that there is
no clear brief from NT HQ
The matter was discussed at some length in 2008; this posting is relevant:
It includes a quotation of a statement from the National Trust which had been posted on a former Yahoo-based discussion board.
The implication of the remarks made then is that there is a National Trust policy that “low impact” operations are OK and do not require explicit permission. However it seems unlikely that the matter is of sufficient significance to have been drawn to the attention of staff generally. Nevertheless it might be helpful to be aware of the existence of this statement when having polite discussions with staff who query our activities.
The bye-law forbidding “broadcasting” is clearly a problem since the distinction between that and what we actually do is a subtle one to the uninitiated.
The MT said at the time that it did not intend to make any further approach to the National Trust. If particular hills are proving problematic, might it be time for the MT to reconsider? Clearly there is a risk of getting an unwelcome answer, but with a precedent set in 2008 and (presumably) no evidence of any adverse impact of the last few years’ activities, there is some hope that the situation would be clarified in our favour.
Personally I’ve never had a problem with any kind of warden, and only once had a grumble from a member of the public.