A positive future for Shakespearian tranquillity

Following a meeting with Stratford upon Avon MP, Nadhim Zahawi, Save Shottery looks forward to the possibility of a Shakespeare heritage site on land behind Anne Hathaway’s Cottage

Save Shottery talks to Residents Against Shottery Expansion about Shakespeare’s legacy. RASE meets with Stratford District Council on the subject of Planning. SDC talks to Shakespeare Birthplace Trust about its Trustees on the Board. Stratford MP, Nadhim Zahawi talks to us all from time to time, but separately.

There has never been an occasion when all the opponents of the massive Government-supported housing scheme on land west of Shottery have come together as one to discuss the huge threat to Stratford. With the High Court appeal lodged by Stratford District Council against the Secretary of State for Communities’ decision due to take place in April and May, getting these various organisations to be more transparent and communicative in the near future is highly unlikely. So, what next?

One forum                                                                                                                                                      When Save Shottery met Nadhim Zahawi on 1 February, we put it to him that he might chair meetings convening all  the scheme’s opponents. Following his passionate Parliamentary speech to Nick Boles and Eric Pickles in November, what more might he do now to gather together what could be a very powerful response, if united and co-ordinated?

Mr Zahawi stated that he would be more than happy to invite Save Shottery to a meeting of StratfordVision, after the High Court Appeal judgement is known. Attended by both Stratford District Council leaders and the Director of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, this forum could be a useful vehicle to discuss what might happen next.

When invited, Save Shottery will be more than happy to address Stratford Vision, whatever the High Court decision. The real sense of social and environmental injustice that fired us up to run the Save Shottery campaign in autumn 2012 is still alive and kicking in 2013.

It’s worth pointing out at this juncture that, nowhere on its website does Stratford Vision even refer to the Shottery housing development. It’s as if this potentially most disastrous of all schemes is all happening in the background.

Stratford Vision is a voluntary body, comprising members from local government, business, culture and tourism. The organisation aims to re-energise, recreate and reward the people of Stratford on Avon.  Founder, Denys Shortt, says  “I feel communication is absolutely key - not only communication between organisations but also communication of the Vision... We believe that the current strategic thinking at Council level needs to focus on what makes Stratford on Avon ‘special' - namely that the town produced William Shakespeare and is home to the globally iconic Royal Shakespeare Theatre and a range of properties where Shakespeare and his family lived their lives.”

Save Shottery intends to remind Stratford Vision of these words.

Proactive protection
Stratford bodies cannot persist in being against everything. The town needs to get on the front foot and take an active, united approach to land as important as that west of Shottery.

To this end, Save Shottery would like to propose that Shakespeare Birthplace Trust work in collaboration with Stratford District Council, English Heritage and other interested bodies, such as the RSC and Warwickshire County Council, to create and protect this site, this land it owns behind Anne Hathaway’s Cottage. We would like to invite Shakespeare societies from around the world to take part in an international fundraising campaign to buy and own this land and keep it in special trust for Shakespeare lovers now and in the future.

Save Shottery believes that heritage organisations have not done enough to safeguard this irreplaceable legacy during this struggle.  Nobody, apart from Save Shottery, has encouraged SBT to seek funding in other, more positive ways, rather than selling land. As a result, Nadhim Zahawi has also agreed to write to English Heritage on our behalf, to suggest that it play a useful role in the aftermath of the High Court decision.

Stratford’s plethora of organisations owes much to past culpability and division. Enough of that. There’s too much at stake. Save Shottery is more interested in the future than in the past. We are proposing this Shakespeare heritage site now, ahead of the High Court decision, because we want to appeal positively to the various parties involved to come together to see what we might achieve as a united force, for the value of Shakespeare in Stratford, for Stratford. Those who come after us will judge us on our behaviour, so nothing else will do.

While there is not much we can do between now and the High Court case, therefore, Save Shottery is already looking beyond that decision to a positive future of greater collaboration and more effective custodianship of Shakespeare’s legacy.

The art of protest

By Debbie Griffiths

I’m being a bit cheeky here, but I’m sure the Royal Shakespeare Company (RSC) won’t mind – afterall, they’re getting two positive blogs for the price of one. They invited me to their Boris Godunov blogging event expecting me to tweet and blog on behalf of @idealconsulting.  I have, but I couldn’t resist putting something out on Save Shottery, too.

Boris is the directing swansong of Michael Boyd, who magnificently recreates the era depicted in Pushkin’s play then brings it bang (literally) up to date with scenes and settings that parallel Putin’s Russia today. It’s all very clever.

Photo: Debbie Griffiths 

But the play was only part of a great evening that started off with a powerful photographic exhibition in the Ferguson Room at the Swan Theatre and finished with an exclusive Q&A with members of the cast and the assistant director.

Silent protest in pictures

‘A World Elsewhere’ is an RSC-commissioned photo reportage to accompany the series of classic world plays they’re staging. The images of people, places, protest and disaster are excellent in their own right, but also a powerful introduction to Boris. A couple got me thinking about our campaign to Save Shottery. 

Picture behind Gethin Anthony (R)

The first was from Latakia in Syria, where war has changed a former tourist town beyond recognition.  Admittedly, building a road and 800 houses behind Anne Hathaway’s orchard cannot be compared with such atrocities, but it is sad to think how the heart and joy of a popular place can be so easily ripped out.

The other was a photo from Lithuania. The Hill of Crosses is a site of pilgrimage where one cross placed in 1831 has been added to over time and now over half a million stand to signify the  peaceful endurance of Lithuanian Catholicism despite all threats.

Kryziu Kalnas (Hill of Crosses) ©Angus Fraser

If only we could do this on Bordon Hill, what would symbolise our struggle against aggressive property developers? Please let us have your thoughts!

Change needs an end goal
I think the photos most relevant to the Boris play were those of the former Soviet Union and the Arab uprisings. The action starts on stage with the masses wanting a new leader and ends with the masses happy for anyone who can bring change, no matter how genuine they are.  As Dmitry says: “People don’t care what I am. All I am is change.”


This has long been Russia’s problem. Today it’s Egypt’s turn, where the crowds forced change a year ago, but now they don’t like the change the new regime has introduced. 

That’s why we’ve always been clear about the Save Shottery goals so no-one gets disillusioned. Our aim is to stop Shakespeare Birthplace Trust (SBT) selling out our heritage to greedy property developers and to support them in positive alternative ways to raise funds.

Truth and transparency

Save Shottery also makes one more demand of the SBT, namely for the charity to be transparent about its meetings and any decisions taken by trustees – especially those with housing and property development interests.  Surprisingly, this seems a bit of a sticking point, with the Trust saying it’s not obliged to publish anything and continuing to do things in secret. Such behaviour is so out of date.

Perhaps they should go and see Boris and consider the old priest’s warning that you cannot hide anything, it will all come out in time and those who mocked and scorned you will end up eating their words.  

Patrick Romer (Noklka Pimen) Photo: Ellie Kurttz

They could also learn from the RSC who, in opening themselves up to bloggers, have taken a brave decision that should pay off in the digital age we live in. Allowing actors to talk candidly about directors’ styles and what goes on in rehearsals and allowing bloggers to write anything we like keeps Shakespeare’s legacy alive and relevant.

Wit and wisdom

This production is the first time Pushkin’s play has been performed uncensored in the English language. It is a dark comedy, intentionally ‘half comic, wholly serious’ the actors told us. 

l-r: Stephen Ventura, Sadie Shimmin, Philip Whitchurch Photo: Ellie Kurttz 

Between each line of wit, there is a truth that could not be spoken in Pushkin’s day. Using humour and poetry and drawing poignant parallels is something he copied from Shakespeare.  

It’s also something that Mark loves to do with Save Shottery, but I must admit to censoring him too much and bowing down too readily to requests from SBT to amend what we’ve said. If two literary giants enjoyed playing with words to get around the censors and get their message out, why shouldn’t Save Shottery?  

Our 2013 plans

• I promise not to censor Mark in 2013!
• We look forward to quoting Shakespeare with more tongue in cheek on our #shakespearetweetoff on twitter.  We’ll let you read between the lines and come to your own conclusions.
• We will keep up the pressure on the SBT to be more transparent.
• We hope to make more use of visuals and photography in our campaigning.
• We also plan to hit our target of 1463 signatures on the Save Shottery petition (the year Anne Hathway’s Cottage was first built) by 23 April, Shakespeare’s birthday. If you’ve not already signed our petition, please click on the link and do so now.  Thank you.

Boris Godunov is on at the Swan Theatre until 30 March – tickets available. The World Elsewhere photographic exhibition is free and runs until 3 March 2013.

Sonnet 18, Planning Regulations, Section 3, Sub-clause 2.7

To Anne Hathaway's Cottage:

Shall I compare thee to a motorway service station?

Thy plight more ugly and more desperate.

Foul men do join in mean formation,

And culture’s lease hath all too short a date.

Sometime in greed the eye of mammon shines,

And often is his gold-lined pocket brimmed,

And every fair unfair sometimes inclines,

By tarmac, concrete and brick be-rimmed:

But thy eternal summer shall not fade

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow’st,

Nor shall Bloor brag thou resteth in his shade,

When in eternal lines to time thou grow’st.

            So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,

            So long lives this and this gives life to thee.

Bad faith, hopelessness and charity

In the Stratford Herald of 6 December appeared the following letter from Roy Lodge, ex-mayor of Stratford upon Avon and therefore ex-Trustee of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust:

“It is understandable to note that although Diana Owen, director of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust speaking at the recent community forum, and Richard Hyde, the trust’s deputy chairman are expressing disappointment on behalf of the trust at the secretary of state’s decision for the Shottery development to go ahead are also emphasising that as a charity the trust has three objectives, the first of which is: ‘To maintain and preserve the Shakespeare properties for the benefit of the nation.’ This objective they rightly point out must be uppermost in the minds of the trustees when considering this issue.

“To put undue pressure on the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to categorically rule out the sale of the land is a failure to understand that the trustees must act in the best interests of the charity. The politics of the case is not within their remit so much as their responsibilities as trustees, which is to honour their primary integrity to secure and safeguard Shakespeare’s legacy for future generations.

“Campaigners against the development are better advised to focus their faith, hope and input into the legal challenge that is being launched by the Stratford District Council. Hopefully, this challenge will be successful.”

Responding to Roy Lodge, Save Shottery would like to reiterate the purpose of active protest rather than ‘faith and hope’. Continuing to put pressure on the Trust is what will ultimately serve the Trust’s best interests. Director Diana Owen has said she will pass all petition signatures and comments to her Trustees for consideration. It would be remiss of us not to keep up this level of concern while the Trust is undertaking research prior to its ultimate decision on whether to sell or not to sell. The fact that it has waited until the eleventh hour to carry out these surveys, however, can only lead people to believe that this is a smokescreen, a prevarication, a further delaying tactic. If this due diligence is so important, the Trust would have done it two years ago and played a leading role in the Public Inquiry earlier this year. Furthermore, without our recent success in putting the Trust under the spotlight, where it should have been all along, all the pressure would have fallen totally on Stratford District Council. While SDC has a lot to answer for, it can now proceed with the High Court case, largely undisturbed.

As Roy Lodge was at the Stratford Community Forum he cites in his letter, he will no doubt remember that Save Shottery asked SDC Leader Chris Saint whether we could be of any help during this legal process. We believe organisations like SDC and SBT should be working together – if, that is, we are to take at face value the universal opposition to the development. Cllr Saint said that he welcomed support but could not specify what it would be. Procrastinating as ever, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has said that it will wait until after the legal process (again) before deciding whether to sell or not to sell. How does that help the anti-development case?

As for Mr Lodge’s point about the Trust having to do what is best for the interests of the charity, well, as an ex-SBT Trustee with close relationships with existing Trustees, he would say that, wouldn’t he? In this case, however, doing what is best for the charity is doing what is best for the nation – a point he seems to make without any irony. This is an unusual charity, in that its activities are governed by UK Act of Parliament, the 1961 Shakespeare Birthplace Act. It is precisely this that has led to our deep involvement.  It is our duty, as citizens, to question anything we deem is not in the nation’s interest and to insist on our right to see the minutes of Trustee meetings. These are not private matters, but public matters. It is certainly not in the nation’s interest for 800 houses and a link road to be built at the back of Anne Hathaway’s Cottage, enclosing Shottery with concrete. The fact that visitors will still come is not the answer. Something precious, peaceful, tranquil, would be destroyed forever. As David Langman pointed out in the Herald’s very same letters page, ‘Anne Hathaway’s Cottage is effectively a world heritage site’. It certainly should be. And we, as defenders of such a belief, should be very wary of disingenuous opinions from former and existing Trustees who have somehow come to believe that boosting the charity’s coffers would be an acceptable conclusion, ‘in the nation’s interest’.

Considering what is at stake, there can be no such thing as ‘putting undue pressure’ on Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. ‘Failure to understand’? 1300 people from around the world clearly understand what is important here.  And, as the developers clearly show, hope is not enough. Action is what counts.

Can the Trust be trusted?

The BBC thinks it can. The local news reporter bought the Trust’s headline ‘no plans to sell land to developers’, when the piece it put out on TV and online this week plainly said ‘we are keeping an open mind on whether to sell land to developers’. So the headline could equally have said 'no plans not to sell land to developers'.

ITV Central news has been covering this longer than the BBC. But its televised pieces on Wednesday 28 November, featuring Save Shottery, seemed to give more weight to one bemused letter from Susi in Shottery than it did to 1,300 petition signatures from 24 countries.

Through its PR offensive this week, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust thinks it has got everyone where it wants them. It’s presented itself as a thoughtful, considerate organisation that must carefully weigh up information before making any decisions. A body that agrees with protesters, a body that is against development. When it is, in practice, an inert, procrastinating institution, hidebound by irregular meetings and absent Trustees, which played next to no part in the Public Inquiry, allowing the Planning Inspector and Eric Pickles to conclude that, despite its words, it wasn’t really against the development. When it is a body that continues to put up a smokescreen, allowing other organisations to take the strain, financially and politically.

In one breath, Richard Hyde, deputy Chairman of the Trust, says there’s ‘no offer on the table’. In the very next, he says ‘we could have sold the land’. How, without an offer?

For the very reason that the Trust has been peddling a series of mixed messages, the Save Shottery campaign has to pose the question: can the Trust be trusted?

As journalists have yet to get underneath the scandal that we know lurks beneath the facade of the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, the Save Shottery campaign will act as ‘TRUSTwatch’.

We will continue to ask questions. There are still so many that the Trust needs to answer, if it is to regain any kind of good public reputation.

Why is the Trust ‘keeping an open mind’ on something that is so fundamental to its purpose,  when it continues to admit that harm will come to Anne Hathaway’s Cottage through this development? What does that say about the fitness of its Trustees to fulfil its responsibility to the nation?

Why is the Trust waiting until after Stratford District Council has been through the legal process? Their absence from the legal process to date swayed Eric Pickles in favour of development. Their continued absence in the final recourse, the High Court, will simply confirm this.

If the Trust considers this important enough to be decided by the full body of Trustees, as opposed to the Executive group of Trustees, when will it release declarations of interest from individual Trustees?

Until, we get answers from the Trust, we can only define its public position thus:

We are still considering whether to sell out Shakespeare’s legacy for shedloads of money. 

We will not be helpful to any other organisations fighting the development.

We will wait till the Stratford District Council has failed in its final legal attempt, then let
compulsory purchase take place – when we will appear as the victim and get to take all the money. Job done.

How romantic! Shylock couldn’t have thought out a better strategy.

Lifting the lid on Shakespeare Birthplace Trust

Shakespeare Birthplace Trust will not come out and tell the world its true position, so we thought we’d do it for them.

Consider this...

The Trust has consistently said it is against development on the land it owns behind Anne Hathaway’s Cottage in Shottery, Stratford.

The Trust now says it is waiting for the outcome of the legal process at the High Court to be followed by Stratford District Council in an attempt to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the housing development to take place.

Whether Stratford District Council wins or loses the High Court case, it will still be up to Eric Pickles, the Secretary of State, to make the final decision.

If his final decision is to stop the development, the Trust will be vindicated in its consistent statement opposing development without having to lift a finger or spend a pound. All the work will have been done and the money spent by Stratford District Council (£300K to date) and organisations like RASE (Residents Against Shottery Expansion – thousands to date, over 20 years) and Save Shottery (two self-employed people who cannot earn any money while fighting this).

If Pickles’ final decision is to progress the development, the Trust has the choice of selling the land willingly (for more money), or unwillingly via a Compulsory Purchase Order (probably for less money). In either case, the Trust can say that its hands are tied and, given the situation, it is better to sell for more money. Then, the development will go ahead and there will be some harm to Anne Hathaway’s Cottage (as the Public Inquiry and Secretary of State acknowledged). But the Trust will get lots of money for the land and probably a new car park and visitor centre.  Anne Hathaway’s ‘romantic’ environment will have been altered forever, but, hey, it isn’t the Trust’s fault, is it? In which case, the public can only mourn the loss and feel sorry for the Trust.

Win-Win, thinks the Trust                                                                                                                            Either way, the Trust thinks it will win from this situation – as long as it sits tight, does nothing and says even less. However, last week proved that the Trust did not enjoy being in the spotlight, when it thought that Stratford District Council was going to take all the flak. Now, the Trust sits under the same glare as the Council, the developers and the Secretary of State. It knows it cannot escape.

What would you do in its position? Its latest statement claims that ‘Trustees have a legal responsibility to act in the best interestsof the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust’. But the Trust is governed by a UK Act of Parliament known as the 1961 Shakespeare Birthplace Act. This means that it ‘owns’ the Shakespeare houses in trust for the nation. Doing what’s best for Shakespeare Birthplace Trust means doing what’s best for the nation. Taking developers’ money to build a car park and get a better visitor centre is pure heresy, given that damage will be done to Anne Hathaway’s Cottage and garden by selling the land to developers.

This is a charitable Trust with £21 million of reserves. It has a rolling annual income of about £8 million. Why does it need to sell land? Just what is going on here behind the scenes? Both the Charity Commission and the UK Government need to take a long hard look at the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, how it is governed and why it thinks it can act with impunity, by ignoring the wishes of local and national citizens, never mind the tourists of international countries who bring in that income.

There are some huge aspects to be investigated. Is this a dereliction of duty under the 1961 Act? Can a Trust governed by Act of Parliament be so secretive and deny the public access to its Board Meeting minutes? Isn’t it in the British public interest for citizens to know what the Trust is about and why it is not coming out against the Merchants of Venice?

End game
We have said all along that the Trust should come out of its defensive shell and say no to developers up front. It may lose a few millions by doing so, but will gain much in local, national and international kudos and support for doing the job it was invested with.

Having come out, the Trust should then work with local organisations - Stratford District Council, RASE, Nadhim Zahawi MP and Save Shottery - to present a united case in the upcoming High Court case and say No to Pickles, Yes to Preserves.

Hiding behind twice-yearly Trustee gatherings (many do not even turn up) and irregular executive committee meetings, while apparently waiting for legal advice, is no longer any good to anyone who believes in preserving Shakespeare’s legacy. The Trust employs these lawyers – get them to work faster.

We know what the Trust is up to. It may well get what it wants in the end. But Save Shottery wants the world to know what the Trust is up to. We would like the world to tell the Trust what you think of this selfish and short-term policy to benefit its bank balance to the detriment of its true duty to the world – to preserve the legacy of Shakespeare, his life and times.

We must not let the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust escape the spotlight. Win or lose, we must expose the truth.

12 key questions for SBT

It’s been quite a week.

24 hours to go before Shakespeare Birthplace Trustees meet to discuss the situation around the land they own at the back of Anne Hathaway’s Cottage, the land the developers need.

So, here we are. The people of Stratford are against development. Stratford District Council is against development. Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is opposed to development. MP Nadhim Zahawi is against it. 800 people from Stratford, the UK and the world have signed the Save Shottery petition in just 100 hours. What if everyone could now work together, present a united front?  What might we achieve?

Now that Stratford District Council has recommended going for a final Judicial Review at the High Court (hopefully to be confirmed next week), we have a little more time.

About time

When we began the Save Shottery campaign, time was not on our side. Yet, thanks to the power of social media, in just five days we think we have achieved our first objective of putting Shakespeare Birthplace Trust under the spotlight – alongside Eric Pickles, Stratford District Council and Bloor Homes/Hallam Land Management.  No mean feat – but all thanks to you and your support.

As they prepare for tomorrow’s Trustees’ meeting, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust seems to consider it unfair that it has been singled out for attention this week. But the Save Shottery campaign strategy has been a simple one. If you’re going to win the war, you can only fight the battle in front of you. This week, in the war to save Shottery from development, Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has been the battle in front of us. This is what the Trust must understand tomorrow.

Being under the spotlight doesn’t mean that Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is tainted in the same way as the other protagonists. At least not yet.  As we await the outcome of the Trustees’ Board meeting, we are encouraging the Trust to come off the fence and be the hero of this controversial and unnecessary situation.

Yesterday, we turned our attention on Stratford District Council, which met to discuss whether to recommend going to Judicial Review.  We made it plain to them that this isn’t just down to the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. We have to continue working on the people who got us into this mess in the first place.

When the future of the Shakespeare legacy is at stake, there is no place to hide for any organisation with an important decision to make – locally, nationally, internationally. Thanks to all your support for Save Shottery, we hope the Shakespeare BirthplaceTrust and Stratford District Council can now see this. Whether the Trust and the Council will then act positively and decisively is another matter. So, while it will not likely be as relentless in its activity as this week, the Save Shottery campaign will continue next week and beyond. We will be watching and acting.

Grab this opportunity

To all the cynics out there, people can change, people can change anything.  We’ve shown all week, in adapting our message, that we can change, that we’re listening and responding to what the Trust says. Can the Trust now listen, adapt and respond? Can the Trust change?

It needn’t take too long to think about it. Hopefully, thanks to the way that social media can reach around the world with such immediacy, the Trust realises that secrecy, inertia and procrastination will no longer serve it.

This is a fantastic opportunity for Shakespeare Birthplace Trust. To take it, the organisation will need to radically change its approach to communicating and engaging with the world. 

SBT, we are with you on that and can help you with that. As long as you are prepared to see sense and fight more proactively and publicly to preserve the land around Anne Hathaway’s Cottage, for today’s and future generations.

There are several tough questions that Shakespeare Birthplace Trust needs to answer, publicly, very soon.

We appreciate that these are difficult questions. But, if you want the world to work with you, not against you, you need to come clean and set the position straight on a number of fronts.

1.       Shakespeare Birthplace Trust has said it has always opposed development of Shottery land behind Anne Hathaway’s Cottage. But what has it ever done in practice to support that position?

 

2.       Why did Shakespeare Birthplace Trust neither attend nor speak out at the Stratford District Council meetings to oppose development and the ensuing Public Inquiry – where the developers’ lawyers were able to belittle the importance of Shakespeare to Shottery?

3.       Why would Bloor Homes/Hallam Land Management proceed with such a controversial development if they didn’t believe that Shakespeare Birthplace Trust would sell the land they need to them?  

4.       Before the planning and legal processes were even over, did Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, or any individual connected with it, lead Bloor Homes/Hallam Land Management to believe you would sell? 

5.       Has Bloor Homes/Hallam Land Management made an offer to Shakespeare Birthplace Trust for the land? Rumours say they have - anything between £4 million and £14 million.

6.       Does Shakespeare Birthplace Trust really need money when it has £21 million in reserves and a rolling average annual income of about £8 million?  

7.       Apparently, the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust building in Henley Street needs urgent repairs and money from land sale could be devoted to that. Is this true? If so, how much money is needed for that? Not £14 million. Not £4 million. Are you seeking funds to have part of Cottage Lane pedestrianised in front of Anne Hathaway’s Cottage? Or to build a new Visitor Centre? If so, why not fight land sale, communicate your need and fundraise separately for these?

8.       Given that Shakespeare Birthplace Trust holds the Shakespeare buildings in trust for the nation, according to Act of Parliament, isn’t it an absolute priority of Shakespeare Birthplace Trust to reach a decision quickly on Shottery and communicate that publicly? The fact that Trustees only regularly meet twice a year is no answer. What’s stopping you speaking out? 

9.       Wouldn’t a charity whose only agenda was preservation do anything – and be open to offers of collaboration - rather than sell out an international icon to developers?

10.   If Shakespeare Birthplace Trust is to change and adapt to the modern world, doesn’t it need to review its Governance? It has an archaic Trustee structure which no longer reflects the 1961 Shakespeare Birthplace Act - would the Charity Commission be interested in your fitness for the role you exist to fulfil?

11.   Although you are not legally obliged to do so, in the interests of transparency will you publish a list of the Trustees who have declared a conflict of interest between their role as a Trustee and their personal or business interests elsewhere?

12.   With one of the biggest cultural ‘draws’ in the world, why not be the heroes here and work with people and organisations - locally, nationally and internationally – to preserve Shakespeare’s legacy, life and times for everyone, rather than the business interests of a few?