Natural History Museum...Why is it free?

[perdu]

Blue62 said:

It was there way before HS2 even got on the drawing board, a conspiracy theory too far methinks, shame.

I know that but don't derail a half decent conspiracy theory please...

As to HS2, maybe they had to find a use for that barren part of town because the "noo museum" isn't bringing anyone in.

It'll be handy for the new apartments being built near Aston Uni Campus though

[MadMullah]

as a father i think its fantastic they're free. i took my two girls to the history museum in manchester and they loved it. i honestly doubt i'd have been able to afford it if they were charging without any money from the govt to subsidise it. as i left i donated £5 in the tubs.

there's a great exhibition on now in london regarding some muslim artefacts at the london museum which as much as i'd love to go see as its in the private section i think its a lil too much to pay esp considering i'd have to drive down to london for it.

i'd like to say to those opposing this that i do appreciate it as do many parents and kids who have learnt alot and are grateful for what they have seen.

[Halb]

If I had kids I would take them to the museum, I suppose kidnapping some for the journey would be considered excessive.

Brum seems to have gotten a bum deal. A shame that.
Some sort of local action required?

[Ayahuasca]

perdu said:

dickymint said:

Ayahuasca said:

dickymint said:

Ayahuasca said:

Why does admission to the Birmingham Science Museum (the 'Think Tank') cost GBP 12.25?

Seems a bit unfair on the poor kipper tie drinking Brummies (and they have a hard enough life as it is...)

Not classed as a National Museum?

So Birmingham taxpayers help to keep London's museum free, yet have to pay to visit their own. Good on 'em, they really are generous in the midlands.

Serves them right for shutting the original Birmingham Museum of Science.....

which was free entry.

Not only did they shut what was a superb museum they shunted most of the decent stuff into Thinkwk and expected us to be grateful.

I will never pay to go in there, many other Brummies feel the same. I spent hundreds of hours in the old museum, situated in an old industrial building.

It was marvellous treasure trove of industrial heritage

John Cobb's Railton Mobil Special and the RR Merlin and a Spitfire and Hurricane. Magical place.

All museums should have free access, anyone who feels strongly about funding is welcome to drop some quids or euros in the thank you box.


Thinkwk is a long way from the city centre too, in a location handy for HS2. I wonder if that is why they built it there, so that people from "that London" can pay it a visit...

How did the 'Think Tank' get the exhibits? Did they pay for them? My Granddad took me to the old Bham Science Museum when I were a nipper, I remember the Spitfire & Hurricane and iirc a Bluebird land speed car (although it may have been the Railton Special that you mention).

[Mikeyboy]

Moving museums to places where no-one will go and see them is nothing new. ROyal Amouries collection is now in Leeds after all.

Done to improve the tourist flow to the north in general and Leeds in particular.

Crazy idea. Its the only large musuem I've veer been to on a saturday where I and the wife were about the only people in there.

One museum on the outskirts of a town or away from the major tourist attractions of the country would make people from the USofA want to go there just for that and hope that they might see some old mills too.

[thinfourth2]

dickymint said:

Serves them right for shutting the original Birmingham Museum of Science.....

which was free entry.

Well to be entirely fair that was a load of brummies all marveling at the technical wonder that is a wheel

[Sam_68]

Sorry... been away for a few days, so I'm catching up.

CommanderJameson said:

We all benefit, so we all pay. Direct or indirect is neither here nor there.

We don't all benefit equally, is my point, though.

A small proportion of (indirect) benefit is to the country as a whole in terms of educational spin-off, therefore the country as a whole (taxpayers) should pay a small proportion of the total costs.

The major benefit, in terms of both educational value and entertainment, is to the (relatively) small number of people who use the museums, therefore the major proportion of the costs should be borne by them.

I don't understand how anyone can have a problem with that, in terms of fairness?

GeraldSmith said:

The problem is that there is no way of measuring it so nobody can substantiate the view that a pay for use model would better than a free at point of use model or even a freemium model. Clearly pay for use or freemium mean that the museums etc are likely to have more funds or the taxpayer pays less but which of them all generates the best return for the nation as a whole is anyone's guess.

This is absolutely true, but without clear evidence in either direction, surely it is better to save taxpayer's money at the moment than to spend it - until such time as a clear advantage or disadvantage can be identified?

Mikeyboy said:

So should we all pay for Wikipedia as well then?

Wikipedia is not funded by the UK taxpayer.

It is funded entirely by charitable donation (and of course the content is charitably donated by individuals, too). But if the point comes when those charitable donations are insufficient and it needs funding from other sources, then a charge or subscription from users would surely be the only sensible way of running it, yes.

What would your suggestion be - that all goverments/taxpayers of all the English-speaking peoples of the world should contribute towards its running costs?

Without wishing to drift off-topic, if the majority concensus is that the taxpayer should wholly fund museums, because of the spin-off benefits to society as a whole, then what, in this Olympic year, do we think about sport? Should the tickets to the Olympics have been distributed free of charge and all the costs of the Games be borne by the taxpayer? There are similar benefits in terms of the nation's health, after all?

National opera and theatre? Why is this sort of cultural knowledge of less value than that provided by museums? How can we justify charging people to visit the National Opera when we offer free entry to a National Museum?

[Mikeyboy]

missed my point about Wikipedia.
The people who set up Wikipedia want it to be kept free as an educational resource. They know that it will lose a vast number of its users if they have to start paying and that as a whole we will all lose out.

This is the point that you singularly fail to grasp in this whole thread. You may or may not be wealthy enough to pay for these services, you may even be wealthy enough to send your children to a private school. I'm happy if you are able to do that.

This does not mean that the rest of the populations hould be excluded because you can afford it and therefore it must be ok for them.

We all benefit from education, some more than others. It is not for us to bar entry to education but to make it more accesible.

[Sam_68]

Mikeyboy said:

The people who set up Wikipedia want it to be kept free as an educational resource. They know that it will lose a vast number of its users if they have to start paying and that as a whole we will all lose out.

And so far they have successfully managed to fund it entirely from charitable donations - and good on them for doing so.

But should they reach a point where this is no longer possible, do you think that the UK government should volunteer the contributions of the UK taxpayer to fund it?

Mikeyboy said:

You may or may not be wealthy enough to pay for these services, you may even be wealthy enough to send your children to a private school. I'm happy if you are able to do that.

I am. And so am I.

Mikeyboy said:

It is not for us to bar entry to education

I agree. I have always argued for a necessary basic level of education to be state funded.

But if you want it with cream and a cherry on top, you should be expected to at least contribute towards the cost of what you, yourself are taking from the system.

Mikeyboy said:

...but to make it more accesible.

Here we begin to differ. I do not believe that I have any moral obligation to make more than a basic level of welfare and services available to those are unwilling to put in the effort to provide what they want (not need) for themselves.

Of course, I recognise that there are many who think differently:

Karl Marx said:

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs

... but then I'm not a Marxist.

[Halb]

Sam_68 said:

We don't all benefit equally, is my point, though.
A small proportion of (indirect) benefit is to the country as a whole in terms of educational spin-off, therefore the country as a whole (taxpayers) should pay a small proportion of the total costs.
The major benefit, in terms of both educational value and entertainment, is to the (relatively) small number of people who use the museums, therefore the major proportion of the costs should be borne by them
National opera and theatre? Why is this sort of cultural knowledge of less value than that provided by museums? How can we justify charging people to visit the National Opera when we offer free entry to a National Museum?

Everyone benefits equally from free museums, because their free, the ultimate fairness.

Opera and theatre are performance, and so have set times. The accumulative knowledge and cultural experiences are different. With a museum you can wander in wander out at any time and not miss anything vital to the experience.

[Mikeyboy]

Sam_68 said:

Mikeyboy said:

It is not for us to bar entry to education

I agree. I have always argued for a necessary basic level of education to be state funded.

But if you want it with cream and a cherry on top, you should be expected to at least contribute towards the cost of what you, yourself are taking from the system.

Mikeyboy said:

...but to make it more accesible.

Here we begin to differ. I do not believe that I have any moral obligation to make more than a basic level of welfare and services available to those are unwilling to put in the effort to provide what they want (not need) for themselves.

Then frankly you are not really worth talking to, because for all the apparent benefits you have in your financial worth you seem to be a bit of a sociopath. I've had enough of dealing with them. Money comes and goes, hopefully for your children's sake it won't go from your account to the point where they can no longer get the education they deserve.

The "I'm alright jack" way of thinking is good for you but lets down the country as a whole. The education of all is essential to a growing and developing country. The further education of some one who shows ability but may be cannot afford it then becomes the responsibility of the people of the nation with whom that person has lived and may contribute to in the future.
To leave someone behind in education for the simple reason as money is a shame on a nation and a shame on the people who think as you do.
The introduction of people to the possibilities of education that a Museum openly demonstrates is part of that and I will not let a genius level child off an estate whose parents put in work at minimum wage miss out simply because you have done ok.

[Sam_68]

Halb said:

Everyone benefits equally from free museums, because their free, the ultimate fairness.

Only if you have equal opportunity (and inclination) to use them... which we don't.

And they're not free - every taxpayer (though not every individual) has to contribute toward their cost. And since we pay different amounts of tax according to our income, even those of us who do contribute toward their cost do not do so equally.

Mikeyboy said:

The "I'm alright jack" way of thinking is good for you but lets down the country as a whole.

Well, that rather depends on how far you take it, doesn't it?

The 'I'm alright, Jack' approach is the basis of capitalism, but it needs to be attenuated to some degree by social responsibility for it to work properly.

The 'everyone should get the same, regardless of wealth, ability and intelligence' approach, as I've already pointed out, is the basis of Marxist communism, and equally has to be attenuated to some degree to provide the incentive to strive to better yourself (and thereby society as a whole).

Where we appear to differ is in our opinion of to what degree we have a responsibility to prop-up society's losers?

[Engineer1]

Ayahuasca]The [-]Louvre[- said:

. Mona Lisa 8.8 million visitors in 2011. Entry cost = 10 Euro.

Natural History Museum. 4.8 visitors in 2010. Entry cost = free.

Edited by Ayahuasca on Monday 20th February 13:01

EFA

[Colonial]

Mikeyboy said:

Then frankly you are not really worth talking to, because for all the apparent benefits you have in your financial worth you seem to be a bit of a sociopath. I've had enough of dealing with them. Money comes and goes, hopefully for your children's sake it won't go from your account to the point where they can no longer get the education they deserve.

The "I'm alright jack" way of thinking is good for you but lets down the country as a whole. The education of all is essential to a growing and developing country. The further education of some one who shows ability but may be cannot afford it then becomes the responsibility of the people of the nation with whom that person has lived and may contribute to in the future.
To leave someone behind in education for the simple reason as money is a shame on a nation and a shame on the people who think as you do.
The introduction of people to the possibilities of education that a Museum openly demonstrates is part of that and I will not let a genius level child off an estate whose parents put in work at minimum wage miss out simply because you have done ok.

Hear hear.

Just selfish small mindedness.

[mph1977]

Mikeyboy said:

Moving museums to places where no-one will go and see them is nothing new. ROyal Amouries collection is now in Leeds after all.

Done to improve the tourist flow to the north in general and Leeds in particular.

Crazy idea. Its the only large musuem I've veer been to on a saturday where I and the wife were about the only people in there.

One museum on the outskirts of a town or away from the major tourist attractions of the country would make people from the USofA want to go there just for that and hope that they might see some old mills too.

the Royal Armouries is an interesting one, it's a relatively specialist collection for a a whole museum - As I understand it it's rather more busy on the days they use their jousting field for jousting (obviously) falconry and other such stuff.

without this the subject matter is rather dry even with the interactivity permitted ( a previous comment from this thread about the Science museum's Naval Architecture gallery springs to mind - equally the SciM is not the national collection for maritime stuff - Greenwich is)

putting the Armouries in Leeds is also a political thing, given Bradford, York and Shildon (Durham) have national Museums with the film/ media/ TV one at Bradford and the two static parts of the NRM at York and Shildon...

[dickymint]

Sam_68 said:

Halb said:

Everyone benefits equally from free museums, because their free, the ultimate fairness.

Only if you have equal opportunity (and inclination) to use them... which we don't.

And they're not free - every taxpayer (though not every individual) has to contribute toward their cost. And since we pay different amounts of tax according to our income, even those of us who do contribute toward their cost do not do so equally.

Mikeyboy said:

The "I'm alright jack" way of thinking is good for you but lets down the country as a whole.

Well, that rather depends on how far you take it, doesn't it?

The 'I'm alright, Jack' approach is the basis of capitalism, but it needs to be attenuated to some degree by social responsibility for it to work properly.

The 'everyone should get the same, regardless of wealth, ability and intelligence' approach, as I've already pointed out, is the basis of Marxist communism, and equally has to be attenuated to some degree to provide the incentive to strive to better yourself (and thereby society as a whole).

Where we appear to differ is in our opinion of to what degree we have a responsibility to prop-up society's losers?

Everything you say about this topic stinks of "I pay more tax than you so why should you (the doley) get something that I've paid for.

Do you realise that even the "doleys" are indirectly paying for free museums as well as you and I?

PS. your use of of "bold " and "italics" is a dead give-a-way as to your views on the, shall we say, "less fortunate".

[highway]

dickymint said:

Everything you say about this topic stinks of "I pay more tax than you so why should you (the doley) get something that I've paid for.

Do you realise that even the "doleys" are indirectly paying for free museums as well as you and I?

PS. your use of of "bold " and "italics" is a dead give-a-way as to your views on the, shall we say, "less fortunate".

That's a cheap dig typical of someone who leans so far tot the left they hardly stand up straight.

It's easy to take a liberal and enlightened view of as you call them; doleys. Many people aren't able to work or genuinely can't find a job. Many more are third generation, opting out of work and a life laid on for free. Have these people up in your face with their lips curled back in blind hate and fury then see how you feel about them.

Use of bold and italics my shiny arse.

[dickymint]

highway said:

dickymint said:

Everything you say about this topic stinks of "I pay more tax than you so why should you (the doley) get something that I've paid for.

Do you realise that even the "doleys" are indirectly paying for free museums as well as you and I?

PS. your use of of "bold " and "italics" is a dead give-a-way as to your views on the, shall we say, "less fortunate".

That's a cheap dig typical of someone who leans so far tot the left they hardly stand up straight.

It's easy to take a liberal and enlightened view of as you call them; doleys. Many people aren't able to work or genuinely can't find a job. Many more are third generation, opting out of work and a life laid on for free. Have these people up in your face with their lips curled back in blind hate and fury then see how you feel about them.

Use of bold and italics my shiny arse.

What on Earth are you trying to say?

[mph1977]

dickymint said:

What on Earth are you trying to say?

that the person who replied to you considers you selfish and self centred and rather too precious about making sure that everyone knows how much tax etc you pay ...

this is one of the problems that democracy faces that there are always people who want to be 'more equal' than others whether it;s politicians and trade unionists with their noses in the trough on the gravy train or Mr ' coooonsiderably richar than yeoooow ' with ' i pay lots of taxes therefore my views are more important that someone who works in the public sector and an order of magnitude more important than a 'doleite'

[dickymint]

mph1977 said:

dickymint said:

What on Earth are you trying to say?

that the person who replied to you considers you selfish and self centred and rather too precious about making sure that everyone knows how much tax etc you pay ...

this is one of the problems that democracy faces that there are always people who want to be 'more equal' than others whether it;s politicians and trade unionists with their noses in the trough on the gravy train or Mr ' coooonsiderably richar than yeoooow ' with ' i pay lots of taxes therefore my views are more important that someone who works in the public sector and an order of magnitude more important than a 'doleite'

Then I think I've had too much Strongbow (quite possibly) or you've both got me mixed up with somebody else? Read my posts on this topic and you will see my "stance".