‘Sorry for the delay, we were flushing someone’s head down the toilet’: National Trust posts sarcastic tweet in row with Spectator over claims of ‘bullying’ and how job applicants are rejected if they voted Leave
- In since deleted post, the charity said it has to go ‘pinch someone’s lunch money’
- Tweet made in response to article from Spectator, based on anonymous source
- It alleged people were asked if they voted Leave during interviews at the charity
- National Trust has denied these claims and asked for a retraction of the article
The National Trust has posted a sarcastic tweet in a row with the Spectator over claims of ‘bullying’ and how job applicants are rejected if they voted Leave.
A post from the British charity, which has since been deleted, told followers it had been busy ‘flushing someone’s head down the toilet’ and has to go ‘pinch someone’s lunch money’.
The tweet was made in response to an article from the Spectator, which was based on an anonymous source, alleging that people are asked how they voted in the Brexit referendum during interviews at the charity and are turned away if they voted Leave.
It also alleged an ‘atmosphere of fear and bullying’ at the organisation.
The National Trust has vehemently denied these claims, describing them as ‘plain ludicrous’ and ‘without evidence or foundation’. It has also asked for a retraction of the article.
Speaking to MailOnline, the trust confirmed it shared the derisive tweet but removed it from their feed shortly after posting, saying it ‘tries to remain mature in its outlook’ but ‘everyone has their limits’.
The National Trust’s tweet was made in response to an article from the Spectator, which was based on an anonymous source, alleging that people are asked how they voted in the Brexit referendum during interviews at the charity (file photo)
A post from the British charity, which has since been deleted, told followers it had been busy ‘flushing someone’s head down the toilet’ and has to go ‘pinch someone’s lunch money’
On a thread below the Spectator’s article, the National Trust posted: ‘Sorry for the delay, we were flushing someone’s head down the toilet – with the bullying and all that.
‘These allegations are without evidence or foundation, and some are just plain ludicrous.
‘Now, please excuse us, we’ve got to pinch someone’s lunch money.’
Despite the charity’s swift removal of the tweet, it didn’t go unnoticed amongst social media users, with one person writing: ‘The National Trust is absolutely done with your s***’.
Another said: ‘Soon as I get paid next month I’m getting a National Trust membership. They deserve it just for the sheer quality of their social media team.’
And a third added: ‘Give the National Trust social media manager a sword.’
A National Trust spokesperson said: ‘We try to remain mature in our outlook. Everyone has their limits.
‘Shortly after we tweeted it we decided it probably wasn’t up to our usual standard so we removed it from our feed.’
The National Trust has vehemently denied the magazine’s claims, describing them as ‘plain ludicrous’ and ‘without evidence or foundation’. It has also asked for a retraction of the article
An anonymous source, said to be a current National Trust employee, had told the Spectator: ‘At interviews people are asked how they voted in the Brexit referendum, and rejected out of hand if they voted to leave.’
He goes on to allege an ‘atmosphere of fear and bullying’ at the charity, adding: ‘Since the Trust’s ‘Prejudice and Pride’ initiative, they have been in cahoots with Stonewall, whereby ‘LGBTQ allies’ are recruited to spy on and weed out anyone who thinks, speaks or acts in an ‘unacceptable’ way.’
In a statement responding to the story’s claims, a spokesperson for the charity said: ‘The allegations in Charles Moore’s article (Spectator, July 1) are without evidence or foundation, and some are plain ludicrous.
‘We have asked for a retraction from the Spectator. We would not ask anyone about their voting preferences in any job interview. We have clear standards for all our staff to uphold on political neutrality.
‘It is ridiculous to suggest that “LGBT allies are recruited to spy on” people.
‘The Editor’s Code of Practice clearly states that the press must take care not to publish misleading or distorted information, and we will follow this up with the Independent Press Standards Organisation.’