Jump to content

Recommended Posts

teddyboy23 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is this a who dunnit mystery.at the end of the

> day.I bet everyone on here as had good or bad as

> you say run ins with well know institutions.if

> your afraid to name them .just delete this crap or

> give better clues ffs.


How many clues do you want?


http://www.dulwichpicturegallery.org.uk/about/working-with-us/volunteering/

Personally I'd have some sympathy with the OP if so. Some people may recall the internal reorg the DPG did a couple of years back which I think some of the then staff feared was likely to lead to relying more on volunteers and a drop in service. While it's great that people choose to give up their time for good causes let's not forget that there is also a commercial aspect to the decision to staff in this way. The DPG and Dulwich Estate aren't exactly poor.

Done some googling. According to their history, on his death Sir Francis Bourgeois donated the painting collection he had amassed with his partner Desenfans to Dulwich College. His friend Sir John Soane was asked to help with the building and they were originally going to use the west wing of the college but found it too delapidated so designed a new one. Perhaps these days the gallery has its own charitable status but its history suggests it's part of the Dulwich Estate.


Hopefully someone out there knows the right answer.


I guess we should also add that the OP hasn't confirmed this is who she meant so this could be a complete red herring.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I guess we should also add that the OP hasn't confirmed this is who she meant so this could be a

> complete red herring.


She could be an agent of DPG - post a vague complaint message, insinuate (but not say) it is DPG, then wait for someone to say something actionable...


Or I've been watching too much ITV3.

There were an average of 70 paid staff (58 full-time equivalents) for the year to 31/3/16, and 80 (55 FTE) for the previous year. Of those, 38 were involved in "Collection and building" (previous year 49). The total annual staff costs were ?1.879m, (previous year ?1.85m). The "Aggregated cost of senior management team comprising of Directors and Chief Curator" were ?374,000 (previous year ?338,000). All these figures are from the accounts section of the 2015-16 annual review (22 MB) available at http://www.dulwichpicturegallery.org.uk/about/annual-reviews/


According to the report in the Print Charity Details option at http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1040942 Dulwich Picture Gallery Trust reported 58 employees, 50 volunteers for the year ending 31/3/16.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...