I think the National Trust thing matters a lot more than most of the usual "a backbencher with too much time on their hands has got the wrong end of a stick " for a couple of reasons. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit
The report does exactly what its critics are asking the National Trust do. There is no "oh, and this was bad" anywhere in the report. The homes and collections of abolitionists and of slavers are treated in exactly the same way: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit
Yet several MPs who have signed a letter criticising the Trust have been on the BBC and none of them have had the contents of the report put to them: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit
We've seen this story with Theresa May's withdrawal agreement. And Boris Johnson's withdrawal agreement. And [that's enough-Ed.]: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit
It's not even - we have a publicly-funded broadcaster that is not very good at getting across the content of reports. We have a publicly-funded broadcaster that often doesn't really try, that derides the practice of doing so as 'nerdy', etc.: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit
And sure, today it's just some plaques, but yesterday it's the withdrawal agreement, tomorrow it's the Internal Market Bill, next year it's the Budget, etc. etc. https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2020/11/national-trust-under-fire-crime-it-didnt-commit