National Trust workers told they must wear GAY pride badge to keep their jobs.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/national-trust-banishes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/

"For nearly 40 years, the vibrant rainbow flag of the gay pride movement has come to represent diversity and tolerance. However, a decision by the National Trust to demand 350 of its volunteers at a Jacobean mansion wear the banner or be banished to backroom chores has triggering an angry backlash."

What a cheek.

Syl wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/03/national-trust-banishes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/

"For nearly 40 years, the vibrant rainbow flag of the gay pride movement has come to represent diversity and tolerance. However, a decision by the National Trust to demand 350 of its volunteers at a Jacobean mansion wear the banner or be banished to backroom chores has triggering an angry backlash."

What a cheek.

Good for those volunteers! Hope they stick to their guns.

meh, tell the volunteers to go to the back room if they cant wear the lanyards.
it only like a dozen of them anyway

veya_victaous wrote:meh, tell the volunteers to go to the back room if they cant wear the lanyards.
it only like a dozen of them anyway  

Its 350 of them and if you actually bother to read it you will see they are doing it to protest the treatment of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer.
But don't you let that stand in the way of your lazy, unoriginal, stereotypical bit of casual bigotry will you?

Just like wearing pink for breast cancer awareness.  It's for a good cause.

The late Mr. Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer will hardly care.  The Fry biography about his homosexuality is a separate matter, and is hardly disparaging in this day and age.

The 'back-room' folks are living in the past.  Lock 'em up!

being discussed now on talk2meradio. saying how it's out of order to 'out' someone, it's their own business

some gay bloke said it's nothing but bullying

''the tolerant have become very intolerant''

so quill, the next thing??? make it compulsary to "bend for a friend"???

This is EXACTLY the sort of thing the "gay movement " DONT want....
besides YOU are being hypocritical...just remember your posts about folks NOT being forced to wear "whatever"

If its ok to enforce this (and enforceing is exactly whats being done)...then its ok to enforce a burkah ban.

moreover this is a POLITICAL issue, and employers have NO right to enforce political issues upon staff.

Lord Foul wrote:so quill, the next thing??? make it compulsary to "bend for a friend"???

This is EXACTLY the sort of thing the "gay movement "   DONT want....
besides YOU are being hypocritical...just remember your posts about folks NOT being forced to wear "whatever"

If its ok to enforce this (and enforceing is exactly whats being done)...then its ok to enforce a burkah ban.

moreover this is a POLITICAL issue, and employers have NO right to enforce political issues upon staff.

"Bend for a friend?"  Sex is always out of order in public.  So it's a bad example.

But what we have learned in such recent times is that homosexuality is of negligible concern.  It's become so normalized, so rapidly, that it is like eye-color:

He's the one with the brown eyes.

Horrors...you've just outed him as that brown-eyed man!

No big deal. What stands out these days are those ole' fuddy-duddies who still think it is a taboo subject.  

So it's okay to force people to wear something then?

how carefully and deliberately you miss the point quill

Lord Foul wrote:how carefully and deliberately you miss the point quill

I think I nailed the point, Vic.  Take the issue out of the realm of insensitivity and bigotry, and you've got a non-issue.  As the Texan says: It ain't no thang if it ain't no thang!  

Of all the bigoted forms, it's the greatest achievement off all to see an evil pass almost without notice.  Look how quickly LBGTQ was accepted into normalcy.  Really, my response is to be proud of what we just witnessed.

Eds:  Forced wearing [of pins].  Hmmm...  Forced anything is something that should have to be justified, if only for positivist reasons.  But I wonder if they have to wear uniforms?  Should that be questioned, too?  How about going nude, to carry it to extremes.  Should they be forced to wear clothing at all.  This is a lot like the burka argument, with the side-dish of a symbolic cause.

Quill I'm not against the pin per se, I'd have worn it no problem, it's for a good cause.
But to punish people for not wearing it? That's not right. It isn't contractually mandatory, is it?

Those workers are volunteers...

They don't have proper (i.e. paid..) "jobs" per se,  so they can't be ordered to do something political by some jumped up supervisors who have forgotten the meaning of the term "volunteer".

In addition, in many countries it is illegal to forcefully politicise a workplace , in the way that organisation is doing.. And discrimination and/or bullying in the workplace regulations could come into play ???

eddie wrote:Quill I'm not against the pin per se, I'd have worn it no problem, it's for a good cause.
But to punish people for not wearing it? That's not right. It isn't contractually mandatory, is it?

Yeah...well, forced anything, I think is kinda harsh. But that's someone's management style, not the cause.

I sometimes wonder how they get those big football players to wear pink shoes on 'breast cancer awareness' weekend. Maybe they're not allowed to start if they refuse to wear them...we just never hear about it.

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Quill I'm not against the pin per se, I'd have worn it no problem, it's for a good cause.
But to punish people for not wearing it? That's not right. It isn't contractually mandatory, is it?

Yeah...well, forced anything, I think is kinda harsh.  But that's someone's management style, not the cause.

I sometimes wonder how they get those big football players to wear pink shoes on 'breast cancer awareness' weekend.  Maybe they're not allowed to start if they refuse to wear them...we just never hear about it.

I think you may find that contracted workers --  like professional sports people --  have it written into their contracts that rhey will be involved in certain causes, charities and publicity...

Plus, being part of a "team" encourages their participation even further..


In this case here, however, we have some fucktard dictatorial administrators attempting to politicise a workplace --  potentially making illegal demands of volunteers !

gelico wrote:

being discussed now on talk2meradio.  saying how it's out of order to 'out' someone, it's their own business

some gay bloke said it's nothing but bullying

''the tolerant have become very intolerant''

Haven't they just

It makes no difference whether they are paid or volunteer to work, I don't think anyone should be forced to wear a badge if its not part of the standard uniform.
It may be for a good cause, but people should have the right to choose.
Take away peoples free will and you are plummeting back to the bad old days when gay people themselves were denied the right to openly choose.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yeah...well, forced anything, I think is kinda harsh.  But that's someone's management style, not the cause.

I sometimes wonder how they get those big football players to wear pink shoes on 'breast cancer awareness' weekend.  Maybe they're not allowed to start if they refuse to wear them...we just never hear about it.

I think you may find that contracted workers --  like professional sports people --  have it written into their contracts that rhey will be involved in certain causes, charities and publicity...

Plus, being part of a "team" encourages their participation even further..


In this case here, however, we have some fucktard dictatorial administrators attempting to politicise a workplace --  potentially making illegal demands of voluntareers !

Yeah, I've caught your message in the last couple of posts. But, it seems to be a lousy administration, not a fault with the cause.

Someone needs to figure out how to do good things, without ill-feelings. We needn't confuse a bad strategy with a good purpose.

Syl wrote:It makes no difference whether they are paid or volunteer to work, I don't think anyone should be forced to wear a badge if its not part of the standard uniform.
It may be for a good cause, but people should have the right to choose.
Take away peoples free will and you are plummeting back to the bad old days when gay people themselves were denied the right to openly choose.

Eh...within limits. Make it a part of the 'standard uniform' then.

We really need Raggs in this discussion. She's a real champion of uniforms and regulated dress...like in schools, etc.

again you miss the point


IF I was one of those volunteers and the manager had said to ME hey , we got these gay pride badges...will you wear one on duty ...I would have said yep ok ...no problems

IF however he had come to me and said we have these gay pride pins and you WILL wear one or be relegated to the depths...I'd have told him to fuck right off....

Lord Foul wrote:again you miss the point


IF I was one of those volunteers and the manager had said to ME hey , we got these gay pride badges...will you wear one on duty ...I would have said yep ok ...no problems

IF however he had come to me and said we have these gay pride pins and you WILL wear one or be relegated to the depths...I'd have told him to fuck right off....

As I've said, it all boils down to someone's management style. Someone needs to clue them in on how to run a museum, particularly when dealing with volunteers.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:It makes no difference whether they are paid or volunteer to work, I don't think anyone should be forced to wear a badge if its not part of the standard uniform.
It may be for a good cause, but people should have the right to choose.
Take away peoples free will and you are plummeting back to the bad old days when gay people themselves were denied the right to openly choose.

Eh...within limits.  Make it a part of the 'standard uniform' then.

We really need Raggs in this discussion.  She's a real champion of uniforms and regulated dress...like in schools, etc.

Its nothing to do with the standard uniform....nothing to do with the national trust actually.

I think its ridiculous to even think that the NT properties would NOT be welcome to all.....should they wear a badge saying all handicapped people are welcome, or immigrants...FGS its ridiculous to single out groups of people to tell them they are welcome.
Sounds like the NT are just trying to make amends for harking back and outing  the original owner of the hall who lived his life not openly gay.

Lord Foul wrote:again you miss the point


IF I was one of those volunteers and the manager had said to ME hey , we got these gay pride badges...will you wear one on duty ...I would have said yep ok ...no problems

IF however he had come to me and said we have these gay pride pins and you WILL wear one or be relegated to the depths...I'd have told him to fuck right off....

Exactly that...cept I wouldn't say the F word to them.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Eh...within limits.  Make it a part of the 'standard uniform' then.

We really need Raggs in this discussion.  She's a real champion of uniforms and regulated dress...like in schools, etc.

Its nothing to do with the standard uniform....nothing to do with the national trust actually.

I think its ridiculous to even think that the NT properties would NOT be welcome to all.....should they wear a badge saying all handicapped people are welcome, or immigrants...FGS its ridiculous to single out groups of people to tell them they are welcome.  
Sounds like the NT are just trying to make amends for harking back and outing  the original owner of the hall who lived his life not openly gay.

Yes, definitely poor management style. They should replace the top guy and put in someone with more sensitivity.

And I like your idea of a pin for disabled people. Or immigrants. I can think of others. Perhaps a week for this cause, a week for that. What a great way to incorporate the larger community.

They should go and volunteer somewhere else. They're not being paid for their efforts anyway - such ingratitude for the work they do should be "outed" and they should all just leave.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its nothing to do with the standard uniform....nothing to do with the national trust actually.

I think its ridiculous to even think that the NT properties would NOT be welcome to all.....should they wear a badge saying all handicapped people are welcome, or immigrants...FGS its ridiculous to single out groups of people to tell them they are welcome.  
Sounds like the NT are just trying to make amends for harking back and outing  the original owner of the hall who lived his life not openly gay.

Yes, definitely poor management style.  They should replace the top guy and put in someone with more sensitivity.  

And I like your idea of a pin for disabled people.  Or immigrants.  I can think of others.  Perhaps a week for this cause, a week for that.  What a great way to incorporate the larger community.

Or better still, instead of walking round like a pin cushion wearing badges to show every group is welcome.....why not simply show they are welcome by the attitude you greet them with.

I was a member of the NT for years (I have let my membership lapse now) but some of the volunteers could have done with an update on how to make people...especially young children, welcome in their halls...be they gay OR straight..

Raggamuffin wrote:They should go and volunteer somewhere else. They're not being paid for their efforts anyway - such ingratitude for the work they do should be "outed" and they should all just leave.

There she is!  I was holding a spot open for you, as I knew this was a fav topic of yours.

Abandoning the volunteer base is one solution.  Kind of like a general strike.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:They should go and volunteer somewhere else. They're not being paid for their efforts anyway - such ingratitude for the work they do should be "outed" and they should all just leave.

There she is!  I was holding a spot open for you, as I knew this was a fav topic of yours.

Abandoning the volunteer base is one solution.  Kind of like a general strike.

Evening!

It's not really part of a uniform. I'm sometimes asked to wear badges at work, but if I don't, nobody really cares. It's the threat of relegating them which is out of order.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, definitely poor management style.  They should replace the top guy and put in someone with more sensitivity.  

And I like your idea of a pin for disabled people.  Or immigrants.  I can think of others.  Perhaps a week for this cause, a week for that.  What a great way to incorporate the larger community.

Or better still, instead of walking round like a pin cushion wearing badges to show every group is welcome.....why not simply show they are welcome by the attitude you greet them with.

I was a member of the NT for years (I have let my membership lapse now) but some of the volunteers could have done with an update on how to make people...especially young children, welcome in their halls...be they gay OR straight..

Do the docents have to wear uniforms? I think it's kind of militaristic and uninviting a practice. I was impressed by some Trust properties where street clothes are the norm.

Holyrood House, for example, has docents who wear normal street clothes. Such wonderful people, too. You wouldn't even know who they are, until you voice a question or go where you're not supposed to. They will politely answer or direct you, and somehow make you feel so good about the exchanges with them. Love it.

Original Quill wrote:Just like wearing pink for breast cancer awareness.  It's for a good cause.

The late Mr. Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer will hardly care.  The Fry biography about his homosexuality is a separate matter, and is hardly disparaging in this day and age.

The 'back-room' folks are living in the past.  Lock 'em up!

Hold on though, that's not the point.
If a person goes through life not wanting the world to know his private business why should anyone divulge it all after their death?
Also, many men lived their lives in secret not only because it was illegal to be actively homosexual, but because they didn't want everyone to know they were gay....maybe they were married with children and wanted that side of their lives to be known rather than the homosexual side....surely its their choice.

No one should have the right to out anyone who doesn't/didnt want to be outed.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:
Or better still, instead of walking round like a pin cushion wearing badges to show every group is welcome.....why not simply show they are welcome by the attitude you greet them with.

I was a member of the NT for years (I have let my membership lapse now) but some of the volunteers could have done with an update on how to make people...especially young children, welcome in their halls...be they gay OR straight..

Do the docents have to wear uniforms?  I think it's kind of militaristic and uninviting a practice.  I was impressed by some Trust properties where street clothes are the norm.  

Holyrood House, for example, has docents who wear normal street clothes.  Such wonderful people, too.  You wouldn't even know who they are, until you voice a question or go where you're not supposed to.  They will politely answer or direct you, and somehow make you feel so good about the exchanges with them.  Love it.

Its a while since I visited any of the NT estates and halls. We used to take our son and grandson when they were young, they were always fascinated touring round the huge stately homes.
From what I remember the guides and greeters used to wear bottle green cardigans or jackets with obviously the badge on.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Just like wearing pink for breast cancer awareness.  It's for a good cause.

The late Mr. Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer will hardly care.  The Fry biography about his homosexuality is a separate matter, and is hardly disparaging in this day and age.

The 'back-room' folks are living in the past.  Lock 'em up!

Hold on though, that's not the point.
If a person goes through life not wanting the world to know his private business why should anyone divulge it all after their death?
Also, many men lived their lives in secret not only because it was illegal to be actively homosexual, but because they didn't want everyone to know they were gay....maybe they were married with children and wanted that side of their lives to be known rather than the homosexual side....surely its their choice.

No one should have the right to out anyone who doesn't/didnt want to be outed.

Meh, I don't agree. Go back to my example of eye-color...people are going to see it anyway.

My point is, homosexuality's only a stigma for shame for those bigots of yore. When we have reached the hollowed ground of, not ignoring it, but completely neglecting it--when it just blends into the background of normalcy--aren't we in a much better place?

I see the pin as a celebration of overcoming something. Kind of like a battle, or a holy site. The success is that the reality of it is accepted.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Hold on though, that's not the point.
If a person goes through life not wanting the world to know his private business why should anyone divulge it all after their death?
Also, many men lived their lives in secret not only because it was illegal to be actively homosexual, but because they didn't want everyone to know they were gay....maybe they were married with children and wanted that side of their lives to be known rather than the homosexual side....surely its their choice.

No one should have the right to out anyone who doesn't/didnt want to be outed.

Meh, I don't agree.  Go back to my example of eye-color...people are going to see it anyway.  

My point is, homosexuality's only a stigma for shame for those bigots of yore.  When we have reached the hollowed ground of, not ignoring it, but completely neglecting it--when it just blends into the background of normalcy--aren't we in a much better place?

I see the pin as a celebration of overcoming something.  Kind of like a battle, or a holy site.  The success is that the reality of it is accepted.

Yes the reality of homosexuality is accepted now, but that shouldn't override a persons wish for privacy, or secrecy if that's their choice.
Would you think it OK for someone to be outed against their will if they were still alive today?

If someone wants to be "outed", they'll do it themselves whilst they're alive.

Raggamuffin wrote:If someone wants to be "outed", they'll do it themselves whilst they're alive.

Exactly.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Do the docents have to wear uniforms?  I think it's kind of militaristic and uninviting a practice.  I was impressed by some Trust properties where street clothes are the norm.  

Holyrood House, for example, has docents who wear normal street clothes.  Such wonderful people, too.  You wouldn't even know who they are, until you voice a question or go where you're not supposed to.  They will politely answer or direct you, and somehow make you feel so good about the exchanges with them.  Love it.

Its a while since I visited any of the NT estates and halls. We used to take our son and grandson when they were young, they were always fascinated touring round the huge stately homes.
From what I remember the guides and greeters used to wear bottle green cardigans or jackets with obviously the badge on.

NT guides and greeters are, I understand, issued with shirts or fleeces with the trust logo, but I don't think there's any rule about them having compulsorily to be worn except, perhaps, in certain appropriate areas such as restricted parts of properties or potentially dangerous outdoor areas.

Paid staff obviously need to wear the corporate clothing including the statutory hi-viz jackets for some jobs such as estate or building maintenance.

For volunteers, the ID name badge, which may or may not be on a lanyard, does have to be worn for obvious reasons.

I've been an NT member for years and would happily sign up as a site volunteer except that there is no Trust property anywhere within reasonable distance of where I live.

However, the thing about this particular issue that worries me most is that the Trust - which is a charity responsible for the custodianship of buildings, historic sites and landscapes deemed to be valuable parts of our national heritage - now appears to have stepped into the realm of involving its membership and, in particular, its volunteer staff in the active promotion of the gay lifestyle and culture. (It's a contentious issue which goes well beyond Felbrigg Hall, as subscription-paying members will know.)

That is NOT the Trust's role, and is not why I pay them a considerable annual membership fee.

Indeed, I have to say that if this is going be the future direction of the Trust, then I will terminate my membership.

If I were a volunteer meeter and greeter of members of the public at one of the properties and was told that I would have to wear the rainbow symbol when on duty, then I would resign on the spot and walk out.

That does not mean that I am homophobic; gays, lesbians, etc. have and deserve full equality and the right not to be physically or verbally attacked, harassed or subjected to hatred ridicule and contempt. That's the law.

But I, personally, otherwise have absolutely no interest in them or their lifestyle choices whatsoever, and I certainly would strongly resist being obliged to publicise, campaign for or publicly endorse them by wearing their symbol as the NT management at Felbrigg Hall appears to be insisting in respect of its volunteer staff.

In fact I would feel exactly the same about any organisation in which I myself have no interest, be they Freemasons, Seventh Day Adventists, Flat Earth Society zealots or anyone else.

The whole thing is absurd. Did Mr Ketton-Cremer leave his house to the Trust because he was gay? Is he special because he was gay? Is there any connection between the house and being gay? No. Why then is this an issue?

Furthermore, it's the way they're bullying the volunteers which is the worst thing.

What did any of it have to do with Stephen Fry anyway? These people need to mind their own business and do their jobs.

Original Quill wrote:Just like wearing pink for breast cancer awareness.  It's for a good cause.

The late Mr. Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer will hardly care.  The Fry biography about his homosexuality is a separate matter, and is hardly disparaging in this day and age.

The 'back-room' folks are living in the past.  Lock 'em up!

I'm not so sure just how much wearing logos and ribbons for a particular cause really promotes awareness. I think awareness is more efficiently promoted via the media and community and changing people's beliefs and mindsets, not forcing them to wear something they feel takes away their personal choices. I'm not into all this 'in your face' promotion of a cause. You don't wear a badge saying you give to charity, or help old ladies cross the road. You just do it. It's personal and private and shouldn't have to be waved around with banners and trumpets. It just is.

It's like these ostentatious feminists burning their bras in public. Animal rights activists who blow up labs. Or feminine hygiene products. We know it's there, we buy into it, we don't have to have it shoved in our faces ad nauseam so the whole world knows we support it.

What I'm trying to say here is that we should accept homosexuality as a given, not because of badges and slogans. It's normal and should be treated as such. It's not something to be pitied or backed up by bleeding heart platitudes. Speak up about bigotry and hatred but don't perpetually try to pimp the cause by forcing people to wear their heart on their sleeves.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Syl wrote:

Its a while since I visited any of the NT estates and halls. We used to take our son and grandson when they were young, they were always fascinated touring round the huge stately homes.
From what I remember the guides and greeters used to wear bottle green cardigans or jackets with obviously the badge on.

NT guides and greeters are, I understand, issued with shirts or fleeces with the trust logo, but I don't think there's any rule about them having compulsorily to be worn except, perhaps, in certain appropriate areas such as restricted parts of properties or potentially dangerous outdoor areas.

Paid staff obviously need to wear the corporate clothing including the statutory hi-viz jackets for some jobs such as estate or building maintenance.

For volunteers, the ID name badge, which may or may not be on a lanyard, does have to be worn for obvious reasons.

I've been an NT member for years and would happily sign up as a site volunteer except that there is no Trust property anywhere within reasonable distance of where I live.

However, the thing about this particular issue that worries me most is that the Trust - which is a charity responsible for the custodianship of buildings, historic sites and landscapes deemed to be valuable parts of our national heritage - now appears to have stepped into the realm of involving its membership and, in particular, its volunteer staff  in the active promotion of the gay lifestyle and culture. (It's a contentious issue which goes well beyond Felbrigg Hall, as subscription-paying members will know.)

That is NOT the Trust's role, and is not why I pay them a considerable annual membership fee.

Indeed, I have to say that if this is going be the future direction of the Trust, then I will terminate my membership.

If I were a volunteer meeter and greeter of members of the public at one of the properties and was told that I would have to wear the rainbow symbol when on duty,  then I would resign on the spot and walk out.

That does not mean that I am homophobic; gays, lesbians, etc. have and deserve full equality and the right not to be physically or verbally attacked, harassed or subjected to hatred ridicule and contempt. That's the law.

But I, personally, otherwise have absolutely no interest in them or their lifestyle choices whatsoever, and I certainly would strongly resist being obliged to publicise, campaign for or publicly endorse them by wearing their symbol as the NT management at Felbrigg Hall appears to be insisting in respect of its volunteer staff.

In fact I would feel exactly the same about any organisation in which I myself have no interest, be they Freemasons, Seventh Day Adventists, Flat Earth Society zealots or anyone else.

Informative post Fred, thank you.

Seems the National Trust have backtracked and are now  informing  their workers that they may choose to wear or not wear the badge.
Better late than never.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4763496/National-Trust-U-turns-Gay-Pride-badge-policy.html

"The National Trust has backtracked on its decision to force volunteers to wear gay pride badges. 
Dozens of unpaid guides at Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk last night quit or refused to work following the diktat to mark 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality. 
Today the National Trust announced it would change its policy to make wearing the rainbow badges optional.
It said in a statement: 'We are aware some volunteers had conflicting, personal opinions about wearing the rainbow lanyards and badges. That was never our intention.
'We are therefore making it clear to volunteers that the wearing of the badge is optional and a personal decision"

Good!

Fred M. wrote:That is NOT the Trust's role, and is not why I pay them a considerable annual membership fee.

The same reasoning would appertain if the Trust wanted docents to wear pins honoring soldiers who died.

Would you be supportive of the same dissenters if they refused that pin?

The National Trust has reversed a decision to bar volunteers from public-facing duties at a Norfolk stately home if they refuse to wear rainbow sexual equality symbols.

Staff at Felbrigg Hall in Norfolk were offered behind-the-scenes roles after saying they were "uncomfortable" wearing multicoloured badges and lanyards for a "Prejudice and Pride" event marking 50 years since the decriminalisation of homosexuality.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/05/national-trust-backs-gay-campaign-threat-volunteers-boycott/

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:That is NOT the Trust's role, and is not why I pay them a considerable annual membership fee.

The same reasoning would appertain if the Trust wanted docents to wear pins honoring soldiers who died.

Would you be supportive of the same dissenters if they refused that pin?

Yes, of course I would. Why should you think otherwise?

I am sure there are pacifists among the NT voluntary staff who would feel that it would be a case of "glorifying war", and although I (as a veteran and an active official of the Royal British Legion) would happily wear one I would not presume to threaten those dissenting volunteers with a diminution of their duties if they failed to comply.

The background to this matter, which had been rumbling on among the membership for some time before the story broke (initially in the local newspaper) is whether the NT should become involved, on the whim of senior paid official and in the absence of any consultation with the fee-paying membership and voluntary staff, in what is essentially (non party) political campaigning.

Honoring dead servicemen would definitely be appropriate, it could be argued, because so many of the properties in the Trust's custodianship have historical links with the military and with 20th/21st century wars.

Felbrigg Hall just happens to have been last privately owned by a gay man who chose to keep his sexuality a private matter, yet who has been effectively "outed" for no reason other than the wish of the paid Director General, who has an established reputation for pursuing political correctness, to "celebrate" gay culture and lifestyle.

Attempting to impose those views on the members and volunteers who are the National Trust, and without consulting them was, I suggest, beyond her remit.

Anyway, she has apparently now backed down...and rightly so, IMO.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Those workers are volunteers...

They don't have proper (i.e. paid..) "jobs" per se,  so they can't be ordered to do something political by some jumped up supervisors who have forgotten the meaning of the term "volunteer".

In addition, in many countries it is illegal to forcefully politicise a workplace , in the way that organisation is doing..      And discrimination and/or bullying in the workplace regulations could come into play ???

This must be a first... I agree totally with fleakeeper... and also just given him a green!!!

Funny thing is... I'm sure the 'management' here would be quick to act against any of the volunteers had they started to wear badges/symbols of their own choosing for whatever particular organisation/group they personally supported...


So what makes them think they can try to impose the forced wearing of any other badge/symbol, just because they like it...!?


Sounds to me that there is a hypocritical leftie in charge there... and they are doing some typical leftie 'quantum thinking'...!

Miffs2 wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:meh, tell the volunteers to go to the back room if they cant wear the lanyards.
it only like a dozen of them anyway  

Its 350 of them and if you actually bother to read it you will see they are doing it to protest the treatment of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer.
But don't you let that stand in the way of your lazy, unoriginal, stereotypical bit of casual bigotry will you?

Seem you didn't bother to click the link and read the WHOLE thing

"There’s a group of about 10 of us who have volunteered for more than 10 years, and we’ve now been told that if we don’t toe the line, we can’t do our jobs"Mike Holmes, National Trust volunteer

340 out of 350 have no probs with it only 10 geranium do

veya_victaous wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

Its 350 of them and if you actually bother to read it you will see they are doing it to protest the treatment of Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer.
But don't you let that stand in the way of your lazy, unoriginal, stereotypical bit of casual bigotry will you?

Seem you didn't bother to click the link and read the WHOLE thing

"There’s a group of about 10 of us who have volunteered for more than 10 years, and we’ve now been told that if we don’t toe the line, we can’t do our jobs"Mike Holmes, National Trust volunteer

340 out of 350 have no probs with it only 10 geranium do

hmmm! geranums eh?

so, if the next git in charge of the NT policies decides that not 'all' Nazis were bad, in fact many of them had been demonised by the fact that they had no choice but to support the mad bastard Hitler in his mission,,,,and decided that all volunteers ought to have a swastika badge to show solidarity for 'normal' Germans who didn't agree with what Hitler did during WWII

and then some volunteer said ''hold up a minute, I don't like the idea of that''

they would be a geranium?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

The same reasoning would appertain if the Trust wanted docents to wear pins honoring soldiers who died.

Would you be supportive of the same dissenters if they refused that pin?

Yes, of course I would. Why should you think otherwise?

It was an honest question.  I was wondering if you were on principle, or depending on which ox was gored.  Gd. answer.

Fred M. wrote:I am sure there are pacifists among the NT voluntary staff who would feel that it would be a case of  "glorifying war", and although I (as a veteran and an active official of the Royal British Legion) would happily wear one I would not presume to threaten those dissenting volunteers with a diminution of their duties if they failed to comply.

The background to this matter, which had been rumbling on among the membership for some time before the story broke (initially in the local newspaper) is whether the NT should become involved, on the whim of senior paid official and in the absence of any consultation with the fee-paying membership and voluntary staff, in what is essentially (non party) political campaigning.

Honoring dead servicemen would definitely be appropriate, it could be argued,  because so many of the properties in the Trust's custodianship have historical links with the military and with 20th/21st century wars.

Felbrigg Hall just happens to have been last privately owned by a gay man who chose to keep his sexuality a private matter, yet who has been effectively "outed" for no reason other than the wish of the paid Director General, who has an established reputation for pursuing political correctness, to "celebrate" gay culture and lifestyle.

Attempting to impose those views on the members and volunteers  who are the National Trust, and without consulting them was, I suggest, beyond her remit.

Anyway, she has apparently now backed down...and rightly so, IMO.

Let's get this straight...to satisfy my understanding.  Was the Trust really outing him, or was it just that they simply honored gays with the pin?  I got the impression from the story that it was the Fry film that outed him. I know the article (supra) links the facility with the film, but I see no real substantiation of that. Could be just in the writer's mind.

[quote="Original Quill"][quote="Fred Moletrousers"]

My understanding is that the Fry film was incidental.

It became evident to the general membership (myself included) some time ago, through the Trust's internal publications, that a management policy decision had been taken to celebrate the anniversary of the ending of criminalisation of gays and this appears subsequently to have developed, under the urging of the Director General (who has long had a reputation for involving herself in external political causes, though not a very enviable reputation for good judgement) actively to support Gay Pride.

The membership, and even more importantly the large number of voluntary workers (who are at the very heart of the Trust and the people who most ensure that the organisation works effectively and efficiently in achieving its primary objective: The custodianship of much of our national history and heritage) were not consulted.

It must have been pretty obvious both to central and individual property managements that the stunt of requiring "front of house" voluntary staff to wear what is, after all, a symbol of Gay Pride in order "to demonstrate support" would go down very badly indeed with many volunteers as a blatant and dictatorial infringement of their own personal views and basic freedoms...particularly as it was backed up by the insensitive "punishment" of being removed from primary contact with visitors to the properties involved.

As I posted previously, had I been a volunteer room guide or receptionist I would have walked out immediately and would have terminated my Trust membership subscription as a matter of principle.

So far as "outing" the previous squire is concerned, it was obvious from the reaction of his Godchildren (his nearest and dearest, one assumes, since he had no family) that they found this distressing. It was no secret that he was gay and nor was there any question of shame, but his own personal preference was to keep his sexuality to himself rather than to take part in public celebrations and promotion of gayness.

I suggest that as this was widely known, the Trust should have at the very least talked to those closest to him and most certainly to have respected the personal views and preference of someone who had so generously handed over his magnificent home to the nation.