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

First topic message reminder :

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.

Making them wear the badges or hide away is a bit like the way gay people were treated back then isn't it? I'm sure some of them had to choose whether to say they were gay or hide it.

Fred T. wrote: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.

So the bottom-line is the Trust had nothing to do with the outing.

Fred M. wrote: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.

See, that's an entirely different story...saying the Trust was less than sensitive is a far cry from saying the Trust intentionally outed Ketton-Cremer.  If relatives are uncomfortable with it, they should seek out grief counselling, not try to attack a respectable gay pride celebration.

but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

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.

I agree, the NT are trying to right a wrong with another wrong.
I'm sure I haven't heard of gay visitors being turned away from NT properties. Rallying to a cause that doesn't exist.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote: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.

See, that's an entirely different story...saying the Trust was less than sensitive is a far cry from saying the Trust intentionally outed Ketton-Cremer.  If relatives are uncomfortable with it, they should seek out grief counselling, not try to attack a respectable gay pride celebration.

I did say in a previous post "effectively outed" in the sense that senior management clearly decided to concentrate on the promotion of K-C's sexuality by requiring front-of-house volunteers to wear the symbol of Gay Pride rather than simply to display the organisation's nationally recognised corporate oak leaf and acorn logo. Perhaps I did not make myself entirely clear.

I still maintain that this was a blatant case of NT senior management deciding to actively involve its volunteer staff - who are also members of the Trust - in what is undoubtedly a (non-party) political campaign in support of Gay Pride and the gay lobby generally - and without even seeking their views!

At best, in my opinion as a Trust member, that was patronising and insensitive and at worst it was a dictatorial abuse of the freedom of their own membership and volunteers to choose whether or not they wanted to be involved.

I side with a point made earlier Vic...there is a big difference between being askedto wear a symbol and being toldto wear a symbol, and that is especially so if you have volunteered your time and efforts (and subscription fees!) in support of your own organisation and its principles and not those of another and vastly different one.

There is nothing in the slightest to indicate that the action and opinions of the dissenting voluntary staff and members like myself who support their stand is in some way "homophobic", so it is a nonsense to suggest that the relatives (actually, K-C was survived only Godchildren) have "tried to attack a respectable Gay Pride celebration."

They have done no such thing, and to say, as you do, that they should seek grief counselling if they are "uncomfortable" is, I would respectfully suggest, rather patronising.

Miffs2 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.

I agree, the NT are trying to right a wrong with another wrong.
I'm sure I haven't heard of gay visitors being turned away from NT properties. Rallying to a cause that doesn't exist.

Actually, the National Trust isn't "trying to right a wrong..."

Surely the "wrong" was the previous criminalisation of gay people - and that was put "right" by Parliament half a century ago.

As a member of the Trust, I would have had no problem at all with the information boards at Felbrigg Hall recalling the fact that the previous owner was gay and that he had placed the property in the Trust's care because he was survived by no family members to whom it would normally have been bequeathed. That is relevant historical information.

I would not even have minded a mention of this being the 50th (I think) anniversary of the repeal of what the majority of us today fully accept as being grotesquely repressive legislation.

My concerns are that (a) the Trust senior management appear to have established a dangerous precedent of active involvement in a political campaign outside the bounds of its own remit (the acquisition, restoration, maintenance and public promotion of land and properties which are important in the UK's history and part of our national heritage) - and (b) the presumption that they can coerce or even force Trust members who volunteer to work at its sites into playing an active role in that campaign by displaying its symbol.

And like you, I have never, in decades of membership and many, many visits to properties (now my main holiday activity) seen or heard a single thing that could be construed as being anti-Gay.

veya_victaous wrote:but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there  had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

He possibly would have.
Some gay people today live their lives pretending to be straight...they marry, have children...and appear to be part of a straight couple.
Maybe their job or their position in society still puts pressure on some to hide their true sexuality....or maybe they still feel some sort of stigma or shame within themselves....society may have moved on but human emotions don't always follow at the same speed.

Miffs2 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.

I agree, the NT are trying to right a wrong with another wrong.
I'm sure I haven't heard of gay visitors being turned away from NT properties. Rallying to a cause that doesn't exist.

The only wrong in this sequence of events occurred when the state made homosexuality illegal.  The shyness of Ketton-Cremer, as veya points out, is secondary to that discriminatory law.

Now, Ketton-Cremer was outed by the Fry film, and nothing associated with the Trust had any part it that.  The Trust was merely sympathetic to the undoing of a wrongful law of discrimination.  In a free society, we are all entitled to freedom in our opinions.

Now, comes along the Trust and, having only a sympathetic connection with the anti-discrimination movement--nothing wrong with that--they create a badge that shows support for that cause.  The Trust has nothing to make amends for.  Finding a wrong in the activities of the Trust is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.  They are merely joining in a good cause in the community.

Fred M. wrote:My concerns are that (a) the Trust senior management appear to have established a dangerous precedent of active involvement in a political campaign outside the bounds of its own remit (the acquisition, restoration, maintenance and public promotion of land and properties which are important in the UK's history and part of our national heritage) - and (b) the presumption that they can coerce or even force Trust members who volunteer to work at its sites into playing an active role in that campaign by displaying its symbol.

I applaud this post, and give you a Well said!  As to 'a', I believe there is a strong history of having a not-for-profit organization (NFP) engage in public causes and messages.  For example, for years in this country, the Sierra Club engaged in a campaign to prohibit smoking in wilderness areas, because of the dangers of forest fires.  These are the kinds of things that NFP's do, and their mission would be fruitless if they didn't do them.

As for 'b', that's a management problem.  Lord knows, I'm the first person to speak out against coercion.  If the mandatory issue of wearing a badge is causing an allergic reaction for some, go with it.  But you do have to wonder why they oppose it.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there  had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

He possibly would have.
Some gay people today live their lives pretending to be straight...they marry, have children...and appear to be part of a straight couple.
Maybe their job or their position in society still puts pressure on some to hide their true sexuality....or maybe they still feel some sort of stigma or shame within themselves....society may have moved on but human emotions don't always follow at the same speed.

You are trying to justify anti-gay sentiments, only one step removed. You are not directly apologizing for the discrimination, but indirectly apologizing for Ketton-Cremer's response to legal coercion. Either way, your arguments support the anti-gay persuasion.

Thank god the UK removed the law from the books. It's behind us.

Original Quill wrote:

Miffs2 wrote:

I agree, the NT are trying to right a wrong with another wrong.
I'm sure I haven't heard of gay visitors being turned away from NT properties. Rallying to a cause that doesn't exist.

The only wrong in this sequence of events occurred when the state made homosexuality illegal.  The shyness of Ketton-Cremer, as veya points out, is secondary to that discriminatory law.

Now, Ketton-Cremer was outed by the Fry film, and nothing associated with the Trust had any part it that.  The Trust was merely sympathetic to the undoing of a wrongful law of discrimination.  In a free society, we are all entitled to freedom in our opinions.

Now, comes along the Trust and, having only a sympathetic connection with the anti-discrimination movement--nothing wrong with that--they create a badge that shows support for that cause.  The Trust has nothing to make amends for.  Finding a wrong in the activities of the Trust is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.  They are merely joining in a good cause in the community.

But I am afraid that the Trust, or at least its senior management, do have something to make amends for...and that is the original flawed decision that required volunteer staff to wear a version of the Gay Pride symbol on pain of being re-assigned from the public role for which they volunteered to out-of-sight backroom support duties.

Are you really implying that it should still have been compulsory for all front-of-house volunteers to wear the symbol? I would be amazed if you are doing so, as that would have been a gross infringement of their right not overtly and actively to support the campaign.

I myself would have most definitely refused to comply because, not being a gay person and having no particular interest in either their lifestyle or culture, I have an inalienable right either to support or not to support their public activities - over and above my previously stated welcome for the repeal of previous legislation regarding criminality.

Had the management of a National Trust property with a connection, say,  to the WW1 Battle of Passchendaele (something that is quite feasible since many of the Trust's properties were used as military hospitals and recuperation centres in both world wars) instructed its volunteers, on pain of disciplinary action to wear military-style lapel badges or items "celebrating" or supporting the armed services, I know damn well that you would be among the very first to condemn it on the reasonable grounds it would have been unacceptable and probably offensive to some of them.

As, as a matter of fact, so would I, though perhaps for very different reasons.

veya_victaous wrote:but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there  had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

Maybe he would have - on the grounds that it was nobody else's business. He was said to be a private person.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

He possibly would have.
Some gay people today live their lives pretending to be straight...they marry, have children...and appear to be part of a straight couple.
Maybe their job or their position in society still puts pressure on some to hide their true sexuality....or maybe they still feel some sort of stigma or shame within themselves....society may have moved on but human emotions don't always follow at the same speed.

You are trying to justify anti-gay sentiments, only one step removed.  You are not directly apologizing for the discrimination, but indirectly apologizing for Ketton-Cremer's response to legal coercion.  Either way, your arguments support the anti-gay persuasion.

Thank god the UK removed the law from the books.  It's behind us.

Absolutely nothing of the kind.
I don't now nor have ever supported the anti gay movement.
It is a fact however that some homosexuals prefer not to out themselves because of personal reasons....and they may have absolutely nothing to do with how society sees them.
I am talking of now not 50 years ago.

And I would support the thought that anyone who kept his homosexuality secret in his lifetime be awarded the same privacy after his death.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred M. wrote:My concerns are that (a) the Trust senior management appear to have established a dangerous precedent of active involvement in a political campaign outside the bounds of its own remit (the acquisition, restoration, maintenance and public promotion of land and properties which are important in the UK's history and part of our national heritage) - and (b) the presumption that they can coerce or even force Trust members who volunteer to work at its sites into playing an active role in that campaign by displaying its symbol.

I applaud this post, and give you a Well said!  As to 'a', I believe there is a strong history of having a not-for-profit organization (NFP) engage in public causes and messages.  For example, for years in this country, the Sierra Club engaged in a campaign to prohibit smoking in wilderness areas, because of the dangers of forest fires.  These are the kinds of things that NFP's do, and their mission would be fruitless if they didn't do them.

As for 'b', that's a management problem.  Lord knows, I'm the first person to speak out against coercion.  If the mandatory issue of wearing a badge is causing an allergic reaction for some, go with it.  But you do have to wonder why they oppose it.

Thanks for your endorsement of those points at least, Quill, and I agree with you that NFP organisations should become involved in appropriate public causes and messages.

I do, however, stress the word "appropriate" and the example you provided appears to be a case in point.

In the case of the NT however, the professional management of what is a membership-owned organisation with a particular environmental and historical remit, originally made the mistake of straying into the field of political campaigning in support of an entirely separate cause, no matter how deserving, without seeking the approval of the subscription-paying membership.

Even worse, management attempted to utilise the services of volunteer staff without even bothering to ask for their agreement...and virtually punishing them when they failed to comply.

That was a stupid and dangerous precedent, and I am pleased that management has since publicly backed down and that for staff to wear the symbol is now optional.

One only has to look at how the UK Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has become embroiled in management-inspired politicalisation to see that it can have adverse effects.

As to your final sentence, I have already explained my own stance, should I have been involved: I am not gay; have no wish actively to support Gay Pride and certainly do not wish to wear their symbol - simply because I am not interested.

...any more than I would expect gay people necessarily to support the Royal British Legion, wear its symbol and other veteran or veteran-supporting insignia as I do - because that is a cause in which I am deeply and passionately interested.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are trying to justify anti-gay sentiments, only one step removed.  You are not directly apologizing for the discrimination, but indirectly apologizing for Ketton-Cremer's response to legal coercion.  Either way, your arguments support the anti-gay persuasion.

Thank god the UK removed the law from the books.  It's behind us.

Absolutely nothing of the kind.
I don't now nor have ever supported the anti gay movement.
It is a fact however that some homosexuals prefer not to out themselves because of personal reasons....and they may have absolutely nothing to do with how society sees them.
I am talking of now not 50 years ago.

And I would support the thought that anyone who kept his homosexuality secret in his lifetime  be awarded the same privacy after his death.

So, indeed you are talking almost 50-years ago. Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer died in 1969.

We don't know what he would want today, do we? Veya's point is quite valid: Likely, Ketton-Cremer didn't want to be outed when he was alive because it was illegal. That has all gone by the way, today.

I speculate he would be proud about his homosexuality in these times. Let's assume so. There's no more stigma. Indeed, to assume otherwise would be to carry the discrimination forward, and perpetuate it. Today, we need to emphasize that it's in the past, and that's precisely what the Trust is doing with it's commemorative pins.

Syl wrote:

Absolutely nothing of the kind.
I don't now nor have ever supported the anti gay movement.
It is a fact however that some homosexuals prefer not to out themselves because of personal reasons....and they may have absolutely nothing to do with how society sees them.
I am talking of now not 50 years ago.

And I would support the thought that anyone who kept his homosexuality secret in his lifetime  be awarded the same privacy after his death.

So, indeed you are talking almost 50-years ago.  Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer died in 1969.  

We don't know what he would want today, do we?  Veya's point is quite valid: Likely, Ketton-Cremer didn't want to be outed when he was alive because it was illegal.  That has all gone by the way, today.  

I speculate he would be proud about his homosexuality in these times.  Let's assume so.  There's no more stigma.  Indeed, to assume otherwise would be to carry the discrimination forward, and perpetuate it.  Today, we need to emphasize that it's in the past, and that's precisely what the Trust is doing with it's commemorative pins.[/quote=Origional Quill]

......................................................................................................................

I was addressing two different points.

1....Some people even today may wish, through personal reasons not to live their lives openly gay.

2....If someone never comes out in life (as this man didn't) no one should have the right to 'out' him after his death...unless of course that was his wish, and there is no indication in this case that it was.[/quote]

(messed quotes up)

Fred M. wrote:In the case of the NT however, the professional management of what is a membership-owned organisation with a particular environmental and historical remit, originally made the mistake of straying into the field of political campaigning in support of an entirely separate cause, no matter how deserving, without seeking the approval of the subscription-paying membership.

It’s complicated. I realized your point, even when I was drafting my response involving the Sierra Club example. The Sierra Club is devoted to the cause of its founder, John Muir, whose work was distinctly “naturalist, author, environmental philosopher, glaciologist and early advocate for the preservation of wilderness in the United States”.

The National Trust has a much broader mandate, involving not just the wilderness, but the entire history of the UK.

If it’s trust properties go to some element of that history, the Trust should presume that such an element it is their duty to celebrate.

I recognize the sensitivities here, but I think the Trust was doing its job in recognizing the rights and progress of gays with a specific mind toward Ketton-Cremer, the deceased owner of the property. At least I think the Trust thought it was doing its job, and they should be given credit for the good intentions.

Perhaps the real problem is that we are still smarting somewhat from the bruises, the controversy being so recent. But really, the Trust was doing its job, fulfilling its mandate to bring forward the history of Britain.

Fred M. wrote:Even worse, management attempted to utilise the services of volunteer staff without even bothering to ask for their agreement...and virtually punishing them when they failed to comply.

That was a stupid and dangerous precedent, and I am pleased that management has since publicly backed down and that for staff to wear the symbol is now optional.

One only has to look at how the UK Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has become embroiled in management-inspired politicalisation to see that it can have adverse effects.

As to your final sentence, I have already explained my own stance, should I have been involved: I am not gay; have no wish actively to support Gay Pride and certainly do not wish to wear their symbol - simply because I am not interested.

...any more than I would expect gay people necessarily to support the Royal British Legion, wear its symbol and other veteran or veteran-supporting insignia as I do - because that is a cause in which I am deeply and passionately interested.

On this, I would agree with you.  The National Trust management style seems a bit old-fashioned.  Here we are dealing with (my interpretation of their remit) preserving the history of an elegant old building of significance to the UK.  If we can break the mission of the NT down to specific trust properties, then we can break down the education mission of the Trust to those most knowledgeable about those properties.  

The volunteer staff should have been consulted, and it would be an excellent experience for them, as well as the British public, to engage in an exchange of sorts, about the history of the specific property, as well as peripheral matters such as gay-rights, or other significant sociohistorical-related matters.  Such an effort would really advance the richness of belonging to, and volunteering for the Trust.

If you are involved, I would urge you to suggest that very thing to the Board as a way, not only to avoid such disputes in the future, but as an opportunity to advance the educational and entertainment mission of the NT.  Make it a living experience...not just a dusty old place to visit.

Syl wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there  had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

He possibly would have.
Some gay people today live their lives pretending to be straight...they marry, have children...and appear to be part of a straight couple.
Maybe their job or their position in society still puts pressure on some to hide their true sexuality....or maybe they still feel some sort of stigma or shame within themselves....society may have moved on but human emotions don't always follow at the same speed.

society is moving on but no one has been raised with out the stigmatism of being gay yet
Only when kids are born in a society with equal rights and never experience a world where it is discriminated against will society have actually moved on.
so another 20 or 30 years time from now will be the first.

Raggamuffin wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:but the guy never had a choice, most of his life it was illegal

So he kept the illegal activities secret, that sort of makes the point of why this sort of promotion is needed, he was only so damaged because of the prejudice society he was raised in. Would he have been so private if there  had not been the discrimination against homosexuals? probably not

Maybe he would have - on the grounds that it was nobody else's business. He was said to be a private person.

chicken and the egg

he was private but if he was open he would have been punished

Alan Turning a man vital to the defeat of the Nazi was still punished in 1952

it not until 2016 that the fact it was blatantly unjust was made official
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37711518

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:

He possibly would have.
Some gay people today live their lives pretending to be straight...they marry, have children...and appear to be part of a straight couple.
Maybe their job or their position in society still puts pressure on some to hide their true sexuality....or maybe they still feel some sort of stigma or shame within themselves....society may have moved on but human emotions don't always follow at the same speed.

society is moving on but no one has been raised with out the stigmatism of being gay yet
Only when kids are born in a society with equal rights and never experience a world where it is discriminated against will society have actually moved on.
so another 20 or 30 years time from now will be the first.  

In many countries laws and attitudes have changed considerably, even in the last 10 years....but only when no one feels the need to 'come out' will society be truly equal.

They will never be equal while Muslims are around !

nicko wrote:They will never be equal while Muslims are around !

That's a valid point Nicko.

Many Muslims are taught that homosexuality is wrong, and whereas our Chrisitan church has at best changed at least modified its views, I don't think other faiths have been as civilised.

Original Quill wrote:

If you are involved, I would urge you to suggest that very thing to the Board as a way, not only to avoid such disputes in the future, but as an opportunity to advance the educational and entertainment mission of the NT.  Make it a living experience...not just a dusty old place to visit.

I'm just an ordinary fee-paying member of the NT who is happy to support its aims and objectives, and while I hear what you say I'm content with my lot and happy with what the Trust achieves under its present remit.

The NT now owns and runs, in the name of ordinary folk like myself, many of the greatest historical buildings and landscapes in the UK and apart from the occasional daft management decision like the one we have been discussing they make a damn good fist of it.

Where, only a generation or two ago, these magnificent places were owned by the aristocracy and the nation's "great and the good" and were strictly off-limits to people like me, I can now visit them at will (OK, so there are admission fees - but NT members get in for free and believe me, it's well worth the fifty quid or so per year sub) , admire grounds that were designed by the great 18th century landscape architect Lancelot (Capability) Brown and stand on the footprints of the Kings and Queens who are at the heart of our history.

This year alone I have seen three of Capability Brown's landscape creations; I have stood in rooms visited by Henry V111 and his daughter Queen Elizabeth 1, Charles 1, Oliver Cromwell, Lord Cardigan, the commander of the famous Light Brigade at the Battle of Balaclava and I have touched Tudor, Jacobean and Stuart era furniture and artefacts and I have stood within touching distance of paintings by Turner, van Gogh, Rembrandt, Constable, Raphael and Canaletto....I could go on and on, because these things mean so much to me.

I don't want the Trust to turn into some simpering manifestation of national political correctness hell-bent on fronting ridiculous and pointless grovelling "public apologies" for past demeanours while conveniently forgetting this country's glorious place in world history. I want it to carry on doing the good job that it is doing right now...and leave the weeping, wailing, hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth to others better suited to it.

And God alone knows, there are plenty of them.

I don't think it's that bad. I was a member of the Trust up until they decided to discriminate against foreign members. I'm aware of their philosophy. They are just fulfilling a wider mission.

My own castle is in a private trust and I have occasionally advised the trustee on legal matters. Whence cometh my own interest in these old structures. The Clan chief keeps the place complete with mannequins, in period dress, in scenes such as a kitchen preparing a meal, a child sleeping in a bedroom, the family reading in the study, and Spanish prisoners in the dungeon...all of which lay emphasis upon some part of the castle's history.

Original Quill wrote:I don't think it's that bad.  I was a member of the Trust up until they decided to discriminate against foreign members.  I'm aware of their philosophy.  They are just fulfilling a wider mission.

My own castle is in a private trust and I have occasionally advised the trustee on legal matters.  Whence cometh my own interest in these old structures.  The Clan chief keeps the place complete with mannequins, in period dress, in scenes such as a kitchen preparing a meal, a child sleeping in a bedroom, the family reading in the study, and Spanish prisoners in the dungeon...all of which lay emphasis upon some part of the castle's history.

In what way does the NT discriminate against foreign members Quill?
Their ads say the exact opposite.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/overseas-visitors

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:I don't think it's that bad.  I was a member of the Trust up until they decided to discriminate against foreign members.  I'm aware of their philosophy.  They are just fulfilling a wider mission.

My own castle is in a private trust and I have occasionally advised the trustee on legal matters.  Whence cometh my own interest in these old structures.  The Clan chief keeps the place complete with mannequins, in period dress, in scenes such as a kitchen preparing a meal, a child sleeping in a bedroom, the family reading in the study, and Spanish prisoners in the dungeon...all of which lay emphasis upon some part of the castle's history.

In what way does the NT discriminate against foreign members Quill?
Their ads say the exact opposite.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/overseas-visitors

Fees.  I remember when they restructured, giving huge advantages to UK members, and screwing all outsiders. So I just dropped them.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


In what way does the NT discriminate against foreign members Quill?
Their ads say the exact opposite.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/overseas-visitors

Fees.  I remember when they restructured, giving huge advantages to UK members, and screwing all outsiders.  So I just dropped them.

Would this be the answer for US citizens who planned to visit a substantial number of NT properties? It would probably save money compared to the admission fees that are charged to all non-members, including from this country.

http://www.royal-oak.org/join/

It also appears that members of certain heritage bodies in many other countries can get free entry here on presentation of their home membership card. English Heritage, another of our historic site trusts, has a reciprocal arrangement with its Welsh counterpart Cadw under which members of one can visit properties owned by the other for free.

Syl wrote:

nicko wrote:They will never be equal while Muslims are around !

That's a valid point Nicko.

Many Muslims are taught that homosexuality is wrong, and whereas our Chrisitan church has at best changed at least modified its views, I don't think other faiths have been as civilised.

the fact secularism defeated Christianity on this shows it can do it with Islam too

Secularism will win in the end, have faith

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:
That's a valid point Nicko.

Many Muslims are taught that homosexuality is wrong, and whereas our Chrisitan church has at best changed at least modified its views, I don't think other faiths have been as civilised.

the fact secularism defeated Christianity on this shows it can do it with Islam too  

Secularism will win in the end, have faith

I do...We may not have to fight against homophobia but we  all have to fight against discrimination in life somewhere along the line, for eg I am a woman..... you are Australian.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Fees.  I remember when they restructured, giving huge advantages to UK members, and screwing all outsiders.  So I just dropped them.

Would this be the answer for US citizens who planned to visit a substantial number of NT properties? It would probably save money compared to  the admission fees that are charged to all non-members, including from this country.

http://www.royal-oak.org/join/

But membership fees are year-round, whereas a visit is for 2 - weeks or so. I had been a member for many years.

Anyway, it was offensive to me when they restructured. Disassociating is a way of showing your discontent...registering your vote, so to speak. I imagine there were a lot of votes cast that year.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:


In what way does the NT discriminate against foreign members Quill?
Their ads say the exact opposite.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/overseas-visitors

Fees.  I remember when they restructured, giving huge advantages to UK members, and screwing all outsiders.  So I just dropped them.

Thanks, I didn't know that.
It does seem unfair, if someone is buying or renewing their membership the cost should be the same for all imo.

Original Quill wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Would this be the answer for US citizens who planned to visit a substantial number of NT properties? It would probably save money compared to  the admission fees that are charged to all non-members, including from this country.

http://www.royal-oak.org/join/

But membership fees are year-round, whereas a visit is for 2 - weeks or so.  I had been a member for many years.

Anyway, it was offensive to me when they restructured.  Disassociating is a way of showing your discontent...registering your vote, so to speak.  I imagine there were a lot of votes cast that year.

I'm not sure how any past restructuring (presumably of the management) impacted on overseas members, but this is the only up-to-date and relevant information from the Trust's own website that I can offer.

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/joining-from-the-usa

I have to say that in my opinion it appears to be a pretty good deal but everything depends, of course, on whether an occasional visitor from the US would regard their annual Royal Oak subscription as being good value for money.

All I can say it that even a fortnight's visit might be worth it if the intention is to visit a number of Trust properties. My late wife and I joined some years ago while on a 10 day holiday in Northumbria and by the end of that time we had re-couped the cost of the entire annual joint membership fee of about £100 by a handsome margin, simply  by visiting just a handful of properties and sites where we would otherwise have paid as much as £25 for two tickets plus car parking fees of up to £5 a day at some of them.

Fred M. wrote:I'm not sure how any past restructuring (presumably of the management) impacted on overseas members, but this is the only up-to-date and relevant information from the Trust's own website that I can offer.

That brief advert doesn't give a picture of how they created what can only be called a "penalty" for living/being a citizen overseas. No matter...they can do what they want, and I the same.

Very often now, when you enter a country you can buy a bus/train pass at the airport, and it will entitle you to all of a countries pleasures. In Lisbon a purchase of a week bus pass gives you rides, not only on the busses, but those adorable, tiny rails up to Barrio Alto, the Santa Justa Elevator, and museums and such. Paris the same. Look into them...they don't require you to sign up for years, yet save an equal amount.