To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

I don't see why a man who died 50 years ago, who chose for whatever reason to be private about his sexuality, who never chose to be in the limelight, should be outed by the National Trust as part of a 'right-on' publicity campaign. The National Trust is about houses, estates, land, buildings and maintaining them for everyone. It is mainly staffed by middle-aged and elderly volunteers and could not exist without them. It is not about 'outing' people. That should be a personal choice, not a national publicity campaign. Stephen Fry has become a bit of a fool in recent years- self-obsessed and self-indulgent.
I would have had no issue if the gentleman who gave his home and estate to the NT had been open about his sexuality. He wasn't. He didn't give them right of ownership of his whole life.

If you worked for a company that did not agree with aborstion so wanted to make its staff ALL wear PRO LIFE badges would you think that wasnt such a impostion or unusual idea?

where do you draw the line?

Symbols lose all meaning if they are forced upon people, what is the point of them if everyone has to wear them?

Compulsory wearing of badges as part of their marketing of the property. Why should that be such an unusual idea?

Because it's illiberal and dictatorial. It's a political symbol, not a name badge with an oak leaf.

Every charity has rules that volunteers have to follow. You can not pick and choose

Yes you can. As the NT have conceded.

X post there saucery

And when you feel a 'rule' is misguided you have every right to speak up about it in protest- as happened here, with the result that the NT did a U turn.

There are many brilliant ways of promoting equalities - as evidence by some of the great, informative exhibitions currently going on in many historic properties. Wearing a badge isn't one of them.

You can voice your concerns and objections, which is what they have done.
Are there any rules on wearing badges/wristbands/t shirts supporting causes, I wonder? On an individual basis.

Every charity has rules that volunteers have to follow. You can not pick and choose.

Compulsory wearing of badges as part of their marketing of the property. Why should that be such an unusual idea?

I don't think the volunteers should have been told to wear the badge or be moved to a non-public facing role.

I accept that some posters disagree and think the NT were correct with their original stance.

Accepting differences of opinion is ok.

What has fucking hacked me off is the minority on here who call those of us who disagree with them, bigots and homophobes. I'd say that's the biggest example of bigotry in itself

'It is part of every charities rules that volunteers have to promote equalities.'

Yes they can do that without the compulsory wearing of badges supporting a cause though. That is an individual choice.
If we were talking about someone treating a customer unfairly I could see your point.

Maybe they need to communicate more effectively with all their stakeholders, including their volunteers. I really don't believe there are no LGBT volunteers, or that the body is made up of elderly bigots.

Just because a policy isn't breaching the law doesn't mean it's necessarily an intelligent, well thought through one. As seems evident from the U turn by the NT.

So if an employer introduces a policy that isn't breaching the law each employee has the right to flout it? To choose whether it's for them or not?

I do think the same applies in the voluntary sector (speaking as a volunteer)

It is part of every charities rules that volunteers have to promote equalities.

'If they don't want to do it they can either choose a different role or take a break, surely?'

They shouldn't have to . Im surprised that a few people here think anyone should be forced to wear a badge supporting a cause. It's a free country you know. It's entirely possible to support causes without having to wear badges or a lanyard.

In Queen Victorias time, and up until the 70s, lesbians were routinely committed to mental asylums for being lesbian.

Well, yes they have that choice. But I don't agree it's good for that sort of choice to be the norm. It's very similar to 'if you don't like the dress code you don't have to work here' in relation to high heels and full make up.

I've not worn a pride badge this year or any rainbow garment/accessory. I assume that makes me a raging homophobe

Though seriously, the volunteers give their time to help look after old properties. As long as they aren't spouting bigoted nonsense, I don't really give a damn abouy their personal feelings on sexuality. It has nothing to do with their ability to do their volunteering so why push people into wearing tokenistic bits of tat?

I'm very much pro gay rights but I'd take an issue with any employer telling me I must wear some symbol of my personal views.

They might not want to wear a badge. For whatever reason. Perhaps they are gay and disagree with the Trans element of the symbol? Who knows.

Myrtle- completely agree. In fact the bigotry demonstrated on this thread has been from
The minority who make sweeping assumptions about other posters' sexuality and want a 'one size fits all' approach to certain orientations

@SomeDyke excuse me if I sound horribly ignorant I really don't mean to but wasn't it the fact in Queen Victoria's day lesbianism wasn't illegal because she lacked the imagination to work out how they might have sex? Or did I dream that?

If they don't want to do it they can either choose a different role or take a break, surely?

I do find it interesting when women remained resolutely unmarried and managed to inherit property. They were up against the weight of tradition and it must have been very difficult. Whether they were gay or not I don't know.

"But this is happening this year because it's 50 years since the legalisation of homosexuality. That was a huge thing. It happened because of the Wolfenden report, something the owner of this house was aware of having an annotated copy of said report himself.

So why is it a stretch that the NT want to link all of this - the history of the house, the Wolfenden report and the anniversary and commemorate it with lanyards and badges? It's all linked!"

Anyone else find this a tad patronising?
We're aware of the context. We're aware of the significance. Some of us just don't happen to believe that the vounteers should have been told to wear the badge. That's all. It doesn't mean we're bigoted, homophobic, unenlightened. It doesn't mean we must be straight and/or have no understanding of the issues around decriminalisation of homosexuality. It just means we think in this particular instance, ordering people to wear a specific badge wasn't a good decision on the part of the NT. A conclusion they seem to have now reached too.

'So why is it a stretch that the NT want to link all of this - the history of the house, the Wolfenden report and the anniversary and commemorate it with lanyards and badges? It's all linked!'

So what? you still shouldn't make staff wear badges supporting any cause. The NT seem to have seen the error of their ways now anyway. I disagree with Brastys ' you wouldn't have a problems unless you're a bigot'' earlier bollocks.