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

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

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

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)

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.

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.

'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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

X post there saucery

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.

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?

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.

Since when is equality 'right on'

I think it was a misguided attempt to rebrand themselves as 'right on' which backfired massively. As many of us keep pointing out, there are numerous excellent ways to be informative and inclusive (such as creating the many excellent exhibitions currently showing at Various properties.) Getting people to wear a badge isn't one of them. It's naive and ultimately pretty pointless if people are wearing it unwillingly

Since when does the rainbow badge being mandatory in one property mean the principles of equality underpin the whole organisation?

Equality isn't 'right-on'. This National Trust campaign is. It is the manner of it and the thinking behind it- it is nothing to do with equality. It is badly thought out, political with a small 'p' and has been pushed by a particular person who has a history of bad decisions like this and who was over-promoted by Blair and Brown.

Equality isn't 'right on.' This specififc misguided attempt to demonstrate equality was.

That's another point, Saicery. It's one property for one season for a specific reason. Volunteers probably have other local properties they could help at for that time?

We really can't know if he would have been happy with this sort of thing - yes he left his diaries, but at the time the NT would have been unlikely to make his sexuality a focus, so he could have expected it to remain a private matter, at least until more time had passed. I think the argument that the only reason for that thinking is because of the bigotry of the time, that we have moved on, and recognising gay history is important is also pretty persuasive. I just don't know enough yet to know which side I come down on, because it's a complex issue, and it is possible to acknowledge that without being a bigot. It's not just as simple as if you don't wear a badge you're homophobic. A friend of mine doesn't like Pride anymore because it's got too commercial for him and not political enough, so wouldn't want to be part of what he would call 'rainbow washing'. I'm not saying that's why any of the volunteers in question didn't want to wear the badges, but it really isn't as simple as not having a problem with it if you're not homophobic.

@Saucery on an individual basis the badge that springs to mind with much discussion about rules associated with it is the Swastika. Don't think its actually banned though.

Depends what else is around, Bishop. I wouldn't have thought there was any transference in NT properties in my area as they are many miles apart. Norfolk might be different.

'Volunteers probably have other local properties they could help at for that time?'
Again you're missing the point. They shouldn't have to. They should be able to choose what organisations they choose to support, not be dictated to.

Umm, Ripple, I was thinking of milder statements of support for causes than a swastika tbh