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.

This is a serious fucking problem. If you don't wear our badge you're a bigot. If you don't use the exact words we say you're a bigot. If you don't think the exact same way you are a bigot.

abigcupoffuckyou puts this very well. If there are bigots in this situation, I'm not entirely sure which side of the fence they are sitting on...

I started this, went out for the day, came back and boom! I've just got through it, and I'm glad so many people agree with me. The trouble is, they're also more eloquent than me and what I feel has been said, so much better than I can say it.
FWIW though I think -
If I gave my time volunteraly to an organisation, and they told me I had to wear a badge and lanyard for a cause (any cause), I'd refuse. a - because it's meaningless. b - because it's enough that I give them my time, I shouldn't have to promote a cause-of-the-month.
That doesn't make me a bigot
The NT (until it U-turned) needs volunteers, they are the Trust's lifeblood. It's very shortsighted to treat them like this.

Some very eloquent posts on here.

For my thoughts - I think it is great that the NT do research on previous lives of owners and history of the house &objects. Small exhibitions are interesting and add colour to a visit. But making a film seems slightly over the top - although it does allow more "access" to information - thinking about inclusivity and visitors who struggle to read.

However making volunteers wear badges is just a nonsense. The NT could made them available for staff and volunteers to wear if they chose. A very early PP made reference to suffragettes - yes personally I would like to see more on that with appropriate fan-fare and I expect others will have similar causes.

The NT are heavy handed - do write to them if you are a member. They will probably ignore you but at least they cant be unaware of how people feel.

A final post - I am not prejudiced or bigoted in any way. But I dont need people to be made to wear badges for me to believe that an organisation is being inclusive and open to all.

Can I ask a question.
All those saying "if you won't wear a rainbow thingy then you are a bigot": are you wearing a rainbow thingy this morning? And a million other thingies for all the causes you support. Do we really need to wear our hearts on our sleeves?

We went to Blenheim yesterday, the home of the Dukes of Marlborough. Nobody was asking the staff to wear ducal ermine. They wore ordinary clothes and got on with their job. Nobody was asked to identify with the owner of the house.

Overkill by the NT, as they have now acknowledged.

i think it's dangerous when people start to call everyone who disagrees with them or doesn't wish to go along with something against their will a bigot. To me it's a form of control with people being told to go along with something without having any idependant thought. People have the right to their opinions. In this case I wouldn't necessarily assume that the non wearers are homophobic- I am not comfortable with the extreme trans activism, with children as young as 3 being referred to transgender clinics, for me it's child abuse. I won't wear a badge that now stands for something I don't believe in. I don't like the way the rainbow has been hijacked as a way to push a political agenda. There are people in the LGBT community that agree.

Babybarrister, totally agree it's not even clear what the rainbow stands for, it's open to interpretation. so how someone can be called a bigot for not wearing it is beyond me.

I totally take on board your point BB but nobody should have to convey anything: tell the public about the house, yes; personally identify with it, no.
Would we expect guides at Bluebeard's castle to identify with him?

It seems to me that the badge conveys support for LGBT rights. Have I missed something?

In this case I wouldn't necessarily assume that the non wearers are homophobic- I am not comfortable with the extreme trans activism, with children as young as 3 being referred to transgender clinics, for me it's child abuse

Yes, and many lesbian women are sidestepping the rainbow flag preferring the old labrys or intertwined women's symbols because they feel squeezed out of the LGBTQI movement and because it no longer speaks for them.

nobody should have to convey anything

The question of exactly what the badge is meant to convey is a good one - but, ultimately, I fervently believe that nobody should be forced to hold (or appear to hold) any opinion. No matter what that opinion is.

Should they be forced to obey the law? Absolutely. Is it okay for the National Trust to decline the services of a volunteer who expresses personal opinions which the National Trust feels are contrary to its own? Probably. Should the National Trust be allowed to dictate to others what opinions they have to wear on their clothing? Absolutely not.

More likely they feel uncomfortable about gay stuff.

toad Yes it's about LGBT rights, but even that isn't simple.

It's worth looking at @babybarrister's post on page 14. They've summed up some of the issues / interpretations well.

Another way of thinking about it is that I support gay rights, but feel gender identity isn't in the same category. For me there are sexuality issues and gender issues so putting trans in with lesbian, gay and bisexual issues doesn't fit for me. I'm in favour of trans rights and making sure trans people get support they need to transition etc and be accepted, but I don't agree with the trans lobby of mainly male to female trans women claiming that because they call themselves a woman and Wear dresses, they are a woman and so they should be able to be in women's spaces, gains women's scholarships and take places in women's sports.

My view can't be summed up in a daft little badge and I would take issue with being told I'm a bigot because I won't be forced to wear a symbol that oversimplifies a number of issues in order to tick and equalities box

The problem has all come about because of NT's ham-fisted management. There is another historic house that was owned by LGB: for years it has been know as an interesting piece of architecture that had some illustrious visitors and btw the owners were lesbian when naice people didn't do such things. It's an add-on piece of information, not the whole point of the place, which is the proper way to do it.
Plas Newydd

My view can't be summed up in a daft little badge and I would take issue with being told I'm a bigot because I won't be forced to wear a symbol that oversimplifies a number of issues in order to tick and equalities box

Well said.

More likely they feel uncomfortable about gay stuff.

This is kind of my point, though. They are allowed to feel uncomfortable. That is their right in a free society, just as much as it's the right of a gay person to proclaim his or her sexuality. What they are not allowed to do is to discriminate against gays, or treat them unequally. If they are found on Facebook saying "really uncomfortable with all this gay stuff" then it's appropriate for the NT to say that they'd prefer not to have them as a volunteer any more. But they are perfectly entitled to feel uncomfortable and not want openly to support something. That's the flip side of a liberal society.

Exactly Natalia.

Toad in the hole
I really don't think it's about being "uncomfortable with gay stuff".
I wouldn't wear the badge either because it's too commerial, politicised and now due to extreme trans activists synonymous to me with eroding women's rights and brainwashing/ exploiting children. I won't wear a symbol for something I don't believe in, no one else should either.
Yetanotherspartacus- agree it's not representative of certain sectors the LGBT community anymore.

We went to Blenheim yesterday, the home of the Dukes of Marlborough. Nobody was asking the staff to wear ducal ermine. They wore ordinary clothes and got on with their job. Nobody was asked to identify with the owner of the house. Yes and the past problems of the current Duke are not an 'issue' included in the tour talk. Not saying being gay is a problem before anyone jumps on me. It most certainly isn't.

Maisypops (and Babybarrister),

Thanks. I think that if the badge is capable of conveying more that one meaning, then that's all the more reason for not requiring a person to wear it. However, my view is that the context makes it pretty clear: this house belonged to a gay man, therefore, the badge indicates support for gay rights and more. How much more is probably a rather involved and arid discussion that deserves Ockham's razor.

The key point for me is that wearing the badge = advocacy, and while I'd expect the life of anyone to be sensitively handled by NT, I'd also expect it to be objective. Tying it into a political objective, no matter how laudable, isn't objective and Mary indeed be giving a person's life an interpretation that it won't bear. Exactly what the badge advocates is by the by.

Missymoo,

Call me jaundiced, but the reasons given by the volunteers have got "don't like gay stuff" written all over them.

None of them seem to have objected on the basis that history shouldn't be turned into politics.

It's a very English sort of muttering "...well now .. that really is a bit much ... not how we do things here .. we're respectable people, y'know".

I agree that the NT was heavy handed and shouldn't have required anyone to wear the badges but I don't think much of the reasons given.

Your sexuality, colour , religion whatever don't get you barred from places in the UK! It is illegal Well if you read my other post you would see that we had trouble getting the lovely volunteers at our local NT property to even sell us tickets to get in, when confronted they grudingly and rudely shoved the tickets at me. If asking volunteers to wear a rainbow lanyard "outs" the ones who only want "their sort" visiting the properties then I think that is great and look forward to the day when I can visit a NT property and not get treated like an unwanted guest.

I think I know exactly the sort of person you describe. And yet, if challenged (something they'd think as jolly rude) they'd deny they'd done anything wrong. And the badges don't match the tweed, y'know.

They are allowed to feel uncomfortable. That is their right in a free society, just as much as it's the right of a gay person to proclaim his or her sexuality. What they are not allowed to do is to discriminate against gays, or treat them unequally. If they are found on Facebook saying "really uncomfortable with all this gay stuff" then it's appropriate for the NT to say that they'd prefer not to have them as a volunteer any more. But they are perfectly entitled to feel uncomfortable and not want openly to support something. That's the flip side of a liberal society. The problem is that lots of people don't keep their feelings to themselves and it can be hard to deal with and even harder to prove. Take the volunteer to deliberately ignored me when I wanted to buy a ticket, I'm sure if I made a complaint to the NT she would say she thought the other volunteer was dealing with me, she didn't realise I was waiting to be served or whatever and how do you prove that she was turning her shoulder to me and treated me completely differently to other customers? Should I have to live my life fighting prejudice when I go out with my husband just because we are different colours, and the same things goes for people whose partners are the same sex. The one thing I find interesting is so often when people complain about an incident like the one I described they will be told they have a chip on their shoulder, that they just imagine it because they are black, wear a hijab, are gay or whatever but I can go out looking like an older white woman and I know I get treated differently to when I go out as half of a mixed race couple.

So I agree they can think what they like but I don't think discrimination has to be on FB before it counts, making people feel uncomfortable, unwelcome or different isn't on either and it is harder to deal with.

Oh yes, they don't like being challenged about their attitude, I don't think they even realise they are doing it half the time.