National Trust guides obliged to wear rainbow badges

I don't think a lot of the comments are gow56

It appears to me that a few on here are against gay people having full equality.

Marieeliz - gay people have had hetereosexuality 'pushed down their throats' throughout history. It is sad that you object to people marching for equal rights (This is where the Pride marches originated.) There are still people in this world who are killed because of their sexuality.
Being gay is not a 'choice'!! Also I find your comment about trans people 'sickening'.
You have no idea of the pain and suffering that trans people go through regarding feeling they are in the wrong body. A lot of people need to get edcuated regarding the trans issue.
I'm sure that a lot of people commenting on here would object to a trans man dressing in a skirt whilst objecting to NT volunteers being 'forced' to wear a rainbow badge!!

A lot of these comments sound like homophobia and transphobia to me!!

No-one is acccusing anyone of being homophobic. The NT just wants to acknowledge this important anniversary which is a very important milestone in our country's history. What is wrong with that?

I agree completely with eglantine19. I don't think anyone should be forced into wearing anything they don't want to but surely if this exhibition is acknowledging the anniversary of the decriminalisation of homosexuality and to honour and acknowledge the life of the person who once owned this house then I see nothing at all wrong with it.

To what end is all this?
As a long time NT member, I do NOT wish to have anyone's allegiance to anything displayed. The front-room staff are there to aid with one's appreciation of the property ands to add to one's enjoyment of the visit.... not to castigate me by the virtue signalling.
Anyway, as these properties are kept for the benefit of members, who are those on high who decided to speak on my behalf?
I object to being described as 'homophobic... that is my prerogative but plays no part in my paying my dues to the organisation. I am not anti but object to the term' marriage ' having been mis-appropriated. Why not introduce a new term for a new situation. No-one could then object

I'm really fed of campaigns, companies, political parties and institutions and individuals telling me what I ought to think about issues that are currently in fashion to support. If I was a volunteer, or indeed an employee, I would refuse to wear a symbol like this and, as MiceElf (lovely nickname by the way) says the NT seem as if they are being very selective in issues they choose to support.

Exactly right grannyticktock well said.

There's also the point that if people are issued with badges etc and told to wear them, it devalues the significance of the symbol. It doesn't demonstrate how the wearer feels about gay rights or anything else, as he/she didn't choose to make the gesture. A badge or symbol that is worn voluntarily has more meaning.

The problem is that Homosexuality etc. Is being pushed down our throats! I am sick of it and so are a lot of others I know. When are we going to have a march for straight people! The LGBT groups are making us feel abnormal. If they want an alternative lifestyle get on with it but shoving it in everyone's face is getting a bit sickening.

Two carers just arrived at a neighbours house yesterday, one female and one male, as far as she knew. She was told that the man was really a women and was taking "taking the tablets". They other carer came to tell her this, what a waste of money.

You have those who believe you are showing a homophobic attitude if you don't wear the badge. No you are not.

You have those who say you must wear the rainbow badge but those individuals may hold a different view if they were put in the same position. Let's say ' the poppy' , plenty of posters can be seen vehemently to state why they do not believe in anything other than badge wearing should be down to individual choice when it comes to poppy. . Each to their own and it should be a personal choice, not a requirement.

You have those who feel the NT volunteers are 'old farts' and they should be out to pasture . Why? It has never been an issue before and the key word is ' VOLUNTEER'. Does the NT prohibit/have an age limit on who can volunteer? I apologise if the NT exclude young people from volunteering.

I personally couldn't care less whether a volunteer wore the badge or not but I do think they should be/should have been allowed to make the choice for themselves , certainly not be told to wear the badge.

As for the reasons behind volunteers who have reportedly resigned only they will know their reason for doing so. To see the using of the word homophobic used against them begs the question if volunteering is worth it / was worth it if the only thing people respect you for is if you 'toe the line' of thought of others who show no inclination to do likewise.

Perhaps they dislike the handling by the NT with regard to the politics of it all, not what they signed up for. Perhaps they are uncomfortable with wearing the rainbow badge but that is up to them to decide. Perhaps they are just a group of people who thought they were doing a good thing by volunteering but despair at the nastiness that has taken hold and wonder what the hell has just happened .


I personally couldn't care less whether a volunteer wore the badge or not but I do think they should be/should have been allowed to make the choice for themselves , certainly not be told to.

loads of us visit sites and volunteer, but we are not likely to if we don't feel welcome. If I see a rainbow lanyard or badge, it is a sign that the organisation and its people are welcoming to all.
Well, it doesn't say that to me at all, it says that the NT is more interested in virtue signalling.
Young people, LGB people, people with disabilities, people from BAME communities - many are interested in heritage and history, loads of us visit sites and volunteer, but we are not likely to if we don't feel welcome.
Has there ever been any indication that any person is not welcome? Surely information about one's race, colour, creed, sexual orientation, ability or otherwise is not demanded at the entrance before a person is allowed in? Or even on the application form if applying for membership, unlike applications for LA-run short courses of interest?

Neither would I expect NT staff to wear any badge whatsoever unless it is one to tell me that they are a NT guide and that they may be a mine of information on the house and its history including the people who have lived there.

Quote: I would not blame volunteers all over the country or indeed NT members if they likewise felt an inclination "to step back from the (volunteer) role" altogether.
And for the NT's information, the compulsory wearing of a lanyard or badge to indicate support doesn't sound a million miles away from when to get anywhere in 30's Germany, you had to wear a certain symbol in your lapel.
Totally agree MawBroom

Another stupid PC idea.

Some people don't want to wear the badges because they are not convinced that this man would have wanted to be outed. Obviously at the time he had to be very careful not to be but there are plenty of people today who prefer to keep anything to do with their sex lives private.
Others don't like people being told what to wear.
There have been plenty of homosexual people who have disagreed with the approach that the NT took, such as Dr. Bull on the Wright Stuff.

Eglantine. Honour this man who gave his property to the NT? They are riding roughshod over his wishes and those of his surviving family who never wanted his sexuality made public.
Thank goodness they've dropped this silly "aren't we right on" attitude.
I support sexual equality, breast cancer research, anti bullying, AIDS research etc etc. However, I don't want to wear a badge, ribbon, lanyard, go on a march or anything else which publicly proclaims what I believe. Quite frankly that never seems quite genuine to me, just jumping on the bandwagon of whatever cause is fashionable this week.
I make an exception for the poppy!

The volunteers are middle-aged and middle class because they are the folk who have the time and interest to take this on - 3 cheers for them!

hicaz46 Sun 06-Aug-17 08:54:01
We are told the owner was a very private man, surely part of the reason for this was precisely the fact that he couldn't talk freely about his sexuality
(Apologies for the bold but the italic option seems not to be working.)
I don't think we can assume that at all hicaz
That generation (indeed many of OUR generation) believe(d) that one's private life was, well, private. You didn't discuss income, sexuality, or medical details with others, except in the appropriate circumstances.
There were of course some flamboyantly gay stately home owners I just wish I could remember the house we visited where the 19th century owner comes across as totally outrageous, but given his position in society, apparently tolerated as far as the powers that be were concerned. Many of the aristocracy also conveniently decamped to France when their sexual antics got "out of hand" and risked hitting the headlines.
So I think when it is said this man was a "very private man" we can take this at face value.
Has this been a genuine exercise in inclusivity ? Or the NT jumping on a bandwagon? If the former it was poorly thought out and heavy handed.
Orwell's thought police never seem all that far away.

The NT is finally trying to bring a wider historical context into its work. History and heritage is not just nice houses. In my younger days I loved visiting heritage sites, but avoided NT places for several reasons: they were expensive; there was very little social and political context in the presentation of the sites; and the staff/volunteers were all middle aged and really middle class, which gives a clue about the organisational culture. Young people, LGB people, people with disabilities, people from BAME communities - many are interested in heritage and history, loads of us visit sites and volunteer, but we are not likely to if we don't feel welcome. If I see a rainbow lanyard or badge, it is a sign that the organisation and its people are welcoming to all. If I see a diversity of people visiting and volunteering, I know the organisation is broad-based and welcoming. Perhaps the NT staff want to be just that, but are having difficulty persuading the members and volunteers that this is a good thing?

Asked is different from told.

I have read all the posts and have learnt a lot. The exhibition is there for everyone to see and learn from. Can't really see that wearing a lanyard or a badge will contribute much and the cost involved could be better used.

I am against all this bringing issues (whatever they are) into other realms.......my life seems to be getting cluttered with 'issues' at regular intervals, a minutes silence for sad things that happen and now lanyards and badge to commemorate others. There will soon be never a day without some injustice being highlighted and that cheapens the whole process.

Two minutes silence for Armistice day was a perfect stillness, within which, we could recollect that carnage and consider how we might work towards avoiding future war and destruction on that scale.

A huge public display of grief for Diana, a candle in every window after the Dunblane massacre, very poignant of course, and now we seem to be having vigils and candles all the time........

I don't like to feel uncomfortable when others are showing their 'respect', and I don't want to be press ganged into mock outrage at past or current injustices either.

We cannot equate slavery with homophobic injustices, or female emancipation with global warming, there are too many wrongs to allocate a minutes silence / vigil to, and how long do we carry these things on for? Will we still be having a Grenfell Tower moment in 30 years?

The NT are exploiting the private sexuality of one of its donors to commercial ends, jumping on the band wagon of this 50th year celebration of the legal changes. I welcome those changes but I don't want them as part and parcel of my day out, along with an overpriced cream tea and some heritage marmalade.

The NT like the BBC becomes consumed with its own importance but only on selective topics.

If I remember rightly, over the years the NT (and other charities) have got their knickers in a twist quite a few times - their volunteers feel either insulted or taken for granted by those at the top.
Many of these volunteers remember when many bosses at least had the manners to ask nicely.
Volunteers give up their time for free and I bet they wonder why they bother. I won't be volunteering anytine soon.

I agree, it's the compulsion in the original instruction (wear this or get behind the scenes) that was objectionable. It was effectively telling people who don't want to bedeck themselves with symbols that they were anti-gay.

It does remind me of the Remembrance Day poppies which flower so abundantly on the chest of every TV presenter, politican and celebrity for about a month each year. I simple don't believe that they all just turn up to the studio wearing a poppy; there is obviously some pressure to conform and wear one, or be seen as hard-hearted and awkward.

Anti-slavery is another good comparison. If I were a NT volunteer, I wouldn't want to be pushed into either wearing some personal adornment to declare that I'm anti slavery, or have it assumed that I secretly think it was rather a good idea.

When I worked in Health Promotion, we supported World Aids Day and we all wore the little red ribbons that were prevalent in the early days of those campaigns. This was different: campaigning to get people to be more open and aware about AIDS/HIV was part of our remit, and I was happy to comply. The NT has no political or social agenda beyond its already extensive and worthwhile objectives, and should focus on those.

I agree with the person who said they could have a rainbow sign at the enteance - and also on literature (tickets, leaflets etc) to show NT support gay rights, without requiring volunteers to wear rainbow badges/lanyards. Im supportive of LGBT rights but cant see the point of all this in your face stuff and would not want to wear a badge for this or any other cause.

NT have now backed down. I haven't read the article yet , just that they have changed their mind.

If I was given the option of wearing this badge I would probably choose to do so. If I was made to do so, as a volunteer, I would tell them to stick it where the sun don't shine! Surely all the staff and volunteers should be trusted to embrace ALL people into NT properties and be polite and unpredjudiced towards each and every person. The property displaying a rainbow flag is absolutely fine; it shows that the NT believes in equal rights for all and that should be enough to portray to visitors that's it's staff follow national guidelines on equality. These badges are OK but it should not be compulsory to wear one. I've been to many NT/EH properties and I have never encountered any prejudice whatsoever from the staff there towards explaining about owners/residents who were gay (or anything else). NT shame on you, you should have more trust and faith in your fantastic staff and volunteers to deliver an unbiased, knowledgeable and enjoyable service that fully represents the ethos of the NT every day. They really don't need to be treated like children....wear this badge or else be put on back room duties. Tut, tut!