National Trust guides obliged to wear rainbow badges

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. Who knows in more enlightened times he might not have been such a 'private man'.
This thread has certainly brought out some prejudices with people shuddering when thinking about gay people being loving. We still have a long way to go to break down prejudices.

As an RNLI volunteer, I expect to wear one badge only, that simply says Volunteer. Then people know that if I make a hash of operating the till no one is paying me for it. I would not wear another one

The world has changed, and the NT has to change too, if it wants to survive.

Volunteering is a 2 way street.....both parties get some benefit from it. It's also a choice, for both parties.

For those volunteers who object to the way the '50yrs Gay' campaign is being delivered by the NT I'd say - walk away then.

For this volunteers who object to having to comply to NT requests, I'd say - walk away then.

If I was the volunteer manager at NT I think I might consider both actions a welcome opportunity to 'refresh' my volunteer base with new people who will understand the modern volunteering role better.

50p pieces are interesting, too, Jalima.
I have Peter Rabbit, Jemima Puddleduck, Squirrel Nutkin, Battle of Britain, Victoria Cross, and Battle of Hastings.
Even my grandchildren look for them now.
The latest Beatrix Potter ones are in colour, but I haven't seen any of those yet. I imagine they are easier for people to spot.

If I was a NT volunteer I would want to wear a rainbow badge BUT I would not want to be told I had to, Surely if you are made to do something it loses the genuiness of your action What next we all HAVE to wear a poppy in November I also don't agree with these rainbow plaques we should be honouring people because of their minds or actions not their sexual orientation
I am VERY supportive of gay rights and very thankful times have changed
Many groups of people have been badly abused and maligned through the decades ( and still are) we should make sure it never happens again through education and laws but not by intimidated others

I volunteer and have to wear a uniform which is a coverall for my every day clothes. I dread to think that we would be expected to proclaim allegiance by wearing a lanyard. I am a firm believer in keeping ones sexuality under wraps. Gives me the shudders knowing about what other people do in private.

Oh!! In general circulation then.

I have just spent them and never looked at them.
Although I did find a Peter Rabbit 50p and kept it.

Check your change, Jalima.
£2 coins for abolition of the slave trade, 150 years of the underground, the double helix, anniversary of the golden guinea, William Shakespeare, Brunel, and I particularly like the Charles Dickens one, made up of the names of all his novels.
Those are the ones I've managed to find so far.

English Heritage were a bit late.

www.ibtimes.co.uk/slavery-links-uk-stately-homes-revealed-1430399

Bottom line for me is that I would take it very amiss if I was obliged to wear ANY badge/sash/lanyard to "prove" my liberal, rational, tolerant, freethinking or sensitive bona fides.
By my words and deeds, by all means , but badges of any sort ?
I don't think so.

Tory MPs complained about the NT being PC when they decided to have a book in 2007 about which of their properties were built on the proceeds of the slave trade.

I don't know the answer to that.

Interesting, must look out for that. DGS is collecting commemorative coins.
We did go to the Wilberforce museum, I think I said on another thread.

How many NT properties were built with the proceeds of slavery?
I bet the NT would commemorate it.
The Mint did. There is a £2 coin to commemorate 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade, minted in 2007.

I would expect the William Wilberforce museum to commemorate the abolition of slavery, but not the NT.

Oh dear, I wonder what Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer would think of all this?

Not a lot, probably, from what his god-children say. It is very presumptuous of the NT to assume he would want his private life aired in this way.

MiceElf you are right, the issue is the imposition of wearing insignia for whatever reason.
Christian Awareness Week - crucifixes?
Muslim Awareness Week - crescent and star?
Jewish Awareness Week - star of David?

etc etc etc.

Sorry, but the NT's remit is to preserve our beautiful historic buildings and garden for future generations of whatever race, colour, creed they are.

I am glad nobody has suggested that the NT marketing department simply saw the 50th anniversary as a way of boosting the gay footfall in their properties. Perish the thought?

But that's not the issue.

The issue is the imposition of wearing insignia.

I would agree with all of those campaigns / issues but would not want to wear badges, lanyards or anything else.

The NT opposes fracking and blood sports, but I think it would be an imposition to insist that members wear badges supporting that stance.

Wearing items on one's person is a very different matter from explaining an exhibition and its background.

Micelf my view is that the N T was making a small and supportive gesture towards the commemoration of t0 yrs since the law was changed re homosexuality. It was not a big deal. I can only think that you would object to being a visible part of that commemoration if you disagreed with it. If the event had been about commemorating the abolition of slavery, women's suffrage or any other improvement for individuals in society the NT may also want to participate in a similar way. Good for them! Amongst their members, volunteers and workforce there will be many who have had lives improved as a result of greater tolerance and removal of fear of prosecution. It was a supportive gesture now undermined by a few small thinking people.

I disagree, some people regard homosexuality as an aberation, practising Muslims and conservative Christians would be two groups who spring to mind and some will have been known to incite violence against gay people, which is reprehensible and makes all this hoo ha pale into insignificance. I imagine the vast majority of society subscribe to live and let live but not all will actively choose to engage with the gay rights issues in a "thumbs up" way that wearing a rainbow badge might imply, I don't think that makes them anti gay, just not interested. Volunteers who give their time to the NT should have the prerogative to refuse such a high handed diktat, maybe they just don't want to be told what they must feel and think. I don't suppose such an issue crossed their mind when they took up their posts with the NT. As another poster pointed out, one NT house was focusing on priests who hid in the house at a time when openly practising Catholicism in this country was a capital offence. It would hardly be appropriate to ask volunteers there to wear a cross showing solidarity with previous persecutions. As the NT have now back tracked would indicate that this campaign has misfired.

Being told they must wear a campaign badge/lanyard or else is reason enough for most Norfolk people to resist and refuse! Irrespective of the campaign. Especially a volunteer of a certain age!

Who knows. It matters not. No assumptions should be made about the motivations of anyone's actions. They may or may not be praiseworthy but no one on here or anywhere else can know.

It's their declining to wear a symbol of a campaign, any campaign, that is at issue. And Counsel's opinion was quite clear on that point.

Are people not making assumptions that he would have liked his sexuality to remain private?

Very gently, I ask on what evidence do you base your feeling that the those who declined to wear that symbol were anti gay?

The stated reason by one of the volunteers was that they objected to a very private man having his sexuality put in the public domain.

Others objected to being expected to display symbols of a campaign. Any campaign, not just that one.

As Queen Elizabeth I so famously said 'I have no desire to make windows into men's souls'.

No one should make assumptions about motivations without the absolute assurance that they are right,

penstemmon my thoughts exactly.

I think the NT were right to support the commemoration of the change in the law regarding homosexuality. I think the people who refused to wear the lanyards should have had back room jobs for the duration of the campaign. I do not know exactly how wearing rainbow lanyards was put to the volunteers but I hardly think it was done in a confrontational way. It makes me feel that the volunteers are anti gay by taking that stance. That may not be true but thst is the impression.