Gay Pride ad a new 'equality gap'?

I think overall the NT has done a brilliant job since it was founded. Octavia Hill was an amazing woman influenced in her social entrepreneurship by a caring and brave grandfather who fought hard for better housing conditions for the poor. Her father was also a real radical as well as a businessman(eventually failed). Reading about how she ran her housing estates is really interesting and there are many ideas that could be used today . It was because of her experience of bleak housing estates that she was convinced of the need for open spaces for the urban masses and this eventually the NT was born. Land was the driving forc to start with. We are lucky to have the NT and I do think there has been a bit of a 'feeding frenzy' over this episode which I'm sure the NT has learned from. I think the NT is right to commememorate the 50th anniversary of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality - there are other examples on its website but wrong about the lanyards and/or badges as it has now acknowledged.

He did die a very long time ago didn't he - I wonder how many people who were close to him are still alive now and 'knew' what he would have wanted. I know a godson was mentioned but I wonder how old he was when his godfather died and what conversations they had had about the privacy of his sexuality.

Yes, apparently, the NT has changed its stance:

www.thesun.co.uk/news/4178842/national-trust-backtracks-on-order-forcing-volunteers-to-wear-rainbow-gay-pride-badges/

It wouldn't bother me to wear this badge, but I don't think it was right to try to force people. Would anyone really want somebody to wear a badge supporting something if they didn't mean it? I don't think so.

I bet most of the new volunteers will happily CHOOSE to wear it,

I don't understand they may have wanted to keep his sexuality private

Who are they? Not the NT obviously as they were the ones publicising this without consulting those close to him.
Do you mean his god-children? Friends? Family?

Really Trisher, strange if they wanted to see the back of them that they withdrew their demands which caused the resignations .

I think the Chief Executive has gone and all the rest have heaved a sigh of relief.
Back to the job in hand - preserving historic houses and land for the enjoyment of all, present and future generations.

Good post Elegran

LOL, Elegran!

I have a feeling that the NT might be pleased to see the back of some of the people who have resigned

240 people resigned from the NT over it, but 5000 joined in July!

They may have wanted to keep his sexuality private, but it didn't work, thanks to the Sun and the Mail.

Me too !

I love your post Elegran

It does seem that we are approaching the day when we all have to wear a label stating -

"I will not discriminate against anyone for their sexual preference.
I will treat people of all races with equal consideration.
I will not pester anyone of the opposite sex, or anyone of the same sex.
I will not molest any child.
I will not tell you that it is your duty to provide me with a grandchild, or that you should NOT be propagating your accursed line in conjunction with my son/daughter.
I will not steal from you, give you short change or clone your cards.
I will not assault any driver whose maneouvres annoy me.
I will not call advocate compulsory euthanasia for all at the age of 50 .
For catering/kitchen staff -
I will not contaminate the food.
I will not goose the customers, or indulge in heavy petting while operating the till.
I will not insist on any vegetarian consuming a bacon sandwich.
I will not tell any vegan that their social relations would improve if they ate a proper diet."

Anyone not displaying this will be arrested and charged with intent to contravene one or all of these requirements.

Decent people do all these things as a matter of course without needing a label to announce it. Decent people don't like being treated as though they would be criminals without outside coercion. That is why the NT volunteers have resigned - not because they disagree with the policies.

The NT decides what cause they are supporting it is LGTBQ year and everyone who volunteers in their properties should be aware of that. Mind you I think that the 10 volunteers have probably boosted attendance at the property with all the publicity.

In my view, disagreeing with people being forced to wear gay pride lanyards does not indicate homophobia.

But, again in my view, saying "I don't introduce myself along the lines of 'Hello , I am .... and I am heterosexual.' " trivialises the very real struggle that gay people had to be treated as equal human beings - and they are still discriminated against and sometimes at risk of physical assault or worse.

I actually don't agree with people being told to wear some sort of emblem of support. If it is compulsory then it means nothing - it's like people working in shops saying "Have a nice day" just because they are told to. And who decides what causes should be supported- to my mind it sets a dangerous precedent and one that could be abused.

NBFK That is not even the right question. It should be "Should the NT assume that people who do NOT wear the symbol do not support what the symbol stands for?"

If the NT is concerned about the beliefs and attitudes of their volunteers, then they need to work on changing the reality of these by education and example.

Surely it is possible to personally treat LGBT people as equal human beings and resist any other treatment of them WITHOUT wearing a badge to prove it? It is what you do that matters, not what you proclaim that you do by wearing a badge. Actions speak louder than words, and louder than an obligatory label.

Wearing a badge proves only that someone is conforming in appearance to what is demanded of them by someone in authority. It does not prove anything about what they do or say, either in public or in private.

In truth, people could wear a badge because they MUST do so, and yet believe in their heart and display with their attitude the exact opposite, or they can be badgeless and welcoming.

Sorry, trisher, I wouldn't wear the suffragette colours either. Those who know me, know my views on most matters those who don't know me are unlikely to have any interest in them. I feel no need to drape myself with pretty coloured decorations like a Christmas tree just to prove how virtuous I think I am

But should the individual volunteers be made to wear symbols they personally don't support? In this case few disagree, but it sets a precedent. I'm glad the NT have decided to make it optional.

No objection to any of them, why should you imagine I would have. If they were part of the story they deserve to be shown.

I will be proud to wear Suffragist colours Trisher. But not while on duty at my hall. His Lordship influenced many things including Indian independence (being celebrated at present) and USA entering WW2. And he was a Christian Scientist. Should I wear badges for all these? Or just the ones you approve of?

Well, I haven't noticed my next door neighbours wearing badges.

I don't think anyone on this thread has demonstrated any degree of homophobia.

Perhaps the reason people aren't getting so het up about the history of gay persecution (and of course it was real and degrading and should never have happened) is that most have just absorbed the fact that some people are gay into their everyday lives and don't see the point of making such a big deal about it.

Certainly not to the extent of wearing a badge to declare your open-mindedness, which is what it boils down to...

I did say earlier in the thread that I would not expect any NT volunteer to be wearing any badge except the above.

'Keep Britain Tidy'
'Look After the Countryside'
'No to Nuclear Power'
'Vote Labour'
'Vote Tory'
Vote Green'
'Help for Heroes'
'Mind Blue Light Programme'
'Votes for Women'

I would not expect to see any of the above or any other from any organisation on a lanyard round the neck of a NT volunteer when they are at work.

anyone can wear whatever they like in their own free time as far as I'm concerned although I may avert my eyes if it is a barely dressed man or woman in the street.

Just call me an old fart.

No to any badge except one that says:

National Trust (Volunteer as well perhaps)

Isn't it interesting that no-one gives a straight answer, could it be that they realise if they say yes to suffragette colours but no to the rainbow badge they are demonstrating their homophobia?