National Trust guides obliged to wear rainbow badges

Definitely silly season. Volunteers asked to wear a coloured lanyard to support the theme of an exhibition celebrating the former owners life. Rather than talking to the organisations officers they go straight to the Daily Mail. Smacks of the change is bad brigade, when I read I am not homophobic, racist, a snob followed by I hear don't let them come near me and sends my alarm bells ringing. These people need to get a grip stop writing to the daily mail about, the National Trust, Church of England, Marks and Spencer's etc and add value to their volunteering by participating rather than bigoted whinging.........

* gow* I did not take it that the person on the tablets was a waste of money , but that the second carer having to come to explain was a waste of time and money

Is this lanyard really worth such an argument?

With the NT's name upside down when it's worn round the neck, as intended! Well done the design team.

I've been thinking about this. I would not object to wearing any badge which celebrated/promoted equality for any sector of society. If Christians were treated unequally I would wear a badge showing my support or to acknowledge the ending of a law that persecuted them. I am not a Christian by the way and have suffered at the hands of the catholic church.
It seems to me that there is homophobia behind the refusal to wear these badges. Otherwise, what is the problem? As someone else said, would there be an objection to being told to wear a badge to commemorate women getting the vote? I think not.
Regarding the man who owned the house wanting to stay 'private'. I am sure that if he was alive today he would be 'out'. He had no choice when he was alive, he would have been persecuted and probably have ended up in jail.
Regarding the Gay Britannia season on BBC. I think this has been brilliant. It shows what gay and trans people's experiences have been over the years and shows how we have moved forward. Surely, we should celebrate the end of a law which persecuted a section of our society? If not, why not??
This idea of 'I'm ok with it as long as it is not in my face'.
What does that actually mean? I would object to anyone snogging their partner in front of me whether they were gay or straight.
I would not object to anyone talking about their partner or girlfriend. How many heterosexuals have had to avoid mentioning their partners or husbands/wives due to fear of being beaten up? None.
We all have a right to be open about our relationships whether we are gay or straight. If that is 'putting it in your face' then perhaps straight people should not talk about their partners/husbands or wives? Perhaps they shouldn't 'put it in anyone's face', perhaps they should keep their relationships private?

Well spotted grumppa

I know someone who lives in a large house in Notting Hill, in the shadows of Grenfell Tower.

In the days after the disaster she sent a flurry of emails to her friends and acquaintances detailing how we could help and listing all the charities/organisations in the area who were active in the aftermath.

I took umbrage at this, as have never known her to be concerned about low-income high-rise tenants before, other than as a source of domestic staff. Many of the residents of such towers service the local gentry and wealthy.

I didn't need advice on how to respond to a disaster.

I would have been affronted to be told by the NT that I had to wear a certain badge to prove my 'support of equality' credentials, or work in the back office as a punishment.

I totally support LBGT rights - thank heavens "normal" thinking does too - however I totally object to promoting views on sexual orientation as in the NT jump on the bandwagon campaign. Had the NT not backed down I would have voted with my feet as a member - if it insists on being more politicised going forward and promoting various causes that are nothing to do with me being able to go for a cream tea in a nice house or garden - I will be voting with my feet, I joined to preserve various sites for the nation, not to try and shape that nation or tell members how to think, there's enough people trying to do that for me!! For me it's not about gay rights, votes for women or anything in particular it's that the NT have a view they wish to shove down my throat.... I do not join political or pressure organisations- I made my son leave scouts back in the day as I considered them pseudo military and promoting religion, we were church gowers but I can't support an organisation that insists on religious observance as it then did for all... it's a principle "set out your stall" and it's not Apolitical and I won't join or I'll leave.

I've been trying to find out a bit more about the background to this story. It appears that this is an 'event' which is being promoted nationwide by the NT.

www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/exploring-lgbtq-history-at-national-trust-places

I wonder if NT volunteers in all their properties have

a) been told they have to wear the lanyards and badges ?

and

b) if they have, have any others objected to the instruction?

I can't help feeling that poor Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer would have hated all this. According to the NT blurb about him, despite being a prominent local citizen "he did not relish public prominence."

www.nationaltrust.org.uk/felbrigg-hall-gardens-and-estate/features/the-last-squire

I'm not sure, one near us had an American bachelor owner and nothing has ever been mentioned about his sexuality of whatever persuasion when we have visited.

A very thoughtful and reasoned post grumpyoldwoman56

Exactly my sentiments grumpyoldwoman56

I volunteer at nearby Blickling. This year we're celebrating Lord Lothian's (who gave the hall) support and influence with the negotiations for India's independence 70 years ago. Flowers in the garden have been planted in the colours of the Indian flag. Due to DGC sitting duties I haven't been in for 3 or 4 weeks, but to my knowledge we haven't been ordered to wear orange, white and green badges. (Or any other badges.) If ordered to do so I would say no. It's not part of my job to support blindly what the National Trust tell me too. Much as I support Indian independence.

It was because of Ketton-Cremer's friendship with those at Blickling that he gave his house to the NT.

G r r r ! Another load of complete b. . . . . . s !! Why on earth does everything have to be sexualised?? We are a heterosexual couple, with same, homosexual and lesbian friends. What difference does it make to anything , and, really, who is really that bothered?
Well done those volunteers who refused to wear the 'rainbow' lanyard! NT, please get off your soapbox, it just makes you look ridiculous!

Political correctness. Sexuality, any sexuality is personal, precious and private. Why does it need to be everyone's business

Because people are persecuted for their sexuality.

Having two threads has done nothing for helping me sort out my thoughts on this. However, what I have been musing on is the role of the NT. Whilst I've had many a nice cream tea in a pretty NT garden, I think the way the NT has increasingly had an educational role as appropriate is to be applauded. Children have learned a lot about the social history of childhood at say Quarry Bank and The Workhouse and that's all to the good I think. All great houses are products of a particular set of circumstances set in a particular context and I think it's right and proper that we are able to access information on that if we are interested. For me, it impacts on how I may view and understand the property/garden. If it's just presented as having no temporal or historical context or the context is partial, for me it loses something. As for the current controversy, I don't think it's been handled well by the NT but I don't think that means that as a general principle, the NT shouldn't be educating us all if we want it on the wider issues behind its properties.

Gumpyoldwomen, I did not say they where sickening, I said I was sick of having it shoved down my throat on a weekly basis. Lots of things happened in the past. The people affected are not marching and shouting in towns about it. This particular group seem to think they are more special than others in fact more special than everyone else.

Egaltine 19 they are persecuted for lots of other things also. They are not being heard. This group make sure they are. That is why enough is enough.

This is a clear case of left wing entryism. The volunteers were right to resist such tyrannical orders and I don't believe for one minute their motivation had anything to do with being anti gay but being pro free choice. The left needs to Back Off.

I don't understand the left/right issue here- is gay rights a left/right issue? Didn't David Cameron bring in gay marriage? What do you mean by entryism? I'm confused.

So is Lilyflower.

I wish I knew how much the lanyards cost in total. I've spent an astonishing amount at Cragside this summer.