# National Trust and Gay Pride?



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Not trawled the forum, so apologies if this was already posted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...shes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/

Well?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Well what? It's a volunteer job, and certainly not exactly a hardship to have to wear a rainbow lanyard. Seems like much ado about nothing if you ask me. 

Given that the last two threads of this nature devolved as they did, I'm wondering at the wisdom of posting this one... ?


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

It says more about the people refusing to wear a rainbow coloured lanyard if you ask me...it's not exactly a hardship


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> It says more about the people refusing to wear a rainbow coloured lanyard if you ask me...it's not exactly a hardship


Maybe not, but perhaps it should be a choice?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Given that the last two threads of this nature devolved as they did, I'm wondering at the wisdom of posting this one... ?


You don't have to read what does not appeal to you. No-one is twisting your arm; please yourself. The title _should _have given you a clue as to what it was about, but obviously didn't.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

I think it's a bit sad that the NT rode roughshod over the views of the late homeowners family and historians in their haste to loudly proclaim LGBTQ heritage for the property. I don't see why people's private lives become fair game, just because they aren't alive to approve/disapprove, particularly someone quoted to be "an intensely private person".


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

MilleD said:


> Maybe not, but perhaps it should be a choice?


It is a choice.
They are not being forced to wear anything and I don't see the issue.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Wilmer said:


> I think it's a bit sad that the NT rode roughshod over the views of the late homeowners family and historians in their haste to loudly proclaim LGBTQ heritage for the property. I don't see why people's private lives become fair game, just because they aren't alive to approve/disapprove, particularly someone quoted to be "an intensely private person".


I totally agree...I think the advent of social media has a lot to answer for, to be honest: everyone is fair game to be discussed . . . nothing private.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

StormyThai said:


> It is a choice.
> They are not being forced to wear anything and I don't see the issue.


So it's a choice, but the story intimates that they will be 'punished' if they don't? I don't see that as a fair choice.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

StormyThai said:


> It is a choice.


Not a real choice: those who have no wish to wear it are not going to be able to meet/greet anyone. Even the ones who have been there for years. It sounds a tad unfair and biased to me.


----------



## sidevalve (Jun 29, 2017)

So why should you be forced to wear one ? What next - a blue tie when the tories are in power a red tie when labour are in power. Would this have been enforced if the individuals concerned were devout muslim ? This is not tolerance - this is true bigotry.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Wilmer said:


> just because they aren't alive to approve/disapprove,


Even if they are alive to approve or not, chances are they will still get talked about on social media . . . and in the DM columns.


----------



## StormyThai (Sep 11, 2013)

MilleD said:


> So it's a choice, but the story intimates that they will be 'punished' if they don't? I don't see that as a fair choice.


How are they being punished?
They aren't being sacked, they just won't be put in front line roles because they won't wear a part of the uniform -shrugs-

Again I don't see why they have an issue with wearing a rainbow coloured lanyard.
I think I will leave it there because I won't agree that the volunteer staff are being treated unfairly or wrong because if they were in a paid role and refused to not wear part of the uniform they would be fired and rightly so!


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Calvine said:


> You don't have to read what does not appeal to you. No-one is twisting your arm; please yourself. The title _should _have given you a clue as to what it was about, but obviously didn't.


I never said the article didn't appeal to me or that I didn't want to read it. 
I did read it and my thoughts are that it is much ado about nothing.

I'm also still sore about how the other two threads of this nature devolved because of those few posters completely lacking in compassion. Stories like this just give people like that a platform, a jumping off place to go off on one of those tangents, which is why I commented on the wisdom of posting this, that's all. Context.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Tbh I don't understand why they are asking people to wear these coloured lanyards, I understand the cause & of course I would support it but am not sure what is has to do with the NT. Why do people not wearing them have to work 'behind the scenes'? I do see the problem here tbh & I think people should be able to get on with their usual routine regardless of whether they choose to wear these or not. 


From the Attitude website:

The protesting volunteers have been given duties in the back office, away from visiting members of the public, in accordance with an email sent by management of the National Trust. Volunteers have told The Times they are feeling stressed and not sleeping due to the stress caused.

In a statement, Annabel Smith, head of volunteering and participation development at the Trust, said that the Trust recognises that volunteers may have “conflicting, personal opinions,” but that they are bound by the ‘founding principles’ of the Trust.

“However whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation. We encourage people with any concerns to chat to our teams. As part of Prejudice and Pride we have worked closely with Stonewall and the University of Leicester who have been providing training and support to help as many volunteers as possible feel confident to take part.”


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

MilleD said:


> Maybe not, but perhaps it should be a choice?


Why? When I volunteer for any organization there have always been requirements as far as what to wear. Sometimes it's something as simple as a name badge, other times it's a particular t-shirt (that you usually have to buy yourself). And yes, the attire almost always announces the mission and/or purpose of the organization in some way.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Why? When I volunteer for any organization there have always been requirements as far as what to wear. Sometimes it's something as simple as a name badge, other times it's a particular t-shirt (that you usually have to buy yourself). And yes, the attire almost always announces the mission and/or purpose of the organization in some way.


Funny, I always thought that their mission/purpose was "The National Trust works to preserve and protect historic places and spaces - for ever, for everyone*"*


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Ok, I need to hold my paws up and don my dunces hat. Whom are the "queer visitors" they refer to? I honestly though it was just now seen as a derogatory term for gay?

As for the story, seems a bit much to insist volunteers were a badge if they don't want to. Seems bloody ungrateful even. If it was me I would refuse to wear as point of principal for being told to do it, might be why I've not been employed for the last thirty years!


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No. One of the points in gay pride is a fight against forcing people into pigeonholes conforming to society ideals. Outing someone who was a private person and hiding people in a back room unless they conform to an open display of support is wrong imo. It's the principle of the thing. This is the National Trust, it's none of their business.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

I think Im on the side of those not wearing the lanyard TBH...if the reasons they stated are true. What right does the NT have to out somebody whose family stated they were an intensely private individual who wouldnt want it known?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

MilleD said:


> Funny, I always thought that their mission/purpose was "The National Trust works to preserve and protect historic places and spaces - for ever, for everyone*"*


I'm not in the UK I have no idea what the national trust even is.

But I am familiar with volunteering and every single volunteer job I have ever done had requirements as to what I should wear and how I should identify myself. As well as rules to follow and directives etc.

You don't just show up to volunteer and do whatever the hell you want. You show up and volunteer and do what the organization asks you to do. And asking someone to wear a particular badge to commemorate a specific campaign is not exactly unreasonable.
If the campaign is that offensive to you, simply don't volunteer during the campaign and come back when it's over.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Let me ask this. Would it be okay for the National Trust to ask all its volunteers to wear a poppy on the days leading up to remembrance day? 
What if someone was a pacifist or a conscientious objector and objected to wearing a poppy? How would you feel about that?


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No it wouldn't @ouesi .


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> Let me ask this. Would it be okay for the National Trust to ask all its volunteers to wear a poppy on the days leading up to remembrance day?
> What if someone was a pacifist or a conscientious objector and objected to wearing a poppy? How would you feel about that?


But they don't.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

The National Trust should stick to it's remit of looking after historic houses.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I wonder what was in the contract they signed then regarding these issues like this? We had a bit of an 'issue' at work where it was suggested we should all wear poppies as we had important visitors in that week leading up to Remembrance Day ..... it really did not go down well with some people & caused lots of rows between those saying it was disrespectful not to & those that did not want to be forced to wear them.

I sometimes wear a poppy but sometimes not, not that my views change but it's up to me if I want to wear one & certainly do not think it is acceptable being told to wear one, same here IMO. 

This isn't just about representing a company .....


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

ouesi said:


> Let me ask this. Would it be okay for the National Trust to ask all its volunteers to wear a poppy on the days leading up to remembrance day?
> What if someone was a pacifist or a conscientious objector and objected to wearing a poppy? How would you feel about that?


No, it wouldn't, people should, again, have the choice. And not then be punished for not doing it.

The National Trust has got bog all to do with LGBT stuff, they look after historic buildings and places. It's completely ridiculous what they are now up to in the supposed name of inclusion.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

ouesi said:


> I'm not in the UK I have no idea what the national trust even is.


It's fairly pertinent to the discussion.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I never said the article didn't appeal to me or that I didn't want to read it.


You said :


ouesi said:


> I'm wondering at the wisdom of posting this one... ?


. . . which very much implies to me that it does not appeal to you...but you are still posting on it I see (which is something I would never do if I 'doubted the wisdom' of a thread. I would leave it alone).


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

"lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer visitors. " I thought it was non PC to say queer ?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

The guy who donated the building was gay (covertly so) but now it's all over the media which is totally what he would not want. This is how I read it anyway.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer visitors. " I thought it was non PC to say queer ?


Hmm, it seems to be ok again now. Difficult to keep up.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

People leave land, forestry and historic buildings to the national trust, who then care for them and give the public access where appropriate. It's leaving your stately home to the public when you die. They hold it in trust. 

They're nothing to do with gay rights, or pacifism, or any other political or social cause. They aren't meant to research the deceased benefactor, tell everyone they were gay and insist staff wear a rainbow lanyard, trampling roughshod over the feelings of friends and family. It's bloody ridiculous. Like I said, the principle of the thing.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

kimthecat said:


> queer


So what is a ''queer''...the Q suddenly seems to have been annexed to the end of LGBT which I never saw before. Whatever ''queer'' is, it does not sound very flattering.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

kimthecat said:


> "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer visitors. " I thought it was non PC to say queer ?


unless they mean queer in the sense of general weirdos??


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Below is taken from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...shes-volunteers-back-room-chores-refuse-wear/

An email written by Ella Akinlade, the general manager at the hall, said the use of the lanyard and badge was an attempt to "send a very clear and visible sign to visitors" that they support the LGBTQ community who "shaped" many of the Trust's properties.

To coincide with the campaign we would like staff and volunteers to wear the rainbow lanyards or badges as this is an internationally recognised symbol of inclusivity," she says.

To me, it seems quite patronising in some ways & why would they need to specifically mention a particular group ... what about women, what about different ethnicities .... there must be an endless list .... as well as the every day volunteers who the NT wouldn't be able to function without. And also slightly ironic if it is meant to represent inclusivity yet some people are being marginalised in their roles if they don;t want to wear these new lanyards.

I don't get why they are doing this anyway but even if they felt they should then why not let people make a choice? What is so wrong with that? Then everyone is happy ... or is that too simple?


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Calvine said:


> So what is a ''queer''...the Q suddenly seems to have been annexed to the end of LGBT which I never saw before. Whatever ''queer'' is, it does not sound very flattering.


Might have been a typo. Although the n is pretty far from the r on a keyboard.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Why do you want threads closed? I like some of your posts, but on anything involving this subject your attitude is appalling imo.


----------



## Happy Paws2 (Sep 13, 2008)

Lurcherlad said:


> The National Trust should stick to it's remit of looking after historic houses.


I agree with you, if they want volunteers they shouldn't bully people into doing something they don't want to do.


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

Lifted from Wikipedia...

_*Queer*_ is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", _queer_ came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word to establish community and assert an identity distinct from the gay identity. People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label _LGBT_ may describe themselves as _queer_.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

I think the directive is badly planned to be sure. Timing it straight after (without permission from the family) releasing personal information about someone is a tad tasteless. Someone on the sales team certainly hasn't thought it through.

I would have thought that had the volunteers felt so strongly about the information being released though that they would have been better off writing a stiff letter to the NT in that regard, rather than refusing the wear the badges.

As for should they wear them or shouldn't they .....well, rainbow badges are pretty common place now ...a number of local establishments in our local town have them in their window denoting that their cafe/bar/venue is gay friendly. And you can get rainbow badges everywhere so to me it's no big thing. And I remember in Brighton they would be everywhere around Pride. But if someone feels strongly against them then I suppose they have the right not to wear them.

J


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Wilmer said:


> Lifted from Wikipedia...
> 
> _*Queer*_ is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or not cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", _queer_ came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer scholars and activists began to reclaim the word to establish community and assert an identity distinct from the gay identity. People who reject traditional gender identities and seek a broader and deliberately ambiguous alternative to the label _LGBT_ may describe themselves as _queer_.


So it doesn't really mean anything? How odd.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

@simplysardonic is there a way of blocking one particular poster from just one thread?

I feel like this could be a good conversation but I see the same utter bullshit from the last two threads has already started. One person ruining a perfectly civil conversation for the rest of the forum.

I don't have any issue with disagreement as you well know. I do have an issue with complete lack of compassion and being downright cruel in what you say.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

MilleD said:


> It's fairly pertinent to the discussion.


So is volunteer work which is the angle I'm coming from.

It is perfectly okay for me to participate in the discussion without the familiarity with the National Trust that the rest of you posting have. I'm not posting pretending to know anything about the NT, I'm just commenting from the angle of volunteering. And frankly, sometimes an outside view brings a clearer perspective.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

ouesi said:


> So is volunteer work which is the angle I'm coming from.
> 
> It is perfectly okay for me to participate in the discussion without the familiarity with the National Trust that the rest of you posting have. I'm not posting pretending to know anything about the NT, I'm just commenting from the angle of volunteering. And frankly, sometimes an outside view brings a clearer perspective.


Yes, you mentioned volunteering from the point of view of complying with the requirements of the job to meet the mission/purpose of the organisation.

I was trying to point out the LGBT support is not the mission of the National Trust. Their work is for everyone.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> @simplysardonic is there a way of blocking one particular poster from just one thread?
> 
> I feel like this could be a good conversation but I see the same utter bullshit from the last two threads has already started. One person ruining a perfectly civil conversation for the rest of the forum.
> 
> I don't have any issue with disagreement as you well know. I do have an issue with complete lack of compassion and being downright cruel in what you say.


So you want people banned from certain threads because YOU don't like their point of view. I think the problem is you don't understand what someone is saying and take immediate offence. It's easy enough to avoid a thread if you known.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

ouesi said:


> @simplysardonic is there a way of blocking one particular poster from just one thread?
> 
> I feel like this could be a good conversation but I see the same utter bullshit from the last two threads has already started. One person ruining a perfectly civil conversation for the rest of the forum.
> 
> I don't have any issue with disagreement as you well know. I do have an issue with complete lack of compassion and being downright cruel in what you say.


Not that I'm aware of I'm afraid, it's either all or nothing with blocking on here.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

MilleD said:


> I was trying to point out the LGBT support is not the mission of the National Trust. Their work is for everyone.


But the rainbow badge denotes inclusivity - for everyone. So the rainbow badge would make sense in that regard wouldn't it?

(I don't know the right answer, I'm genuinely asking.)


----------



## Wilmer (Aug 31, 2012)

MilleD said:


> So it doesn't really mean anything? How odd.


I think in this context it's a catch-all to stop the abbreviation getting too long. "Gender-queer" or "non-binary" tends to be used by those who are gender/sex ambiguous/undefined (ie. Jack Monroe who sued Katie Hopkins), who I believe the Q is meant to cover. Last time I went to Pride, it was LGB, so I'm a bit out of touch with the finer points.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Actually I have just googled a bit and I think that in retrospect they should be wearing the badges if requested --- this is a special event -- not a PC whim -- from the national Trust Website -

*This year, from 7-10 September, Heritage Open Days is back to shine a light on England's fascinating historic places. This annual festival celebrates our diverse history, architecture and culture, offering you the chance to see hidden places and try out new experiences all for free.

Please note not all Trust sites are involved, and the days and times vary.

Each year Heritage Open Days focuses on different themes and aspects of history; in 2017, fifty years since the partial de-criminalisation of homosexuality, we bring LGBTQ heritage to the fore.

'Unsung Stories' is a new project, made possible by players of the People's Postcode Lottery, which explores four diverse aspects of LGBTQ history, including the life and death of Alan Turing, and a cache of love-letters sent in the First World War between two male soldiers.

2017 also marks the fiftieth anniversary of the creation of Conservation Areas in the UK, and many events will be celebrating these unique, history-rich quarters of our towns, villages and cities. Finally, we will be joining our European Heritage Days partners, in exploring the place of history in the natural world.

Heritage Open Days began life 23 years ago, as a celebration of built architecture, but in recent years the festival has broadened to encompass a vast range of places and experiences, many not usually available to the public.

All National Trust properties taking part in Heritage Open Days offer free admission; not all sites are involved, and the dates and times vary.*

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/heritage-open-days-2017

J


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> So you want people banned from certain threads because YOU don't like their point of view. I think the problem is you don't understand what someone is saying and take immediate offence. It's easy enough to avoid a thread if you known.


I don't want the thread closed. 
And please refrain from telling me what I think and what I take offense at.


----------



## catz4m8z (Aug 27, 2008)

MilleD said:


> I was trying to point out the LGBT support is not the mission of the National Trust. Their work is for everyone.


would be interesting to know what other support weeks/events they take part in. Do they have womens rights lanyards?? or something for culturally diversity?
edit- oh, @Jamesgoeswalkies just answered my question!LOL


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

ouesi said:


> But the rainbow badge denotes inclusivity - for everyone. So the rainbow badge would make sense in that regard wouldn't it?


I thought it was the symbol for LGBT (and now Q)?


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

In an effort to show they don't discriminate, the NT seem to be discriminating against some of their volunteers. 

Presumably, when the volunteers took the positions these lanyards were not part of the uniform? 

This nonsense could have been avoided by simply putting up the rainbow symbol on signs, windows, doors, etc. around the property.

Just as a sign reading "Breast feeding mothers welcome" on a cafe window would suffice, rather than staff being forced to wear a badge! 

I think the biggest issue though is that the NT "outed" a benefactor against his expressed wishes and the wishes of his family.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

catz4m8z said:


> would be interesting to know what other support weeks/events they take part in.


Quite a few by the looks of things ...special events that cover many of the NT properties ....unfortunately I don't think that their volunteers should really be able to choose which events they support .....and which events they would rather not show support for.

J


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

And let's not forget, these are volunteers. It's not like we're talking a job you need to put food on the table and pay the electric bill. It's voluntary. Don't like the message of the organization? Don't volunteer for it. Pretty simple. 
If this is a seasonal campaign, adjust your volunteer schedule, or simply don't go until the campaign is over. 

Like I said in my first post. Much ado about nothing. 
I really don't see what the big deal about the rainbow badges is *shrug*


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> I don't want the thread closed.
> And please refrain from telling me what I think and what I take offense at.


Never said you wanted the thread closed. Again you either don't read the posts properly, or you don't understand what's been said.



Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Quite a few by the looks of things ...special events that cover many of the NT properties ....unfortunately I don't think that their volunteers should really be able to choose which events they support .....and which events they would rather not show support for.
> 
> J


Probably the best option is no badges at all. Gets round all the problems. Many businesses operate this way as it is.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> I think the biggest issue though is that the NT "outed" a benefactor against his expressed wishes and the wishes of his family.


Yes, especially after his generosity in bequeathing the place to them...it shows very little empathy or respect. He was obviously aware that his sexuality at that time might not be acceptable to some, so did not flaunt it, and would certainly not have expected it to be flaunted after his death. I used to volunteer at a BHF shop . . . we were not paid, had no contracts, and there was no way I'd have worn anything other than my own clothes and a badge with my name if I had been given one, which I wasn't. I would have walked; and believe me, that shop was entirely dependent on volunteers (free labour, why not?). . . . they had about 25 of them covering different days as opposed to TWO full-time staff who covered seven days between the two. Without the volunteers they would have had to pay another three or four F/T staff.


----------



## planete (Jan 21, 2012)

I think the volunteers are wrong to link the outing of the place's owner with the current LGBT inclusion campaign. I find it perfectly ok for some volunteers to disagree with the outing if it was insensitive but not at all ok to take a stand against a nationwide push to show tolerance to a section of the community. What kind of a message is this giving to LGBT people? You matter less than one action by the National Trust?


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

About sums up the NT and their care of others, Just go talk to any of their poor tenants


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> Again you either don't read the posts properly, or you don't understand what's been said.


This is my second time now asking you to refrain from telling me or any other poster what I am able to understand. 
Or in plainer English, quit being a dick.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

No. It's the general principle of it. In days gone by you would have been shut out the back for wearing the badge, now you'll be hidden out the back for not wearing it. Before, people would have said it's nothing just take it off. Now they say it's nothing just wear it. The point is it's not nothing, it's not meant to be nothing, it's an important symbol of liberation, not just a pretty badge.

Now if they were saying no one should wear the badge that would be a different discussion, but they aren't.

The point is that some of the volunteers at this particular project don't feel comfortable about their benefactor being outed against his express wishes and don't want to wear a rainbow lanyard. Imo it should be a choice, not a reason for hiding people from the public.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> Or in plainer English, quit being a dick.


Well, that's not very nice . . . I had a post removed for telling someone to learn some manners.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> This is my second time now asking you to refrain from telling me or any other poster what I am able to understand.
> Or in plainer English, quit being a dick.


Ok, show me where I said you wanted the thread closed, or even implied it, and I'll more than happily apologise and admit I was wrong.

Until then I stand by what I said about you either not understand or reading properly what's been written.

Or just put me on ignore and let the conversation continue, that's probably preferable for everyone.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> there was no way I'd have worn anything other than my own clothes and a badge with my name if I had been given one, which I wasn't. I would have walked; and believe me, that shop was entirely dependent on volunteers (free labour, why not?). . . . they had about 25 of them covering different days as opposed to TWO full-time staff who covered seven days between the two. Without the volunteers they would have had to pay another three or four F/T staff.


So you would have have refused to wear, say, a BHF polo shirt or lanyard? Can I ask why?


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 8, 2011)

I'm going to add an alternative angle here:
Let's supposing you go to the NT open day and there are 10 volunteers. 9 wear the lanyard, one doesn't. You kindly point out that they seem to have dropped their lanyard, and when they respond that they don't want to wear one, what conclusion would you come to?

If they explain the backstory, then they are creating drama on the day. If they don't, then it seems likely that it's because they're against the community to some extent. If you were there with a same sex partner, would you then feel uncomfortable?

The policy may be to simply avoid controversy.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> So you would have have refused to wear, say, a BHF polo shirt or lanyard? Can I ask why?


You may ask why: I was working for them for free...I had no contract to say what I should wear. Without the free hours worked by volunteers they would pay masses more in salaries. Their paid staff were given T-shirts which they wore if they wanted to...only one of them did as they were quite hideous.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Calvine said:


> Well, that's not very nice . . . I had a post removed for telling someone to learn some manners.


I'm not trying to be nice. I'm being clear.



Dr Pepper said:


> Ok, show me where I said you wanted the thread closed, or even implied it, and I'll more than happily apologise and admit I was wrong.
> 
> Until then I stand by what I said about you either not understand or reading properly what's been written.
> 
> Or just put me on ignore and let the conversation continue, that's probably preferable for everyone.


Show me where I said you said you wanted the thread closed. I didn't. I said *I* didn't want the thread closed. Take your own advice about not readig
And no, I won't put you on ignore. People like you need to be stood up to if for no other reason than to hold that mirror up so that if not you, at least others see the true colors they're dealing with.

Which goes back to the actual content of this thread.
The fact that some people are so bothered about having to wear a rainbow badge shows just how much further we still have to go despite homosexuality no longer being a crime. Change takes time, but in order for change to happen you have to first acknowledge what it is that needs to change.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm not trying to be nice. I'm being clear.


You are calling someone a dick which I do not think is a clarification as much as an insult.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> The fact that some people are so bothered about having to wear a rainbow badge


I guess many think it is the ''thin end of the wedge'' and wonder where their freedom to dress as they like might end.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Calvine said:


> You are calling someone a dick which I do not think is a clarification as much as an insult.


I highly doubt Dr Pepper finds being called a dick insulting. I think he takes great pride in being one.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

@elmthesofties They can wear a different lanyard. The NT could put out a bucket of lanyards some relating to the event, some to the NT. I expect the staff also have other identifiers.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

ouesi said:


> But the rainbow badge denotes inclusivity - for everyone. So the rainbow badge would make sense in that regard wouldn't it?
> )


 The NT houses are open to the public , for everybody . I'm sure it not necessary to have special badges to welcome them , if it was specific event for LGBT then perhaps that would be different.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

MilleD said:


> So it doesn't really mean anything? How odd.


Yes it does *sigh*
there was a lot of talk on how to encompass all the other sexualities out there that do not come under the LGBT umbrella, without having an acronym that went on for infinity, or at least seemed to

people that identify as gender fluid, gender neutral, androgenous, aromantic, asexual, GSM, DSG, questioning, bi curious, pansexual etc and also included allys and advocates ( friends and supporters of)

Whilst some people thought that adding a + at the end ( as I often do) would suffice, others wanted more ,it was decided, that, as the word queer already meant 'outside of the normal' in every day language, it was agreed that it would be used, but that also those who wanted to just put + or even type the whole lot out, could do so as well, in other words everyone under one umbrella (seems Ive heard that idea before somewhere) The media and social media seem to have picked up on the LGBTQ acronym though, so that is the one that is, somewhat ironically perhaps, becoming the norm

Also there was a belief among those of the LGBTQ community that the word 'queer' as a derogatory name for someone who is/was gay should be 'owned' in recognition of all those who did go through the times when they were criminalised, called queer, ******, fairy, spat at etc
A little like the black community has taken the N word for themselves

Hope that helps some on this and the past threads ( which I have deliberately kept out of) to educate themselves a little


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Calvine said:


> You are calling someone a dick which I do not think is a clarification as much as an insult.


I got a post removed for calling someone just that ages ago.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> I'm not trying to be nice. I'm being clear.
> 
> Show me where I said you said you wanted the thread closed. I didn't. I said *I* didn't want the thread closed. Take your own advice about not readig
> And no, I won't put you on ignore. People like you need to be stood up to if for no other reason than to hold that mirror up so that if not you, at least others see the true colors they're dealing with.
> ...


So you quoted one of my posts and just randomly added you didn't want the thread closed? Why would you even think of adding that? It implies someone said you wanted the thread closed.

And by the way, I neved said I want fish and chips for tea.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> You may ask why: I was working for them for free...I had no contract to say what I should wear. Without the free hours worked by volunteers they would pay masses more in salaries. Their paid staff were given T-shirts which they wore if they wanted to...only one of them did as they were quite hideous.


Forgive me, but your attitude doesn't seem very charitable. Surely you knew t he limitations, ie not getting paid, when you signed up?!


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

kimthecat said:


> The NT houses are open to the public , for everybody . I'm sure it not necessary to have special badges to welcome them , if it was specific event for LGBT then perhaps that would be different.


The point I was trying to make. I think it's divisive rather than inclusive.


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 8, 2011)

Elles said:


> @elmthesofties They can wear a different lanyard. The NT could put out a bucket of lanyards some relating to the event, some to the NT. I expect the staff also have other identifiers.


That wasn't the point.
The point is that a rainbow lanyard has a meaning. If someone has actively refused to wear one, even if they decided to wear something else, that is making a statement. People may read into that.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

[


ouesi said:


> People like you need to be stood up to if for no other reason than to hold that mirror up so that if not you, at least others see the true colors they're dealing with.


True colours? People like you? You know what, I think you are heading towards getting this thread closed . . . I truly do.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

[


bearcub said:


> Forgive me, but your attitude doesn't seem very charitable. Surely you knew t he limitations, ie not getting paid, when you signed up?!


I did not complain about not being paid . . . I was a volunteer, helping out in my own time. I did not have to. Why are you ranting on about 'limitations' and 'signing up'? I did not 'sign up'. I offered to work for them for six hours a week. That is what VOLUNTEERS do. Get a grip please.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Q is another label that not everyone likes I think. Labels are fine when an individual or group embrace them, but generally they are best when taken, not given.

The statement they're making on this occasion is that they disagree with their benefactor being outed against his express wishes and that of his family. I would expect many LGBT to support the sentiment and the NT should put up with the controversy they courted because of it. It certainly got them some publicity.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> [
> 
> I did not complain about not being paid . . . I was a volunteer, helping out in my own time. I did not have to. Why are you ranting on about 'limitations' and 'signing up'? I did not 'sign up'. I offered to work for them for six hours a week. That is what VOLUNTEERS do. Get a grip please.


What a strange response. I think it is you who needs to get a grip


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Calvine said:


> [
> 
> True colours? People like you? You know what, I think you are heading towards getting this thread closed . . . I truly do.


I'm not even sure what I've said on this thread that anyone could take offence at. I questioned the using of "queers", which someone has answered (thank you). And suggested it might have been a typo for "Queens" which is a well know term for overly flamboyant gay men and happily accepted by the gay community.

Thing is, apparently being straight disqualifies you from commenting on anything gay, no matter how much experience you have. Or at least a few members seem to think so.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> Surely you knew t he limitations


What limitations? Explain if you would.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Oh and if you are refusing because you don't agree with an event generally and don't like the cause it relates to, then it's best to let your feelings known and the reasons and not attend. This idea of telling people they will be shut away from the public, but you'll still use them, is just blerch.


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

Well regardless of whether some of the volunteers wear rainbow badges to support the event (that's all it is, a special event) The National Trust have really done some good work on the subject (in my opinion). Excellent history. I'm impressed. For those interested -

https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/prejudice-and-pride-exploring-lgbtq-history

J


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> What limitations? Explain if you would.


The limitations of volunteering - no contract, no salary. You appear to be pointing those things out as a reason not to wear a t-shirt or lanyard, which to me is an odd attitude to take. If you have chosen a specific organisation to represent through volunteering, why would you, as you put it, 'walk' because of something as simple as wearing a specific item of clothing or a lanyard? It seems so petty to me.


----------



## MilleD (Feb 15, 2016)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> Well regardless of whether some of the volunteers wear rainbow badges to support the event (that's all it is, a special event) The National Trust have really done some good work on the subject (in my opinion). Excellent history. I'm impressed. For those interested -
> 
> https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/features/prejudice-and-pride-exploring-lgbtq-history
> 
> J


Yes, if you buy the guidebook. Good old NT.

Or listen to Clare Balding who I cannot stand.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Dr Pepper said:


> Thing is, apparently being straight disqualifies you from commenting on anything gay, no matter how much experience you have. Or at least a few members seem to think so.


I havent read or felt that impression on any threads around this 'issue', I think most people have bent over backwards to accommodate the ignorance, attitude and, in a couple of cases, underhand homophobic tensions, shown by a very small minority of this huge worldwide forum
Its lack of inclusivity, open mindedness and education that disqualifies ANYONE from commenting, unless they want their attitude, words and actions handed back to them on a plate


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> I think it is you who needs to get a grip


Really? Why do you add a smiley face when you say that? You think that will minimise its impact...


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> . If you have chosen a specific organisation to represent through volunteering,


I did not ''choose to represent them''. I gave up several hours a week to help them. Even the salaried staff did not choose to wear their t-shirts except one. There was nothing 'petty' about the hours I worked for them.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

bearcub said:


> The limitations of volunteering - no contract, no salary. You appear to be pointing those things out as a reason not to wear a t-shirt or lanyard, which to me is an odd attitude to take. If you have chosen a specific organisation to represent through volunteering, why would you, as you put it, 'walk' because of something as simple as wearing a specific item of clothing or a lanyard? It seems so petty to me.


The staff weren't asked to wear the rainbow lanard when they started their voluntary work and the as has already been said the NT is about about preserving historical buildings and land and not specifically about LGBT , the staff gave their reasons , whether you agree with them or not , its not a simple issue to them, so no , I don't think its an odd attitude .


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> I did not ''choose to represent them''. I gave up several hours a week to help them. Even the salaried staff did not choose to wear their t-shirts except one. There was nothing 'petty' about the hours I worked for them.


Of course you chose to represent them. You were a representative in their store, and you chose BHF over other charities.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

kimthecat said:


> The staff weren't asked to wear the rainbow lanard when they started their voluntary work and the as has already been said the NT is about about preserving historical buildings and land and not specifically about LGBT , the staff gave their reasons , whether you agree with them or not , its not a simple issue to them, so no , I don't think its an odd attitude .


I was replying to a post, not making a general comment about the topic. However, I do think volunteers need to be flexible enough to meet the changing demands and requirements of their organisation.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

MilleD said:


> Yes, if you buy the guidebook. Good old NT.


Like many of these institutions. Good at the talk aren't they?

I'll go with what I've seen first hand rather than the cutesy goody goody impression they like to portray of themselves.

I'll go with a disgusting way they treat their tenant farmers, the way they cheat their paying "conservationists", they way they leave non profitable building to fall into ruin, and the total destruction of thousands of acres of countryside and the consequence for the wildlife there


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> Of course you chose to represent them.


Wrong (again) . . . I knew someone who had worked there who said they were desperate for help...why do you insist on arguing? You really know nothing about it.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> Wrong (again) . . . I knew someone who had worked there who said they were desperate for help...why do you insist on arguing? You really know nothing about it.


So you made a choice. And volunteered as a representative in a store. I can't quite see what aspect of that is hard for you to grasp.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> However, I do think volunteers need to be flexible enough to meet the changing demands


Volunteers are just that - volunteers...they do their hours, giving up voluntarily of their time. What do you mean by 'flexible'? I was totally flexible in that if they asked me to change my days or hours I would, if possible, oblige. I would change the job I did there if needed; but, no, I would not have been told what to wear. What I wore was, I assume, acceptable, as no-one ever complained.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

elmthesofties said:


> I'm going to add an alternative angle here:
> Let's supposing you go to the NT open day and there are 10 volunteers. 9 wear the lanyard, one doesn't. You kindly point out that they seem to have dropped their lanyard, and when they respond that they don't want to wear one, what conclusion would you come to?
> 
> If they explain the backstory, then they are creating drama on the day. If they don't, then it seems likely that it's because they're against the community to some extent. If you were there with a same sex partner, would you then feel uncomfortable?
> ...


No, because I probably wouldn't notice they didn't have one nor would I feel the need to point it out if I did.

The policy should be wear one if you wish - or use your normal one - no drama.

I don't think most people would jump to the conclusion "no rainbow lanyard = anti LGBT", even a same sex couple.

The NT have created the drama.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> Thing is, apparently being straight disqualifies you from commenting on anything gay, no matter how much experience you have. Or at least a few members seem to think so.


There you go again assuming what people think. 
FYI I'm straight.

But what does that say about you and your internal narrative, that you think what others are objecting to is your sexual preference and not your actual words and attitude?


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> The policy should be wear one I you wish - or use your normal one - no drama.
> 
> I don't think most people would jump to the conclusion "no rainbow lanyard = anti LGBT", even a same sex couple.
> 
> The NT have created the drama.


I so agree with you...I could not have worded it better. It is totally wrong to inflict your views on others, whether you are gay or not, whether you approve of same-sex marriage or not, whether you approve of breastfeeding in public or not. The expression 'live and let live' sort of comes to mind.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Calvine said:


> I so agree with you...I could not have worded it better. It is totally wrong to inflict your views on others, whether you are gay or not, whether you approve of same-sex marriage or not, whether you approve of breastfeeding in public or not. The expression 'live and let live' sort of comes to mind.


Ironic, innit?


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> There you go again assuming what people think.
> FYI I'm straight.
> 
> But what does that say about you and your internal narrative, that you think what others are objecting to is your sexual preference and not your actual words and attitude?


Well then, read what is actually written and let others have their say without calling for them to banned from certain threads.

So you can assume what I think, but not vice versa?

Please enlighten me as to what you think my attitude is and how you find it offensive. I'd love to pass it on to my sister and our friends to see if they agree. Or do you simply have another agenda? I suspect the latter.

And I never said I drive a Ferrari.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> Ironic, innit?


Just a bit!!


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, because I probably wouldn't notice they didn't have one nor would I feel the need to point it out if I did.
> 
> The policy should be wear one if you wish - or use your normal one - no drama.
> 
> ...


No badges, no problems. And appreciate and respect your volunteers and certainly don't shove them out of sight as that's just regressing decades of a positive change in attitude.


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> Volunteers are just that - volunteers...they do their hours, giving up voluntarily of their time. What do you mean by 'flexible'? I was totally flexible in that if they asked me to change my days or hours I would, if possible, oblige. I would change the job I did there if needed; but, no, I would not have been told what to wear. What I wore was, I assume, acceptable, as no-one ever complained.


OK, of the five organisations I have volunteered for, all five have a dress code; two had uniforms, two were smart and the other required a polo shirt and a lanyard. I have also been asked to wear badges or adapt my outfit to reflect a particular cause or theme. I never saw it as a big deal, that's all.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> I never saw it as a big deal, that's all.


Good for you; that's all. I didn't say anything was a ''big deal''. There was no ''dress code'' at BHF and even the salaried staff had a choice as to whether to wear the t-shirt and didn't. You are quite irritating, so I'll put you on ignore.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> a lanyard.


I bet it wasn't a Gay Pride lanyard.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> So you can assume what I think, but not vice versa?


I'm not assuming anything. You said:


Dr Pepper said:


> apparently being straight disqualifies you from commenting on anything gay,


Which is clearly not the case.

But flippant little comments on this thread and downright hateful comments like what you said on the other thread and have not even remotely apologized for, are going to be addressed. And should be.

________________________

Regarding this thread. To me the outing of some famous person posthumously is a separate issue from asking volunteers at some locations to wear rainbow badges during a short gay pride campaign. 
The posthumous outing aside, what reasons might a volunteer have for not wanting to wear a rainbow badge?


----------



## bearcub (Jul 19, 2011)

Calvine said:


> I bet it wasn't a Gay Pride lanyard.


I actually have volunteered at Gay Pride so it literally was


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> I'm not assuming anything. You said:
> 
> Which is clearly not the case.
> 
> ...


First point, you've clearly got me mixed up with someone else or take offence where none is intended.

Second point, because they simply don't want to is good enough reason. I wouldn't on the point of principal that they said I had to, whatever the cause.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

Oh eck. If they had a breastfeeding event I'd avoid it like the plague. I'm too prudish for that. I fed all of my children, sometimes in public places. No one ever complained, because I was discreet and no one knew I was. I didn't flaunt it. The only people that ever said anything were other mothers, who said it's natural why shouldn't they feed their children in the middle of Debenhams if they want. I pointed out people do plenty of things that are natural, that we wouldn't like to see in the middle of Debenhams. Show a bit of decorum. ummy1 

Part of the problem with the lanyard thing I fear was the email. The email the NT sent out made an issue about it by telling people about the lanyard and telling them they'd have to stay away from the public if they wouldn't wear it. This assumed that some people would refuse and threatened them. They should have said there'll be rainbow lanyards, not threatened people over it. 

I think the only people who refused were volunteers at the stately home who felt they were supporting the benefactor and his family, by saying it should be a choice. They felt his choice was taken away and now theirs was too.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

bearcub said:


> I was replying to a post, not making a general comment about the topic. However, I do think volunteers need to be flexible enough to meet the changing demands and requirements of their organisation.


 yes, I know you were but my reply is both relevant to Calvine's post and the topic .

As to being flexible , I would say it depends on what the demands and requirements are .


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> what reasons might a volunteer have for not wanting to wear a rainbow badge?


What reasons would they maybe have for wanting to wear one?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Calvine said:


> What reasons would they maybe have for wanting to wear one?


To show support for the LGBT community, particularly in commemoration of the 50 year anniversary of homosexuality being decriminalized in the UK.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> To show support for the LGBT community, particularly in commemoration of the 50 year anniversary of homosexuality being decriminalized in the UK.


I wish them well, but not interested in wearing a rainbow for them at work, or while volunteering..


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

If I was offering my time and maybe expertise to an organisation or charity for free and was threatened if I didn't toe the line about something as unimportant as wearing something. I would say stuff it I'm off


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> To show support for the LGBT community, particularly in commemoration of the 50 year anniversary of homosexuality being decriminalized in the UK.


Maybe it's not even on their radar. Maybe they are the older generation who still see it as wrong. Maybe for religious reasons.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Calvine said:


> I wish them well, but not interested in wearing a rainbow for them.


I'm simply answering your question.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

rona said:


> If I was offering my time and maybe expertise to an organisation or charity for free and was threatened if I didn't toe the line about something as unimportant as wearing something. I would say stuff it I'm off


Bearcub told me I was ''uncharitable'' and ''petty'' for saying similar.


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

ouesi said:


> I'm simply answering your question.[/QUOTE
> Me too.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

What if an employee was a Muslim and refused to wear one ? could they be sacked or on a warning or would they be allowed not to wear one ?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

kimthecat said:


> What if an employee was a Muslim and refused to wear one ? could they be sacked or on a warning or would they be allowed not to wear one ?


Why would being Muslim mean you couldn't wear a rainbow lanyard? Not all Muslims object to homosexuality any more than all Christian do.
Secondly, it's a volunteer position. Not a job.


----------



## rona (Aug 18, 2011)

Calvine said:


> Bearcub told me I was ''uncharitable'' and ''petty'' for saying similar.


Then I'm Petty too then. It's a while since I would put up with someone threatening me or dictating what I wear


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> Why would being Muslim mean you couldn't wear a rainbow lanyard? Not all Muslims object to homosexuality any more than all Christian do.
> Secondly, it's a volunteer position. Not a job.


Muslims follow a religion which forbids gay relationships. That's why. Muslims are not a race.


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

52% of British muslims polled believe homosexuality should be illegal. Chances are they'd say no to wearing a badge supporting LGBT. If despite ingrained religious indoctrination they were still willing to work at the event, I wouldn't turn them away, or penalise them for it. Where would that get anyone?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2017)

Dr Pepper said:


> Muslims follow a religion which forbids gay relationships. That's why.


So does Christianity, yet not all Christians object to homosexuality. 
Nor do all Muslims.


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

ouesi said:


> So does Christianity, yet not all Christians object to homosexuality.
> Nor do all Muslims.


I don't think you'll find a devout Muslim supporting a gay relationship. I could be wrong though and welcome examples.

Although just the other day there was a gay Muslim couple in the news (they are in the UK).


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

ouesi said:


> Why would being Muslim mean you couldn't wear a rainbow lanyard? Not all Muslims object to homosexuality any more than all Christian do.
> Secondly, it's a volunteer position. Not a job.


I didn't say they couldn't wear one . I'm saying "If " a Muslim refused to wear one , like you said not all Muslims object but some do. The same as Christians , some do and some dont.
You're making this a muslim vs christian thing and its not.

My question is about who's rights trumps who's .

I know the thread is about volunteers but so what? I'm asking about employed people .
Its part of a conversation on a thread. It's hardly off topic.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Dr Pepper said:


> I'm with you on the breastfeeding, it's all about "me me me" and "I'm entitled". It may be natural but (***don't read on if easily offended***) so is scratching my balls, I wouldn't do that in public though. Breastfeeding openly in public is a new phenomenon that does make many of those around uncomfortable.


no its not! - although @Elles im with you in having a group feed in, I wouldnt have wanted any other mum judging me on my technique, it worked for me and mine and that was all that was needed!
what, however, is a new phenomenon, is women being brave enough to say,

"no! Im sorry, my baby needs feeding and feeding now, and im not going to do that in a toilet, or behind a screen (which actually mean people stare and want to know whats going on) or stop eating my hot meal to leave and come back later, or feeding my baby a bottle because you think my boobs are for sex and nothing else"
and good on them I say

Even if you feed a baby before going out, if youre demand feeding you have no choice but to feed when they want it, be that half an hour later, or 3 hours later, and Im damn sure people would rather a contented baby than a screaming one, Bet you i can take you to a park where half a dozen women are breastfeeding in public and you wouldnt be able to spot a single one. After all, I evenfed a baby in front of my great grandfather, whilst holding a conversation, playing cribbage with him and drinking a cup of tea, he certainly didnt realise, so im darned sure you wouldnt have done
Ive never seen a mum, anywhere, just flop the boob on the table and latch a child on, that would embarrass even me!! shawls, shrugs, cardis, muslins, baggy tshirts, you name it, women use them, after all do you think we want to be oggled whilst we are feeding our children?

its time people, and men in particular, stopped sexualising women and realised boobs are there for a purpose, thats nothing to do with sex. No one objects to seeing a dog, cat, cow, goat horse whatever naturally feeding their 'children'. its only through the hypersexualisation of women, that the objections arise


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Dr Pepper said:


> Maybe they are the older generation who still see it as wrong. Maybe for religious reasons.


Then its about education, (again!) if they can learn about how unacceptable racism is, they can learn about how distasteful it is to single someone out because of any prefference, sexual or not
the same with religion
Bigots however are something very different, but then you cant educate pork


----------



## Calvine (Aug 20, 2012)

bearcub said:


> I actually have volunteered at Gay Pride so it literally was [/QUOTE
> 
> *As I told you, I have you on ignore as you are so irritating. However, as you tagged me, I foolishly looked in case you had anything noteworthy to say. To say you volunteered for Gay Pride is totally suspect. I started this thread seven hours ago and you only just remembered that!! Really? Do not tag or quote me again as you are full of it.*


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

wonders how this thread would go if it was about a group of people refusing to wear a poppy in November - for whatever reason


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

mrs phas said:


> no its not! - although @Elles im with you in having a group feed in, I wouldnt have wanted any other mum judging me on my technique, it worked for me and mine and that was all that was needed!
> what, however, is a new phenomenon, is women being brave enough to say,
> 
> "no! Im sorry, my baby needs feeding and feeding now, and im not going to do that in a toilet, or behind a screen (which actually mean people stare and want to know whats going on) or stop eating my hot meal to leave and come back later, or feeding my baby a bottle because you think my boobs are for sex and nothing else"
> ...


I wasn't sexualising anyone. And I agree being discreet is fine. It's the "flopping a boob out in full sight I object to", which is a new phenomenon. If you've not seen it count yourself lucky!!


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

Dr Pepper said:


> I wasn't sexualising anyone. And I agree being discreet is fine. It's the "flopping a boob out in full sight I object to", which is a new phenomenon. If you've not seen it count yourself lucky!!


Ii have my own, I dont need to look at anyone elses thank you
neither, might I add, do you


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

ouesi said:


> I'm not assuming anything. You said:
> 
> Which is clearly not the case.
> 
> ...


Maybe some are not supportive of gay relationships & that is their choice & opinion (as long as they are not openly offending anyone). Just because some people are like this does not make them 'bad' people or that they should be hidden away (as in the email they were asked to participate in back room jobs rather than front of house). This is more than a 'dress code' issue & that's why I don't agree with it, this should not be an issue that is imposed on the workers at his particular place as it is just not relevant.

We had a day at work recently (Women in Engineering) & a couple of men decided not to have any reference to the in their work place (there was all sorts of crap everywhere as we had girls from the local school coming in to the office) .... should these men have been removed or made to display these items (badges & monitor stickers)? No, I don't think so. You could argue that it is the company;s equipment so they should have been made to display these items but is it really worth pushing this point if they didn't want to be part of it? If their opinions spill over in to their working role & cause problems (as one of them had) then that's an issue that needs addressing but not in this instance (IMO).


----------



## Elles (Aug 15, 2011)

The flopping out on a table? I have. A work friend of my husband. His wife. They invited us for dinner. She had huge boobies with big brown nipples. Flopped them out and told me it's natural and people should get over it. I was horrified and really embarrassed. Didn't know where to look. 

Discretion is the better part of valour.

I was very modern and opinionated in my day. Fed on demand, didn't have a cot, used a carrier not a pram, and only went where baby could go too. Never left with a babysitter and picked up the second they cried. Making all sorts of rods for my own back. I pointed out that few 18 year olds still sleep in their mother's bed, wet the bed, cry through the night, or breast feed and ignored any professional advice that tried to tell me different. My milk banks stayed undercover, with or without baby attached. :Hilarious


----------



## Dr Pepper (Jan 17, 2017)

mrs phas said:


> Ii have my own, I dont need to look at anyone elses thank you
> neither, might I add, do you


That's kinda my when point. I don't want to and I certainly don't want someone's thrust upon me in a public place. Discreet is good.

And to be fair I do kinda have a smallish pair of my own


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

mrs phas said:


> wonders how this thread would go if it was about a group of people refusing to wear a poppy in November - for whatever reason


 Thats already been mentioned in the thread . seems most would be ok with it .


----------



## elmthesofties (Aug 8, 2011)

Lurcherlad said:


> No, because I probably wouldn't notice they didn't have one nor would I feel the need to point it out if I did.
> 
> The policy should be wear one if you wish - or use your normal one - no drama.
> 
> ...


All it takes is for one person to notice and make a fuss to put a dampener on everyone's day. The point I'm making is that the NT may be trying to play it safe.


----------



## kimthecat (Aug 11, 2009)

Dr Pepper said:


> And to be fair I do kinda have a smallish pair of my own


 You have moobs !


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I'm closing this, it's just going round in the same old circles, is starting to go off track & I have a bed to climb into so I can be up at 1 to feed my baby mice.

It's an historical time for many, so there is going to be more media coverage of LGBT issues, we should acknowlege how much of a game changer this is for many people.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the 1967 Act, here's some light reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ality-decriminalised-sexual-offences-act-1967


----------

