Discrimination, positive or negative, or none at all?

W.C. · Aug 5, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
Maybe because they are not entirely comfortable with homosexuality? Maybe they are of the older generation? Maybe their religious beliefs have skewed their moral compass? None of these things are to be applauded, but equally it is not illegal to feel like this, discrimination is illegal. Should a Labour supporter be forced to wear a Tory rosette at the whim of their employer?

Maybe, if that employer felt it was in keeping with the company's principles that the employees had signed up for (be a bit of a weird company, but it's a stupid example anyway), which is what the NT are saying here.

Anyway, total non-story.

hart's shirt · Aug 5, 2017

The NT have reversed their decision - it's now optional to wear the badges and all volunteers can resume their public facing roles.

One positive note coming out of this is that with the increased exposure, there may be more people visiting Felbrigg and other NT properties.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-40837709

dejavuatbtn · Aug 5, 2017

hart's shirt said:
The NT have reversed their decision - it's now optional to wear the badges and all volunteers can resume their public facing

Is the right answer.

Algernon · Aug 5, 2017

Do people genuinely think that Chairmen across the country don't appoint black Managers because of the colour of their skin?
Honest question!

Albumen · Aug 5, 2017

They're only volunteers. If someone who has thoughts that haven't moved on from the dark ages doesn't want to wear a badge, volunteer them to a shittier volunteer job. Or tell them they're no longer welcome. It's quite simple.

Herr Tubthumper · Aug 5, 2017

Algernon said:
Do people genuinely think that Chairmen across the country don't appoint black Managers because of the colour of their skin?
Honest question!

Probably not. But I think it will be very useful and interesting to know why so many black people play the game but next to none make it as managers.

hart's shirt · Aug 5, 2017

Albumen said:
They're only volunteers. If someone who has thoughts that haven't moved on from the dark ages doesn't want to wear a badge, volunteer them to a shittier volunteer job. Or tell them they're no longer welcome. It's quite simple.

It would be a shame to lose experienced, knowledgeable volunteers who've probably given up their time for free for years over a badge.

Freedom to wear a badge, freedom not to wear a badge.

Sounds fair.

Albumen · Aug 5, 2017

hart's shirt said:
It would be a shame to lose experienced, knowledgeable volunteers who've probably given up their time for free for years over a badge.

Freedom to wear a badge, freedom not to wear a badge.

Sounds fair.

Unless they were allergic to metal I'd question why they wouldn't want to wear a badge that celebrates freedom.

biddles911 · Aug 5, 2017

Albumen said:
They're only volunteers. If someone who has thoughts that haven't moved on from the dark ages doesn't want to wear a badge, volunteer them to a shittier volunteer job. Or tell them they're no longer welcome. It's quite simple.

Volunteers make most charities work, as I can confirm from some 20+ years working for one of the larger charities.

Without them most charities wouldn't even exist so being so dismissive of them is pretty patronising.

I don't suppose the visitors to this property give a stuff whether it was previously owned by a gay man?

Similarly, I would object to wearing any badge beyond the basics of name, position and organisation. I might stretch to "here to help".....maybe?!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

hart's shirt · Aug 5, 2017

Albumen said:
Unless they were allergic to metal I'd question why they wouldn't want to wear a badge that celebrates freedom.

Deep concern and sensitivity by the volunteers about causing offence through cultural appropriation by displaying the rainbow flag?

(Probably not and admittedly slightly tongue-in-cheek, but there shouldn't be any justification for reasons needed here.)

Whatever the individual reasons, the NT has not enforced the wearing of the badges.

The NT has received a huge boost in publicity and the campaign continues.

It's probably win-win overall.

wellquickwoody · Aug 5, 2017

Albumen said:
They're only volunteers. If someone who has thoughts that haven't moved on from the dark ages doesn't want to wear a badge, volunteer them to a shittier volunteer job. Or tell them they're no longer welcome. It's quite simple.

hart's shirt said:
The NT have reversed their decision - it's now optional to wear the badges and all volunteers can resume their public facing roles.

One positive note coming out of this is that with the increased exposure, there may be more people visiting Felbrigg and other NT properties.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-norfolk-40837709

It seems that common sense won out on this occasion, thankfully.

Albumen · Aug 6, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
It seems that common sense won out on this occasion, thankfully.

More likely that they couldn't be arsed dealing with angst from the morons of the Mail.

Not Andy Naylor · Aug 6, 2017

Herr Tubthumper said:
Probably not. But I think it will be very useful and interesting to know why so many black people play the game but next to none make it as managers.

Not many people on here are fans of Alan Pardew, but when he was Charlton manager he promoted Chris Powell to a coaching job because he said he believed in positive discrimination.

sydney · Aug 6, 2017

perhaps for no other reason than they don't want to.

sydney · Aug 6, 2017

Albumen said:
They're only volunteers. If someone who has thoughts that haven't moved on from the dark ages doesn't want to wear a badge, volunteer them to a shittier volunteer job. Or tell them they're no longer welcome. It's quite simple.

my god.......isn't it all about choice....??

wellquickwoody · Aug 6, 2017

Albumen said:
More likely that they couldn't be arsed dealing with angst from the morons of the Mail.

Well done you! :thumbsup:

NooBHA · Aug 6, 2017

wellquickwoody said:
Why should an employee have to push a political message on their employers behalf?

I 100% agree but you don't take a job if you are not willing to sell the product. Reminds me of this hilarious sketch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l5twcFiYd0

OzMike · Aug 6, 2017

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and shouldn't have others' thrust upon them as policy.
It should be discretional and the wearers choice.
Those who choose not to wear them are equally as justified as those that choose to wear them.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Discrimination, positive or negative, or none at all?

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't wait for me!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Don't wait for me!

New member

Well-known member

Many More Voting Years

Don't wait for me!

Well-known member

tinky ****in winky

tinky ****in winky

Many More Voting Years

Well-known member

Well-known member

Share this page