To feel sympathy to the National Trust volunteers at Felbrigg Hall?

Cannotwillnot no one has a right to treat other people as less than them because they are gay, black, disabled, a woman. If the volunteers can't buy into that they shouldn't be allowed to be volunteers.

Would it be ok to out a dead man who lived in a three-bed semi, if you inherited his diaries after his death?

*It's a sad indictment of today's society when reluctance to wear a pin badge has you labelled as 'bigot'

Individual Free speech and free thought be damned. - you must follow like a sheep without any comment or question.*

I agree. The term "bigot" has become synonymous with "not agreeing with the cause du jour" (or, sometimes, even "not agreeing with me"). Plus - what do you call someone who doesn't like the idea of gay sex (wouldn't want to do it themselves, isn't interested in watching or reading about it) but completely respects the rights of others to do as they choose? I wouldn't say that person was homophobic, nor would I say he was a bigot. But why should his employer force him to wear a badge if he doesn't want to?

It's illiberal liberalism at its worst....

I feel very sorry for the volunteers. Gay rights campaigning and political activism isn't what they signed up to when they volunteered. The rights of all parties should be respected.

Cantseethewoods I can see that but it doesn't change how I feel about them. As a little boy my husband suffered alot of abuse, a brown child with a white mother and no father around, he was killed in WW2. In the 21st century he shouldn't have to put up with being treated like that.

This issue of "outing" a dead gay man (who was alive when it was illegal) is a problematic concept. To keep this aspect of history secret now (for fear of upsetting some distant relatives or neighbours) indicates a view that being gay is bad.

People don't recognise that heterosexuality is openly referred to in history (who one married and had children with is mentioned without worrying that this implies straight sex occurred).

So if we accept now that being gay is equally benign, why is it outing? The publicity does not refer to sexual acts but rather an aspect of his being (as relevant as his status as magistrate, poet, Lord Lieutenant or Norfolk man). Clearly the fact that he chose to write about that part of his being in his diaries and left them to the NT means that he implicitly consented to this information being revealed as part of the historical record.

What I'm curious about is how the National Trust came to have ownership of his private journals? If the family wanted his personal history to remain private then why do the NT have his private journals?

This thread reminds me why it is still an issue. People saying things like 'Where is my straight and proud badge' is depressing. You get to wear your straight and proud badge everyday by not facing discrimination and prejudice over your sexuality.

The NT is not their employer either because they are volunteers.

granny I feel with the NT that their volunteers are both their biggest asset and their biggest liability. It hugely reduces their costs (would not be viable to use paid staff) but it is also much harder to enforce codes of conduct on volunteers than paid employees (sector wide problem, believe me), especially long serving ones, and service and efficiency can be somewhat variable.

I stopped supporting them a few years ago. We went to visit a local National Trust property and there was someone buying tickets, two ladies behind the counter so I stood next to the customer, 2nd lady behind the counter ignored us. Another couple came and stood behind the first customer, as he left they were served. I though meh she probably thought other lady was serving us. With both previous customers she gave them the tickets a brochure and came round the counter to point out points of interest. She then started to serve a third couple, I said, "Am I invisible" she ignored me. The couple said, "these people are in front of us." She served with little grace, shoved the tickets across the counter, no brochure, no effort to point anything out.

I don't know why she did it but suspect the colour of my husband's skin was the main factor but I can't prove it but I will never go in their properties again. So yes I am happy if they want to punish bigots.

I do know why the NT need to support this as as) I am not aware that this is their remit or b) anyone lgbt is first and foremost a human being and as such have every right to enjoy a NT property just the same as the rest of us. In this case it seems to me that the trust are 'jumping on a bandwagon' and in doing so are drawing attention to lgbt people as though they are some sort of show.

I think the line taken with the volunteers is misguided, as was the line taken with the film (although admit I can't stand Stephen Fry so that doesn't help). Tbh I also find people's sexuality of exactly zero interest, so promoting FH in this way makes little sense to me.

We have a strong diversity and inclusion programme where I work. There are often lanyards/ badges available in conjunction with the events we run - Pride, He for She, Be Bold for Change etc. They are made available to all employees and some choose to take and wear them and some don't. Forcing them to wear one won't change their minds- maybe they are sexist/ homophobic, maybe they see it as trite and tokenism etc, maybe they just don't want a pin hole on their lapel. Up to them. Aesop's fable of the sun and the wind springs to mind here.

Trust mumsnet to have more details on the background than the media headlines, which rather look now like attempts to undermine some party or parties.

It's a sad indictment of today's society when reluctance to wear a pin badge has you labelled as 'bigot'

Individual Free speech and free thought be damned. - you must follow like a sheep without any comment or question.

Have people watched the film? It is very beautiful, very respectful and logical. His being gay is relevant because it is tied in with trying to paint a complete picture of him. For example his knowledge that he would not have someone to leave the house to; so decided at an early age to give it the NT. The film also spends as much time on him as a poet and Norfolk man as his being gay.

He was clearly a planner, so the fact that his bequeath included his private writings and a hand annotated copy of the Wolfenden Report suggests he was more comfortable with the approach the NT take than the volunteers would have it known.

I think for the volunteers to not even watch the film and still take this attitude is another example of the deep-rooted homophobia that we see a lot in East Anglia.

I thought the days of public outings were firmly behind us. Really poor show from NT, to go against his family's wishes. I cancelled my membership last month and I'm glad I did.

The bottom line for me is that I don't agree with outing people who didn't or wouldn't have wanted to be outed.

I'm very pro gay rights but I would have been arguing for them not to out him if I'd been a volunteer.

I think the badge should be optional

So who do we believe, people that actually knew him and said he was already out, or some bigoted volunteer who didn't even watch the film but says he was "a private person" when what she meant was "Eww gay we should sweep that under the carpet

Eh? Many who knew him said he was an intensely private person and would likely have not wanted what the NT have done.

I agree. It is unnecessary to turn a visit to a NT house into something like this.

You don't know that they ARE bigoted @notevilstepmother.

That's such an easy extrapolation to leap to but it might not be true.

Yes it's ridiculous. Where's my 'I'm straight and proud' badge?

"But then I'm guessing you're straight and therefore haven't had to face discrimination because you happen to be attracted to your own sex? It's not broadcasting it per se, it's acknowledging it."

• agree with this stance in general terms but not when it's relating to an individual person, whose thoughts and wishes none of us are privy to. Felbrigg Hall has been chosen because of the fact that after his death, the NT discovered evidence that the previous owner was gay.

I also think in this particular case the stance taken by the NT is counter productive. People are going to feel less sympathetic to what they are trying to achieve because frankly I think they're barking up the wrong tree- focusing on one individual and publicising one aspect of his life which is disproportionate and smacks of jumping on the 50th Anniversary bandwagon in a rather naive way. They could have tapped into the current celebrations of the 50th anniversary in a far more informative and authentic way than getting their volunteers to wear rainbow lanyards

So who do we believe, people that actually knew him and said he was already out, or some bigoted volunteer who didn't even watch the film but says he was "a private person" when what she meant was "Eww gay we should sweep that under the carpet".

340 of the volunteers were fine to wear the lanyards and badges, only 10 bigots out of 350, could be worse.

@Nikephorus, you have been clearly discriminated against and could raise that as an issue with HR if it was a works event.

My works events were almost entirely male and tended to be just colleagues, engineering environment, kissing wouldn't have been appropriate regardless of who it was.

I think the driving concern behind this has been finding enough "hidden histories" for each area.