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

[lucydogz]

<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-norfolk-40825660&ved=0ahUKEwjXzYeYwb_VAhUDB8AKHfOABAsQiJQBCJcCMCU&usg=AFQjCNESdvsFPzoWQVu_7i8WHq_3mutfKA&ampcf=1" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">link
I'm pro-inclusion of minority groups, but think the NT should stick to doing it's job - looking after old houses. As most of its volunteers are retired, who might not want to be representatives of whatever right-on case the Trust decide to espouse,it's also short sighted of them to treat volunteers this way.

I'm in two minds about this

Yes its a good thing, shouldn't be ashamed of etc.

But it seems to me that it is also of a similar vein to "Mrs X a house wife and mother from Leeds" when the mother from Leeds is a top surgeon.
People are more than their sexuality etc, by all means mention it but don't make the person or building) just about it.

varvara good point. I didn't see anyone rushing to the defence of BBC presenters who have to wear the poppy on air every year.

And yes they do have to - ex BBC person here.

“As a renowned researcher who studied and published biographies of important literary persons in the past with integrity, he would most likely have known that future research on his works, life and times might be studied and published, many of which were included in his bequest to the National Trust.”

YetAnotherSpartacus

If you think the 6 min film (examining many aspects of his "portrait") and some rainbow merchandise (to tie with 50 years of the Wolfenden Report, of which he had a copy which he wrote on) make it a cause celebrate then we shall agree to differ. The NT is, and should be, as much about social history as old buildings so this is relevant (demonstrating the historical change in social attitudes of most people).

My view is a few of the many volunteers at FH are just revealing their ickiness over the concept of gay sex- and clearly are not in line with the NT official policy on equality and diversity

They are not reducing him to one thing, they are saying that this is part of the full picture of the person and past prejudice meant it was airbrushed out.

Granny - no, I'd agree that what happened to you was illegal and should be stopped because you were discriminated against. They treated you differently. That's wholly different from talking about personal or political views. (To be honest, I would support the right of an organisation to sack someone for airing racist or homophobic views on social media on the grounds that they are incompatible with the views of the organisation they represent. But that is different because it is the employee who has made the choice to do so publicly. I think it is very wrong to force anyone to state a view.)

As long as the 'uncomfortable' objections are nothing to do with being anti gay, though I really don't have an awful lot of sympathy.
As to the 'outing' of the squire. Apparently those who knew him were already aware, so it's more outing publicly than news to those who knew and were related to him.

I didn't see anyone rushing to the defence of BBC presenters who have to wear the poppy on air every year

I feel sorry for anyone who had to wear bloody reindeer horns at Christmas.

f you think the 6 min film (examining many aspects of his "portrait") and some rainbow merchandise (to tie with 50 years of the Wolfenden Report, of which he had a copy which he wrote on) make it a cause celebrate then we shall agree to differ

Fine! I didn't mention the film though.

Agree notevilstepmother

But grannytomine how does not wanting to wear a wee pin badge = treating somebody as less? It might not seem significant to you but to me it reinforces what I experienced which was small minded middle class white people who don't think "others" have a right to be there.

Maybe you have to live it, in my case it is interesting as I can go out as the respectable older white woman, or I can go out as half of a mixed race couple, believe me even now you get treated differently but I will concede it is less than 40 years ago and certainly not as bad as my husband experienced 70 years ago.

I wasn't a great fan of my MIL but she and my late FIL who I never met were bloody brave in 1940s Britain and what they had to put up with was vile. They were even thrown out of a church as they were so unacceptable.

Justice woman 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Freedom.
To be forced or even 'expected' to wear a badge supporting a cause, which you would not have chosen to wear, is an infringement of your personal freedom.
If we have no choice but to support a particular cause, are we not living under fascism?
I don't think I should have to support gay rights. I might, or I might not. I might choose to accept whatever equality laws are in place and quietly let people go about their lives, without wanting to promote any particular lifestyle or attitude. But no, we all must think the same way.
There is something very wrong happening. It isn't the hope/aim/working towards equality, it's the insistence on uniformity of thoughts and attitudes.

chips4teaplease we don't all have to think the same way. You can be as homophobic, racist, sexist or disablist as you want but in public you are not allowed to act on those views.

I have less of a problem with people refusing to wear the rainbow stuff if they could articulate better why they feel like this and how their stance fits in with the NT Equality and diversity policies (which by being a volunteer they sign up to) - just to apparently claim that the dead owner was shy and the film (unwatched) is "distasteful" feels disingenuous.

The film is here if anyone wants to watch it.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/stephen-fry-narrates-university-leicester-226768

Londonista

Gosh thank you

I assume the fact he bequeathed his property to the NT indicated that he was comfortable with the idea that posthumously his sexual orientation wouldn't need to be hidden. That's all. It doesn't indicate that he'd want this kind of media circus around people being ordered to wear a rainbow lanyard (or moved to non-public facing roles)

It all smacks to me of naivety.... it's rather like people jumping on the FB ice bucket challenge without having a clue about ALS. There are so many inclusive, informative and authentic angles which the NT could have taken (and are indeed taking in other properties and more widely in places of historical interest) There are loads of ways they could inform and educate about the history of LGBT people, decriminalisation etc. Ordering the volunteers to wear rainbow lanyards isn't one of them imo and while it's given great publicity to felbrigg hall I don't think it's furthered the cause they intended

The thing is though, wearing a rainbow badge and lanyard indicates your support of LGBTQI rights if people are being forced to wear it then it's false isn't it? They don't support LGBTQI rights so I wouldn't be comfortable with them pretending that they did to avoid trouble.
Educating people and working with them brings about change. Scenarios like this one just drive the wedge in.

Chips4tea

This is totally not about free speech or whatever

As a volunteer you are willingly signing up to the policies of the charity and being a representative of the charity to the outside world. If you don't like them, then campaign to change them (or do backroom duties or leave) but that is not about free speech.

They're not being forced to wear them either.

If we have no choice but to support a particular cause, are we not living under fascism?

This is the theoretical objection in a nutshell. But I agree with Henrietta on the practical implications; this kind of thing just divides rather than unites, so is ultimately counterproductive.

HorridHenrietta

I think you are right and its a clumsy marketing/education campaign without getting more buy in from those given the lanyards. But I understand the complainers are not representative of the volunteer body at FH

There is a difference between a man leaving his diaries , which would have revealed his sexual orientation albeit an open secret within his close circle , and the recipient of those diaries using them as a tool to market his home to visitors.

The donor could have reasonably expected the first but not the second.The fact Is that he was a very interesting and accomplished man who happened to be gay , not that he was a gay person full stop.

The film may show that he was an interesting man but the NT would not have made the film were it not for the fact that they wished to run a marketing and publicity campaign piggy backing on the anniversary of homosexuality ceasing to be a criminal offence .I think this is rather offensive actually , they are using this aspect of his life to make money, and I would hazard a guess that the donor would have been pretty surprised to find that his sexuality was being used by the trust in this way albeit he probably knew that leaving his diaries to the Trust would have revealed his sexual orientaton..

This is the theoretical objection in a nutshell. But I agree with Henrietta on the practical implications; this kind of thing just divides rather than unites, so is ultimately counterproductive. If the dividing means that bigots can't be volunteers any more then I think it is a good thing. Being discriminated against divides as well, I am excluded from NT properties because of the attitude of their volunteers so why should their rights be more important than mine?