Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rhiannon on August 05, 2017, 03:11:54 PM
-
Disappointing and gutless u-turn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40837709
-
I disagree, Rhi. If I had been a volunteer I would probably have chosen not to wear such a badge and would have been rather insulted that I would have been penalised for my decision. So, I personally am not disappointed at all. However, it is quite possible that the decision was gutless.
-
Yep, I am with enki here, I don't see why you would want volunteers to do this.
-
Neither do I, seems odd ???.
-
Wot NS said. The equivalent of poppy fascism
-
If I was a NT volunteer and it had been voluntary from the start, I'd've worn one, but if it had been compulsory, I'd've made it clear that I disapproved of its compulsoriness. I also think that they should not have outed Lord Wossname, as his family said. All in all, a pretty cack-handed effort by NT.
-
If I was a NT volunteer and it had been voluntary from the start, I'd've worn one, but if it had been compulsory, I'd've made it clear that I disapproved of its compulsoriness. I also think that they should not have outed Lord Wossname, as his family said. All in all, a pretty cack-handed effort by NT.
I agree 100%.
If you make it compulsory, it loses its force anyway. How would a gay person feel visiting Fellbrigg Hall and seeing the massive support from the volunteers only to find that they were only doing it because they were told to.
-
I think that this case highlights a problem which I have been told affects a number of large charities - the tendency to treat volunteers as employees. I have heard of "volunteers" being given targets and objectives and then being subject to annual review at which their "performance" is "evaluated".
The National Trust (of which I am a member) has overstepped the mark here. It matters not that its intentions were honourable, it was making its volunteers make a political statement by insisting they wore badges. This is unacceptable. The NT's director general, Dame Helen Ghosh, has not covered herself with glory in the high-handed manner she has dealt with this incident. In addition to failing to understand the concept of volunteering, she has upset friends and relatives of the former owner of Felbrigg Hall.
-
It could be called a violation of the 'code of practice' of volunteering.
-
It could be called a violation of the 'code of practice' of volunteering.
It could be if there was such a thing, which there isn't. On the other hand, it could be the case - very often is the case - that the organisation for which you're volunteering has a code of conduct or a statement of principles/values (etc.) which you're expected to abide by if you want to be a volunteer.
True of the NT. Like this:
Annabel Smith, head of volunteering and participation development at the National Trust, said: "All of our staff and volunteers sign up to our founding principles when they join us - we are an organisation that is for ever, for everyone [...] Relating specifically to the Prejudice and Pride programme, we do recognise that some volunteers may have conflicting personal opinions. However, whilst volunteering for the National Trust we do request and expect individuals to uphold the values of the organisation."
-
I agree 100%.
If you make it compulsory, it loses its force anyway. How would a gay person feel visiting Fellbrigg Hall and seeing the massive support from the volunteers only to find that they were only doing it because they were told to.
A glowing ripple of schadenfreude?
I've read several articles on this and I can't see that there was any compulsion to wear the badges.
-
The NT is supposed to have inclusivity as a value and they are trying to demonstrate that. As a member of the public what am I to make of visiting somewhere that has volunteers who aren't wearing the lanyards?
This isn't 'poppybfacism' (I don't wear one because I don't represent any organisation so it's no-ones business). Volunteer or not, they are representing the NT and they do have to adopt a professional attitude that is in line with the organisation's aims. This isn't like running the local cats home.
As for the film, the gentleman is dead so I don't see it makes a lot of difference to him.
-
Whilst gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, I don't think it is the place of the NT to make it a political issue where their volunteers are concerned.
We have been members of the NT for many years and this has annoyed us somewhat.
-
Whilst gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, I don't think it is the place of the NT to make it a political issue where their volunteers are concerned.
But doesn't the NT (as with any employer) reserve the right to (a) have a - I don't know the right term - mission statement (?) of values and principles and (b) expect those who work for it (volunteers included) to abide by it?
-
And if any volunteer refused to serve someone because they were gay, or black or disabled that to me would've that person failing at the values. But this is political posturing.
-
And if any volunteer refused to serve someone because they were gay, or black or disabled that to me would've that person failing at the values. But this is political posturing.
I do agree that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. But as it has, it now gives the signal that its ok with volunteers not agreeing with inclusivity. It's a mess of its own making.
-
But doesn't the NT (as with any employer) reserve the right to (a) have a - I don't know the right term - mission statement (?) of values and principles and (b) expect those who work for it (volunteers included) to abide by it?
I agree. In fact I think inclusivity is a necessity for charitable organisations. Volunteers can't pick and choose who they want to 'include'.
-
I agree. In fact I think inclusivity is a necessity for charitable organisations. Volunteers can't pick and choose who they want to 'include'.
Which they didn't. Not wearing a lanyard isn't choosing. It's the NT's problem not the volunteers.
-
Which they didn't. Not wearing a lanyard isn't choosing. It's the NT's problem not the volunteers.
It's a problem for at least 10 of them.
-
I do agree that it shouldn't have happened in the first place. But as it has, it now gives the signal that its ok with volunteers not agreeing with inclusivity. It's a mess of its own making.
My reasons for not wishing to wear some sort of badge emphasising inclusivity(if I was a volunteer) is because I would have thought that it would be taken as read that I would have volunteered on that basis. Indeed I would have volunteered on that basis according to Annabel Smith. There would therefore be no need to wear such a badge, unless, of course, those in charge do not think I can be trusted. For exactly the same reason, I would not wish to wear anything that suggested that I am against racism or against sexism. I would also have thought that anyone volunteering who did not show this inclusivity would be out on their ear, badge or no badge, so I don't agree that it then becomes ok. for volunteers not agreeing with inclusivity.
-
My reasons for not wishing to wear some sort of badge emphasising inclusivity(if I was a volunteer) is because I would have thought that it would be taken as read that I would have volunteered on that basis. Indeed I would have volunteered on that basis according to Annabel Smith. There would therefore be no need to wear such a badge, unless, of course, those in charge do not think I can be trusted. For exactly the same reason, I would not wish to wear anything that suggested that I am against racism or against sexism. I would also have thought that anyone volunteering who did not show this inclusivity would be out on their ear, badge or no badge, so I don't agree that it then becomes ok. for volunteers not agreeing with inclusivity.
Nice idea.
Here's the original report in which a volunteer ever so politely desrcribes a film she hadn't seen as 'distasteful'. A lovely veneer of homophobia to go with the afternoon tea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40825660
-
It's a problem for at least 10 of them.
No, it's not. Again wearing the lanyard is not about inclusivuty. Yyou agree that what the NT did was wrong, if it was wrong to ask, then it's OK to refuse.
-
No, it's not.
It was actually 30 not 10:
30 of the 350 volunteers were offered duties away from the public after choosing not to wear them.
and that looks like them having a problem with it to me, but since I'm planning to go out this evening I'll leave you to it.
-
Nice idea.
Here's the original report in which a volunteer ever so politely desrcribes a film she hadn't seen as 'distasteful'. A lovely veneer of homophobia to go with the afternoon tea.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-40825660
First of all, the film which 'outed' Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer is an entirely different matter and nothing to do with the point I was making. I haven't seen the film and the reason that this person suggested that it has been described as 'distasteful' needs to be examined before judging whether they are homophobic or not, surely.
I might well find it distasteful that a very private man's sexual inclinations have been broadcast in this way. Does this mean that I also would be labelled by you as having a 'lovely veneer of homophobia to go with the afternoon teas'. If so, I would reject it of course, and accuse you of portraying bias towards me on account of a total lack of evidence that I am homophobic.
However, whether this volunteer is homophobic or not, if they display any sign of homophobia when dealing with the public, then, as I already have said, they should be dismissed immediately.
-
First of all, the film which 'outed' Mr Wyndham Ketton-Cremer is an entirely different matter and nothing to do with the point I was making. I haven't seen the film and the reason that this person suggested that it has been described as 'distasteful' needs to be examined before judging whether they are homophobic or not, surely.
Y
I might well find it distasteful that a very private man's sexual inclinations have been broadcast in this way. Does this mean that I also would be labelled by you as having a 'lovely veneer of homophobia to go with the afternoon teas'. If so, I would reject it of course, and accuse you of portraying bias towards me on account of a total lack of evidence that I am homophobic.
However, whether this volunteer is homophobic or not, if they display any sign of homophobia when dealing with the public, then, as I already have said, they should be dismissed immediately.
Saying that making the film is distasteful is not the same as saying that the film itself is, as this person did. Without seeing it. Come on, this is an information film by the NT, who are used to dealing with this stuff. Not Queer as Folk.
I think if an organisation that is curating a house that has a story in part to do with homosexuality were to ignore that and continue to sweep it under the carpet, then that on some way continues the homophobia of our past. There's still a lot of healing to be done. And as the gentleman concerned is dead I don't see how we can know if he'd embrace the changes in our society now and speak for the first time as so many others are doing. But the bigger story isn't about preserving the past. It's about being honest about it so that people today feel welcome, included and accepted.
-
It's a premium article but just feel the joy in this headline.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/national-trust-rainbow-row-will-set-gay-rights-back-years/amp/
I'm expecting a reversal on marriage equality any day now.
-
Saying that making the film is distasteful is not the same as saying that the film itself is, as this person did. Without seeing it. Come on, this is an information film by the NT, who are used to dealing with this stuff. Not Queer as Folk.
I think if an organisation that is curating a house that has a story in part to do with homosexuality were to ignore that and continue to sweep it under the carpet, then that on some way continues the homophobia of our past. There's still a lot of healing to be done. And as the gentleman concerned is dead I don't see how we can know if he'd embrace the changes in our society now and speak for the first time as so many others are doing. But the bigger story isn't about preserving the past. It's about being honest about it so that people today feel welcome, included and accepted.
I haven't seen the film so I cannot come to any personal conclusion as to whether I think the film, or the making of the film was distasteful or not. If you also have not seen the film then I fail to see how you can also. The point about the NT being used to dealing with this stuff is well made, except that they seem to have not actually done too well on the badges' front, at least.
The only word of caution I would make about your personal opinions expressed in your second paragraph is that you seem to take no real account of the matter of personal privacy, which may or may not be of some relevance in this particular case.
However, the only points I have made, and wish to make, are associated with the badges' controversy and your undue haste in labelling a volunteer as homophobic, unless, of course, you have evidence that this is so.
-
I think we can assume that an NT film narrated by Stephen Fry isn't going to be distasteful. However, its possible. To believe that it is so without seeing it is prejudiced though because the only reason it could be seen to be so is its subject matter.
I'm afraid privacy ends with death. It's how it is. Mine, yours, anyone's. When my family sound secret letters between my great aunt and her lover I was the only one of us that refused to read them. Apparently they were very beautiful and extremely touching. Maybe I should have, I would have understood her better. Social history exists for a reason - understanding us, the past, the present. That the right wing press are using this event to try to damage the gay rights movement should be of far more concern than the 'privacy' of someone who has died and whose views we don't really know.
-
I don't see how I can improve on that. Especially the last sentence.
-
This I feel gives a much better insight as to the gentleman in question.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/07/26/national-trust-and-stephen-fry-under-fire-for-outing-historical-figure/
-
I think we can assume that an NT film narrated by Stephen Fry isn't going to be distasteful. However, its possible. To believe that it is so without seeing it is prejudiced though because the only reason it could be seen to be so is its subject matter.
I'm afraid privacy ends with death. It's how it is. Mine, yours, anyone's. When my family sound secret letters between my great aunt and her lover I was the only one of us that refused to read them. Apparently they were very beautiful and extremely touching. Maybe I should have, I would have understood her better. Social history exists for a reason - understanding us, the past, the present. That the right wing press are using this event to try to damage the gay rights movement should be of far more concern than the 'privacy' of someone who has died and whose views we don't really know.
I have nothing to add to my comments, Rhi. They are essentially summed up in my last paragraph of Post 26. :)
-
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/12/22/daily-mail-urges-national-trust-members-to-resign-in-disgust-over-gay-history-celebration/
-
Here we are. The distasteful film in full:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pdgaAdhapoc
-
Here we are. The distasteful film in full:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pdgaAdhapoc
For the record this is my opinion. I don't find it distasteful at all. In fact I find it quite uplifting, especially the wood pigeon sonnet. :)
-
For the record this is my opinion. I don't find it distasteful at all. In fact I find it quite uplifting, especially the wood pigeon sonnet. :)
I think it's an excellent film.
-
Here we are. The distasteful film in full:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pdgaAdhapoc
Well there we are.
The whole horrible thing.
Like an MP I have to declare interests: firstly I would consider it a good night's sleep to fall asleep to Stephen Fry reciting the Leicester phone directory in full, and secondly as an ally of gay rights.
But really: that's it?
-
We can't know for sure of course. But given that he consciously left his archive to the NT, and that his own biographies did not shirk from discussing same sex attraction, I think it possible that he was aware that one day his own private life might be so recorded. As a historian himself he must have been aware of what he was bequeathing.
Whatever, he comes across as a very interesting man.
-
A third interest: I have long been an admirer (2017: "fan") of William Beckford - writer, poet, architect, aesthete, bit of everything, gay man, whose (fairly splendid even now) tomb I've visited, touched, photographed.
Perhaps I was in the wrong?
-
I think we can assume that an NT film narrated by Stephen Fry isn't going to be distasteful. However, its possible. To believe that it is so without seeing it is prejudiced though because the only reason it could be seen to be so is its subject matter.
I'm afraid privacy ends with death. It's how it is. Mine, yours, anyone's. When my family sound secret letters between my great aunt and her lover I was the only one of us that refused to read them. Apparently they were very beautiful and extremely touching. Maybe I should have, I would have understood her better. Social history exists for a reason - understanding us, the past, the present. That the right wing press are using this event to try to damage the gay rights movement should be of far more concern than the 'privacy' of someone who has died and whose views we don't really know.
I'll go with you on this one Rhi, a good level headed post.
ippy
-
Here we are. The distasteful film in full:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=pdgaAdhapoc
Had chance to watch this, and found it respectful and a bit preachy, but then that's the point. Is it 'distasteful' in my opinion, no. Do I think that the person judging it distasteful is likely homophobic, yes. Can homophobic people volunteer for BT, yes.
At base though, the main issue is still the refusal to wear badges, and I stick with the idea that it was the wrong thing to do. That some anti gay sections of the media have jumped on it doesn't make it right, nor can the statements of people on here on the question of the badges and the lanyards be taken as indicating that they don't condemn such posturing as well.
-
Had chance to watch this, and found it respectful and a bit preachy, but then that's the point. Is it 'distasteful' in my opinion, no. Do I think that the person judging it distasteful is likely homophobic, yes. Can homophobic people volunteer for BT, yes.
At base though, the main issue is still the refusal to wear badges, and I stick with the idea that it was the wrong thing to do. That some anti gay sections of the media have jumped on it doesn't make it right, nor can the statements of people on here on the question of the badges and the lanyards be taken as indicating that they don't condemn such posturing as well.
I think it has to be seen in the context of the Pride and Prejudice season that the NT was running. It was as a part of that thatvthe rainbow lanyards were introduced. In one article I read someone said that they deliberately took themselves off the roster for all P&P events so that they didn't have to 'endorse' it. There are volunteers actively disapproving of the priniciples behind this event.
-
I think it has to be seen in the context of the Pride and Prejudice season that the NT was running. It was as a part of that thatvthe rainbow lanyards were introduced. In one article I read someone said that they deliberately took themselves off the roster for all P&P events so that they didn't have to 'endorse' it. There are volunteers actively disapproving of the priniciples behind this event.
I am sure there are volunteers disapproving. Again I think you can be a homophobic volunteer of the NT, just as long as you aren't letting it effect how you deal with people. I wouldn't want to wear a lanyard myself because it would feel like an infringement of my rights. That's where the problem seems to me to lie.
-
Cant reply. Software filter is forbidding it and I can't be bothered to find out what dodgy phrase it doesn't like today.
-
I am sure there are volunteers disapproving. Again I think you can be a homophobic volunteer of the NT, just as long as you aren't letting it effect how you deal with people. I wouldn't want to wear a lanyard myself because it would feel like an infringement of my rights. That's where the problem seems to me to lie.
Agree completely.
-
A glowing ripple of schadenfreude?
I've read several articles on this and I can't see that there was any compulsion to wear the badges.
Wear the badge or be hidden round the back out of sight?
-
Wear the badge or be hidden round the back out of sight?
Hardly "Clear your desk; security will escort you off site" is it?
-
But doesn't the NT (as with any employer) reserve the right to (a) have a - I don't know the right term - mission statement (?) of values and principles and (b) expect those who work for it (volunteers included) to abide by it?
I'm sure they have got a mission statement, it probably says something about preserving our history, our open spaces and our historic buildings. I'd be really surprised if it said anything about wearing lanyards with a particular pattern on them.
-
Hardly "Clear your desk; security will escort you off site" is it?
"Clear your desk" is hardly "we'll take you out back and shoot you", but that doesn't mean it's not an attempt at coercion.
-
The NT is supposed to have inclusivity as a value and they are trying to demonstrate that. As a member of the public what am I to make of visiting somewhere that has volunteers who aren't wearing the lanyards?
I would think nothing of it. I work at a professional organisation where many people wear their security badges on lanyards. You see pretty much every colour under the rainbow and, indeed, the rainbow.
This isn't 'poppybfacism' (I don't wear one because I don't represent any organisation so it's no-ones business). Volunteer or not, they are representing the NT and they do have to adopt a professional attitude that is in line with the organisation's aims. This isn't like running the local cats home.
The organisation's aims are to preserve some of our countryside and historic buildings. That doesn't preclude celebrating LBGT history, particularly this year, but that doesn't mean forcing people to wear a particular lanyard. You are not demonstrating solidarity with the gay community or inclusivity if you have to make it compulsory.
I'd be all for this right up to the moment when they say you must do it. That's the moment when irony sets in.
As for the film, the gentleman is dead so I don't see it makes a lot of difference to him.
Did Robert Wyndham Ketton-Cremer ever express an opinion on whether he should be outed 48 years after his death in an era where attitudes to gay people are somewhat different to his own era? For almost his entire life it was illegal to be a homosexual. That seems to me to be motive enough to keep his sexuality secret. Perhaps today he'd be open about it and maybe happier.
Oh, and the family members objecting are his god children according to Wikipedia, so it is not obvious how close they were to him.