Letters - 21 October 2016
From an open letter to living our values
Open letter
Forgive me for writing to you directly. As a shareholder in Britain Yearly Meeting plc I am concerned about one of the company branches, Swarthmoor Hall. I’m worried it does not conform to the ethical nature of the company, as I understand it.
I also understand the dilemma of not trading through that branch and its affect on potential profits and, following that, the dividend of shareholders.
I’m aware that I can claim my dividend every Sunday and even midweek in some areas.
I feel strongly that it would benefit the company in the long term and protect its good name and ethical history to not continue trading through this particular branch, and also feel the loss in dividend would be worth it.
The Co-operative Group has suffered damage to its public face through poor trading practice, and I would not like to see Britain Yearly Meeting plc suffer like they have.
You have it in your power to bring about the neces-sary changes, and I would urge you to do so speedily.
I hope you do so and look forward to seeing the changes explained at the next shareholders’ meeting in 2017.
Bill Shaw
The gift of leadership
Craig Barnett describes in his article (7 October) how leadership is distributed between many roles, with different responsibilities. He also states: ‘The testimony to equality is sometimes mistaken for a belief that everyone is the same, instead of recognising the equal value of our very different gifts and experiences.’
I find it worrying that ‘leadership’ is being given such prominence at the moment, especially in materials aimed at young people. The young people’s equivalent of ‘Equipping for Ministry’ is called the ‘Young Adult Leadership Programme’ and other programmes for young people also often contain the word.
If I was a young person who, like so many, had not thrived at school, I would be put off by the word ‘leadership’. If I was simply browsing what was available to me in Quakers I would soon conclude that I wasn’t sufficiently successful and middle-class. I wouldn’t get involved. I’d walk away and my gifts, including possibly developing the gift of leadership, wouldn’t be nurtured and would be lost to Quakers and the world. Used in this way, the word ‘leadership’ becomes part of a language of exclusion.
The leadership exercised in various roles and in life is important and it is right that it should be nurtured along with different gifts of ‘equal value’ in these programmes. Giving leadership such prominence could be helping to systematically maintain our educated, middle-class demographic. If we are serious about equality we need to be careful about language.
Wendy Pattinson
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.