Please put back the Ben Summerskill story PinkNews
With this comment from Brian Paddick still in place.
“The story published by PinkNews yesterday about Stonewall was, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at Monday evening’s meeting in Liverpool. We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without… double-checking and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed.
Ben did not say that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated on Tuesday because it would cost £5bn. For PinkNews to publish and fail to correct a story in this way sadly brings the whole of the pink media, which serves our minority communities uniquely well, into disrepute.
Can I say, I was at the meeting and that the original Pink News report, which I read before it was amended, was not ‘a largely dishonest account’. On the contrary, I formed the impression that it was a fair reflection of what took place, even if it was not 100% accurate in every detail.
Pink News, if you want to put the original back, I will give evidence in any subsequent proceedings to that effect. Maybe “Ben did not say he objected to the Lib Dem conference motion.” What he did say was that an impact assessment on the proposals produced by the Treasury, that apparently says the changes would cost £5bn over 10 years, should be published. He also said that some female members of Stonewall objected to gay marriage. Whatever Stonewall or Summerskill’s views actually are, the clear impression he gave was that he, who was not there as a private individual but as the head of Stonewall, was against gay marriage. He may not have said it but he certainly gave that very clear impression, so much so that I was astounded and sought clarification. For Stonewall then to say the original Pink News account was ‘largely dishonest’ is quite clearly false.
I asked Ben, in open forum, to explain why the changes would cost £5bn and why some members of Stonewall objected to equality in marriage – “I want to understand Ben, I really want to understand but I don’t understand”. He accused me of shouting across the room at him (there was no microphone in a crowded hall and he was then heckled by people saying I was not shouting). He failed to explain why it would cost £5bn and he said I should ask the people he had referred to, why they objected. People in that meting, including me, did not get angry with Ben for no reason.
Pink News we’ve had our differences but on this one I’m right behind you.
Comment by Brian Paddick — September 23, 2010 @ 21:43
Having volunteered for other “gay” charities, I can say that it is high time Stonewall gets some fresh blood. They run their charity as a business and look at other charities as competition. They are obsessed by their market share and more of the same. They in fact are no longer in tune with the majority of the gay community, unfortunately, today, they just represent themselves.
this is excellent news but is there a link to the vidclip?
watched this live was amazing…. I’m really proud of them it must of been so painful standing for so long.
hope they get confirmation soon
What a fantastic PR stunt and a great way to draw attention to a great cause!
Well done lads!
Chester, try this -
It’s good that they are only friends and not boyfriends, because after kissing someone for so long you would never want to kiss this person again.
thanks Chris – I’ll look at the vid later