Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Stonewall drops Bill Leckie nomination for Journalist of the Year after protests

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hodge Podge 19 Oct 2010, 3:24pm

    Thats actually great.

  2. These awards are offensive irrespective of whether Leckie is nominated or not.

    Stonewall does not support marriage equality for LGBT people.

    They are utterly unqualified to pass judgement on others.

    Stonewall’s leader Ben Summerskill was actively campaigning against marriage equality at the Lib Dem party conference (when he offered the fictional figure of £10 billion as the cost of equalising CP’s and civil marriage).

    Why has Ben Summerskill not been nominated for Bigot of the Year?

    Why does he still hold his job?

    Why does Stonewall still exist if they believe that LGBT people do not deserve legal equality.

    Who is Stonewall answerable to (it’s certainly not the LGBT population)

    How does Stonewall decide its agenda.

    If Stonewall does not believe that LGBT people deserve legal equality, then why are they allowed to pretend they represent our community, when they clearly don’t.

    Their awards ceremony is on November 5th Thursday at the V+A Museum in London.

  3. I’m in a state of shock… Stonewall have actually done the decent thing (after trying to excuse themselves previously). Next they’ll declare their support for actual equality and start working more closely with transgender organisation.

    Oh was that a pig I just saw fly past the window?? ;)

    I think it’s great they’ve responded but for me it’s too late for Stonewall. I could never trust them again. I hope they continue to change for the better, but I’ll not be parting with my cash to help them out (and I’ll continue telling those companies I work for not to support them corportately).

  4. No more cash from me until Ben Summerskill is out of Stonewall.

  5. It strikes me that perhaps Mr. Leckie was outraged that Stonewall were portraying him as having been on a journey of learning, and seeing the error of his ways….Having read his articles he has obviously more brain cells in his head than all of the protesters put together….We are, after all, all entitled to our own opinion….its called freedom of speech.
    It’s probably been his decision to withdraw, who needs the headache????

  6. “It’s called freedom of speech.”

    No one was saying he couldn’t say whatever he wished. We were just saying Stonewall, an organisation supposedly opposed to bullying, should not be awarding (or at least nominating for an award) such a small-minded man.

    Some people seem to think freedom of speech requires we agree with whatever rubbish someone else spouts. Freedom of speech means they get to say it, and we get to express what we think about what they’ve said. That’s freedom.

  7. Very welcome outcome.

    LK…?

    Lec Kie…. ?

    Just thinking out loud. ;-)

    chrissie

  8. LK:- “Having read his articles he has obviously more brain cells in his head than all of the protesters put together”

    Oh, yeah, that’s really the sort of article the Sun writes:- high brow intellectual stuff. LOL! It’s my freedom of speech to observe you might not be the brightest, LK, if the Sun articles are your level of discernment.

  9. “entitled to opinion” – including bigoted nonsense? People can sue for defamation

  10. The ‘freedom of speech’ reduction ad absurdum! You score 20 points!

    The press in this country have incredible amounts of freedom of speech – more than the TV and radio. Every day they will write a story, regardless of what offence it might cause, or what wider hurt or damage it might do to someone’s life. Throw in an ‘alleged’ and they don’t even have to be factual half of the time either. By then it’s too late and not even a 5 line apology a few weeks later really changes that. Only rich people can usually pull on a high powered lawyer to sue for defamation.

    The press to this day still corner people over their private lives, and then issue the blackmail: “We know your gay – give us an exclusive and we’ll go lightly on you, otherwise we’ll dig up and publish every bit of tittle-tattle we can find anyway”. Where this might be becoming less and less acceptable for lesbian and gay people (but its not perfect), for trans people, they have even less of a choice. The press will simply ‘out’ their past/change of gender without even caring. They don’t even seem to check half of the time whether a trans person has a Gender Recognition Certificate that makes it technically illegal to do this! And we’re not talking people in the public eye, just a trans person getting on with their daily life suddenly finds themselves in a tabloid ‘sex change traffic warden’ story.

    It’s telling in these situations that some lesbian, gay and bi people, who are in some sense privileged to have over 20 years of liberation movement behind them (GLF, Stonewall) find it acceptable to tell trans people ‘to put up’, or ‘where’s your sense of humour’. This used to be you having to put up with the daily slurs, the outing of your private lives, the lack of protection at work. Trans people find themselves at least 10 years behind the gay liberation movement, and are now finding their voice.

    In some ways, the issue here isn’t so much the journalism as the actions of Stonewall. Does a couple of reasonably supportive pieces about an LGBT person warrant ‘journalist of the Year’? Should we really be awarding someone who is less of a bigot than a few years ago? By this notion, will we see Jan Moir swapping her ‘Bigot of the Year’ award with the ‘Journalist of the Year’ in a few years on account of telling us how many gay friends she has?

  11. Great news but they still haven’t come out in favour of marriage equality and I hope that this doesn’t dampen any protest against them on this issue at the awards….. They’re still in the dog house as far as I am concerned…

  12. John said… “They’re still in the dog house as far as I am concerned…”

    Oh, I totally agree.

    And I know the vast majority of the Trans community are in agreement on the gay marriage issue, and will continue to put pressure on Stonewall to change their mind and campaign for it.

    This is a very interesting development, nonetheless.

    I am racking my brains trying to remember the last time Stonewall changed its mind and issued an apology. Certainly when it comes to Trans issues, I can’t think of a single occasion. This is a first.

    Are there changes afoot at the top in Stonewall?

    chrissie

  13. I think it’s just a dampener. But, Marriage Equality is the big issue they seriously need to sort themselves out over.

    Oh, and decide whether they do want to be involved in trans issues (i.e. like they were quite happy to talk about the limitations of the Gender Recognition Act), or then just turn around and keep quoting ad infinitum that they only represent LGB people (whilst most similar organising/campaigning groups) recognise the strength and importance of doing so for all LGBT people.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all