Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Ruth Hunt appointed as Chief Executive of Stonewall

  • Frederick

    Congratulations Ruth but please campaign to make life better for men with old, spent, victimless gay convictions. Currently, they are disclosed on CRB/DBS checks and, though these offences had nothing to do with children, they are considered ‘relevant’. Australia has managed to get the old gay ‘soliciting’ and ‘gross indecency’ offences, not only not disclosed, but wiped. Why can’t we? Their disclosure wields the killer blow to anybody with those old offences who wants to volunteer or work with children and vulnerable adults. The history of these offences was generally entrapment by the ‘pretty policeman’ routine, often obtained via agents provocateurs for whom catching gays was often akin to sport.

    • john

      If you want to get the govt to quash these old convictions then write to members of the HoL yourself and your MP and get others to do so as well. Stonewall won’t. In my experience if you want anything done then do it yourself and don’t rely on Stonewall!

      • Robert W. Pierce

        The Lords recently rejected it.

        • Frederick

          Did they? I had read that they (i.e. Lord Faulks) had rejected any question of posthumous quashings/pardonings (suggested by Lord Sharkey) but was not aware that the lords had rejected ‘disregarding’ of the old, spent victimless gay offences to which I referred and which were specifically not included in the provisions of the Freedoms Act 2012. It is precisely because these offences were not included, such as s.32 of SOA 1956, that it is to be suspected the response to the ‘disregarding’ provision has been so small. The measure of the Freedoms Bill helps very few beneath a certain age.

      • john lyttle

        Stonewall has brought this up repeatedly, recently and in the past. But please, don’t let mere facts interfere with you spraying the room with your usual bile.

        • john

          Look , yes the HoL did reject this recently but when did Stonewall tell its “community” that it was even going to be debated in the HoL? The first I knew about this was when PN reported the fact that it had been rejected. If Stonewall doesn’t get the “community” involved then no change will happen.

          • john lyttle

            Tell the community? Tell the community? Are gay men and women somehow less media literate or plugged into 24 rolling news, the press and the internet than heterosexuals? Stonewall isn’t here to spoon feed the ‘community’ (whatever that is, by the way). If you can’t be up to a very basic speed on issues which fundamentally effect you, well, shame on you. And stop blaming others.

          • Wingby

            Stonewall isn’t there for the LGBT community – full stop.

        • Frederick

          For my part, I am not writing with any bile, but long for the injustice to gay men so convicted to be resolved as quietly and quickly as possible. Unlike the UK, the state of Victoria in Australia has managed to deal with this. Clearly Stonewall would have a leading role in helping to prioritise the need before our government officials and in disseminating relevant publicity to keep the pressure up.

  • StraightGrandmother

    Is she the one who said they would not participate in the Boycott of those fancy Hotels the Sultan of Brunei Owns? In fact Stonewall booked a meeting at one of these Hotels in London.

    • Robert W. Pierce

      Yes, but two days after that announcement, StonewallUK cancelled and used another venue that had nothing to do with the Sultan’s ownership.

      • john lyttle

        Let’s not confuse the whiny and ignorant with mere facts.

      • StraightGrandmother

        Glad to hear that. I remember commenting & tweeting about that.
        It was outrageous, her initial stance. At least she corrected course.

    • Andy Diamond

      Yes, according to media reports that is her.

  • Christopher Saxon Whittle

    Person who is more interested in her career than actually doing things for LGBT people is made Chief Executive of Stonewall…. this makes her ideal for this rotten organisation!

    • Jones

      Person who is more interested in her career than actually doing things for LGBT people

      That is one of the job requirements for CEO of Stonewall.

      • john lyttle

        You should apply then. See how that works? I can make up something insulting, demeaning and false about you too.

        • Jones

          I’m sorry but if I was Stonewall CEO I would not have campaigned against same-sex marriage until I was forced into a u-turn and I wouldn’t have not joined in the boycott of hotels owned by the Sultan of Brunei whilst he stones people to death for being gay.

          In the evaluation of this, it seems I am not up to the job.

          • john lyttle

            And what has any of that to do with the new Chief Executive you’ve already spitefully denounced on just hearing the news of her appointment?

            If you want to sit like a whiny child in the mud puddle of the past, fine. She has to look and plan for the future, and ignore the cynical, superior and self righteous who seem to somehow magically know the content of her head, heart and conscience. (Rolls eyes)

          • Jones

            She was the Acting CEO when she announced Stonewall would not be boycotting the Dorchester hotels.

          • john lyttle

            It was reversed almost as soon as it was said. See below. Happy?

          • Jones

            The fact still stands that the decision was made in the first place, a decision which favoured the person who had just introduced a bill to stone gay people to death – the very people who Ruth Hunt is supposed to represent in her role.

            If you disagree with me on the fact it is quite clear that you have no interest here other than to troll posters, as I see you’ve been doing all day.

          • Wingby

            It should have been a no-brainer – and she got it totally wrong. Ok, the “mistake” was rectified, but do you want to make someone who makes these kinds of mistake your CEO?

  • Godric Godricson

    “Outrage” now seems to be the voice of LGBT people rather than Stonewall which is the face of LGBT supporters going somewhere nice for dinner.

    • john lyttle

      If you want The Voice, try BBC1 on a Saturday evening. There isn’t one, but many, thank God.

  • john

    “…a highly-respected organisation that is synonymous with achieving equal rights for lesbian, gay and bisexual people…” says who, Ruth Hunt the new CEO of Stonewall!

    • john lyttle

      Who better?

  • http://davepage.valueofnothing.org.uk/ Dave Page

    Having met Ruth, I think she’s a breath of fresh air after the cynical, anti-marriage Summerskill. I think Stonewall will start engaging properly with the bi communities and they’ve already opened trans dialogues – I don’t think they’ll become a full LGBT organisation but if they can stop giving Stonewall Awards to transphobes it’ll be a good change.

    Hopefully Stonewall can become a bit less nakedly capitalist too; we all know that their “Top Employers” are based on giving money to Stonewall rather than actually doing anything for LGBT+ people.

    • john lyttle

      And how do we all know that Dave?

      • Wingby

        Oh give over, Ruth. It’s getting boring.

      • http://davepage.valueofnothing.org.uk/ Dave Page

        It’s pretty obvious if you ask anybody who’s ever worked for a Stonewall “top employer” what the company actually does for LGB staff.

  • CRW

    That is disappointing. After the debacle of Stonewall working against gay marriage and then her statements on Stonewall continuing to use fancy hotels owned by a man who is executing gay men I would have thought they would go for some new blood.

    Still I am sure she will love feeding from the trough in our names. Without our consent, but in our names non the less.

    • john lyttle

      How lovely to meet someone who thinks the best of people. As for consent, Stonewall has mine, not that it requires it, just as it does not require yours to go about its business. Look up its charter sometime.

      • Wingby

        Are you Ruth, John?

        • GulliverUK

          I thought that too :)

          I’m sure John is well-meaning nice person, and we should be able to disagree on things, we’re all individuals, and quite different, our sexuality is the common thing. He’s like a dog with a bone – I wish I had him to help me deal with Sainsburys – they are a nightmare.

  • Cal

    It’s fair enough to start dialogue with trans groups but, as trans people are always at pains to point out, they are not gay, I’m not sure we are natural bedfellows in all respects.

    • atalanta

      While many trans people are straight, lots of trans people are gay or bi.

      But yes, in many respects T issues are different from LGB issues. T people need to be heard and must not be drowned out by the LGB community, which is larger and increasingly confident.

      All the same, it seems to me that we hang together or we hang separately – and in too many countries, sadly that is literally true. Even in the UK, there are good reasons to work together.
      1) many LGB people experience issues and discrimination relating to gender presentation and identity which overlap with T experiences
      2) many straight T people have spent part of their lives in the LGB community
      3) in the minds of the people who hate us, there is no difference between LGB & T.

      • Cal

        My point is that I hear a lot of “We are not Gay” and “Why isn’t Stonewall supporting us?” It is true that Gay men, Lesbiens and bi sexualise may have a spectrum of slightly different issues but the umbrella of political interests is contained. Trans people are campaigning for very different issues such as being able to use certain lavatories in schools and public places.

        • atalanta

          On some issues LGB&Ts all have a strong common interest. Marriage equality is one recent example. Another is school bullying; bullies hurl similar insults at a trans girl to those they use against an effeminate boy. HIV/AIDS is also a big issue for trans* women as well as for gay & bi men. Doesn’t it make sense to work together on these issues?

          Of course you’re right that not all trans* issues are LGB issues. But does that have to mean we can’t have shared LGB&T organisations?

          There are some issues on which lesbians and gay men have little in common. As a teenager, one of my formative experiences was volunteering with HIV/AIDS organisations. Very few lesbians contract HIV, but many lesbians were involved in the fight against it. Campaigning together made both gay men and lesbians stronger.

          My own experience is that it’s the same when LGB and trans* campaigners work together. Sometimes our issues differ, and there needs to be space for both groups to pursue their goals. But I have learned a lot from working with trans* people on their campaigns as well as from their input on LGB issues, and it seems to me that working with trans* campaigners makes the LGB community stronger, not weaker.

          • Cal

            I agree with everything you say. But some unnecessary conflict has already arisen over use of the word tranny and I suspect there will be more of these issues. Where use of gender-specific bathrooms is concerned I can see both sides. It is a big ask to demand women share facilities with someone who is clearly physiologically male. It’s a difficult situation and I do understand that a trans woman may feel just as uncomfortable using a men’s facility.

          • Bellerose

            “who is clearly physiologically male”
            First off, trans issues are hardly limited to trans women. Secondly, how are they clearly physiologically male?

            I’d also point out that I’m sure people feel uncomfortable using facilities with all sorts of people. Who or what someone is uncomfortable with is highly personal so it’s erroneous to assume all women would be uncomfortable with something or that one person’s comfort is a legitimate reason to regulate the rights of another.

          • Cal

            First of all, I apologise if I implied that all trans women look physiologically male. Of course they don’t. And those that do have a perfect right to say no to surgery or hormones or even have stubbly faces if they want. Trans is a broad spectrum. The public loo debate is not clear cut.

          • Bellerose

            Fair enough. It really is a complex situation. Like, take myself for example. I have a intersex condition called AIS which causes my body not to process certain hormones and results in developing secondary female sex characteristics. I know for a fact that it’s physically unsafe to use the men’s bathroom because I’ve been attacked doing that. Should I be precluded from a space where I don’t experience issues and (to my knowledge) have never made people uncomfortable? Am I an exception to the rule or does the rule only apply for people who don’t look “feminine” enough (whatever that means).

            Conversely, I have a friend with CAH who has experienced male pattern baldness and beard growth. She very much sees herself as female and uses the women’s room but has also experienced quite a bit of harassment and made a number of people uncomfortable. Should she be banned from the women’s bathroom out of fear she might make someone uncomfortable when she’s clearly female?

          • Cal

            Thank you. Very informative and thought-provoking.

    • Christopher Saxon Whittle

      Neither are lesbians or bisexual people, but surely together we are stronger against heteronormative culture?

  • CHBrighton

    One thing that annoys me above all about Stonewall is that, like Outrage and Peter Tatchell’s set-up, it places itself in a position where it claims to speak and act on our behalf, yet its way of working appears opaque. For example, on its website, there is no description of what kind of organisation it is (eg representing a membership), how it is governed (eg with a board of trustees), how it formulates it’s policies, or how it works with the population it claims to represent. As I say, the other organisations appear to be equally closed. But Stonewall has achieved prominence and a favoured status with Government. Unless I am missing something, and there really is accountability, I can’t see howvStonewall (and others) can be said to be working in our name.

    • Rehan

      From the ‘About Us’ tab:

      Stonewall has an almost unique framework for a campaigning organisation in that individual stakeholders and donors are not ‘members’. This was part of the organisation’s original vision, in order to protect our capacity to be nimble both politically and operationally. Our Chief Executive has said: “We are not a ‘democratic’ organisation, in that we would never be satisfied to think that a position we took was based on the views of 51% of gay people, while 49% did not agree. We seek to develop all our work, and policy positions where appropriate, by building as wide a consensus as possible among lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”

      • Wingby

        But in practice, they don’t seek consensus.

    • john lyttle

      Stonewall does indeed describe itself on its site and in some detail. Either search harder or try a little light Googling before you post.

      • CHBrighton

        I know what it says on the website. All I am saying is that as Stonewall has a pre-eminent position in working for gay equality I don’t think the organisation is sufficiently transparent. I write that as someone who has been a trustee of charities and held senior positions in other types of campaigning and research organisations. The accountability of stonewall has been criticised by PN readers from time to time (eg when Stonewall said equal marriage was not something gay people wanted). It is simply my own view that Stonewall needs to provide a more in-depth insight into the way it works so its various constituencies understand it better.

        • Wingby

          Fortunately hey are no longer pre-eminent. Their doing.

    • PantoHorse

      I recently attended the Stonewall Education for All conference, and was actually mightily impressed by the work they are doing to combat homophobia in schools. I didn’t know before I went the extent to which they *are* working in this area, so would have to disagree very much that they can’t “be said to be working in our name”. Combatting homo- and transphobia (Stonewall are consulting with the trans* community to see what they might be able to add and how they might usefully be able to work in this area) in schools is, I believe, key to making society a better place for us all – those kids are our future.

      • john

        For heavens sake Stonewall get a tremendous amount of money for their work in dealing with homophobia at schools. It’s one of their bread and butter jobs, along with the money they get from private companies for their work in them. They received nothing for marriage equality campaigning from any private/govt companies./depts and therefore they did zilch for the “community” when it came to equal marriage.

        • john lyttle

          I should hope Stonewall get an enormous amount for money for this and for many other tasks. Why are you so angry about it?

        • StraightGrandmother

          Oh they are kind of, “Pro Gay For Pay”?

          • john

            Well the CofE has a lot of Anglican schools in the Uk and therefore to get its rubber stamp of approval it employs Stonewall for its booklets on homophobic bullying in schools (their CofE schools). The CofE is the most homophobic org in the UK , so as an employer of Stonewall can Stonewall ciritise its paymasters?

      • john lyttle

        Well and sensibly said PH.

      • CHBrighton

        I am sure that Stonewall are bidding for work from government agencies and are successful in those bids and in producing high quality outcomes which benefit gay men and women. As a tax payer, I am pleased to know that the money has been well used and is bringing about such benefits. However, as a gay man, I want to know how Stonewall operates, who guides it, and who decides its policies and ways of working and therefore how it selects which projects to bid for and which not. I want to know what gives Stonewall its rationale. Is it a pressure group made up of a self-selected group of people, or is it an open organisation that has a membership or other transparent a way of communicating with the population it seeks to support?

        • john lyttle

          Attend a few meetings then. Read the charter. Volunteer. Raise hell. Don’t keep yourself in suspense any longer.

    • john lyttle

      Perhaps they’re not. It’s impossible to reflect every opinion, particularly those who believe they are always right, or are simply self righteous. Maybe you should start your own organisation or join/support a group that fits your set of views in every conceivable way, 100 per cent.

    • Wingby

      CH, it isn’t.

  • JD

    BOOOOOO – bad choice – My Stonewall direct debit stops this month – she is a self serving ego maniac – and Now Stonewall offically does not represent me after 20 years of support!!!!!!

    • Cal

      What was so good about them before she was appointed that you were financially supporting them?

    • john lyttle

      Shall to give her a chance? As for booooooing and accusations of egomania (check your mirror Mr Pot) – if that’s your level of political savvy, Stonewall is better off without your input in any form.

    • PantoHorse

      How is it that they no longer ‘officially’ represent you? Because they’ve appointed a woman as chief exec? Also, as Rehan points out above, they have never sought to be representative of and one section of the LGB community – they set out to build as wide a consensus as possible

      • GulliverUK

        I seriously think it is insulting to pretend this is because she is a women – nobody gives a flying ****. It’s because on very key issues Stonewall has actually worked against all of us, by their pathetic stance opposing marriage equality, and patronising hotels owned by anti-gay rulers who want to put gays to death. These things are unforgivable and show Stonewall, or at least its leaders, and totally out of touch. The vast majority of people who are LGBT want the opportunity for equal marriage – to oppose that is senseless stupidity and rank homophobia that we’d expect from the Christian Institute.

        You won’t please all the people all the time, but at least try to understand what the majority deem is important. When equal marriage was proposed It was sickening to have heard some people involved in Stonewall, at the top, on their committees, saying they had no idea that the majority of gay people wanted that. There were polls telling them that, there were polls saying the General Public had been in favor of it since before 2005.

        It is our most important / well-funded LGBT (yes T too) rights group. It has to function at 100% for 100% of the time. It’s not working well, or for the benefit of the people it was intended to serve. The ‘T’ part has to be picked up immediately and fully integrated – it already is in Stonewall Scotland. But by integrating it I mean asking proper established Transgender organisations how Stonewall can help, taking advice from the experts.

        • john lyttle

          Clearly time for you to put your money where your mouth is and join Stonewall and work to achieve your aims – then you’ll see how easy it is to satisfy the widest possible consensus – and to deal with people exactly like you.

          You know, people who can post ‘Stonewall has actually worked against all of us, by their pathetic stance opposing marriage equality, and patronising hotels owned by anti-gay rulers who want to put gays to death’ (distortions on both points, and who the hell are you to speak for ‘all of us’?) and still expect to be taken seriously?

          • GulliverUK

            I speak for myself, but take my queues from what I can intellectually discern by critical thinking, and consensus of opinion or empirical polling data or evidence. The poll was there in Pinknews. Here’s a good write-up from Peter Tatchell
            http://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/partnerships/stonewall-undermines-campaign-for-gay-marriage.htm

            A recent online survey of LGBT readers by the Pink News website found
            that 98% want full marriage equality. Stonewall does not represent LGBT
            opinion on this issue. It is out of touch.

            ^ that’s what I am many others have said all along. We have enough religious nutters working against our rights, we don’t need the main LGBT organisation doing the same.

            You may take my comments any way you like, they do however reflect what a lot of people here feel. If we are wrong, and I have made “distortions on both points” then perhaps you would do me the courtesy of explaining why this is a distortion.

            Lastly, your attempt to deride others are anti-women lacks any credibility. We’ve actually had this debate on here before, not long ago, and I don’t know any male commenters who said that a women couldn’t do that job. That would be as pathetic as saying we can’t have a male because he won’t be able to understand and look out for the lesbians. That attitude would be dumb.

          • GulliverUK

            ps. What I’d really like to see if Stonewall consulting on proposals and its missing and its direction by forming a working group of ordinary LGBT, which would involve us as stakeholders. We don’t get to have a second lead organisation I think, so we must make the best of this one. It needs reform, and it needs people to stand up to the leadership and put them right on some issues. Hunt made a very bad move by going against majority LGBT opinion worldwide on the hotel issue. She was criticised by many LGBT organisations worldwide. She must never make a monumental mistake like that again. She should apologise fully for that decision – it was wrong.

          • john lyttle

            Define ordinary ( to a standard which would suit everyone, not just you). Go on, I can wait.

            As for ‘She must never make a monumental mistake like that again. She should apologise fully for that decision – it was wrong’ -is it possible you are even more arrogant than your demands for others to explain themselves to you led me to believe? Is anyone really that full of themselves?

          • GulliverUK

            “ordinary” LGBT, to me, means those not actively involved in organisations like Stonewall, or organised campaigning groups, i.e. grassroots. C4EM was, after all, a grassroots marriage equality campaign run by two “ordinary” gay men, who were not involved with Stonewall or any other organised campaigning group. Pinknews staff might not be ordinary LGBT as they are intimately involved in LGBT news. Most “ordinary” LGBT lead lives in non-LGBT environments, i.e. in IT, hospitality, engineering, government, etc.

            Hunt should properly apologise for her behavior, to clear the air, and because what she did was seen as a really big mistake by a lot of LGBT organisation around the world – that tells you it was a mistake. Either that or most LGBT organisations and commentators are wrong and Ruth Hunt is, … um, right? Not likely is it.

            Anyway, sweet dreams, got to get my beauty sleep.

          • john lyttle

            Well, if the majority is always right you can hardly be surprised that the gay rights you keep banging on about have taken, and are taking, so long to achieve. That’s some corner you’ve cleverly painted yourself into.
            And, oh, nice avoidance on answering me about the anti-woman charge.
            Perhaps there’s a career for you in politics after all.

          • GulliverUK

            The majority of heterosexuals are prone to a) believing nonsense by religious groups (historically), b) not thinking about being gay, because they aren’t and c) not knowing anyone who is gay, nor friends, colleagues or family, because people were historically in the closet. We see a) the decline of religious belief, and any authority, b) heterosexuals have been force to think about these issues because c) more gay people are out. Heterosexuals have historically been wrong about equal rights because they have been subject to outside influences and lacks knowledge, wisdom and experience to see through the lies, and to think critically about these issues. They have been forced to confront those issues because gay people came out of their closets and were visible. It can take a while before people can circumvent their historical programming.

            Even now, right now, some people are still trying to put us back in the closet. I have a formal complaint in to Sainsburys for covering up magazines in a discriminatory way, or worse still not stocking any LGBT magazines. There is an issue if we aren’t seen on TV, in soaps, in documentaries, written about in the press, if people don’t see we have our own magazines and they are on sale in major supermarkets – we need to be represented as part of society, the whole includes us.

            These ^ are all my opinions.
            ps. I don’t understand why you are being so argumentative and a bit hostile towards quite a few posters.

          • john lyttle

            You mean cues, not queues.

            Perhaps before I explain myself to you you could explain why I’ve ‘attempted to deride others as anti-woman’.

            I never broached the subject or made any such comment. If that’s the standards of your research, try again – you can’t even keep two different posts and posters separate.

            As for distortions, what Summerskill said was originally twisted. Go back and check what he said he full – not out of context – before quoting polls which have nothing to do with his points on Stonewall’s function under its charter and mandate re canvassing opinion on gay marriage.

          • GulliverUK

            You’re right, it’s cues, not queues, but I work in IT and also do some programming when needed, and hence “queues” are on my brain often!

            You strike me as either someone who is either involved with Stonewall, wishes they were, or some type of Stonewall sycophant, but that seems a bit inconsistent with your usual posts. Perhaps your objectivity is skewed on this subject? Summerskill made up all sorts of nonsense about the cost of marriage equality being £5bn, and about how nobody have expressed much interest. All patently stupid remarks, and proved by many articles to be nonsense. Stonewall’s function and mission is to work entirely for the interests of the LGBT community – they sometimes appear to be working against us, and they are not taking community views on-board, which means they actually have no real mandate to operate on our behalf. They must earn our approval by involving us and responding to the consensus of community opinion and views.

          • john lyttle

            How I strike you – and your truly amazing psychic abilities – is of no concern to me. Your inability to go back and check your sources of (mis)information when you work in IT does. Repeating inaccuracies again doesn’t magically make them real. And speaking of real, in the real world no one has to work for your nod of approval. You might try reading the Stonewall charter and its mandate to canvas the widest possible opinion before embarrassing yourself any further too. And no, I have never had anything to do with Stonewall, up, down or sideways. But cling to that if you it makes you feel less… challenged.

          • Wingby

            GulliverUK can speak for me on this too. And by the way, I speak as someone who tried directly to persuade Stonewall to change their stance through meetings with the CEO, through letters to the trustees, and through threatening to withdraw my financial support. None of which worked. My money and my support is now elsewhere in organisations that work for the LGBT community.

      • JD

        OH SHE’S A WOMAN – AND THERE WAS ME THINKING SHE WAS A MAN…. DUMB ASS!

  • john lyttle

    “The clear winner” seems a strange phrase to use in publicly announcing any new management appointment – certainly insulting to the other candidates as that would automatically make them ‘losers’, which surely couldn’t have been intended.

    • Wingby

      …but typical of the ineptness of this organisation

  • rob

    that’s my money to stonewall stopped, she has take the charity backwards she has taken over!!!!!

    • john lyttle

      I will follow your career as a Medium and all-seeing and all-knowing commentator on political affairs with absolutely no interest.

  • Andy Diamond

    I lost all respect for her and the organization when she said it was not a good idea to boycott the Brunei-owned hotels.

  • Wingby

    To paraphrase: the promotions will continue until the blunders stop.

  • mariaskay

    until I saw the draft which had said $6992 , I didn’t believe …that…my brothers friend could trully making money in their spare time on their computer. . there dads buddy started doing this 4 only about twenty two months and a short time ago repayed the loans on there cottage and bought a great new Acura . over here C­a­s­h­f­i­g­.­C­O­M­

  • Robbie A

    I’m disappointed with her being chosen as chief executive! She isn’t up to the job in my honest opinion! They should have chosen someone else!

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