text:
Update: Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill argued that Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn
Post your comment
Comments on this article are now closed.
Reader comments
How predictable, the Christian Institute has made Ben Summerskill's speech headline news – it is only too glad to highlight the huge cost of equality. Well done Stonewall, for pointlessly bringing cost into the equality equation.
PS this argument that Stonewall needs to ratify a campaign for marriage equality by popular support from its members is specious in the extreme. Rights and principles should NOT be put up for a vote in the first place. That some members, 'particularly women' should not want marriage – well, fine, they have the right not to get married; they have no business to decide the nature of other people's relationships.
Stonewall says it is neutral on marriage. If so, it must keep out of any discussion on marriage equality and civil partnerships full stop. And allow others who really do care about dignity and integrity to advance that cause. Stonewall are great at specific issues – media, education, sport, homophobic violence, helplines, housing – stick to those issues and everyone will be happy. In the name of LGBT unity.
Opposition to equality via same sex marriage is bigotry.
"theoretical increase in straight couples taking up the opportunity of civil partnerships"
Because until gays could marry, no one could possibly marry for economic benefits.
Who would do so anyway?
This sounds a lot like a homophobic reason to deny gays marriage.
Will Summerskill say "NO GAYS MARRYING" because next people will marry their dogs???
It seems like some kind of twisted joke that someone with that much media power seems to be able to speak for 650,000 odd people.
There are often LGBT issues about which the community is split; we always thought that most were agreed on this one…even if they dont want to get married themselves.
Are we going to end up having to democratically elect someone to represent us all…? A seperate election to make sure we're not tarred with his ridiculously, ironically conservative and prejudice brush??
And here we thought things were improving and we might legally be able to call each other husband; not partner…maybe he's become a bit too comfy in his rainbow flag bedeckt ivory tower, feasting with politicians, and has lost the fire in his belly. A sad, sad day…
Re the correction now running:
So everybody in the room got the wrong end of the stick? And then everybody misunderstood yesterday's corrective press release?
Whatever Stonewall's policy actually is, their front man is a PR disaster and a disgrace.
So Ben Summerskill is not denying saying what he said and has not issued an apology for saying it.
The fact Mr Summerskill puts the balance sheets of his corporate partners before equality shows he is not acting in the best interest of the LGB.
I know the costing is irrelevant when it comes to equality but I still dispute the fact that straights will do a CP in huge numbers and if they do then they will be the ones who would normally have gotten married. The effects of CP and marriages are the same; they have the same responsibilities and commitments. Platonic friends are unlikely to do either purely for tax/pension gains. In the house of lords the govt argued , as below; in fact they argued that more people should be getting married and there was a campaign against the common law husband and wife theory i.e. this campaign would have meant that there would have been a probably increase in the tax pension burden.
If people are living together it is right for them to either get married or CPed so that they can take advantage of the rights that are theirs. The 5 billion is meaningless, people have a right to do a CP or marriage already and get these benefits.
Baroness Scotland explained the Government's position:
"After consultation with family lawyers, it is our understanding that civil partnerships would be unlikely to help opposite-sex couples where one member of the couple was unwilling to marry the other—not least because the rights and responsibilities in same-sex partnerships are similar, although not identical, to those entered into by married couples. Therefore, if people are unlikely to want to enter one, they are unlikely to want to enter a partnership. The noble Lord is right to identify the major problem—that of shouldering the financial responsibilities that flow from marriage. Many people do not want to do that and therefore they do not get married."
Is there a copy somewhere on the web which states this 5 billion figure, I'd love to see how it is worked out?
@ Stonewall Supporter.
Once again Stonewall is trying to quash deserved criticism. No surprises there, then,,
PInk News has not pulled the story. They have pulled some details of it, that they are now checking.
If they pull the comments because of Stonewall's bullying, then others will just cut and paste and blog them. These criticisms of Mr Summerskill and Stonewall will not go away.
Stonewall's outright refusal to engage with the gay press (or the gay public) on the reason they refuse to support equality, is reason enough for me to think they are not needed.
I can also claim to represent the LGBT population as well. If I was to make that claim I'd want to make damned sure I had sought much, ,much feedback on LGBT issues from the wider public.
Stonewall refuse point blank to outline their position on equality (yet they STILL send Summerskill to the LibDem conference where he argues against THEIR equality policy – he has NOT denied doing this).
Something it rotten in Denmark (and I think it's Stonewall).
The fact that Summerskill is encouraging the Government to do a cost analysis on the Lib Dem proposals is DISGUSTING. What a horrid, disgusting little bigot Summerskill is. He is no different to Normal Tebbit.
It is beyond words that he is trying to help the Government sink the proposal with an economic argument.
I have, up until now, maintained the stance that Stonewall has done good work and that they are entitled to not be involved in marriage equality as long as they let us get on with it. The fact that they are actively trying to sink it is UNBELIEVABLE.
Anyone who works for a company that engages with Stonewall should write to their HR encouraging them to disengage.
This is really incredible.
Summerskill is now an enemy of gay liberation. HE DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME.
Such is the PR disaster for not having a clear policy on Equality… Where is the strategic leadership emanating from Stonewall? Why has it courted so much controversy? Why now has a great opportunity for full quality been mired in tawdry powerplay? We may never know the answers to some of these questions, but Mr Summerskill must now resign and fast. Daily Mail readers revelling today.
So Stonewall has bullied PinkNews into removing the heart-felt comments of its readers over a story that in essence was correct, from what we can glean from Stonewall's own release. Shameful.
Back to the keyboards folks!
Oh and as a Stonewall "supporter" who has contributed financially over the past decade, I have never been consulted about anything from this organisation. The most I have ever received are a) requests for donations b) publicity on events and initiatives c) asked to purchase tickets for gala etc but never once asked for an opinion.
I propose that everyone who posted to this story yesterday to register their disgust at this bare-faced traitor to our community resubmit their post. Pink News's reporting was fair and impartial based on the available evidence to hand and Stonewall has clearly enforced pressure for the damning comments to be removed alongside the original coverage. So post again and keep posting because the truth is out, and nothing Stonewall can do – no matter how low it stoops in the gutter to try and muzzle all dissent – can save its greasy bacon now. No sireee!!
Nope.. Stonewall's excuses don't work for me at all.
What the hell gives Mr Summerskill the right to argue against any proposal for marriage equality in the first place?
And if, as he claims, Stonewall is still waiting for the response from its 20,000 memmbers, why should that make any difference?
It seems daft for Stonewall to put itself forward as THE LGB (no T in Sonewall) charity and claim to represent and support us all, and then argue that it will only consider the views of its 20,000 members before it makes its stance known.
How will we know what those views are?
Will they vote?
Will that vote be verifiable?
And if they somehow, conveniently for Mr Summerskill, vote AGAINST full marriage equality, does that mean Stonewall will continue to lobby against it, despite the fact that the vast majority of the LGBT community here want it?
The bottom line in all of this was that Mr Summerskill should not have been criticising the marriage equality proposals at all, and certainly not by stressing what it MIGHT cost business and the Treasury.
He is, so he claims, there to represent the LGB community, and not just a tiny radical minority view within that community. He is certainly NOT there to argue the views of the pension companies or the Treasury, which is what, by his own admission, he did.
The trouble is that he was hugger-mugger with the last government for so long, that he now sees himself as part OF "government". Hopefully this present government will disabuse him of that idea. The Lib-Dems have already done so.
The LGBT community needs do to the same.
Bring back our comments PinkNews censorship is not acceptable.
Why did you not leave up Ben Summerskill's comment demanding the removal of the comments?
Stonewall not only don't support marriage equality they don't support free speech too.
Stonewall & Ben Summerskill not fit to represent the LGB
Take down our LGBT flag now, you don't represent us anymore.
Chrissie, it is a fact that Pink news have pulled the story, the fact that they are checking the story's accuracy at the moment begs the question 'WHY DID PINK NEWS NOT CHECK THE FACTS BEFORE THEY WENT LIVE WITH IT?'
My complaint was that they pulled the article while checking the story but left the comments live, which is ridiculous seeing as comments were on a story which had been pulled to check, so simple if you pull the story,pull the feedback too!
I didn't believe Stonewall's complaint last night and I don't believe it now. To me, it seems that Pink News got the bones of matter correct. If BS had wanted to add clarifications on bits that he thought needed it, then his statemnet could have been added at the end and in the comments so everyone could see it.
What BS fails to realise is that people aren't just judging him on what he's (alleged) to have said at the Lib Dem conference – most LGBT people are generally p*ssed off at Stoemwall's lack of support for marriage equality and the fact that they've not even given a proper explanation for this, or indeed one that makes any sense. The fact that some LGBT people don't wish to marry is irrelevant. Many straight people don't wish to marry either, yet they don't go round trying to stop other straight people marrying, do they?
Moreover, the idea that straight people who have chosen not to marry will have a CP if they become available is total cr*p. We already have a non-religious, simple, open-to-all legal contract for straight people who wish to have it – it's called CIVIL MARRIAGE.
Comments from straight friends who've chosen not to marry: "I don't need a piece of paper to prove my love"; "We've been together 7 years and everything's great. I'm scared that changing that by marrying might affect our relationship and mess things up so it's not worth it"; "I might marry if I wanted children, but I don't at the moment"; "I don't have anything against it really – just not got round to it"; "We're happy as we are".
NONE of those people would suddenly rush off to get a CP which is merely a 'copy' (no insult meant) of civil marriage. Maybe a few will want CPs, but I'd guess more gay people would choose to marry then so it'd all even up. Bs's statement is wholly unproven. Anything's a possibilty in theory, but the idea that hoardes of straight people will start having CPs is, in my opinion, very, very unlikely.
Stonewall had a idea
Not to change parliments laws
Seems like they want it illegal
To fight for gay marriage any more
And which side on Ben?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on Stonewall?
Which side are you on?
We set out to gain equal marriage
For equality cannot fail
We got stopped by Stonewalls deception
They said, "It will cost too much, this attempt must fail"
And which side on Ben?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on Stonewall?
Which side are you on?
Before losing patience with homophobic Britain and moving to The Netherlands in 1993, I was a supporter of Stonewall which I felt was fighting hard and effectively for equality in what was then an extremely hostile climate. Now, nine years after marriage-for-all was opened here in NL with no hassles whatsoever and after various other countries have made the same step, I just cannot believe that Stonewall seems to have a problem with this most basic of human rights: the right to have your relationship considered just as valid as anyone else's.
Whatever misunderstandings there have been in getting Stonewall's message across, the organisation has no business undermining the efforts of others to open the marriage institution to all.
"he uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts – for support rather than illumination" – quote – treasury of humorous quotations
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." – Disraeli
5 Billion – yeah right!
Where are our comments – haven't changed my mind – what utter check – makes me even more angrier! Great way to treat your past supporters!
I could still make all my comments from yesterday on the basis of the financial comment from Summerskill and a Lib Dem MP's tweet. I could also resubmit my comments on a daily basis until a) Stonewall ask my opinion b) clarifies its position on Gay Marriage both of which Stonewall seems unable to do. Now the horse has bolted, communistic retrogressive action will serve only to delay Equality. F
@ Stonewall Supporter.
By demanding that Pink News pull the comments, you are simply showing the world Stonewall's true colours.
Those citicisms, and others like them, have been aimed at Mr Summerskill and Stonewall every time this issue appears in Pink News and elsewhere.
In most cases the comments that were posted were well-deserved criticisms about Stonewall's "stonewalling" when it comes to supporting marriage equality.
Mr Summerskill's "explantion" of his behaviour at the conference in no way diminishes the criticism due.
He had NO RIGHT to speak out against a proposal on marriage equality, and his main rgument, which he admits himself, was that the Lib-Dem proposal would cost too much.
Who does he feel he represents; the best interests and rights of the LGB (sorry, no T in Sonewall) community, or the Treasury and pension companies?
Simple quesiton…. How about a simple answer, or will you just bully Pink news again and have more comments pulled?
Where have all our writings, over 150 of them, on this topic disappeared to overnight??????
PinkNews shows absolutely disrespect to its readers when it deletes our writing from the record.
Classic case of spin by Stonewall and Ben Summerskill in a damage limitation exercise.
But, in an exclusive statement given to PinkPaper.com, a spokesman for the national organisation has described the story as inaccurate.
"The story published by PinkNews today is, sadly, a largely dishonest account of what took place at last night's meeting in Liverpool," it says.
"Ben made quite clear at the meeting that Stonewall is engaged in a process of listening and consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership.
"While some lesbian, gay and bisexual people fully support changing civil partnership into marriage, there are others – including particularly some women – who do not want something that is either the same as or synonymous with marriage. This is a sensitive area of policy development and not one which is assisted by inflammatory media coverage."
And which side on Ben?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on Stonewall?
Which side are you on?
Could Stonewall's request for yesterday's comments to be pulled have anything to do with the fact that nearly a quarter of them called for Ben Summerskill to resign? (I have copies of the comments to verify this figure.)
Below is the text of a letter sent to Stonewall's Trustees (and copied to Ben Summerskill, senior Stonewall staff, Lynne Featherstone, Evan Davis and Steve Gilbert).
Accuracy of media reports aside, Summerskill is accountable for his stance on marriage equality (laid out in Stonewall's Press release last night) – and now for demanding that grassroots LGBT voices saying so effectively be silenced. Come on, PinkNews – stand up to this!
Copy of letter to Stonewall's Trustees:
We are writing to you – as a Trustee of Stonewall – to demand the immediate resignation of Ben Summerskill as Chief Executive, since it is clear that he is failing to represent the views of the LGBT community on equal marriage. Not only in the UK, but internationally too, every comparable LGBT organisation is campaigning to end the ban on same-sex marriage.
We are a British couple who were living in Canada when the LGBT organisations successfully achieved marriage equality. We were legally married there and are dismayed that our legal Canadian marriage is deemed a 'civil partnership' in UK law (see http://www.equalmarriagerights.org). We are delighted that the Liberal Democrat Conference today voted to end the ban on marriage for same-sex couples (and to open up civil partnerships to mixed-sex couples). We hope that the UK will follow the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, South Africa, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Iceland and Argentina (as well as Mexico City and seven US jurisdictions) in ending the ban on same-sex marriage.
We are very disappointed that, according to the reports we have read about the Liberal Democrat Conference, Ben Summerskill did not support ending the ban on same-sex marriage – and was heard by some people to be opposing it on the grounds that it might cost too much. As Stephen Gilbert MP said, "It should not be up to me as a Member of Parliament to lobby Stonewall on equal rights. It should be Stonewall lobbying me."
Stonewall has never lobbied for equal marriage rights for LGBT people. He told The Guardian today "we have declined to express a view". Ben Summerskill also recently refused to state Stonewall's position on marriage equality in response to a PinkNews survey of LGBT organisations. Every other UK LGBT organisation supported equal access to marriage for gay couples. It is truly astonishing that Stonewall is apparently unwilling to campaign for equal access to marriage at a time when there is a groundswell of support for it, including from a major political party.
Stonewall's press release this evening claims an ongoing "consultation exercise", yet completely misrepresents the goal of the equal marriage movement as "changing civil partnerships into marriage". Along with the Liberal Democrats, many in the LGBT community are in favour of retaining civil partnerships (and opening them up to heterosexual couples), while also opening up marriage to same-sex couples. Only equal access to both institutions constitutes true equality.
Ninety-eight percent of respondents to last month's PinkNews survey said they supported marriage equality. More than 100 people have posted comments on today's PinkNews report of Ben Summerskill's position: every one of these deploring it, and almost every one supporting full marriage equality. Of the 144 comments posted by 8 p.m. tonight, nearly a quarter (N=31) call for Ben Summerskill's resignation and/or (sadly) the disbandment of Stonewall; many more call for an investigation into the organisation's practices.
It is becoming clear that Stonewall no longer represents the grassroots LGBT community on this issue, and that the community has lost confidence in its ability to do so while under the leadership of Ben Summerskill. It is time for him to go. Once again, we call for Ben Summerskill's resignation, with immediate effect.
Yours sincerely
Sue Wilkinson (Professor, Loughborough University)
and Celia Kitzinger (Professor, University of York)
Staggeringly unwise to get everyone's comments removed.
I am mystified about these 20,000 supporters. Other people on this board say that merely giving (large) sums of money long term doesn't appear to buy you consultation rights – and there's no indication on their website of any kind of membership that would give you a say. If I do pay 150 + VAT for the Stonewall awards bash, do I get eyed up to see if I'm the right sort, and then admitted to their secret rituals? Is it a Bullingdon Club for homosexualist businessmen?
If anyone here has ever been consulted by Stonewall, I'm sure we'd all be fascinated to hear about it.
Maybe though, what we need to do is stop the bitching, and start an egalitarian gay membership organisation. (We could call it 'Outrage!' or something. That would sound pretty good…)
Its also questionable to call those radical second wave feminists that chose to have relationships with women out of their feminist ideology not their sexuality lesbians. If they reject marriage because they reject everything male they don't have to get married. Why should this very small group get to stop everybody else's happiness because of an ideology not their sexuality?
I was a Stonewall donor for 10 years until last month and was never consulted on anything. Under Ben's regime the letters asking for more money was the only thing that I noticed had changed. Angela Mason lobbied tiredlessly for the LGBT community and I am ever so grateful, but that the CEO of a LGBT lobbying group makes positive headlines for the Christian Institute is an absolute disgrace. He should resign immediately. I wrote to Stonewall several times to show my anger and they never responded, showing total disregard for their grassroots members!
Wasn't Summerskill's granny a famous feminist?
and by the way not only yesterday comments have been removed, some posted earlier today have also gone I'm sure..????
Greeks – I did the same with Stonewalls website, I couldn't work out what a supporter or member meant or how you become one. I submitted somekind of form for an email update on Stonewall news but haven't received any emails about anything…
It's a rather mysterious org, mysterious supporters, members, trustees, voting etc…..well at least a pleb like me couldn't work it out!
I didn't really understand why Ben Summerskill was unhappy with the Pink News report yesterday. If it was something to do with the cost of the Lib Dem's proposals, has Stonewall actually asked its 20,000 supporters precisely how they want the law to change? Did Stonewall ask supporters if they were concerned about the costs involved?
Stonewalled the anti free speech and anti marriage equality charity
Its strange how Ben Summerskill feels he can use free speech to reject marriage equality, but he rejects free speech to PinkNews and PinkNews commenter's.
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.
Isn't Ian McKellen a founder or supporter of Stonewall. He supported gay marriage in Australia and in America, so maybe he could say something here too.
Stop the spin Stonewall and sack Summerskill and apologise.
Stonewalled do not deserve to fly the rainbow flag if they dont support marriage equality.
No if no but Stonewall this issue wont go away and you cant spin it or attempt to control the media.
Pride can always become a protest against Stonewall
As far as I'm concerned there is only one principle: "equality". There should not be different laws for different people. No one is forcing anyone to "assimilate" by getting married, there is still the option NOT to get married, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason why gay people should be treated differently under the law.
I'm sure there were black people in Alabama who thought that stopping the lynchings was more important than where you sat on the bus, but you know, it's all part-and-parcel of the same oppression, and every form of discrimination and prejudice bolsters the other.
Imagine if in this country instead of women being given the vote, it was insisted that traditionally "voting" was something that men did and to extend it to women was to change the definition of the word. Instead special "Referenda" where set up , where on a separate day, women were allowed to "vote" (except you mustn't call it that!) on issues which were fed into a separate "Representative Congress" (which was just like a women's "parliament" – except because by definition and tradition 'parliament' is where men sit, you mustn't call it that). Suppose that their "votes" (oops!) on issues where counted and weighed equally with those coming out of the traditional Parliament (where the men sit) so it was hard to argue that the women were denied an effective legislative voice. Would this have been a tolerable state of affairs? Would this have been real equality?
You really are a bunch of drama queens. PinkNews are the ones who reported before knowing the facts therefore it is PinkNews that is in the wrong. This is what you expect from gutter press and hoped PinkNews was better. I would rather hear the facts not a bitter journalists vague attempt at discrediting Stonewall.
I will reserve judgement until I know exactly what happened. If Stonewall don't give 100% towards marriage then so what they don't have to and we don't need them to. There are plenty of others that do. Stop being so bitter toward what looks like only half baked facts.
IMO Pink News does do good work on behalf of the LGB & T communities. It seems to me that their reporting was substantially accurate.
The Anti-Gay Pseudo-Christian Institute says, "Thanks Ben!"
Thanks Ben!
"PinkNews are the ones who reported before knowing the facts therefore it is PinkNews that is in the wrong."
Pink News reported on the facts that were avauilable at the time, which are ONLY being disputed by Stonewall. No-one else present has come out in defence of Sumemrskill. Why did Stephen Gilbert make the comment that it was not his job to lobby Stonewall to support equality, it should be the other way round.
Ben Summerskill denies he was arguing against marriage equality in general. He admits however that he was arguing against the LibDems equality proposals. THAT alone is a sackable offence. How DARE he do such a thing?
The fact that Stonewall have no official policy on equality, means that Summerskill is clearly unqualified to speak on equality.
Stonewall are STILL refusing to engage with the community they pretend to represent. How come so many people on here say that the only communication they get from Stonewall is begging letters.
Summerskill needs to be sacked today. Immediately.
The fact that the Daily Mail are using Summerskill's position as a reason to deny ALL of us equality means that he is now an official enemy of the LGBT community.
Stonewall has no future with Summerskill in charge. Their future looks grim even if he is sacked and they decide to support equality. Their utter lack of transparency and accountability is clearly unsustainable.
And it shows their tracherous true colours that they are pressurinf Pink News to censor our comments.
F*** you Stonewall. You do not represent me.
But that's not the point Jock. The point is we expect as a news website PinkNews to get some things wrong. The fact is that on this website, on others and generally everyone I know within the LGBT community support full equality with regards to gay marriage.
Stonewall have made a fatal error in ignoring this and not going with the flow of general feeling. People have written letters and not even had the decency of a response. That is not fair – they are answerable to us, not the other way around.
As for the deletion of comments, I can't comment other than I think it's really unfair. People aren't unintelligent and will make their own minds up regarding this. Stonewall should not have asked for these to be deleted but should have faced them head on.
As for the cost. It shouldn't matter. Equality isn't about gay rights, it's about human rights and we are all entitled to marry the one we love.
I do reserve some of my comments until I've seen what the official stance is. But at this moment in time Summerskill should go – he doesn't represent us.
Your patience is admirable, but really, even when you take the story away and you're only left with Stonewall's press release, Summerskill's own pronouncements, the articles in the Daily Mail and the Christian Institute's rag, and a history of not stating their position, there really is enough to take a view on.
Even the most charitable position you could take – they haven't made their minds up yet – is pretty indefensible. How long do they need? Who the hell is on the bridge watching where this lumbering supertanker is drifting?
We had this kind of amateurism in the 70s. We must demand more professionalism from those who seek torepresent us.
Stonewall are finished.
it is not just the homophobic treachery of Ben Summerskill (I still regard his behaviour as homophobic and treacherous, even though I have read and understood Pink News's update).
the main problems with Stonewall have not disappeared.
The main problems with Stonewall are:
1. No-one kmows who they are accountable to. Clearly not to the LGBT population whose opinion they refuse to represent. Cklearly not to their financial backers whom they only communicate with, to beg.
Who is Stonewall answerable to? If it is the financial services sector, then admit it and Stonewall will be disregarded forevermore.
2. They claim to represent LGB (but not T) opinion, yet they refuse point blank to engage with either the gay press or community. Their refusal to outline their position on equality is unacceptable. Their refusal to reply to queries by members of our community.
3. Why do they not have a position on marriage equality, yet send their homophobic leader Ben Summerskill to argue against LibDem equality proposals, giving the Daily Mail another stick with which to beat our campaign for equality.
Summerskill's immediate dismissal is essential for Stonewall to survive. But in the long run they will not continue unless they can address all the points I raise above.
Is Summerskill to be sacked today. Here's hoping he is.
If he is not sacked then there will be no other choice but for the LGBT population to protest Stonewall's awards ceremony. We HAVE to let those in power know that Stonewall represents no-one but themselves.
I've met Ben several times and he always seemed to be a thoroughly sensible chap, but if he did say what has been reported then I'm totally puzzled. It makes no sense. How can marriage equality cost 5 billion quid?
All they need to do is just change the law to allow 2 people to marry and change a few bits on some forms. Then everyone could have civil marriage and while they're at it, let churches do marriages if they want. There are various religious organisations (like the Quakers and reformed Jews) that want to perform gay marriages, let them! This is stupid. If it was any other group being denied equality there would already be rioting in the streets.
Am I going bonkers or something but whatever way I read this story (and all the other cumulative articles that have come before it) it's clear the Summerskill is not fighting for equality… He was arguing against marriage equality back in the 2009 interview.. all my comments and all the ones I read are still valid … I don't know who these supporters/members are who will be consulted, that's all I know is that Summerskill has always know it isn't a prioirty, as far as I know the pope could be of the supports… it very unfair and it's very unfair that stonewall is always the one that seems to be in private consultations and the like…
The comments page seems to have messed with those addresses – ignore everything up to the arrow mark on each line.
Things that have changed since CPs were written into law.
– Political landscape
– Blog politics
– LGB confidence and personal power
– Empowerment of new lobbies that in the past had no access to power but now do through social networks, direct connection to MPs and information sharing
In the last election, Gay support for the Tories dropped due to lack of clear messages for LGB rights. The internet, Pinknews, blogs all permitted direct lobbying of politicians.
Thus, Stonewall has ignored the need to engage with a groundswell of energy outside its walls, has stalled and lacked agility in matching the needs of an 'empowered' community, a community that communicates individually and for itself. Stonewall is stuck in the 90s when only few had access to ears. If Stonewall is to match the speed of change in today's world, it needs to look outside of itself, current relationships and interact with an already 'moved on movement'.
This is a account of what Mr Summerskill said at the meeting:
"Firstly, he attacked Pink News for running an "unethical campaign" against Stonewall after they failed to answer a request for comment on the topic of Marriage Equality. Then, he argued that it was "too expensive" as increased pension payments to heterosexual couples wanting civil partnerships would cost five billion pounds over ten years according to unpublished government research."
His words prompted Stephen Gilbert to say this:
"equality such as this should not be subject to a cost/benefit analysis and that if South Africa had adopted Stonewall's approach, they would still have apartheid"
A view Summerskill labelled offensive.
I would like Stonewall to show when they consulted its member and sought wider LGBT support for its viewpoint.
Are Lib Dem MP's and activists telling fibs too?
Is everybody else telling lies Ben?
Why would Stonewall not confirm its position on marriage equality to PinkNews despite having 4 days to do so?
Why the silence?
And which side on Ben?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on Stonewall?
Which side are you on?
Iris, No. 19, you hit the nail on the head. Just because some StonewallUK supporters don't want marriage doesn't stop them from marrying nor are they banned. Summerskill should apply that rational to same-sex couples. Just because there are some StonewallUK supporters who don't want marriage doesn't mean that their wishes have to trample on the rights of us who do. He should, if anything, be supporting it even if he personally doesn't want it. Summerskill MUST GO, he does NOT represent many of us and he does NOT represent or support full equality. Putting a price on it is beyond offensive. Personallly, I find Summerskill offensive to those of us who demand full equality without exception.
Stonewall's defence highlights the fact that they just don't get it.
Even if it were true that BS is innocent of slapping a price sticker on marriage equality the fact still remains that Stonewall does not support marriage equality. What Stonewall claims to be doing amounts to no less than a "separate but equal" solution. EVERY person who understands the human rights struggle of the last couple of centuries knows that "seperate but equal" breeds and supports inequality and bigotry.
There seems to be a claim that "some women" want to abolish marriage altogether since it is a cornerstone of patriarchal power. Maybe so, but that is not a queer rights issue and should not cause Stonewall any pause. Besides, how patriarchal can a gay marriage be? How much subjugation of women by men is there in a typical gay marriage? In my home there is a pronounced shortage of women to opress.
Ok PinkNews, you don't want me to post the email addresses of Stonewall Trustees, and have deleted my post.
For those of you who want to write, 7 of the addresses are easy to find with a bit of googling: the rest you'll have to guess.
Why remove comments Pinknews? Can we have an explanation please?
If Stonewall had not consulted its members on marriage equality then Ben Summerskill had no right to take any position on it on their behalf and comment for, against or express any concerns about it. He did not have the mandate from the membership to do so, therefore he acted against Stonewall and its membership. That alone constitute gross misconduct and the trustees should force him to step down or be sacked for his actions.
The idiot summerskill says he and stonewall are listening to the gay community. Yes, they are listening in the same way the church of England is listening to gays, with their hands (or mitres in the case of bishops – who always have to be different) over their ears and muttering lalalala (or hallelujah hallelujah in the case of bishops) to block out the comments and criticisms of the gays they are allegedly listening to.
Go away summerskill and take stonewall with you. you don't belong here any more. Because some of us are honestly trying to make life better for gays not trying to destroy it all together.
Is anyone up for organising a demonstration outside the Stonewall Awards evening at the V & A on Thursday 4th November?
When the trans community did this two years ago with regard to the infamous transphobe, Julie Bindel, who was nominated for best journalist, it generated lots of publicity and support from the people attending the Stonewall Awards.
Stonewall's response to the Pink News story still leaves a series of questions unanswered:
1) At any point during his speech at the Lib Dem conference did Ben say he supported marriage equality?
2) Why has it taken five years since CPs became law for Stonewall to consult its "members" on same-sex marriage?
3) Since Stonewall doesn't have members, only donors, who is it consulting? When? How much longer will this consultation take?
Perhaps Pink News can check with a sample of Stonewall donors to ask if they have ever been consulted about marriage equality (or anything else)?
4) Is it not odd that Stonewall, the major gay equality group, has "no policy" on ending the homophobia involved in the same-sex marriage ban?
Maybe Mr Summerskill would like to issue a statement clearly listing whether he supports equal marriage or not, and clearly list his reasons for doing so? If he/Stonewall still haven't made up their mind, then he could list the things he/they are considering before doing so. I don't think it's right that he criticises Pink News for 'getting it wrong' yet, in my personal opinion, has been less than forthcoming about his/Stonewall's views on the matter.
I've read through everything he's said and I still don't get it. "Some women" don't want marriage? What the hell's that got to do with anything? And as for the alleged cost – I don't believe it. So what are the other reasons? The campaign to stop homophobia? Good campaign that and I'm fully behind it – but why does that stop Stonewall supporting equal marriage?
Re your point 3, they've next consulted me or my partner.
"There seems to be a claim that "some women" want to abolish marriage altogether since it is a cornerstone of patriarchal power. Maybe so, but that is not a queer rights issue and should not cause Stonewall any pause."
Comment by Eiriksson
This is why I abandoned stonewall some year ago. I'm gay and I want to support gay campaigns not feminist ones which is what stonewall was becoming at the time and seems to still be, if this story is correct. When I want to support women in their very justified campaign against oppression, I'll support a feminist organisation not a gay one hijacked by feminism.
Only thing I find hard to believe in all this is the thought of summerskill bullying anyone. As Denis Healey said of Geoffrey Howe, being attacked by him must be like being savaged by a dead sheep. Why do I suddenly feel an overwhelming stench of decomposition would not be so out of place?
BS's claim not to have arrived at a view on marriage equality is ridiculous; he's had all his life to think about this; he's had seven years at Stonewall to consider it; he clearly knows what he thinks. And what he thinks is obvious from the fact that he is not supporting it.
If he's not with us then he is against us.
For a person in his position to imply that he's not sure if it's such a good idea is manna from heaven to the opposition, and he must be very well aware of this.
We can draw our own conclusions.
(Hoping this is mild enough not to be edited out!)
there are various points i want to raise concerning some of the arguments that have been put forward by the announcement in the Stonewall press release
the argument with respect to the 5billion costing actually wasnt refuted in the press release just "re-contextualised"
With respect to the femenist argument against marriage-
I thought the feminist argument was that it was fighting the right for women themselves to choose, to take away the power of the Patriarchal society thus empowering women to the right to decide for themselves which way they want to live their lives
If they wanted abortions it was their choice
If they wanted to work outside of stereotypical roles and be paid equally it was their choice
If they wanted to marry or not marry it was their choice
Various changes have been implemented in the "instituition of marriage"…. couples do not need to take the same surname, men have and do take on the womens surname (but sure not in large quantities) women can keep their maiden name, or double barrel their surnames just as men can…..
Both partners exchange rings, "the words love honour and obey" have rightfully been removed from the vows
with the likes of the Civil ceremony Christianity has been taken out of the picture, you can now have a non-religious, alternate religious ceremony.. if you want a Satanic ceremony as long as you fill out the correct forms and say the desired legal delcarations it would be fully legal
So, the argument of patriarchal control is gone in my mind as it is down to the choice of 2 individuals to "tie the knot" and how it is to be seen
which is where i see the role of gay marriage being desirable as opposed to the civil partnership ceremony that is currently available… I am in a 2 year civil partnership with my male partner of 15 years…. I want to legally call him my husband
i want my relationship under the eyes of the law and socially not to be seen as a lesser version of the "straight" version. I want my relationship to be seen as equal, valid and respected just as much as the "straight" version is
Now with Stonewall's declarations about fighting for equality, both what was reported in the Pink News article and the updated version, and the Stonewall press release has in no way allayed my anger or fears, I see Stonewall hiding behind silence and pressure tactics with absolutely new affirmation of what actually was said
Ben Summerskill you are an arse
Stonewall I have been hugely behind everything that in the past that you have stood for, but with this mess that has been created you are in an untenable and hypocritical situation, Ben Summerskill needs to go
I apologise for any bad spelling and bad punctuation in my comment above… I'm very very very angry
…you also have to ask why a gay organisation worth its salt hadn't thought to ask its mysterious members about gay marriage before. It's not like someone's only dreamed up the idea last Tuesday…
*chuckle* even if after everything I've typed, you think the feminist argument still holds, well sod it, what a great way to subvert the patriarchal institution than by a load of gay and lesbian folk waving their rings and wedding certificates in the eyes and faces of the patriachal bigots at every possible chance that we can
I think Stonewall have got themselves on the wrong side of this one. They are in a hole and should stop digging, admit they have been wrong and start supporting gay marriage wholeheartedly. The symbolic significance of marriage being open to everyone is the issue here and LGBT equality demands it.
Andy C, you're absolutely right. I'm all for equal rights for women but a small but very vocal group of 'feminists' think they can tell me what to do – thereby subverting the very idea that I as a woman should be allowed to choose. Some of these 'feminists' are actually anti-women (hence I've put 'feminist' in inverted commas) in my opinion. Note – I do NOT mean all feminists for any sensible, genuine ones reading.
Steve – yes, Stonewall have just made their position worse. Do they not realise that all this smoke and mirrors and not giving a straight answer (so to speak :D ) just makes them look as thought they're hiding something?
I don't see why Summerskill ever thought it was a good idea to open his mouth as he's gotten it in the neck badly – some idiots on the daily wail are whining about deaths etc in the world yet I'd bet they'd never do anything to help them, equality needs to be full because if not homophobia will never end
Ben Summerskill the Grinch who stole marriage equality
My friends in the USA are horrified at the lack of clarity of vision from an equality organisation such as Stonewall. A right is a right worth fighting for when someone decided you shouldn't have it. Plain and simple. Stonewall never asked within ANY community for opinion on CP, SS marriage and what the future equality strategy should be.
If as it said often, that some radical 'feminists' don't want marriage etc, then most certainly they are a minority and a self-interested one at that. I want to know what the board members of Stonewall think as individuals, publicly so that I can decide who is a barrier to my right…
"Writing in the Independent, Mr Paddick recounted his 2009 wedding to Petter Belsvik in Oslo.
In 2008, the Norwegian government abolished civil partnerships and opted to make marriage accessible to all couples."
(Mr Paddick said)… "It powerfully struck me how significant and how important it was for us to be treated exactly the same as if we were a straight couple."
"He added that his status of being married was "downgraded" on his return to Britain and claimed that civil partnerships do not offer complete equality."
Read more, Pink News article:
But Pavlos just as sgnificanlty your British CP could well be downgraded elsewhere, particulary if there is no equivalent and particulary if there is a gay marriage and CP in that country – you've really do have a better chance of being recognised outside of the UK with a marriage!
I am a bisexual woman and a feminist and I personally don't want a marriage because of a lot of the historical baggage it carries.
I WILL NOT take up a civil partnership with my girlfriend of 5 years UNTIL marriage is open to ALL genders and sexualities, and ideally civil partnerships likewise.
I will not get CP'd because someone tells me too, simply based on us being a same-sex couple. Not the government, and not Stonewall. I will get CP'd when it is MY choice to engage in that type of commitment.
Stonewall, don't pretend you're a radical feminist charity now. Don't try to hide your bigotry behind misguided support for the few women who agree with me on this issue. I know it's a minority view and you surely must too.
Grow up, Ben Summerskill, you tarnish the good name of queers, transfolk and feminist in one fell swoop.
Stonewall, equality is supposed to be your game, so DO YOUR JOB!
Cost of 5 Billion?…
So go for the cheaper option…introduce civil marriage equality, abolish civil partnerships and upgrade existing civil partnerships to marriage.
And sack Ben Summerskill while you're at it.
Stonewall has zero chance of survival with Summerskill at the helm.
It is time Ben Summerskill moved on and indeed Stonewall. The organisation does not represent or speak for me as a gay man. If Stonewall and Ben DO NOT oppose gay marriage, then say so. Isn't it that easy? Stonewall is a political-led train and Ben is it's driver. The train doesn't stop at equality, just Whitehall. A disgrace, truly.
"Party conference update
… PinkNews is, ., . dishonest . ….
We … regret … PinkNews … . publish .
Ben made … clear … that Stonewall is engaged in …. consulting with active Stonewall supporters, of whom there are almost 20,000, about the future of civil partnership.
The Equalities Minister … …. that … Stonewall is a supporter-based organisation …
Ben pointed out, … there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested ….
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."
Source stonewall website
From the stonewalling website . PinkNews readers may like to note that SW represents its "active supports" (please note the corporate logos on their site who manage pension funds !)
i.e. not the lesbiqueer community
A question to all – why , even if one newspaper should have made an error (i don't assume it did) is it suddenly responsible for " the whole of the pink media".
To Stonewall …. there are many voices OUT here and you by your own admission or only 20k and a logo or 2.
Don't forget the origins or your name dearies …
I think we always wanted equality, I don't think anyone really wanted civil partnerships at all it was always a compromise as a sop to the religious bigots, separate and not equal.
I am unclear where the cost comes from.
If civil marriage were made available for same-sex couples then there would be no further need for civil partnerships which could therefore be closed immediately as an option for new applicants (gay or straight) with those already in a partnership being given the option to "upgrade" to civil marriage (as a simple administrative procedure) should they so desire.
Let's pretend (for arguement's sake) that making civil marriage and CP's equal for everyone will cost a lot of money (and I am well aware that there is no evidence to back this up); it does not explain why Summerskill/Stonewall are arguing that point.
For starters they are not working for the Treasury. They claim to work for equality for the LGB (but not T) community. The cost should be irrelevant if they are interesed in equality (and I don't see the Netherland crumbling under the financial burden of allowing equal access to marriage or CP's).
Secondly – if Stonewall don't have a position on marriage equality then why on earth was Summerskill criticising the LibDem's proposals. He claims not to have an opinion on equality, yet is actively criticising others for their position. That's offensive and grotesque.
I personally suspect that Stonewall are opposed to equality, but know full well that if they state this position they will be forced to close immediately.
Well the cat's out of the bag. This drip, drip of negative, damaging information about Stonewall will not stop.
They have a decision to make – support equality (and sack Summerskill) OR close down. It's really that simple.
Interesting analysis of Stonewall's reaction to Pink News's ORIGINAL story on this issue here:
Has ANYONE who was at the meeting come forward to support Stonewall's behaviour?
@David at #85
Most of my comments on this have been based on blogs from fellow libdems who were in the room, either on their blog here and here, or twitter updates from various friends. There were also comments made from quite senior members of the party who were there in the debate the following morning.
why does the cost even matter? surely any cost is contributed to by taxpayers as this article says which includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender/sexuals! or is LBGT people who stonewall is supposedly fighting for not citizens now?
So logically as marriage costs the state a packet we should cease to register marriages to save money? I thought the licence / registration fees covered the registrar's costs as it does for civil partnerships. Could someone please explain how marriage costs the tax payer anything?
nobody else can have an opinion with Stonewall around its just like the real world on this thread.
Stonewall close down the argument so they are the only voice.
Stonewall wont bully the LGBT to conform to its and Julie Bindels view on marriage equality.
Stonewall tries to play with words and close down dissent. What a ridiculous organisation. Stonewall doesn't speak for me.
I'd suggest this is going along the wrong lines…
We are looking at the minutia of what Mr Summerskill said or did not say, and debating that.
But surely the central issue is that Mr Summerskill, in a public debate, pulled out the huge figure of £5 billion (allegedly contained in a secret Treasury document) and claimed this would be the cost of accepting the Lib-Dems proposals for gay marriage. He admits that he did this.
As we can all see from other websites, that spurious figure has now been used by our religious and political opponents to try and trash the idea of gay marriage.
Mr Summerskill has given the Daily Mail, the Telegraph, the Christian Institute, and all those other organisations that want to deny us rights, a tremendous stockpile of ammunition to use against our demands for Full Marriage Equality.
So why did he do it?
Why did he bring out that huge figure in a public debate?
I can see only two explanations for his doing so.
He was either so foolish that he did not realise that our opponents would seize on that figure, and the fact that it came from Stonewall, and then use it to attack gay marriage.
Or he did it in order to sabotage future lobbying for gay marriage, with the certain knowledge that the opponents of gay marriage would then use that figure against us,
Either of these reasons is enough for him to be sacked.
Now I do not believe Mr Summerskill is a fool. He is an astute politician. In my opinion, he did this to deliberately undermine the call for gay marriage.
His motives for not wanting gay marriage could be political, personal, or financial. They are unclear.
What is clear is the tremendous damage this man's actions have done to LGBT rights.
He needs to go.
Agree with Chrissie above – why mention figures , why mention who and who doesn't want marriage , why have an opinon on straight CPs and the consquences of it (as he said he doesn't campaingn for them and didn't need to mention this aspect of the lib dem policy), why attend a fringe meeting at all and why get drawn into the marriage equality issue (we're told that this is an ongoing policy decision at the moment – full stop – need he say any more at this time) – the guy's not an idiot – we've been badgering him for an answer on marriage equality and he knew everybody would seize on anything he said. What his motives were or are, heavens knows. It would be unbelievable to think that he didn't have a pretty good idea what his supporters think already.
Personally I think it will be just a matter of time before the EU forces the UK to recognise different sex CP – you can't make French etc different sex CPs divorce in their own country in order to get married over just in the same way as France was slated by the EU about us gay CPs divorcing first in the UK to do a PACS over there. At some time it will be found discriminatory and against some directive. So cost is irrelevant, the recognition of different sex CPs will be forced on the UK at some time. I suspect also the cost document against marriage eqality , like the Irag files, have been sexed up in any case. Why was this costing report asked for anyway, is it part of the origninal CP discussions?
Once CPs are open to different sex couples then I really don't know where all those arguments about feminism , lesbians and CPs defining our uniqueness and we like it that way etc are going to …
Perhpas this is Summerskill's problem he want CPs to remain gay only, a gay utopia….something for gays and feminists only! If that the case then campaing for that but don't campaing or at least keep ya mouth shut when it comes to marriage eqaulity….
theres no T in s(t)onewall .. another pointless money wasting bunch of freeloaders!
Summerskill's words at the LibDem meeting were a declaration of war by the homophobic Stonewall Group against LGBT Rights and marriage equality.
It is sad, pathetic and offensive that Summerskill / Stonewall feel the need to fight AGAINST LGBT equality, but these are now the circumstances facing LGBT rights in Britain.
In light of the refusal (so far anyway) by Stonewall to sack the bigotted Mr Summerskill and to replace him with someone in favour of LGBT equality; we can be in no doubt.
Stonewall are actively campaigning against LGBT equality. They should regarded as enemies of LGBT equality. They cannot any longer be allowed to represent the LGBT equality movement. It is in all out interests that ALL politiians; newspapers; financial groups etc realise that Stonewall are regarded with disgust and horror by the wider LGBT population.
A timely protest against Stonewall homophobia will be when they hold their silly little 'Stonewall Awards'. When are those being held. A few hundred LGBT Equality supporters protesting those absurd awards will send a clear message of the very low esteem in which out community regards Stonewall/Summerskill.
#89 – Eloquently expressed, Chrissie. We can only guess at why BS said those things. I'd personally add 'panic' to your excellent list. Maybe he knows that we're inexorably moving towards marriage equality and that panics him. But I have no idea why. It doesn't make any sense at all.
If his personal feelings about equal marriage are so strong, he should step aside and let someone else lead Stonewall. It'd be easier for him – and a lot better for LGBT people in the UK.
That's the thing. What's in his head? Why? It really doesn't make sense but I'd like to know.
I don't think for one second that everyone in Stonewall thinks the same as Summerskill.
We wrote yesterday to Stonewall's Trustees and got back what looked like a standard letter from their Chair, David Isaac. (We're not posting it here in case there are copyright issues which might lead to its removal.) We have responded to this as follows:
Dear David Isaac
Thank you for your prompt response. However, we wonder if you have actually read our letter, which calls for Ben Summerskill's immediate resignation on the grounds he is failing to represent the views of the LGBT community on equal marriage. Your response refers neither to Summerskill nor to marriage equality: only to (a) "the future of civil partnership"; and (b) an article in PinkNews to which Stonewall has already responded.
We repeat our call for Ben Summerskill's immediate resignation.
It is time for some accountability. We want to know:
(i) Why has it taken five years – since civil partnerships became law in 2005 – for Stonewall to consult its 'members' on marriage equality?
(ii) Who are you consulting (since Stonewall doesn't have 'members', only donors)? How? When? How much longer will this take?
(iii) Why does Stonewall – the major gay equality group – have "no policy" (according to Ben Summerskill) on ending the homophobia involved in the same-sex marriage ban?
We look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Sue Wilkinson and Celia Kitzinger
If Stonewall had not consulted its members on marriage equality then Ben Summerskill had no right and had no mandate to take any position on it on their behalf and comment for, against or express any concerns about it.
That alone constitutes gross misconduct and the trustees should force him to step down or sack him for his actions.
Pink News, please dont be bullied into silence on this by stonewall or summerskill. keep up the good work.
Anyone up for starting an alternative to stonewall – that really does stand for equality for gay men, lesbians, bisexuals and transsexuals?
this is my deleted comment from Tuesday:
Ben Summerskill's snide trotting-out of a tiny minority of dissenting voices from Lesbian ranks sounds a familiar sour note with us Trans folk. His consistent ignoring of Trans people's issues and our part in the emergence of sexuality and gender diversity equality has been something some of us have been protesting for a number of years now. The first I remember was the lovely and brave Transman Serge Nicholson's lone heckle in 2006 at Summerskill's speech at the Lord Mayor's Pride reception. Frankly his 'divide and rule' attitude has more in common with elitist old colonial attitudes than with the obvious common sense of the right to live under laws that respect us all.
"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.
Hmmm – Pink News. Comment number 100 indicates how sleazily Stonewall are behaving.
I recommend you put this story back on the front page.
Stonewall is a homophobic organisation.
That in itself is MAJOR news.
Brian Paddick is a former high ranking Met police officer and a former candidate for London mayor. Will Ben Summerskill be saying he is being dishonest?
If anybody else who was at the Lib Dem meeting please post so the truth gets out.
Well done Brian Paddick for speaking out.
Its about time Stonewall came out the closest on its support for apartheid in relationships.
Must we all suffer because Julie Bindel's brand of extremist feminism objects to marriage? it's not even in line with mainstream feminist thinking at all.
If Stonewall are going to support this viewpoint then they must seek the abolition of all marriage and not take an apartheid position that demotes gay relationships to a second class status.
> "Firstly, he attacked Pink News for running an "unethical
> campaign" against Stonewall after they failed to answer a
> request for comment on the topic of Marriage Equality. Then, he
> argued that it was "too expensive" as increased pension payments
> to heterosexual couples wanting civil partnerships would cost
> five billion pounds over ten years according to unpublished
> government research."
Bullying and bluster. Stonewall has been lobbying against marriage equality for years, but now it is open. And they have lobbied against equality in other respects too – it was Stonewall had "sexual orientation" excluded from the Equality Act's protection against harassment this year; Evan Harris questioned Summerskill about that, incredulously, at the bill's Commons Committee stage.
Summerskill's bullying of PinkNews and those who reported the LibDem fringe meeting to PinkNews (presumably prominent activists), must also raise big questions about Stonewall's landmark "anti-bulkying" campaign. To deliberately make out, as Stonwall does, when campaigning against bullying in schools, that the worst bullying of all – against transsexual children, which starts earliest and is most intense – doesn't happen at all, is itself, of course, bullying. Exactly as was Stonewall's ignoring the hateful, anti-transsexual writings of Julie Bindell when listing her for their journalist of the year award, then mocking the trans people who protested.
All of these actions by Stonewall use Stonewall's power (standing, organisation, money, contacts) to ignore the rightful boundaries of others in denying our reality, our experience on matters really vital to us.
The whole of Stonewall is complicit in that. All the staff and volunteers, all the donors, all the trustees. Stonewall must go.
Ben Summerskill asks and Pink News obeys?! Sweet Jesus!
Tough! I', just going to repeat what I said in my now-deleted previous post.
I previously said that Stonewall had, in the past, received financial and personal support from me. I also said that future cheques would go to the National Secular Society.
In addition, Summerskill's efforts to bully Pink News into submission are equally disgraceful.
Stonewall does NOT speak for me, and its attempts to stop anyone speaking against it reveal what an appalling organisation it has become.
I think it is time for Ben to go. I have stpped my monthly contribution to Stonewall and will not have anything more to do with them until he leaves
I am glad Pink News has placed this story back up the rungs on the front page, and very grateful to Brian Paddick for speaking out.
Let's be honest here. Mr Summerskill's and Stonewall's betrayal of our rights is perhaps one of the biggest LGBT stories for a decade. I think it needs a LOT more investigation, so that the world can see WHY Stonewall are acting this way.
As for what we can do now to limit their baneful influence on our rights…. Let's not forget that Stonewall is a charity.
So far I have found two areas under which Mr Summerskill's and Stonewall's actions MAY be in breach of the Charity Commisssion's rules on political actvivity, and I am preparing a complaint outlining those areas, to present to the Commission later next week.
On top of that we need to put pressure on this governemnt, via the responsible ministers and our MPs, to limit Stonewall's input to this debate on the grounds that they do NOT have a mandate from the LGBT community to represent our interests.
If individual contributors to Stonewall's coffers feel they are unable to fund Stonewall anymore, that is totally understandable, and is another way to teach them a lesson.
how could stonewall remove sexual orientation from the equality bill?
even in 2009 summerskill was betraying LBGT's and selling everyone out:
Thank you for that, Brian – very interesting. Personally, I'm still waiting for a statement from BS explaining why he thinks PN made a mistake and what his actual position on marriage equality is in clear, unambiguous language. That way no-one would make any 'mistakes' in the future.
"I have found two areas under which Mr Summerskill's and Stonewall's actions MAY be in breach of the Charity Commisssion's rules on political actvivity, and I am preparing a complaint outlining those areas, to present to the Commission later next week."
Fantastic idea.
Stonewall's betrayal of the LGBT population is an absolute disgrace.
Glad to see that this story is back on the front page.
The fact that Stonewall are officially (but secretly) opposed to marriage equality is one of the biggest LGBT stories of the year.
I think in light of Brian Paddick's comment in number 100, it would be a good idea to repost your original story.
ONLY Stonewall are disputing it, and they have already been thoroughly discredited.
I would also ask that in future LGBT news stories, that you not quote Stonewall's opinion on matters. Who cares what a homophobic organisation's opinion is.
Brian Paddick, a man of integrity and conviction. I salute you sir!
…indeed, everything Bummerskill is not!!!
Deep Throat said: "Follow the money." Since Stonewall are obviously trying to subvert marriage equality in this country, they must be benefiting financially by doing so. Pink News and other news sources should investigate and expose the money trail.
This story needs further investigation.
1. Why do Stonewall pretend to have no opinion on marriage equality, then send their leader to campaign against it in secret?
2. Who decides Stonewall's agenda; and on whose behalf are they working (when clearly it is not on the LGBT community's behalf?)
Under no circumstances should people be donating money to Stonewall until there is clarity on this.
In the meantime email Stonewall's Trustees expressing your disgust at Stonewall's behaviour and urging them to sack Summerskill or disband.
(You can find all their names and email addresses on Google – Pink News seem to be scared to allow us to post them here).
In the absence of any clarification from Stonewall, one can only conclude that they are plainly working against marriage equality and speculate as to their motives and who their most significant supporters may be.
There are histoical connections with Labour; Tony Blair (closet Roman Catholic in 2004) was PM at the time CP's were institued. What deal was done at that time, in private meetings?
Who pays for Stonewall – we do not know; who are their "supporters" – we do not know. Who are these females members who don't want marriage (as far as we can see there is no invitation to join membership on their publicity). Is there a secret membership?
I consider that I am married and nothing the law says can change my belief. However, it is an iniquity that the law denies my marriage. We seem to be moving close to a change in this and it is unbelievable that Stonewall are trying to stop it. Fortunately the political tide seems to be running against them.
I agree we must make it clear that Stonewall don't represent anyone but a small, secret grouping (and their paymasters) who won't explain their motives. How they manage to have charity status for what seems to be a moneymaking business I don't understand.
I am greatly encouraged by the attitude of all the contributors here. With such positive feeling for this long overdue reform I am very optimistic. Three cheers to the LibDems!!
Email sent to stonewall and their responce:
QRE; Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill argued that Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn
From: Jonathan Finney To: email@example.com
Cc: info
Dear Omar
Thanks for taking the time to get in touch. The article which appeared on Pink News following Stonewall's event at the Liberal Democrat conference on Monday evening misrepresented what Stonewall actually said on the issue of civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. We issued a statement on this issue, which you can read via our website here.
At the moment we're taking views from our supporters on the future of civil partnerships. We think that it's really important for us to understand the range of views on this issue.
I hope this reply is helpful.
Jonathan Finney
Head of External Affairs
Switchboard: 020 7593 1850
Info Line: 08000 50 20 20
Registered in England and Wales: Stonewall Equality Ltd, Tower Building, York Road, London SE1 7NX
Registration no 02412299 – VAT no 862 9064 05 – Charity no 1101255
From: Omar Kuddus [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.com]
Sent: 23 September 2010 20:04
Subject: RE; Stonewall boss Ben Summerskill argued that Lib Dem equal marriage plan could cost up to £5bn
Dear Sir
In regards can you please explain the artical and the responces/comments to it:
"At the moment we're taking views from our supporters on the future of civil partnerships. We think that it's really important for us to understand the range of views on this issue."
Whar exactly have they been doing over the past 5 years.
This response is offensive in the extreme.
Are Stonewall confirming that they've no idea about the attitude of the LGBT community towards marriage equality.
If they are only 'taking views' on the matter now, then why are they sending their leader to campaign against marriage equality on the sly?
What is their agenda?
And why the continuing refusal to engage with either the gay press or public.
Enough is enough.
Please can one of these "supporters" post something when they actually get consulted, I'm fascintated to know who is a "supporter" and how they are consulted about this affair??
I had assumed that Stonewall regarded the general LGBT community were their supporters but obviously this isn't the case.
Let's see what Cardinal Summerskill gets up to at the Labour Party Conference this week
"Let's see what Cardinal Summerskill gets up to at the Labour Party Conference this week"
If the issue of marriage equality comes up then I wonder will he excuse himself and leave the room.
Stonewall still officially pretend not to have an opinion on marriage equality. Therefore it will be entirely inappropriate for him to contribute anything to that discussion.
Hopefully he will have been sacked by the time of the Labour Party Conference, however. His behaviour at the Lib Dem conference was utterly appalling.
I've been in contact with Stonewall on this issue and as in the redesigned article at the behest of Stonewall they claim they have never expressed a view on marriage equality….this isn't true… they have just not directly and what they have expressed is negative indicating that they do not support equal marriage rights for gay and straight people.
They constantly soundbite the fact that some gay people do not want to get married however rarely point to the many that do. Secondly why mention the estimated £5 billion cost? Surely cost does not matter when it comes to rights and principles? Stonewall has made a hash of this issue and have lost the respect and regard many people held them in. They appear to be selective in their support of gay rights. It's sad when a high profile organisation that is supposed support the lgbt community divides who to support within the community.
In response to Stonewall's arguement that not all gay people want to get married especially some women – If gay marriage became a reality not all gay people would have to get married to have a state recognised relationship. Alternative relationship ceremony's would be available such as civil partnerships. And should those that want marriage be denied it ecause of those that don't? I can smell a whole load of selective gay rights support here. It doesnt make sense for Stonewall to behave like this nor show more tansparency in their 'consultation' process with their members and why it is taking them so long to come to a policy conclusion on the subject.
I truly believe they do not support gay marriage and are looking for every excuse not to. We may just have to do it without them and in doing so they will become redundant.
Perhaps they intend to consult their supporters next week at the labour party conference!!
Stonewall and the Summerskill name have quite a lot of links with Labour. How supportive are the labour party of the current lib dem policy on marriage equality, would they support it in this current parliament? Would it really do labour much good if the tory coalition party succeded where they didn't?
We've had the lib dem take on what they think of Stonewall's support is, what is the labour party's thinking on this whole issue and Stonewall lack of support. Terribly convenient to come out with a right wing tory argument of costs during a lib dem conf, terribly convenient to add fire and cause a rift in the coalition when Clegg discusses this with Cameron….
Sorry but this whole affair stinks!
My place of work is a Stonewall diversity champion. We certainly have not been consulted. If we do I'll let you all know – with a description of the pigs flying past the window.
I only wish the Fringe meeting had been recorded. I will make sure that it is next year in Birmingham
How disappointing the article was suspended. I think valuable passionate comments were made that Stonewall needed to be aware of. I must say that much of what was allegedly reported I had already heard some years previously from Ben, so was not entirely surprised, but still offended. But putting that to one side. The Liberal Democrats who are part of the coalition government and the new Labour leader support gay marriage. What are you playing at Stonewall? Wake up dammitt and get behind the fight for gay marriage and full equality…
BS does seem to be a big fish in a small pool but as long as you have a good pair of sturdy wellies you don't have to get your feet wet , also there is the option to just walk around the pool completely!
I work for a large law firm, a diversity champion. We have not been consulted as yet. If we are (pigs might fly) I will let you all know.
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.
More like this
- Gay Lib Dem MP Steve Gilbert on plans to make case for marriage equality at party conference 11
- Stonewall urged to speak out for marriage equality 53
- UK gay rights groups (with one exception) set out positions on marriage equality 75
- Comment: Marriage is the gold standard for gay couples 44
- 98 per cent of PinkNews.co.uk readers want full marriage equality 46
Most commented this week
- Christian bakers lose court appeal in 'gay cake' row 151
- Trans teen refused service because staff didn't believe his ID belonged to him 135
- 7-year-old put into father's custody after mother 'raised him as female' 114
- More than a billion people are still living under British anti-gay laws 97
- Gay couple receive death threats after showing support for Donald Trump 61
- Trans student found hanged after filing complaint about bullying 55
- Russian embassy mocks Westerners as 'gay pigs' 53
- Straight people getting AIDS is a 'left-wing lie', pro-Trump radio host claims 40
- Jazz Jennings gets real on dating as a trans teen 39
- Bishop of Liverpool: Gay Christians have a right to be angry with the Church 36


text:
Bemidji, MN (Northland's NewsCenter) --- The Beltrami County Sheriff's Department needs your help to identify two masked suspects who stole money from a convenience store.
According to authorities, police were called the Cenex South Convenience Store just south of Bemidji around 8:15pm on Saturday, October 20th regarding a theft.
The employee at the store told officials that two masked suspects had entered the store and taken money from the two cash registers located behind the counter.
Police believe both suspects are males. One is described as wearing a grey hoodie with a "Quicksilver" logo and a Star Wars mask.
The other suspect was dressed in dark clothing with what police believe to be a pig face Halloween mask. The second suspect is also described as being about 5' 5'' tall and weighing 150-160 pounds.
Both suspects fled on foot and may have used ATV's to travel away from the store in a southeasterly direction.
If anyone has information on the identities or whereabouts of these suspects, they are asked to call the Beltrami County Sheriff's Office.
Posted to the web by Krista Burns

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
- Connect2Classes
Connect with Us
Tact lacking in council's process regarding police contract
Fiscal responsibility. It's a term we always hope comes from the mouths of our elected officials. Recently, a couple of Snoqualmie City Council members again reiterated the words fiscal responsibility when they asked for a presentation by the King County Sheriff's Office on contract services for police protection. While I applaud Greg Fullington and Matt Larson's constant overseeing of fiscal responsibility, I do think the whole situation could have been handled better.
Keep in mind that in addition to fiscal responsibility, you also have an ethical responsibility to fully explore options without raising concern by those employed in the city's police department. Remember, they have done a great job to this point and even I would consider the approach a slap in the face. It's like not valuing them as important to the city. Also remember, several officers are residents, so you represent them as well.
I think the best approach may have been to inform the rest of the council and staff through the public safety commission, asking them to better understand the police department's budget and then come back with some proposals for reducing costs and/or services. The comparison should be an apple-to-apple comparison because we all know anything the county provides in this arena will be less in service. Nothing against the hard-working officers of the county, but I would bet if a comparison of response times was shown between downtown North Bend and Snoqualmie, the county's response times would be considerably higher due to less resources.
It's always worth asking the question: What would it take to reduce the police department's budget by 5 percent, 10 percent or even 20 percent and what services would no longer be available? But to consider a full-blown transition to county officers seems like the meat-cleaver approach without any consideration of how the city's own force can be streamlined for the desired savings.
Finally, this is a big enough issue that it has to go to the voters. As much as I respect the knowledge of the council members, this really isn't a decision that they can make. This isn't a representative decision but one the citizens of Snoqualmie need to make at the polls. You may find that voters would be willing to pay a little more for their own police force if asked. Voters of the city should demand the right to vote on police services, if it comes to that, and consider the answer when going to the polls to vote on their elected officials.
And let's also put the issue to bed for some period of time. It will be very difficult to keep great officers if they are faced with the possibility that they may need to look for a job every time the council needs to come up with a few extra dollars. Maybe a fiscal comparison of services should be made every six years.
Again, it is worth looking at public safety budgets and asking hard questions as long as we are all willing to consider the answers carefully. I would expect elected officials to do this on occasion, even asking department heads to prepare budget reductions. But keep in mind both constituents and employees when asking the tough questions. Ultimately, in this case, let the voters decide.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 19 - Oct 26
Read the Oct 26
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.


text:
- News
- Calendar
- Blogs
- Sports
- Entertainment
- Business
- Lifestyles
- Community
- Opinion
- About Us
- Classifieds
- Coupons
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
- Connect2Classes
Connect with Us
Arts and Entertainment
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
'City of Angels' opening pushed to next weekend
Whidbey Island Center for the Arts has postponed the opening of "City of Angels" for one week due to cast and crew illnesses. The performance will now open at 7:30 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 13. Tickets purchased for the original opening weekend, from Feb. 7 to Feb. 9, will be adjusted to any of the other performance dates. An extra showing was also added for Thursday, Feb. 20. Performances will be through Saturday, Feb. 22. For questions or more information contact the ticket office at 360-221-8268.
Latest news, top stories, and community events,
delivered to your inbox.
Trending Stories Oct 21 - Oct 28
We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
Read the Oct 26
Green Edition
Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.
Browse the archives.
Friends to FollowView All Updates
Local display advertising by PaperG


text:
That was the advice Esperanza Cirilo and Nathan Biber said propelled them to the top of this year's Titan Business Challenge, organized by Junior Achievement of Northeast Michigan and held at the Saginaw Campus of Davenport University on Friday, Dec. 14.
Cirilo and Bieber, both juniors at Heritage High School, were participating in the challenge for the first time. They were coached by Mitchell Wisniewski, a Dow Chemical employee who was volunteering as a coach for the competition for the third time.
Students from ten area high schools put their business acumen to the test by developing business plans that were then tested by Titan, a computer program unique to Junior Achievement. The program then had teams add information in response to prompts.
Participation was up this year, said Jen Carpenter, president of Junior Achievement of Northeast Michigan.
"We did something different this year," Carpenter said, noting that instead of automatic elimination for teams with the lowest scores, they were divided up into flights and with a consolation bracket. The winning team received a $500 scholarship to the school of their choice, while the members of the second place team received a $50 gift card.
Denise Sherman, campus director for the Saginaw campus of Davenport University, said this was the 4th year Davenport has hosted the challenge. In addition to hosting the event, they donated pizza for the students' lunch.
Sherman said the event was a good opportunity for high school students to look at and consider Davenport as a university. Traditional college-age students only make up about 10 percent of the Saginaw Campus' enrollment, she added.
About 75 students were attended the event, along with their volunteer advisers from area sponsors.


text:
Denzel Washington couldn't make it to Amarillo, but he sent the only person he knows is better looking than himself, said Herman Boone, the football coach Washington portrayed in the movie "Remember the Titans."
Boone and coach Bill Yoast told a few jokes as they stressed their more serious message of promoting racial diversity while speaking to a crowd of more than 200 Thursday night at Amarillo Civic Center.
The visit was part of the annual Amarillo College Distinguished Lecture Series, sponsored by AC's Student Government Association.
Both men spoke about the challenges of their coaching careers and shared their thoughts on having a motion picture made based on these experiences.
As portrayed in the movie, the men were brought together in 1971 to coach a new football team after three rival schools were consolidated into one high school in Alexandria, Va.
Not only were the schools rivals, but one was predominantly attended by black students, while another was predominantly white.
In addition to that, the school board chose newcomer Boone, who is black, over the popular Yoast, who is white, and a veteran coach with previous success.
The coaches worked together to unify their team, later winning the Virginia state football championship. But gaining the respect of the community and the football players wasn't an easy task, Boone said. As he became the head coach of this team, Boone was the center of controversy, he said.
"The white kids didn't like the fact I was black, and the black kids didn't think I was black enough," Boone said.
Bill Yoast: "Diversity was a word we hadn't even heard back then," the former football coach said.
Boone said he and Yoast put their personal differences aside and in doing so, were able to mold the team.
Boone said he told the team they didn't have to like each other, but they must respect each other as individuals.
Part of this meant requiring the team to spend time with their teammates and learn about them, Boone said.
Yoast said he and Boone had to promote leadership, which was much more than just coaching a football team.
"Diversity was a word we hadn't even heard back then," Yoast said.
Despite a few minor changes from real life, "Remember the Titans" was a true-to-life story about strength, courage and transcending narrow-minded thinking, Boone said.
The Distinguished Lecture Series is a partnership between AC and Bank of America. Proceeds are used to provide scholarships for AC students.
© 2016. All Rights Reserved. | Contact Us


text:
A car traveling eastbound on Wildwood Avenue near Maynard Avenue hit 40-year-old Jonathan Green of Blackman Township as he was searching for a set of keys on the road.
Green was transported to Allegiance Hospital with serious injuries, and was later transferred to University of Michigan Health System where he is listed in critical condition.
Officers responded to the area at 10:13 p.m. Monday, Blackman-Leoni Department of Public Safety Director Mike Jester said. The preliminary investigation revealed Green was dressed in dark clothing, standing in the roadway looking for a set of keys that had fallen off a vehicle, Jester reported.
A 1994 Honda Civic, driven by 32-year-old Jody Cornell of Parma, was traveling eastbound at or near the posted speed limit of 40 mph on Wildwood Avenue when it struck Green, Jester said.
It is not believed speed or alcohol was a factor in the incident, Jester reported.
A vehicle was stopped near Green in the westbound lane with headlights on that would have been pointed toward Cornell, he said.
Jester said the combination of Green's dark clothing, exterior lighting and the westbound vehicle's headlights, it was nearly impossible to see Green in the road, according to Sgt. Mike Rand, who is investigating the accident.
After the investigation is complete, the report will be forwarded to the Jackson County Prosecutor's Office, following standard procedure in such incidents, Jester reported


text:
Protesters of the shoot at the Wing Pointe Gun Club on Moselem Springs Road in Perry Township, Pa., were using the eight-rotor octocopter to film the pigeon shoot when it was damaged about 3:10 p.m. Sunday, according to a police report.
Police said they do not know the shooter's identity. The police report labels the incident as criminal mischief.
The helicopter operator, Steve Hindi, president of Geneva, Ill.-based Showing Animals Respect And Kindness, said he was able to bring the helicopter down and avoid a crash but fears it may be a total loss. A member of his animal rights group put the damage at $4,000, Hindi said.
Police did not name the person or group who had been flying it over the event. Hindi said his group goes to Wing Pointe "fairly regularly." Sunday, Hindi said he and others were on public lands adjacent to the club and using the helicopter to document the event.
A search of the video website YouTube turns up several unflattering videos claimed to have been shot at Wing Pointe, including several purportedly posted by Showing Animals Respect And Kindness. The videos' titles describe the club as a "killing resort" and "animal abuser's paradise."
Wing Pointe, on its website, calls itself a "resort luxury for the sport shooting enthusiast." A message left seeking comment with the club was not immediately returned this morning.
Hindi said a lot of people mistakenly believe pigeon shoots went away after the closure of the annual Labor Day Pigeon Shoot in Hegins, Schuylkill County, Pa. A 1999 Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision ruled that cruelty officers could bring charges against pigeon-shoot participants, leading to the end of the Hegins hunt.
Wider availability of high-definition cameras paired with YouTube and social media sites such as Twitter have allowed his group to broaden its audience in its effort to close down privately held shoots.
"The numbers dropped because we were now showing faces and in some cases putting names to faces," Hindi said.
Animal rights advocates say live bird shoots such as the one staged Sunday amount to animal cruelty.
A state Senate bill, SB 626, would prohibit "use of live animals or fowl for targets at trap shoot or block shoot." The measure is stalled in the Senate after passage in April 2011 by the Senate Judiciary Committee, where state Sen. Lisa Boscola, D-Lehigh/Monroe/Northampton, voted for its approval. The bill's lead sponsor is state Sen. Pat Browne, R-Lehigh/Monroe/Northampton.
Police say the investigation is continuing and ask anyone with information to call 610-562-6885. The incident number is L04-1250780.


text:
Shares of DirecTV are trading higher Tuesday morning — up another 1.3% to $88.27 — as the satellite-TV service provider continues its talks for a deal to be bought by AT&T.
The price currently being discussed is in the "low to mid $90s" per DirecTV share but an announcement of a deal could still be "weeks away," a person familiar with the matter told USA TODAY Monday. If the pricing holds, AT&T will have to pay close to $50 billion for DirecTV, more than $45 billion Comcast agreed to pay for Time Warner Cable.
That AT&&T and DirecTV are in talks was first reported by The Wall Street Journal on April 30, and DirecTV shareholders have been the beneficiaries of the leak. Its shares have risen 14% since the end of April.
Shares of AT&&T fell 1.3% Tuesday to $36.09 as investors are still sorting out the financial impact and the significance of acquiring a TV service provider with a different delivery technology.
DirecTV, which has 20 million customers, is the nation's largest satellite TV service provider and would give AT&T a leg up on expanding video offerings nationwide. The El Segundo, Calif.-based company also has 17 million customers in Latin America.
While still growing, AT&T's U-Verse TV service, which uses fiber optic lines, is limited in geographical reach with only about 5.7 million customers.


text:
What is in this article?:
- Two dollar cotton influencing 2012 crop
- Mother Nature tried hard
- Switch to synthetic fibers
- Two dollar a pound cotton created a shockwave in demand for cotton products — and not in a good way for farmers.
- Though it may appear demand for cotton is strong worldwide, in reality it is the artificial demand created by China's drive to build its domestic supply.
More About:
DEMAND FOR COTTON must increase to support cotton prices above a dollar a pound.
Mother Nature tried hard
Mother Nature tried to compensate for over-planting, but did not succeed. Despite the worst drought in history in Texas, another flood in Pakistan, and poor late monsoon season performance in India, a record crop of more than 123 million bales is projected to be grown this year.
Worldwide, about an 11 million acre increase is expected for the 2011-2012 crop. The largest increase in 2011 came from the U.S. with 3,759,000 acres, followed closely by India with a 2,531,000 acre increase.
China by comparison had a 792,000 acre increase and Australia a 218,000 acre increase.
The expected crop production from the 2012 crop will add another 12-15 million bales to what could be an already high carry-over year. Much of the result of the increased production will depend on how aggressive China is in further building its cotton inventory.
Last year China paid about $1.18 a pound for domestic cotton, which made room for plenty of dollar a pound U.S.-grown cotton, Nicosia says.
For the 2012 crop, it's hard to know what the market price will be, though it is clear demand for cotton products will not match the jump in production, he adds.
In response to a spike in demand for cotton products in 2008-2009, Chinese textile mills increased production, forcing China to sell 16.6 million bales of its reserve stocks to Chinese mills to satisfy demand.
By October of 2010, the Chinese cotton reserve had dwindled to less than 1.5 million bales. The shortage in cotton in China's reserves coincided with the spring 2011 jump to $2 a pound cotton.
China reacted last spring by offering $1.18 per pound for Chinese-grown cotton for the reserve. When prices began trading on the international market at less than $1.18 a pound, China began purchasing cotton from other countries to build its reserves.
As of early 2012, the Chinese had already purchased more than 11 million bales and are expected to continue to build reserves to 15-18 million bales this year.
Nicosia says the 2012 world ending stock of cotton is an 'abundant illusion.' Of the 58 million or so bales in carryover stock, China's state cotton reserve will hold nearly a third, he notes.
New crop cotton is arriving on the market this winter, but it's not being accompanied by new demand.
As cotton became scarce in 2011/12 prices had to move to over $2 per pound to ration the available supplies. It was hoped that with the arrival of fresh new crop supplies some of this demand would return. Instead poor business conditions exacerbated the situation.
Despite lower cotton prices, demand forecasts have continued to sink due to numerous macro-economic events. Consumption during 2011/12 is similar to 2008/09 at the trough of the global recession, Nicosia says.
USDA figures support the cotton industry leader's contention about decreasing demand.
In May of 2011, world cotton consumption was trending at about 119 million bales. By January 2012 the same trend line had dipped to less than 110 million bales.
The 10 million bale drop in world demand for cotton is based on two factors, Nicosia says.