Late on Monday evening a story appeared on Pink News; "Ben Summerskill: Stonewall Not Fighting for Gay Marriage Equality Because 'It Could Cost £5 Billion'."
This seemed quite a scoop - all the more impressive as Pink "News" hardly ever breaks a new story.
"The chief executive of LGB lobby group Stonewall, Ben Summerskill, this evening reportedly told a fringe meeting at the Liberal Democrat party conference that the group is not actively campaigning for marriage equality because it could cost a staggering £5 billion to implement..."
But after Summerskill made a complaint, Pink News have since "updated" it - and pulled the original (It is reprinted in full in the comments section after this) - and they have deleted the comments section "at the request of Stonewall while we continue to clarify other elements of the story."
Which is nice of them.
Stonewall have released an official statement which can be read here.
"Ben did not say for one moment that Stonewall objected to the motion that would be debated on Tuesday because it would cost £5bn.
"Ben pointed out, factually, that there was a cost to including provision of civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples in the motion. He suggested that ministers should publish the Treasury Impact Assessment that will have been carried out...
"We deeply regret that PinkNews chose to publish the story late at night without double-checking a single fact and without having troubled to attend either the meeting itself or a party conference at which such an important issue was being discussed."
Pink News had always said they'd taken their story from a blogger, Complicity, who attended the fringe meeting.
That'll learn 'em to believe anything they read on a gay blog.
During Monday's meeting Summerskill criticised Pink News for running an “unethical campaign” against Stonewall.
Pink News' publisher Ben Cohen - who presumably wrote the original news story - is a prime mover behind the open letter to Stonewall criticising their silence on marriage equality.
Fagburn thinks Stonewall's position - or rather their lack of one - on gay marriage is daft and indefensible.
Purely in PR terms it's turned into a fuck-up to rival the Papal Visit.
Stonewall's statement claims; "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."
Fair enough, but did Stonewall consult their members on, say, whether they should be lobbying for equalising the age of consent?
"Confrontation" isn't the first word that springs to mind when thinking about Stonewall or Pink News - Fagburn wonders if there is anything else behind this divine feud between Mr Ben Summerskill and Mr Ben Cohen?
Posts
