Give gay pride back to the people, was the message shouted loud and clear at a debate on how to save the future of London’s troubled LGBT festival.
Around 200 people packed into Heaven nightclub in the UK capital’s center tonight (25 July) to take part in a discussion on this year’s event, which was heavily scaled back at the last minute.
Passions were high as a panel of experts who have been involved in London pride faced questions from the public over why the parade on 7 July was reduced to a walking march with no floats and a Soho street party cancelled.
Gay Star News editor Tris Reid-Smith chaired the debate with Pride London interim chair Tony Hughes, Andy Woodfield, lead partner for LGBT issues at PricewaterhouseCoopers or PwC and Debbie Gold; chief executive of Galop, London’s LGBT hate crime charity, joining him on the panel.
Anton Johnson, LGBT officer of the Greater London Association of Trades Union Councils, Kerry Chapman, vice chair of the Westminster Gay Business Forum, which represents the ‘scene’ businesses of Soho, and Conservative Greater London Assembly member Andrew Boff completed the team.
Members of the audience called almost unanimously for the event to return to its roots, with a more inclusive parade with all members of the community represented and for the party aspect of the event not to overshadow gay rights activism.
‘We have to develop a strategy around consulting the community,’ said transgender woman Diana Taylor.
‘Pride should be all about delivering the vision of the community.’
Panellist Gold shared this vision of pride’s future.
‘Pride has felt increasingly distant and disengaged from the community with little transparency or accountability. The organization has felt almost secretive,’ she said.
‘There’s no way of feeding into decision making and incomplete information for community groups and unions has often made us feel we’re very low priority.’
She added that many groups feel excluded from the parade, including the disabled, people with young children and transgender people.
The Galop chief executive said: ‘In the past, pride has said the right things about inclusivity but failed to deliver.
‘Sometimes the emphasis on the party part leads to the march being a poor relation and felt more like a procession – something to watch rather than participate in.’
While she emphasized the need for corporate sponsors, she added that she would like to see a ‘back to basics’ pride, with people allowed to join the parade for free.
‘If we have a party at the end, there’s no need for expensive performers. We can have just a giant picnic. If we give over space to the voluntary sector and unions, I know that we can pull off an amazing community space on a shoestring.’
The debate also heard repeated calls for more transparency on the funding of the event to avoid a repeat of this year’s cash crisis, with demands that an audit of Pride London’s finances be undertaken and for the current board to resign.
Pride London’s Hughes said an audit was a possibility and added that none of the current Pride London trustees would return to their posts when it holds its annual AGM meeting in September.
However, the issue of how best to fund pride in future divided both the panel and audience members.
While some suggested raising the money through charitable donations, others maintained the importance of corporate funding.
‘I’ve been a little bit disappointed by people who are debating about whether pride is being too commercial or too political,’ said activist Daniel, who marched with the Labour Party in this year’s event.
‘It’s about representing the gay community and that’s political, social and cultural. The corporate sponsorship is a way, along with public and charitable funding, of financing and facilitating all of those things. And in a world city like London, it’s essential that we allow corporate sponsors in a professional way.’
He suggests that the way to bring about change is to attend Pride London’s annual meeting and have a debate then about what sort of representatives people want on the board.
He said: ‘Once we have a representative board, then you can put in all those structures that you need to execute the plan.’
The public meeting was organized by Gay Star News and club and bar brand G-A-Y with the help of London gay scene magazines Boyz and QX.
Comments
H Good post.This is a very nice blog I wonder why the other of this sector do not notice this. am sure this post has helped me save many hours of browsing other similar posts just to find what I was looking for. Thanks! edifier h285
Coach Handbags
with my parents
cheap burberry handbags
house for the summer
wholesale designer purses
preparing for the university
coach outlet online
and was in no hurry
coach outlet coach
interfered with my freedom
cheap designer bags
parting with my last tutor
cheap designer purses
never been able to get
furla handbags
that he had fallen
gucci handbags
sluggishly in bed with
gucci wallet
exasperation on his face
hermes handbags
with careless kindness
jimmy choo handbags
though she had no
cheap juicy couture handbags
cares completely
juicy couture wallet
young and very handsome
cheap louis vuitton bags
her from mercenary
cheap louis vuitton wallet
ten years older than
mk purses
was for ever agitated
mk wallet
very much afraid of him
prada handbags
never seen a man more
prada wallet
at the country house.
roberto cavalli handbags
we left town on the
louis vuitton outlet
about in our garden
louis vuitton bags
beyond the town gates
louis vuitton belts
often than anythingt
louis vuitton store
a great deal of
Louis Vuitton Damier bags
and my heart ached
handbags louis vuitton
hope and anticipation
louis vuitton sunglasses
frightened of something
louis vuitton louis vuitton handbags
wonder at everything
louis vuitton wallets
imagination played continually
outlet louis vuitton
about the same fancies
louis vuitton handbags
the tears and through
louis vuitton purses bags
inspired by a musical verse
louis vuitton men bags
in spring the delicious
louis vuitton monogram bags
and effervescent
louis vuitton bags handbag
gallop and fancy
purses louis vuitton
my face towards
cheap louis vuitton
its shining radiance
louis vuitton purses
that time the image
louis vuitton sale
arose in definite shape
bags louis vuitton
presentiment of something new
louis vuitton louis vuitton purses
settled for the summer
louis vuitton bags purses
in the lodge on
louis vuitton wallet
for the manufacture
coach purses
once strolled that way
cheap handbags purses
at about a dozen thin
cheap handbags and purses
boys with greasy smocks
outlet coach online
jumping on to wooden
coach online outlet
pressed down the square
cheap coach purses
blocks of the press
coach purses outlet
struck off the variegated
cheap purses and handbags
lodge on the right
cheap purses handbags
and was to let
purses and handbags cheap
lodge were drawn up
cheap gucci bags
had installed themselves
purses handbags wholesale
inquired of the butler
wholesale purses handbags
hearing the name of
wholesale handbags purses
observed with some respect
handbags purses wholesale
three hired flies
handbags and purses wholesale
he handed a dish
cheap louis vuitton handbags
their own carriage
wholesale purses and handbags
so much the better
china handbags
not be a rich woman
china purses
so dilapidated and small
prada bags
have consented to
purses from china
went in at one ear and
bags from china
had just been reading
I take issue with the claim that "demands that an audit of Pride London’s finances be undertaken". The original suggestion from the floor was for an independent "investigation" to take place into what had gone wrong this year. This got transmuted by the panel, particularly the chair, into an "audit". I heard no one call for this to be JUST about Pride London's finances. I believe a much wider look at the failings needs to take place for the problems to be identified and learnt from. I don't believe that all this year's problems were entirely financial or that the fault lies 100% with the Pride Board.
Clearly the current Pride Board has systemic problems of transparency and openness, if anything I would say that was the major theme of the first part of the evening rather than finances. That the current Chair of the Pride Board could claim that he was not privy to certain information about the situation because he has only been Chair since the Thursday before Pride, despite being on the Board tells a huge amount about the organisations opaqueness.
But it isn't just Pride London that needs to be looked at. We had a representative from the GLA last night but no one from Westminster Council to whom we could address the various rumours of their obstructiveness and lack of co-operation. This could be vital for decision making regarding future Pride events. Should Pride be reversed with the march starting in the West End or Whitehall but heading out of Westminster for any festival/rally/party at its end? Could Westminster be coerced into being more supportive using the gay scene's undoubted economic benefit to the borough as leverage? Should a wider audit include research into the economic benefits it brings to the locality.
It should be noted that a wider investigation/audit as was suggested would be beyond the remit of a Charities Commission wind up as suggested by one panellist. Which brings me to a subsequent point about corporate involvement. It was suggested that with a representative of PricewaterhouseCoopers' LGBT employees group on the panel that there most be some access to the skillset needed for an audit. This was batted back from that panellist as something he wouldn't want to be involved with. As an individual that is completely fair enough. However, he had earlier spoken (I don't want to single out this individual but he was representing corporate involvement in Pride) about how his company valued its involvement in Pride as it got out their message that they welcomed and respected diversity. Great, that is an important message to get across. I am quite happy for corporations to use Pride to tell the world that they support diversity and their doing so will attract potential employees who hold similar values dear so they get to pick the best candidates from a wider applicant pool. Likewise it will attract business from individuals and other companies who hold those values. But let us not forget that they are using Pride as a promotional tool for their ethics. They should be prepared to give back for that "added ethical value" even along the lines of pro-bono professional work when there is a pressing and obvious need for it