Senior aide to Labour's Wes Streeting AVOIDS jail after he flashed girl, 13, then followed her in terrifying ordeal
Terrified teen forced to bang on doors for help
CREEP AIDE Senior aide to Labour's Wes Streeting AVOIDS jail after he flashed girl, 13, then followed her in terrifying ordeal
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A SENIOR aide to Labour's Wes Streeting has avoided jail after he flashed a 13-year-old girl then creepily followed her.
Labour councillor and ex-parliamentary candidate Sam Gould performed a sex act on himself while sitting in a car in front of the teen.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
3
Sam Gould exposed himself to a 13-year-old girl
Credit: redbridge.gov.uk
When she ran away, the 33-year-old followed her into a cul-de-sac in Romford, Essex, during the terrifying ordeal last month.
The teen was forced to bang on doors for help before a passing motorist came to her rescue and noted down Gould's number plate.
He has now avoided jail and was instead handed a 22 week sentence, suspended for two years, after pleading guilty to two counts of indecent exposure.
The second charge relates to a woman who also saw him performing the indecent act in his Mini Cooper.
Barkingside Magistrates' Court was told the schoolgirl was walking to meet her pals when the horror unfolded.
Gould was tracked down by police and arrested later that day.
The girl's mum told The Sun how her daughter had been left "traumatised" by the incident and did not want to leave the house.
She added: 'If that member of the public hadn't stepped in, I dread to think what might have happened.'
Gould has since resigned from his role as a Redbridge councillor following his conviction.
Redbridge Council's Labour leader Kam Rai said he was "relieved" and backed plans to empower local authorities to remove councillors who commit serious crimes.
Before his resignation, Gould was able to remain on the council - despite being sacked from the Labour Party.
Following his plea, Health Secretary Mr Streeting said: 'There are no words to express my horror that a mother and her daughter have been put through this ordeal, and will have to deal with the trauma of it for some time to come.
'As soon as I was made aware of his arrest he was suspended, and as soon as the guilty plea was entered I took immediate steps to sack him through official HR processes.
'There are no excuses for his appalling behaviour."
3
Gould was a senior aide to Wes Streeting (pictured)
Credit: Alamy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Western Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Fears of damage to nature from Labour planning reforms overblown, minister says
Housing minister Matthew Pennycook hit out at criticism that the plans would allow developers to get away with damaging habitats if they contributed to a nature restoration fund, dubbed 'cash to trash'. Mr Pennycook dismissed concerns several times, including calling them 'misrepresentation', 'patently false', and saying some critics had 'flagrant misconceptions' of what the Bill would do. Campaigning groups, including the National Trust, RSPB, Wildlife Trusts and Marine Conservation Society have warned they believe the reforms will significantly weaken environmental law. They said it could allow developers to effectively disregard environmental rules, and increase the risk of sewage in rivers, flooding and the loss of woods and parks. It came as Labour faced a potential rebellion in the voting lobbies on Monday over the fears. One Labour MP encouraged the Government to 'rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation' as he tabled an amendment. However, Mr Pennycook said the current 'status quo' between the environment and development was not working. In turn, he said, proposed changes would lead to a 'win-win' for both. He said: 'The nature restoration fund will do exactly as its name suggests. It will restore, not harm nature. It is a smart planning reform designed to unlock and accelerate housing and infrastructure delivery while improving the state of nature across the country.' I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment Matthew Pennycook He later told MPs: 'I feel obliged to tackle a number of the most flagrant misconceptions head on. 'First, some have claimed that driven by a belief that development must come at the expense of the environment, the Government is creating a licence for developers to pay to pollute. A cash-to-trash model, as some have dubbed it. In reality, the nature and restoration fund will do the precise opposite. 'I have been consistently clear that building new homes and critical infrastructure should not, and need not, come at the expense of the environment. It is plainly nonsense to suggest the nature restoration fund would allow developers to simply pay Government and then wantonly harm nature.' Mr Pennycook said the money would be given to Natural England, which would develop plans on how to better preserve nature. In response to a question from shadow housing minister Paul Holmes about the capacity of Natural England to take on the responsibilities, Mr Pennycook said: 'We've been perfectly clear that this new approach is not a means of making unacceptable development acceptable.' He continued: 'Another claim put forward has been that the Bill strips protections from our protected sites and species, allowing for untrammelled development across the country. Again, I'm afraid this amounts to nothing less than wanton misrepresentation.' This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection Ellie Chowns Green Party MP Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) said the Office for Environmental Protection warned the Bill reduces environmental safeguards. 'This Bill constitutes a regression on environmental protection,' she said. Mr Pennycook said: 'The Government's view that the Bill is not regressive. Environmental delivery plans (EDPs) will secure improved environmental outcomes that go further than simply offsetting harm as required under current legislation.' Suggestions that the Bill would allow for the destruction of irreplaceable habitats or create irretrievable harm to them were 'patently false', he told MPs. The Conservatives accused the Government of 'greenwashing', over its plans. Mr Holmes said: 'While developers may cheer the ability to pay into a nature restoration fund instead of taking direct responsibility for mitigations, we should ask, is this really restoration, or is it greenwashing?' Mr Pennycook said the new laws were needed to 'speed up and streamline' Labour's housing target of 1.5 million homes, clean energy goals and aim to approve at least 150 'major economic infrastructure projects'. Labour MP Chris Hinchliff described the nature restoration fund as a 'kernel of a good idea', but added: 'The weight of evidence against how it has been drafted is overwhelming.' The North East Hertfordshire MP said his amendment 69 will give 'ministers the opportunity to rescue something positive from the wreckage of this legislation, ensuring environmental delivery plans serve their purpose without allowing developers to pay cash to destroy nature'. He added: 'It would ensure conservation takes place before damage, so endangered species aren't pushed close to extinction before replacement habitats are established, and it outlines that conservation must result in improvements to the specific feature harmed, protecting irreplaceable habitats like chalk streams.'
Scottish Sun
31 minutes ago
- Scottish Sun
Man who was on sperm donor TV show ‘raped partner when she tried to dump him', court told
The court was told the pair had dated until November 2022 but the woman got fed up with Kennedy allegedly slapping and kicking her TRIAL CLAIM Man who was on sperm donor TV show 'raped partner when she tried to dump him', court told Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) A MAN who was in a TV show called Britain's Super Sperm Donors raped his partner when she tried to dump him, a court was told. The woman, 23, said Mitchell Kennedy, 42, told her he'd be going away to help another female get pregnant. Sign up for Scottish Sun newsletter Sign up 2 Mitchell Kennedy is accused of raping his partner after she tried to dump him 2 Kennedy is on trial at the High Court in Aberdeen Credit: PA But she claimed he attacked her after she invited him round to her flat in Aberdeen so she could break up with him. She said Kennedy pinned her against a wardrobe before he stripped her naked then took his own clothes off. The woman told the city's High Court: 'He started to kiss me on my neck and on the top of my chest. 'He picked me up and took me to the bed. He ended up on top of me. I didn't want that. 'I told him 'No' multiple times. He didn't say anything at all. He just kept going.' The woman testified she met Kennedy on social media. But his online profile said he was 30 when he was really 38. She said in a video interview: 'He didn't tell me his real age. I found that through Google.' The court was told the pair had dated until November 2022 but the woman got fed up with Kennedy allegedly slapping and kicking her. She said: 'He is a sperm donor. He was talking about where he was going next. Lyons family insist rival Daniel crew had NOTHING to do with Spain shootings "He was going away to donate to someone in a few days' time.' Kennedy had appeared in the Channel 4 documentary in 2018. The woman alleged he raped her for up to 15 minutes. She told jurors her cousin phoned while she was in the toilet, cleaning herself up. The woman testified: 'I threw Mitch's clothes at him. I said you have to leave now. 'He just laughed. He eventually dressed very slowly.' She said she spoke to pals who were waiting outside her flat. The woman claimed: 'I said Mitch had raped me.' Her pals helped her put her bedding and clothes in black bags in case she wanted to go to the cops, the court heard, and she reported the alleged incident the following day. Mitchell denies rape plus physically and verbally abusing his ex-girlfriend between July 2021 and November 2022. The trial continues before Judge Graham Buchanan.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Rachel Reeves may have U-turned on winter fuel, but her problems are far from over
Standing in what appeared to be a garden centre to announce her latest U-turn on the pensioners' winter fuel payment, Rachel Reeves looked as if she was wilting a bit. Never at ease in front of a camera, the chancellor was more stilted than usual and didn't make much of an attempt to justify the change on any rational grounds. If this 'difficult decision' was the right thing to do last year, when the public finances were under pressure, one might ask: why is it the wrong thing to do this year, when the public finances are still under pressure, albeit for different reasons? She cannot, for reasons of pride, admit the U-turn is because of the recent electoral punishment-beating administered by an angry public – with the added force of Kemi Badenoch and Nigel Farage both declaring they'd restore the payment in full and immediately. She certainly cannot concede that this totem of her 'iron determination' to do whatever it took to achieve sustainable public finances has had to be tossed away, against her wishes, because the prime minister publicly ordered her to do so and her backbenchers increasingly demanded this hated policy be ditched. But she knows that everyone knows the truth – and to her credit, she cannot disguise her discomfort. She is in the worst of all worlds: she looks callous (even if she is not) but now she also looks weak, and will get few thanks for giving the winter fuel payment back (mostly). This is not a dream combination of attributes for a senior Labour figure or, for that matter, for a finance minister hoping to dazzle the markets. In fact, even in executing this U-turn she has somehow managed to botch things, by trying to retain some element of the means-testing she introduced last year, just to save face. So, even now, not all pensioners will receive their £200 or £300 (depending on age). Or rather, all will receive it initially, but some, not fantastically rich on an income of £35,000 or more, will find it entirely clawed back by HM Revenue and Customs through the self-assessment procedure. It would have been easier all round just to complete the U-turn: instead, Ms Reeves has stopped around the 170-degree mark. It hardly seems worth it. Even when it was first announced at the end of July last year, means-testing the WFP was an ill-conceived move. Of all the options available to her – and all chancellors, even in the tightest of binds, have choices – she plumped for the one that combined an incredibly modest saving (about £1.5bn) with the maximum political damage. Some 10 million active and motivated pensioners were ready to head to the nearest polling station at the earliest opportunity to make their displeasure clear. Too late, Ms Reeves and Liz Kendall pointed out how relatively generous the triple lock on the state pension was. Yet they didn't attempt to point out what a functioning NHS might do for the quality of life of older people. There was never so much as the faintest hint that an incoming Labour government would scrap something introduced by Gordon Brown and retained by the Conservatives since 2010. Making the U-turn announcement now, two days ahead of the comprehensive spending review was, presumably, an attempt to manage the news cycle – getting the good-but-embarrassing news out of the way. That might be shrewd, if the review does indeed show how the public services will 'live within their means' in the coming years, with welcome extra resources for the NHS, schools and the defence of the realm, restoring Ms Reeves's prestige. Yet the authority of the chancellor has been badly compromised by the missteps she's taken in her first year in office – unforced errors compounded by poor presentation. The so-called 'tractor tax' and an over-reliance on employers' national insurance contributions have also landed badly. As some old Treasury hands suggest, it feels very much as though her civil servants reached for their favourite policies when the inexperienced chancellor asked about options, and she accepted the recommendations all too readily, in a way her predecessors did not. Maybe the very real 'black hole' she inherited panicked her. It looks like it. At any rate, she is finding it even more difficult to resist her more powerful colleagues in the spending departments when they push for politically expedient solutions. We need not exaggerate matters, though. Ms Reeves is not like Kwasi Kwarteng being recalled from an IMF summit to be sacked by Liz Truss for delivering (her) mini-Budget in 2022. Nor is this a repeat of a dazed Norman Lamont staggering into Whitehall to announce that sterling was leaving the European ERM in 1992. Unlike in those episodes, the government's economic policy has not been destroyed by an adjustment of about £1bn in a social security budget of more than £300bn. But she knows that she is in a weakened position – and, with no following in the party, depends heavily on the confidence of the prime minister to survive. Sir Keir Starmer knows, as she does, that if he were to move her this early in the life of the government it would only make matters worse in every respect. For now, they're still in this together.
