‘If the council had listened to me, this paedophile would have been stopped'
After all, the council itself had given Pride in Surrey tens of thousands of pounds in funding, and her concerns were about the protection of potentially vulnerable young people who came into contact with the LGBTQ organisation, which was set up in 2018 by local activist, Stephen Ireland.
Harding, 62, and her wife, Cathy, 59, had volunteered for Pride in Surrey, but both had a number of worries about Ireland's conduct, not least that he had appointed himself head of safeguarding – a role that, according to guidance for voluntary bodies, should 'not be the most senior person in the organisation'.
Ireland had sole responsibility for the group's LGBTQ 'helpline' for young people – meaning he had direct access to vulnerable children.
Volunteers were also concerned that Ireland appeared to be in a polyamorous relationship involving a young man, and that social media posts by Pride in Surrey celebrated 'fetishes' – some involving young people – while Ireland was in charge.
Harding wrote to Joanna Killian, the chief executive of Surrey County Council, outlining some of her concerns, including that Ireland was in a relationship with a young man 'who is barely 18', in what amounted to an 'abuse of power from a person in a position of trust, and could cause the wrong message to go out to young, vulnerable gay people'.
In an email to Harding on Oct 19 2021, Killian said: 'With your permission, I would like to raise these concerns directly with Pride in Surrey CIC's management. Although we cannot investigate these matters directly as Pride is an independent organisation, we take seriously the concerns raised about the event we sponsored and the organisation itself – the latter of which we would normally wish to engage with again on similar events in future.
'I am particularly concerned about the safeguarding concerns you have raised – both in respect of the specific case you cite, but also in respect of the qualifications of those managing Pride.'
Today, Harding feels deep anger.
In March this year, Stephen Ireland, 41, was convicted at Guildford Crown Court of raping a 12-year-old boy, along with additional counts of causing a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, sexual assault and making indecent images.
His partner David Sutton, 27, a volunteer at Pride in Surrey, was convicted of offences including making indecent photographs and possessing extreme pornographic images.
Both were also found guilty of voyeurism and perverting the course of justice by deleting phone data after becoming aware of the investigation. Ireland pleaded guilty to possessing 274 prohibited images of children and possessing an extreme pornographic image, while Sutton pleaded guilty to distributing a category A indecent photograph of a child, distributing three category B indecent photographs of a child, and possessing 64 prohibited images of children. On Monday, Ireland was sentenced to 30 years in prison and Sutton received a minimum 54-month sentence.
'I've gone through a whole gamut of emotions from anger to frustration as to why did nobody listen?' says Harding, who lives with Cathy in Guildford. 'Because maybe if they had, there wouldn't have been so many people harmed by this man and David Sutton.
'They [Surrey County Council] said they would investigate and report back, but it went silent. And after a while I stopped chasing, because I didn't need to be reminded of what this man was.
'Last summer, when I heard about his arrest and what he'd done, it made me sick to my stomach to think what these poor kids had gone through. If we had been listened to, there was a very high chance it would not have happened.'
'It was like rubbing salt in the wound'
The Pride in Surrey case has sparked questions about what safeguarding concerns the local councils were aware of before the pair were arrested in April 2024. It wasn't just local councils that had formal ties to Surrey Pride. Until earlier this year, Surrey Police listed the organisation on its website as a 'partner agency' that 'can also offer information, advice, and support' on LGBTQ issues, in addition to the force's LGBTQ liaison officers.
Harding and Cathy are not the only people who tried to raise the alarm. The Telegraph has spoken to several Surrey residents who reported safeguarding concerns as long as six years ago with Surrey council, Guildford Borough Council and Woking Borough Council, which also had ties with Surrey Pride.
But no action appears to have been taken. Surrey County Council has, according to a Freedom of Information request, funded Pride in Surrey to the tune of more than £140,000 for various events and projects since 2020, including £24,275 for the year 2024-2025. Earlier this month, weeks after Ireland's conviction, Guildford Borough Council announced that 'Surrey Pride will be returning to Guildford' for a parade in October – the sixth annual Pride event in Surrey, and the second time it has taken place in Guildford. It included a hyperlink to the website of Pride in Surrey.
The decision astonished those who had been trying to raise the alarm.
'I contacted Guildford Borough Council after the news about him being arrested and about the level of charges, and they didn't want to listen,' says Harding.
'I emailed Zöe Franklin [Lib Dem MP for Guildford] and Julia McShane [Lib Dem leader of the council] asking how they could let this event go ahead. Again, I got a very bland reply from Zöe that what was happening in court had nothing to do with the current Pride in Surrey.
'It was like they were rubbing salt in the wound, allowing them to have a Pride in Guildford again this year. There's an awful lot of bad feeling within the community in Guildford and those of us who are Guildford Borough Council taxpayers are thinking: 'What are you doing?''
Franklin and McShane say they were not aware of any concerns about Ireland before his arrest.
Pride in Surrey issued a statement after the guilty verdicts in March this year saying that both men were merely 'volunteers', and that they had been 'removed' from the organisation in June 2024, after initial investigations by Surrey Police.
Harding, who works as a driver for the disabled, claims the usual safeguarding role played by councils seemed to go 'out of the window' with Pride in Surrey.
'Cathy and I had joined in 2018 to help with the very first Pride event the following year in Woking, which was very successful,' she says.
'We would hang out socially with Stephen and his fiancé at the time. They were a gay couple and we were a gay couple and we really didn't have any concerns.
'But then Covid hit and the events had to stop, and afterwards, several things happened that we really weren't happy about.
'Stephen had appointed himself as a safeguarding officer of Pride in Surrey, which didn't sit right with us at all.
'I've worked with vulnerable adults and children much of my life, so I'm DBS checked and well trained in safeguarding, and knew that the founder of an organisation shouldn't be in charge of safeguarding.
'He'd also set up a helpline called You Are Not Alone, for young LGBT people if they were struggling. It was a texting service. They could text in and if they wanted to talk to him, they could.
'He wouldn't relinquish that phone to anyone. I offered numerous times to take it at the weekends to give him a break, as I knew some of the calls could be quite traumatic and that vulnerable children could be calling, but he wouldn't.
'Other people – at least ten – had expressed concerns about his behaviour,' says Harding, including an alleged 'polyamorous' relationship which involved a young man.
Initially, Harding raised the issues with other Pride in Surrey staff, including its then chief operating officer, Lisa Finan-Cooke, who is now a Lib Dem councillor. Harding says her concerns were 'pooh-poohed'.
'A few of us were talking about how we needed him removed from the organisation, and we asked for a meeting in August 2021, where it all blew up,' she says.
'At one point I said to Stephen: 'If you're bringing polyamory under the LGBT umbrella, what next – rapists and paedophiles?' He went absolutely loopy, ordering me out of the room. That was the last official contact I had with them.
'We were due to go to Pride in Godalming, and I'd already got tickets. But the night before, I received an email from Lisa Finan-Cooke saying that they'd cancelled my tickets and, due to my 'discriminatory nature', we were barred from attending, and that Surrey Police had been told.
'I also received a cease and desist letter saying that because I was 'discriminatory', I wasn't to talk about Pride in Surrey on my socials.'
Finan-Cooke, who left Pride in Surrey in May 2023, says she and others took safeguarding concerns 'extremely seriously', adding: 'Concerns were raised, although they did not relate to the charges against Mr Ireland, and these were investigated and reported to the authorities as appropriate.' Finan-Cooke says she welcomed the conviction of Ireland and Sutton.
'I will always regret not doing more'
Harding and Cathy say they were two of seven Pride in Surrey volunteers to walk away from the organisation at that point. The couple emailed Surrey County Council with their concerns and Harding believes that another four people also contacted them.
'I emailed them to raise safeguarding concerns and spoke to (then chief executive) Joanna Killian via email a few times, who said she would look into it, but nothing ever happened,' says Harding.
'It just went silent. Today [Ireland] has done an extraordinary amount of damage and the sentencing isn't going to put that right, but what's getting under a lot of people's skin right now, is the fact that Pride in Surrey is still going.'
Another Surrey resident agrees. It was in July 2019, after spotting photographs of Pride marches in Leeds and Manchester, that she first raised concerns with her local authority – Woking Borough Council – about a Pride in Surrey event which was due to take place in Woking the following month.
'I'm a supporter of gay rights and had been to Pride before, and it was always a fun day out and very family friendly,' says the woman, a marketing manager and married mother-of-one.
'But that year, I'd seen images of people in leather 'pup-play' fetish gear, such as masks and dog collars, which particularly worried me as children as young as two or three were being encouraged to pet them. As a mother of a then three-year-old son, I didn't want him exposed to that. I asked if this kind of 'fetish' was going to be allowed at Woking Pride.
'The woman at Woking Borough Council sent a reply reassuring me that, 'Pride in Surrey have been working closely with Surrey Police and youth organisations, to make the first Pride in Surrey a truly inclusive event that adheres with UK law.'
'She suggested I get in touch with the organiser – Stephen Ireland – who didn't really answer my question, and when I asked again, he was slightly aggressive. In the end, I decided I wouldn't attend. I wasn't at all surprised when I saw pictures of people in this leather fetish gear, playing out their kink in the middle of Woking Pride.
'I raised a formal safeguarding complaint with Surrey County Council and spoke to a safeguarding officer, who said that exposure to these 'pups' sounded like non-contact child abuse, but agreed that the evidence was weak and it would be difficult to take forward.
'She suggested I could contact Surrey Police, but as their support of Pride in Surrey was obvious, I didn't have the energy. I will always regret not doing more, but – as I've since discovered – like many other women, we did what we could at the time.'
One is Louise*, herself part of the LGBTQ community, who says she felt 'an immediate sense of unease' when she stumbled upon a Pride in Surrey social media post in 2021, 'celebrating' International Fetish Day.
'The image was striking,' she says. 'It was Ireland holding a leash, with someone in a dog mask on all fours. As a bisexual woman I don't feel that 'fetish' is part of my 'community', and my instinct told me that there was something deeply unsettling about this organisation.' On further investigation, the person in the mask appeared to be a 17-year-old girl, says Louise.
'I was stunned. Where was the safeguarding? Given that my workplace had previous sponsorship of Pride in Surrey's annual event, I decided to voice my concerns, only to be swiftly shut down and accused of transphobia. It was one of the worst times of my life.'
Undeterred, Louise also wrote to other Pride in Surrey sponsors, including Surrey County Council and the district and borough councils, to express concern about their support for Pride in Surrey.
'Over four years, I must have written over a hundred emails in the hope that someone might look into the organisation and check the safeguarding,' she says. 'It wasn't just that one image. I noticed that they were visiting schools, and I worried that their message wouldn't simply be that it's OK to be gay or have two mummies, but might carry a more sinister message.
'Then they began a campaign to have Surrey's Police & Crime Commissioner Lisa Townsend removed from office because they decided she was 'transphobic', after she said that male-bodied people were not women. Wholly inappropriate given she is a democratically-elected official.
'But the response was always the same. Most didn't reply, or they said whilst they were taking my concerns seriously, they were committed to showing how inclusive and diverse they were.'
'Young people were badly let down'
It is this commitment to 'inclusiveness' that some say may have clouded the judgment of council and police officials over the activities of Ireland and Sutton within Pride in Surrey.
'Once again, we see paedophiles using the cover of the 'LGBTQIA+ community' to conceal their evil acts,' says Kate Harris of the charity LGB Alliance. 'Several people tried to alert those in leadership positions, and they were ignored – as far back as 2019. It is in the public interest for the facts to come out. Young lesbians and gays should expect to be protected from predators – safeguarding is the responsibility of every single one of us. In this appalling case, young people were badly let down.'
Terence Herbert, the chief executive of Surrey County Council, says that the organisation is 'reviewing any interactions regarding Stephen Ireland and Pride in Surrey during his time at the organisation. We are awaiting the conclusions of that review. While we wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community in Surrey, there is no funding currently committed to sponsoring Pride in Surrey.'
In a statement, Pride in Surrey says it 'takes safeguarding concerns extremely seriously and has safeguarding policies in place to respond to raised safeguarding concerns.
'Concerns were raised about Stephen Ireland that were unrelated to the charges against him. These concerns were investigated, and where necessary, reported to the appropriate authorities. The concerns were investigated in line with our safeguarding policy. Due to the importance of confidentiality in safeguarding procedures, we cannot comment publicly about specific details relating to safeguarding concerns. This is to ensure people can raise concerns with the assurance that they are heard in confidence.
'These investigations gave no indication that any wrongdoing had taken place.
'As per our statement released in March in relation to the verdicts regarding Mr Ireland and Mr Sutton, we express solidarity with and give our heartfelt thoughts to the victims and their families. We utterly condemn the crimes of both individuals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
30 minutes ago
- The Independent
Which tax rises could Rachel Reeves introduce to pay for the £5bn welfare U-turn?
This week's embarrassing climbdown on welfare saw the government's benefits reforms gutted almost entirely, while savings from the bill were slashed from £5bn to nothing. In the wake of the U-turn, there are now growing questions over how the government will raise the money to fill the black hole in the public finances. Ministers have already squeezed significant savings out of their departments in cuts that were unveiled at last month's spending review, meaning there is now a mounting expectation that the chancellor will be forced to raise taxes instead. But Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on 'working people' leaves the chancellor with a limited number of workable options. A few possibilities were floated by deputy prime minister Angela Rayner in a leaked memo to Rachel Reeves ahead of the spring statement, which saw her urge the chancellor to raise taxes - suggestions which were ignored. But perhaps this week's welfare climbdown will leave the chancellor with no option but to look again at Rayner's suggestions. Here, The Independent takes a look at a number of tax rises that the government could rely on to raise funds and balance the books. Tax threshold freezes The Treasury's most likely move would be to extend the freeze on income tax thresholds. This means that as wages rise with inflation, over the years workers are dragged into higher tax bands and end up paying more. A freeze on the threshold at which the higher 45 per cent tax rate is paid was one of the options suggested by Ms Rayner in her leaked memo. But there is growing speculation the government could extend the freeze across all tax brackets. It's a stealth tax, the impacts of which are not felt immediately, meaning it is normally better received among the general public compared with a direct hit to businesses or pay slips. But, if the freeze were extended to the end of the parliament, it could also bring in billions for the Treasury as earnings rise. The freeze, which is already planned to last until 2028, is expected to drag around two million workers into higher tax bands. Wealth tax There have been calls from Labour MPs on the left of the party to introduce a wealth tax, calls which have only grown in the wake of Tuesday's welfare climbdown. Rachael Maskell, the architect of the rebellion which forced the government into shelving key pillars of the bill, demanded the government increase taxes on the very richest to pay for the £5bn climbdown. Polling conducted by YouGov on behalf of Oxfam on the eve of the spring statement found more than three-quarters of people (77 per cent) would rather the government increase taxes on the very richest to improve public finances than see cuts to public spending. However, such a tax - which could look like a 2 per cent tax on net assets worth more than £10m - is thought to be very hard to implement, and could also lead to some of Britain's highest earners leaving the country. Pensions Ms Rayner also called for the lifetime pensions allowance to be reinstated. The allowance, which puts a cap on how much savers can put into their pension pot before a higher rate of tax is applied, was axed by the Tories. Labour had initially planned to reinstate the cap, but the plans were abandoned ahead of the election. However, amid the controversy over cutting winter fuel payments – and then later reversing the decision – the government may be hesitant to introduce any other policies which would upset pensioners. Corporation tax The chancellor could also look at increasing corporation tax for banks – one of the suggestions included in the deputy prime minister's memo. Politically, its fairly easy to tax banks as there is limited direct impact on voters. But it's important to note that banks in the UK are already highly taxed. They pay normal corporation tax of 25 per cent, plus a bank surcharge of 3 per cent. On top of this, they pay a bank levy of 0.1 per cent of their balance sheets. Dividends The deputy prime minister also proposed raising tax rates on dividends - a portion of a company's earnings received by a shareholder - for higher earners. Currently, tax is not paid on dividend income that falls within your income tax Personal Allowance. There is also a £500 dividend allowance each year, meaning individuals only pay tax on any dividend income above this. Removing it altogether would be worth £325 million a year, HMRC data indicates. However, there are concerns that raising dividend tax rates could discourage people from investing in companies – which is likely to have a net negative impact on the economy. Ms Rayner also suggested ending inheritance tax relief on shares listed on the smaller Aim stock market. The Aim stock market is a sub-market of the London Stock Exchange. From April 2026, qualifying Aim shares held at the time of death will be eligible for 50 per cent relief from inheritance tax - but Ms Rayner has suggested ending this entirely. While these changes might make businesses uncomfortable, they're actually unlikely to raise much money for the Treasury – meaning it's a less likely option for the chancellor.
Sky News
37 minutes ago
- Sky News
Chancellor Rachel Reeves addresses tearful PMQs, saying 'When I'm having a tough day, it's on the telly'
The chancellor has said she was having a "tough day" yesterday in her first public comments since appearing tearful at Prime Minister's Questions. Rachel Reeves told broadcasters: "Clearly I was upset yesterday and everyone could see that. It was a personal issue and I'm not going to go into the details of that. "My job as chancellor at 12 o'clock on a Wednesday is to be at PMQs next to the prime minister, supporting the government, and that's what I tried to do. "I guess the thing that maybe is a bit different between my job and many of your viewers' is that when I'm having a tough day it's on the telly and most people don't have to deal with that." She declined to give a reason behind the tears, saying "it was a personal issue" and "it wouldn't be right" to divulge it. "People saw I was upset, but that was yesterday. Today's a new day and I'm just cracking on with the job," she added. The chancellor's comments come after the prime minister told Sky News' political editor Beth Rigby that he "didn't appreciate" that she was crying behind him at Prime Minister's Questions yesterday because the weekly sessions are "pretty wild", which is why he did not offer her any support while in the chamber. He added: "It wasn't just yesterday - no prime minister ever has had side conversations during PMQs. It does happen in other debates when there's a bit more time, but in PMQs, it is bang, bang, bang. That's what it was yesterday. "And therefore, I was probably the last to appreciate anything else going on in the chamber, and that's just a straightforward human explanation, common sense explanation." 1:03 Please refresh the page for the fullest version.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Greater Manchester police investigating over 1,000 grooming gang suspects
Greater Manchester police are investigating more than 1,000 grooming gang suspects, as a new report found the force was 'trying to provide a better service to those who have experienced sexual exploitation'. The force has made 'significant improvements' in how it investigates grooming gangs and other types of child sexual abuse offences, according to the report by His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services. The report looks at the way grooming gangs and other child sex offences are handled by the police, health bodies and the 10 councils across Greater Manchester. It said police have live investigations into 'multi-victim, multi-offender' child sexual exploitation cases involving 714 victims and survivors and 1,099 suspects. 'We found that since 2019, when Greater Manchester police started to review its non-recent child sexual exploitation investigations, the force has improved its understanding and approach to investigating allegations of child criminal and sexual exploitation,' the constabulary inspector, Michelle Skeer, said. 'It is clear that the force has, for many years, been trying to provide a better service to those who have or may have experienced sexual exploitation. 'But for some, trust and confidence in the police had been lost, and the force would not be able to rectify their experiences. 'It is vital that improvements are led by victims' experiences, and if they do come forward, they are supported, protected and taken seriously.' At a press conference, GMP's chief constable, Sir Stephen Watson, said those who had failed victims in the past 'should face justice like anyone else'. He continued: 'To those who are responsible for these repugnant crimes – as is now very apparent – we will pursue you relentlessly.' The chief constable said the role ethnicity played in grooming gang offending was a 'legitimate question' and may be explored in a future national inquiry. A recent report by Louise Casey found that Asian men were significantly over-represented as suspects in grooming gangs in Greater Manchester, saying authorities were in 'denial', and that more needed to be done to understand why this was the case. GMP is the only force in the country to set up a dedicated team to investigate grooming gangs, which it did in 2021, now called the child sexual exploitation major investigation team (CSE MIT), with about 100 staff and a ringfenced budget. The force approaches child sexual exploitation as it does serious and organised crime gangs, using specialist tactics. The report identified issues where improvements could be made in order to better address the issue and progress investigations. These included data sharing, with local councils sometimes not willing to provide detectives with information, leading to 'significant delays in investigations'. The report said intelligence provided by Manchester city council took months to arrive and 'was so heavily redacted that some pages contained only a few words'. So far the CSE MIT and the earlier grooming gang investigations have resulted in 42 convictions, with offenders imprisoned for a total of more than 430 years. Other investigations are ongoing, with several more trials scheduled. Also speaking at the press conference, Greater Manchester's mayor, Andy Burnham, said: 'I am confident in my view that the Greater Manchester system is in a demonstrably different and far stronger place today than it was when the failings happened.' 'The effect of the assurance review I commissioned has been to usher in widespread culture change across all GM bodies. Never again will any child here be labelled or dismissed when they come forward to report concerns,' Burnham added. 'Now the national inquiry is being put in place, we must allow victims the space and the right climate to have their voices heard, allow the actual truth to be established and accountability delivered.'
