Blog

Recent press coverage of two stories of paedophilia, including a child rape case, has prompted this post in which we examine the safeguarding failures inherent in the unquestioning support for the trans/queer/LGBTQ+ movement. This one group has achieved a protected status within society which is aggressively maintained by political parties, local councils, media, and by those whose job it is to protect children, such as the police and schools.

LGBTQ+ activists have created an environment that makes it easier for predators to have contact with vulnerable children, and society has either colluded or looked the other way. No one group in society should be given a free pass as we should understand from previous child sex abuse scandals involving trusted groups such as the Catholic church or the Scouts.

We would like to credit the X/Twitter accounts @ripx4nutmeg and @Women_of_Surrey for their investigative work which we have drawn on in this post.

Paedophiles and child sex offenders

This month Stephen Ireland, co-founder of Pride in Surrey and former patron of Queer & Trans charity Educate and Celebrate, was convicted of a series of child sex offences including the rape of a 12 year-old boy.

Ireland was found guilty at Guildford Crown Court of three counts of causing a child under the age of 13 to engage in sexual activity, one count of sexual assault of a child under 13 and six counts of making indecent images of children.

David Sutton, who also volunteered with Pride in Surrey, was found guilty of three counts of making indecent photographs of children and one count of possession of an extreme pornographic image.

The current CEO of Pride in Surrey, Charlie Watts, has known Stephen Ireland since at least 2014 and was in a relationship with him for many years. The current Volunteer Manager and Director of the Pride Hub, Sam Powell, was also previously in a relationship with Ireland.

This is not the first example of paedophiles infiltrating Pride. In 2020 a convicted sex offender was appointed Chair of Swindon and Wiltshire Pride less than two years after being released from prison. And in 2023 the organiser of Welshpool Pride admitted to a charge of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. The 61 year-old man had been banned from having access to children for over 15 years.

The other major scandal concerns trans charity LGBTYouth Scotland. Last year, 39-year-old Andrew Easton was convicted in Aberdeen of sharing thousands of disturbing images of children, including newborn babies. Officers discovered 32 video files, many of which were of the most serious category A and featuring children aged between four and eight years old. He was caught by officers when communicating online with someone he believed to be a vulnerable 13-year-old who he tried to convince to send him explicit pictures.

Easton was a volunteer for LGBTYouth Scotland. In 2010 he co-authored their pamphlet for schools, called Coming Out, aimed at helping children express a trans identity.

This was not the first scandal exposed at the Scottish government-funded charity. In 2009, former CEO of the charity, James Rennie, was jailed for 14 offences, including producing child pornography and molesting a young boy from the age of just three months old. The crimes took place while he was CEO.

Rennie was one of the ringleaders of Scotland’s largest paedophile ring together with Neil Strachan. The two men had recorded themselves sexually abusing children and had then used the internet to distribute the images. Altogether, eight men held 125,000 images and videos of child abuse. LGBTYouth Scotland has been dogged by child sexual abuse allegations yet there has never been an inquiry.

These are horrific cases with thousands of child victims, perpetrated by members of the ‘LGBTQ+ community.’

The LGBTQ+ movement

We discuss the recent LGBTQ+ movement as distinct from the previous Gay Rights movement and Gay Pride. Many gay and lesbian people support this new alphabet grouping of disparate identities, many don’t. Malcolm Clarke has written clear-sightedly about some of the darker aspects of gay culture, and Gareth Roberts has examined the accountability of sections of the gay community for welcoming in trans ideology, in his book Gay Shame.

But it is a fact that the addition of the ‘TQ+’ has changed both the meaning and the campaign aims of the movement. If a group or organisation describes themselves as LGBT they are a trans rights group, fully subscribed to the concepts of Queer Theory and ‘gender identity.’ There is only one charity existing now that is exclusively for gay and lesbian people: the LGB Alliance, founded in 2019 specifically as an alternative to the newly-transed Stonewall.

Gay rights were achieved step-by-step through decades of patient work to win over the public. But it was only with the addition of the ‘T’ that the movement suddenly became feted, promoted and untouchable. Together with exclusively trans support organisations, LGBT groups have been above scrutiny. Why? One would be hard pressed to think of another group that has been not only protected but actively and aggressively promoted throughout society, along with harsh sanctions for those who question it. Uniquely for an adult social justice cause, particularly one based on sexuality, the LGBTQ+ has also been given free rein to directly target children.

The so-called LGBTQ+ movement is a queer/trans movement; the LGB just provides the cover. It enjoys unprecedented protection and exemption from scrutiny. That fact alone would obviously make it a magnet for predators.

But there are other obvious factors about this new movement that would attract the wrong people.

An adult sexual rights movement

Adding ‘T’ to ‘LGB’ added heterosexual fetishistic cross-dressers to the ‘community.’ The addition of the ‘Q’ added people who ‘queer’ the boundaries of sex and gender, childhood and adulthood. The ‘plus’ specifies no limit.

The loose grouping of trans/queer/plus could include anyone with any niche sexual preference. Anyone can join this protected group as none of the identities within it require proof; it is based only on an individual’s say-so. There is no ceiling on the ‘plus’, it could include any fetish, kink, perversion or paraphilia, but defining yourself as ‘Queer’, ‘trans’ or ‘LGBT’ provides cover. Anything goes and anything can be covered up. There is no definition and no boundary to what is included in ‘sexual minorities.’ Fetishes are now openly displayed and celebrated at Pride.

It is no coincidence that age-inappropriate sexual practices, including some that are harmful or even illegal, have been taught in RSHE since the previous government guidance stipulated in 2019 that the curriculum must be ‘LGBT inclusive’. And no coincidence that primary schools are now inviting in drag queens and celebrating Pride.

Erasure of boundaries

If the adults want their sexually-unboundaried group, let them have it. But why is it being celebrated and promoted to children?

Identifying as ‘LGB’ simply denotes sexual orientation, a defined descriptor. However, encouraging a same-sex attracted adolescent to view themselves as a ‘member of the LGBTQ+ community’ places them in a category that includes heterosexual adults with a range of unspecified sexual identities. Calling children ‘trans’ does the same.

In adding the TQ+ to the LGB it is the children with emerging LGB sexual orientations who are the most vulnerable. Their ‘support groups’ now put them at risk.

The boundary between adult and child is blurred by this categorisation of children. Calling a child a member of the ‘LGBTQ+ community’ places the child in a group with adults with an undefined range of sexual interests, adult sexualities and adult concepts of identity. Labelling children ‘trans’ was the mechanism by which society was persuaded that this was appropriate for even the youngest children. And how quickly ‘trans children’ have become ‘LGBTQ+ children.’

It is not as if these adult sexual themes are hidden by trans organisations. The most prominent child trans charity in the UK, Mermaids, has been involved in some very questionable live-streamed fundraising campaigns with audiences of children and young people.

Fundraising campaigns for the charity have included adult drag events and a drag queen calendar displaying Mermaids’ logo. The “mer-mazing” calendar, as Mermaids promoted it on Twitter/X, included ‘glamour’ poses and an image of a BDSM dungeon, described by the Daily Mail as one of the ‘more raunchy’ pages.

Mermaids hit the headlines in 2022 for appointing a trustee who had spoken at a conference promoting support for paedophiles, reportedly using the term “minor-attracted persons” in his presentation.

Demolishing safeguarding

The adultification of children is not the only boundary that is erased; the ‘T’ erases the boundary between the sexes. Establishing ‘gender identity’ as the rule and personal identity as the truth makes it ‘bigoted’ to express personal sexual boundaries. The ‘T’ also erases the boundary between gay and straight. A heterosexual man may call himself a lesbian and by this self-declaration absolve himself of the responsibility to respect the sexual boundaries of same-sex attracted women.

LGBTQ+ is an ideological construct that demolishes safeguarding by blurring the boundary between male/female and adult/child. The new alphabet acronym does not protect a coherent group of people, it protects an idea that is anti-reality and anti-safeguarding.

LGBTQ+ groups

So we have to ask the question: what kind of person would promote such an idea to children? There are several possibilities:

• The true believer who sees nothing wrong with teaching children ‘gender identity’ as fact because they believe it’s the truth, and nothing wrong with promoting all the rest because of ‘diversity and inclusion.’

• The well-meaning person who thinks it’s still all about gay rights, or something similar.

• The person who wants to appear to be tolerant, progressive or kind, who doesn’t think too deeply about what it is they are supporting and whether it is appropriate for children.

• The saviour who is messianic in their support for any group they perceive to be marginalised and in need of rescuing.

• The opportunist who wants to violate boundaries and sees an irresistible chance to do so within a movement that promotes the blurring of boundaries as its raison d’être, and safe in the knowledge that no-one dares question it.

Of the five broad categories outlined here, it is extreme naivety to discount the possibility of the last one. The common factor in all these cases is that child and adolescent development and the safeguarding of children is either misunderstood, not considered, or wilfully ignored.

LGBTQ+, as with any other group, should not be above suspicion. In fact we should be especially concerned about the specific factors within the movement that would attract the wrong people. Is this a suitable movement to get children involved with in the first place? Anyone who understands child safeguarding would say no.

Parallels have been drawn between LGBTQ+ and the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in terms of adoption by some parts of the establishment persuaded by so-called ‘progressive’ ideas of children’s autonomy, agency and rights. PIE conflated its cause with gay rights just as LGBTQ+ has done, presenting similar claims of children’s early sexuality. But the new LGBTQ+ movement covers up a very adult agenda with colourful flags, rainbows, glitter and iconography designed specifically to appeal to children. This provides a powerful distraction from the motives of some members of the ‘community.’

The lessons learned by the eager embrace of a paedophile movement by some organisations and public figures in the Seventies should be remembered when a new movement comes along that treats children as adults. The difference now is that this new movement is heavily promoted to children themselves.

Promotion to children

Schools are advised to set up LGBTQ+ lunchtime clubs in school, where children can find belonging as long as they adopt a gender/sexual identity, and the older children can influence the younger ones. A teacher who wrote for us on his experience of one such club began to have serious safeguarding concerns as he witnessed how it worked.

“I looked after this group for about 18 months. In that time, I witnessed dozens of teenagers shopping around for different sexual and gender identities with each other.”

Schools are also advised to direct children to external LGBTQ+ groups, which typically mix adults and children together in meetings and events. The SPACE LGBTQ+ Youth Club in Bath runs sessions for ‘young people’ aged 13-21; this is just one such example of many that use the euphemism ‘young people’ to disguise the fact that children are mixed in with adults.

Pride organisations now directly target children through Youth Engagement schemes and celebrations in schools, including primary schools. This is feedback on Happy Valley Pride from a parent:

“My 10 year old son was very excited when Happy Valley Pride was talked about so positively in his school. It sent out a clear message to him and all the pupils that the valley celebrates diversity and people should be proud of their sexuality.”

Mermaids famously uses Pride events to recruit vulnerable children, enticing them with the promise of ‘awesome glitter tattoos.’

We have written extensively about the promotion of trans ideology and Queer Theory in schools. Pride month is now routinely celebrated in many schools. A group that is promoted by teachers will obviously be trusted by children: teachers are adults with authority. Children have no reason not to trust that teachers want to keep them safe.

But there are also adults in positions of authority outside of school who strongly reinforce this message to children. Adults such as doctors and, most influentially, the police.

Police endorsement

If an advocacy group is endorsed and celebrated so enthusiastically by the police, it’s a clear stamp of approval. Painting patrol cars in baby pink and blue or the progress pride flag and joining in Pride marches is not the kind of advocacy shown to any other ‘community.’ This kind of fawning allyship sends a message to the public ‘these are our mates and they’re untouchable.’ Predators will notice this and so will the children who are now encouraged to join in all the fun.

@ripx4nutmeg has written an exposure of the rotten core of Pride in Surrey, the ignored warnings and the continued promotion of the organisation as if there is nothing to see here. Surrey Police even went into a school spreading a cheery Diversity and Inclusion message, allegedly after indecent images had already been found on Stephen Ireland’s phone.

Concealment of red flag warnings

A current legal case of harassment and discrimination involving a female trainee police constable with the Metropolitan Police is instructive in how suspicious behaviour is transformed into completely justifiable and acceptable behaviour simply by the claimed identity of the suspect.

Under normal circumstances complaints by a man that he is not permitted to perform intimate body searches of women would be considered suspicious. His motives for being a police officer and his suitability for the job would be called into question. But reasonable suspicion is turned into total acceptance solely because he self-identifies as a woman, according to the Detective Superintendent being cross-examined in this case.

The principle can be extended to the whole trans/queer movement. Consider this advice given to schools: boys and girls must be able to share toilets, changing-rooms and even overnight accommodation on school trips. Schools should keep secrets from a child’s parents if the child requests it.

Under normal circumstances such advice would be recognised as in breach of safeguarding and discounted. Adults advising this kind of policy would be viewed with some suspicion. But because it comes under the banner of trans/LGBT, normal rules don’t apply; suddenly it is about kindness, human rights, diversity and inclusion. A group advocating for anti-safeguarding policies should be seen as a red flag warning; instead society has been willing to discard all the rules that keep children safe. The rainbow flag blots out all view of the red flag underneath.

Bullying and silencing

The strategy for establishing the protection of this group has been the bullying and silencing of people who object to any aspect of it, or continue to believe and state biological facts, no matter how politely. The sheer number of employment tribunals and settlements made to people who have lost their jobs, and those driven out by bullying for their ‘gender critical’ beliefs is testament to the full-scale takeover of society by the trans lobby.

This in itself is a safeguarding failure where it applies to children. In the NHS, in schools, in children’s publishing and media, in academia: where different views are silenced children are put at risk. But what marks out this particular movement is the fact that it is children themselves who are taught not to question it; to not only accept but to celebrate it, and to trust without question that all those who profess an identity within this group are the good guys.

Not only that, but they must do it actively. Perhaps the most questionable, if not the most chilling, instruction given to children is on how to be a ‘good ally’ to this disparate group of people with an undefined range of different sexualities and identities.

What simpler way to gain a child’s trust than to self-identify as LGBTQ+? And how easy we have made it for predators like James Rennie, Andrew Easton and Stephen Ireland.

Download a pdf of this post.