Scores of people packed into St Luke’s Church Hall to hear from four of the five candidates standing in the Queen’s Park by-election.
Polling day for a seat on Brighton and Hove City Council is next Thursday (24 September) in the third by-election in the two-member ward since the local elections in May 2023.
It was called after Labour councillor Milla Gauge resigned over safeguarding concerns for gender-confused children.
At the hustings last night (Thursday 16 September), the candidates answered pre-submitted questions from members of St Luke’s Residents’ Association and, in the final half hour, questions from the floor.
The candidates who attended were Steve Gladwin (Labour), John Shepherd (Reform UK), Stefan Speckesser (Conservative) and Mark Strong (Green).
Liberal Democrat Rüdiger Dikty-Daudiyan, also known as Rüdi Dikty, submitted written answers which were printed out for residents to read because he was away on a business trip.
Ms Gauge’s resignation was the subject to three pre-submitted questions which each of the candidates addressed together.
The first said that Ms Gauge because she had been prevented from pursuing concerns about services for women who have experienced sexual violence and that the council had failed to assure her that it would comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling on single-sex services.
The candidates were asked if they would establish whether genuinely single-sex provision is currently available to women survivors of sexual violence in Brighton and Hove and if not to ensure it is.
The second question asked about gender assignment and toilet use, leaving many in the community, particularly children, vulnerable and rendering safeguarding a joke.
The questioner said that Ms Gauge resigned because her concerns for these groups were never addressed and asked what the candidates would do to address and resolve these concerns?
The final question said that Ms Gauge resigned after encountering repeated obstacles in trying to have pupil safeguarding concerns properly scrutinised, including concerns raised by parents. Candidates were asked what they would do differently?
Labour candidate Steve Gladwin said that the issue was complex and sensitive and noted that all the candidates were men.
He described himself as a heterosexual male, a father and grandfather and a former NHS director who wanted to hear people’s lived experience about the issues raised.
Mr Gladwin said that the allegations around the WellBN doctors’ surgery had been investigated in the right way by the integrated care board with NHS England.
He said: “I do not support the idea that this should have been investigated by the (council’s) Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I think we should work with the (committee) to see if going forward there is more that we need to do.
“But on this particular issue we need to give the NHS and the regulators the space to do so.”
He said that the council was already working on a strategy for providing safe spaces for women.
Reform UK’s John Shepherd said that it was a “frankly astonishing situation” to have another by-election.
He said: “A local Labour councillor goes to her group, expresses concerns that residents have brought to her doorstep and she’s rebuffed. She’s told: ‘You’re not gonna talk about it. You leave it alone.’
“The councillor perseveres, so I’m told, and it’s not hearsay, we have Milla’s resignation statement.
“So she perseveres, and she goes to officers, they report back to the leader and she’s told to ‘shut up’ and has no other opportunity to her other than to resign.”
Mr Shepherd said that he was a gay man with trans friends who don’t understand what the fuss is about.
When it comes to children, he said, children go to school to learn the “three Rs” and anything else should involve parents.
Conservative Stefan Speckesser spoke about “safeguarding first” and agreed with the need for scrutiny after the report into WellBN was published in June, which he understood was with the General Medical Council.
On schools, he said: “There have been non-consistent procedures applied across different schools, some of which might be undefined for the past few years, and what has been established as adequate safeguarding of young people around such matters.
“It would be valuable to have a systematic evaluation of our safeguarding is undertaken in schools to understand where there are inconsistences.”
On single sex services, he said that there was clarity from the Supreme Court and the council was legally bound to align its services on the definition of biological sex.
He would ask for an audit because of inconsistencies, ask questions and get answers.
Green candidate Mark Strong said that he was proud to share a city with people who can be gay and can express themselves openly through a scale of gay, lesbian, transgender and non-conforming people.
Mr Strong said: “I’m from a generation that remembers the AIDs crisis. I remember ‘section 28’. This is repeating ‘section 28’.
“This is about villifying trans people. Other European countries have a minority and they get on and it works fine. Why in this country has it been roused to push a finger at trans people?
“This is all stirred up to try to create division.”
On safeguarding, he said that it should be carried out with children’s interests in mind, not parents or schools because “children come first”. This was, he said, a “made up issue”.
In his written responses, Liberal Democrat Rüdiger Dikty-Daudiyan said that his party was committed to upholding the rights of woman – and those who have experienced sexual violence needed to be treated with great sensitivity.
He would seek to establish what the situation is in the city for women survivors of sexual violence under the Equality Act 2010.
On safeguarding, he said: “The Liberal Democrats are committed to ensuring the dignity, safety and inclusion of trans people while simultaneously upholding the rights of women.
“We have been clear that any guidance regarding these spaces must be inclusive, workable and provide absolute clarity so that no person or provider is left exposed to legal risk or safeguarding failures.”
He criticised guidance that would see people challenged about accessing facilities based on how well someone else believes they visually conform to gender stereotypes.
Mr Dikty-Daudiyan did not want to make a judgement on internal Labour disputes but described children’s safeguarding as “non-negotiable”.
Polling stations are due to be open from 7am to 10pm next Thursday (24 September). Valid photographic ID is required to vote.
Terrible article… nothing About queens Park…. just people banging on about gender… this website is just “Adrian hart bores on about it” – will they look after city? No just attack trans people.
Exactly.
Three questions dedicated to the same subject? Seems like a bit of a waste of a hustings…
I don’t know who Adrian Hart is, but this is a really important subject. The sitting Councillor appreciated that. It’s certainly not about trying to be unpleasant towards transgender people either. Single-sex spaces matter. My daughter was reluctant to go to school because the mixed toilets weren’t properly police by staff, she didn’t feel safe, and she became analysis retentive one term. She also complained about what sounded like pressure to question her gender. She was 12-13 at the time. Ig was utterly inappropriate. My partner tried raising it with her class teacher, but she felt as though she was being accused of bigotry over a basic safeguarding concern. It was a worrying time for my daughter and for us. We’re fortunate she’s fairly open and communicative at home, if a bit reserved and easily embarrassed in company. We may be lucky, buf it’s not hard to see the risks of a major scandal in Brighton because of a wilful blindness to genuine concerns. The answer from Mark Strong in particular should outrage any open-minded individual, and Steve Gladwin doesn’t sound much better. If I still lived in the Ward, they would represent my usual choice of Party. I can only hope whoever wins wakes up go their responsibilities.
One has said it before, but there are few spectacles quite so dispiriting as five well aged white men lining up to tell the rest of us how we ought to vote.
And when some of the most sensitive questions of the evening concern women, single-sex services, safeguarding and gender, the absence of a single woman among the candidates becomes rather more than a curious footnote.
No doubt all five gentlemen have views. Gentlemen so often do.
With so many wonderful people of all genders, races and identities calling Queen’s Park home, one cannot help feeling rather sorry for its residents.
In 2026, is this really the best democracy can muster?
Very well put. I’d have thought the political parties would’ve made some effort to include a woman, I’m sure there are plenty who are qualified to stand as candidates. Except, Queens Park did have a Councillor, but she felt the need to resign, and for very principled reasons. Shame the current Council has no such principles.
I woukdn’t vote for any of them, they all looked like they’ve rolled out the rubbish!
John Shepherd (Reform) is the only one who has got it right without trying to pander to anyone! Why the issue with them being white and of an age Lady Augusta, are you a rascist and ageist?
Lol reform supporter accusing someone of being racist and ageist, the projection
Not accusing, asking! You see everyone can be a little bit racist, ageist or any other ist whether they like it or not!
And you are accusing me of being a reform supporter, you shouldn’t jump to conclusions sweetie!
Notagain!, my dear, no.
Observing that five candidates are all men, all white and all of a broadly similar generation is not an objection to any of them because they possess those characteristics. Nor did I suggest that any one of them was less capable as a consequence.
It is an observation about the field as a whole.
Queen’s Park is a wonderfully diverse community, and when a panel of five people seeking to represent it looks rather less diverse than the community itself, I think it perfectly reasonable to notice. Particularly when those same five gentlemen are being asked to discuss matters concerning gender and women’s services.
That is rather different from racism or ageism.
Indeed, one of the advantages of advancing in years is discovering that disagreement need not immediately require the most dramatic accusation available.
But thank you for asking rather than assuming. There is hope for us both yet.
Yours,
Lady Augusta Bracknell
Ok but would you raise the same observation if they were all black or asian!
Yes, Notagain!, I would.
A striking lack of diversity is perfectly capable of being striking whichever group happens to be absent.
I shall leave it there, my dear.
Lady Bracknell is far too old for this sort of excitement on a Sunday.
I find John contradictory, standing for a company that has a really poor track record when it comes to equality of the genders.
I am a bit confused about this report, as usually the reporting here is really helpful. But surely at least some other topics were covered at the hustings – in which case I can’t understand why they are also not included.
I understand your point. But given that the child safeguarding scandal came up at the 2024 by-election Hustings and the councillor elected then had to resign out of sheer frustration in trying to raise it with leaders, its not surprising the topic dominated this news report. It was, after all, the topic that led to this by-election,
Multiple questions on safeguarding failure were submitted to last weeks hustings – 3 were read out, another was raised from the floor. Its true that the event held, as usual, by the diligent St Luke’s Residents Association discussed numerous other ward issues but I’m not surprised the safeguarding issue took priority in this report. It is EXTREMELY newsworthy!
In fact, when a Labour Party elected representative feels obliged to resign, and both Labour and Green candidates deny her reasons have any basis in reality AND dismiss parent concerns as ‘made up’, we know that we have a very serious problem to discuss.
I don’t want to revisit old ground we’ve discussed before, but do you think there is any possibility in your mind that Milla did go about things in a maladroit way? Particularly since we did agree previously that the procedure, especially when talking about sensitive subjects, is important to avoid kneejerk reactions?
Not really because this article is suggesting it is an account of the hustings – that is in the title of the article. But it isn’t, because not all the topics discussed have been covered. So I feel unfortunately the reporting here is not as good as we would usually expect from the Local Democracy Service. This is an ideal article from the point of view of the campaigners around this particular issue, but it isn’t properly representing the interests of everyone who might want to know everything that was discussed at the hustings. I don’t know why this has happened on this occasion.
It sounded like one topic pretty much domineered at the exclusion of all others?
Benjamin, “domineered” misses what actually happened. The safeguarding issue didn’t dominate the hustings because campaigners somehow hijacked it. It was the entire reason this by-elect was triggered. Moreover, multiple people independently chose to raise the issue — three questions were submitted and selected, and Bob raised another from the floor. The candidates then responded, including some quite striking differences in their responses.
And there is a wider point here. This isn’t simply an old dispute about Milla’s resignation. The WellBN findings have created a legitimate reason to ask what, if anything, the Council should learn about its own safeguarding responsibilities, school guidance and partnership arrangements. That’s why parents group PSHEbrighton is calling for independent scrutiny rather than asserting that the Council caused what happened at WellBN.
So I don’t think the prominence of the issue in the report reflects campaigners getting their way. It reflects the fact that residents and candidates themselves made safeguarding one of the significant subjects of the evening. The other ward issues discussed at the meeting remain important (well over 50 percent of the hustings were devoted to these), but that doesn’t make this issue less newsworthy.
Here’s a question to those who think the pupil safeguarding scandal is ‘a made up thing’ – why do you think the invitations PSHEbrighton has sent out across 2 years (to councillors, to the CEO) asking that they come meet the affected parents are typically ignored or declined?
It was phrased a question, and wasn’t looking for yet another GenAI misrepresentation.
I feel the problem with one topic domineering any hustings, is that it tells you very little about the candidates. Especially when it’s a topic like this, and I’ve mentioned this before, there is a clear “correct” answer, and in practical terms, it’s not really within a Ward Councillor’s remit, since policy will be directed by the executive and expert advice, not by someone resigning for not getting their own way. Kneejerk reactions are never good motivations for smart policy making and improvement.
Focusing on the hustings, is a lack of questions variety useful for understanding who an individual would like to vote for?
For me, it’s a no.
Shocking that Steve Gladwin (who arrived with his own camera crew) has Labour post on X a dishonest account of a question asked of him and of Mark Strong See: https://x.com/bhlabour/status/2101989909326090529?s=20
The clip purports to show Gladwin answering ‘Where do you stand on trans rights?’ . No such question was asked.
Bob, from the floor, asked:
“Struck [that] members of the panel don’t think there is a safeguarding issue, and this is political.
“I work with people who regret transition. It is a safeguarding issue.
[ ] To say not is not to get it.”
Steve Gladwin:
“Local authority do not run the NHS. My view is [they?] should have a say, should not run the NHS, leave to experts.
“Investigated, found issues. Taken action. This [safeguarding concerns raised by this by-election/hustings] make trans people a political football.
“I am trans positive. This is an instance where [I] agree with Mark: work together regardless of who wins. Important issues.”
Absolutely, this should be left to the experts. This single challenge has been weaponised so much during this by-election that it’s lost all focus on what it’s trying to achieve, tautological as it continues to be. Your very comment evidences this, Adrian.
Benjamin, as usual you’re conflating different things here, as Steve Gladwin did at the hustings. Nobody is suggesting that councillors or residents should replace clinical experts. The NHS and clinical decisions are one question. The questions put forward by parents and others defending the safeguarding principle is completely different: what, if anything, should the Council learn from the WellBN findings about its own safeguarding arrangements, school guidance, partnership working and the way concerns raised by residents are handled? That is a legitimate question of Council governance and democratic scrutiny. “Leave it to the experts” doesn’t answer it (nor does saying that a schools toolkit is periodically reviewed).
The question is whether there has been a sufficiently independent examination of what lessons the Council should draw from what has happened elsewhere — particularly when residents have been raising concerns about the Council’s own approach for several years.
And this is why I objected to the Labour X post. Bob asked about safeguarding. Steve answered him. Labour subsequently presented the exchange as though he had been answering “Where do you stand on trans rights?” Those aren’t the same question. The X post is profoundly dishonest.
Democratic scrutiny isn’t an alternative to expertise. It is one of the ways we hold institutions and experts accountable. Sadly, this concept is lost on technocrats who like to silence the pesky public.
I don’t want to rehash this old ground again, but that still comes across and you not liking the answer, not evolving your question to something more insightful, rather than the question not being answered; which is an excellent example in one of the ways on how this topic has been weaponised so much during this by-election that it’s lost all focus on what it’s trying to achieve, tautological as it continues to be, and very much to the detriment of the very group you want to influence policy around.
Again Adrian, it’s a good intention, asked poorly. The method, not the desired outcome, is your challenge unfortunately.
Benjamin, you’re such know-it-all (guessing you’re a man)
I think this is where the argument becomes circular. You’re basically saying Adrian’s question is poorly framed because you regard the answer as sufficient. Yet Adrian is plainly saying that the answer doesn’t address the question he and parents are actually asking.
“Leave it to the experts” may be an adequate answer to a question about clinical treatment. It isn’t an answer to the separate question of what the Council should learn from the WellBN findings about its own policies, guidance, safeguarding arrangements and handling of residents’ concerns.
And calling that question “weaponised” doesn’t resolve it either. The fact that you think the issue has been politically overused doesn’t make the underlying governance question disappear. You can’t answer a question about whether an institution has done its job by simply saying the institution should be trusted to do its job!
Strong and Gladwin really need to give their head a wobble. Embarrassing. The short-term careerism and desperation to secure support from young progressives who have been captured by trans ideology. In 20 years time, people will look back on this period and ask how could it be that those in institutions and positions of influence in the public sector allowed these scandals to occur. The lady who resigned will hold her head high, and the likes of Strong and Gladwin will throw it down the memory hole and pretend that it never happened.
So Julia mentions above that 50% of the questions or the meeting time were not about this issue. But none of the other topics are reported on in this article! So my point still stands. If you want/prefer the article to be about this policy issue alone, then the article does its job. But the Local Democracy Service is supposed to report on proceedings in a factual way. So the article should have included the other topics that were part of the hustings. No-one is saying that Milla Gauge didn’t stand down for a reason, although I disagree with her views, and I also disagree with her claim that her stance reflected the view of QP residents – I don’t think that can be backed up with data. But this was a hustings event, not a public meeting called to discuss Milla Gauge’s views on this particular issue. Obviously that issue would come up, but this article is supposed to describe the WHOLE hustings. So for some reason the article hasn’t done that, which is a bit of a departure from the usual good practice on this site.
That’s really useful to know. What were the other topics discussed?
Moreincommon, absolutely — and I think it’s useful for readers to know that safeguarding was by no means the only issue discussed, but, I’d maintain only newsworthy LDR issue. The rest was published in flip-notes (see Facebook).
Among the other topics raised at the hustings were:
• poverty in the ward
• anti-social behaviour
• the possibility of a “tourist tax”
• the need for accessible party campaign literature
• broken pavements and the resulting trip hazards
• the decrease in the number of children living in the ward
A lot squeezed inside 1 and a half hours that included the candidate pitches and summing up. So I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the hustings was a meeting solely about Milla Gauge’s reasons for standing down. My point was simply that safeguarding was one of the subjects that generated multiple questions — three submitted questions were read out on it, and another was raised from the floor — and it is directly connected to the circumstances that led to this by-election. Given that context, I don’t find it surprising that it featured prominently in the report.