20 November 2025
The Chief Executive (Guildford & Waverley) Pedro Wrobel, Guildford Borough Council, Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB
The Leader of the Council Councillor Julia McShane, Guildford Borough Council, Millmead House Millmead, Guildford Surrey GU2 4BB
The Chief Executive (County) Terence Herbert, Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate Surrey RH2 8EF
The Leader of the Council (County) Councillor Tom Oliver, Surrey County Council, Woodhatch Place, 11 Cockshot Hill, Reigate Surrey RH2 8EF
The Leader of the Council (Waverley) Councillor Paul Follows Waverley Borough Council, The Burys, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1HR
CC: Licensing Team, Guildford Borough Council (Millmead House, Millmead, Guildford, Surrey GU2 4BB)
Subject: URGENT: Formal Request for Review of Licensing, Funding, and Due Diligence Following Police Validation of Complaints Regarding Guildford Pride Event (September 6th, 2025)
Dear Mr. Wrobel, Mr. Herbert, Councillor McShane, Councillor Oliver, and Councillor Follows,
I am writing to you as a concerned local resident and complainant to bring an urgent matter regarding public safety, licensing oversight, and the use of ratepayer funds to your immediate attention. This concerns the event recently licensed by Guildford Borough Council and the granting of ratepayer’s money by Waverley Borough Council to Pride in Surrey and their planning for future events, including a 2026 Pride March.
I have been in sustained correspondence with Surrey Police, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (OPCC) regarding serious breaches of safeguarding and public order that took place during the Guildford event on September 6th, 2025.
Formal Recording and Investigation of Complaints by Surrey Police
I have received formal written confirmation from a Senior Investigator in Surrey Police Professional Standards that the complaints I submitted have been recorded for formal investigation under Schedule 3 of the Police Reform Act 2002. The investigator further confirmed that Surrey Police is launching a formal internal investigation into the substantive complaints, as well as initiating a review of its own internal DEI processes in light of these matters. The complaints now subject to formal police investigation relate directly to the licensed event and public march:
1. Safeguarding/Indecency Breach: The sale and display of inappropriate/indecent items at the Guildford event, which was promoted extensively to the public, including families, as a family-friendly event. This represents a serious failure of child safeguarding and standards which is now being investigated by Surrey Police, that should have been prevented by proper vendor checks and due diligence.
A The Council is the Licensing Authority under the Licensing Act 2003. One of the four key licensing objectives is the “Protection of children from harm.” Allowing the sale of items that could be deemed indecent or obscene in a public space accessible to children is a direct breach of this core objective.
B The event organiser (Pride in Surrey) would have been granted a temporary event notice (TEN) or permission/licence to use the land, which I assume would contain a clause requiring them to ensure the event is conducted lawfully and in accordance with public safety/decency standards. The Council failed to monitor or enforce this clause.
2. Failure of Equality Duty: The Council must have “due regard” to the need to foster good relations and advance Equality. The sale of potentially offensive items, particularly when directed at children, can be argued to undermine the goal of fostering good relations with ALL members of the public, including parents, families and people who are gender realists.
3. Public Defamation and Dehumanisation: The display of an offensive and defamatory placard during the public march that was licensed by Guildford Borough Council and allowed to proceed down the High Street on a day where children and families were present. The placard depicted a refuse bin with the word ‘Down with TERFS’ prominently displayed on it, containing a black cowering figure partially visible. This imagery explicitly sought to represent women holding (protected) gender-realist/critical beliefs as refuse or waste that should be discarded, constituting a clear act of public defamation in the presence of children and incitement to hatred which occurred under the Council’s license.
Waverley Council’s Responsibility and Failure of Due Diligence
Waverley Borough Council’s decision to allocate ratepayer money to Pride in Surrey – an organisation whose event in Guildford was marred by these validated breaches – necessitates a rigorous duty of care and due diligence regarding future funding and events.
The official decision by the Police’s Professional Standards Department to initiate a formal investigation unequivocally demonstrates that the due diligence undertaken by the Council prior to granting the funding was critically deficient. This failure supports the conclusion that public funds are being irresponsibly used by a registered Charity whose events breach decency law and compromise public order, constituting grounds for a formal submission to the Charity Commission.
Remedy: Immediate Risk Mitigation
In light of the ongoing formal investigations by Surrey Police and the agreed oversight by both the IOPC and the OPCC, I formally request that Waverley Borough Council, and its partners including Surrey County Council, take the following immediate and long-term actions:
- Immediate Review of Funding and Licensing: The Council must immediately initiate a formal review of its current licensing agreements and funding relationship with Pride in Surrey until the outcome of the police and internal investigations is formally concluded. The continued use of ratepayer funds must be suspended pending this review.
- Implementation of New Due Diligence Policy: The Council must commit to establishing and implementing a mandatory, comprehensive due diligence protocol for all future licensing and funding applications for Pride events, including the 2026 Pride March. This protocol must include clear contractual terms that ensure adherence to:
Safeguarding and decency standards for all vendors and activities.
Compliance with the Public Order Act 1986 and the duty to prevent Statutory Harassment under the Equality Act 2010, with zero tolerance for imagery that dehumanises or targets individuals based on protected characteristics such as gender realist/ critical philosophical beliefs – (such as the imagery validated in my complaint).
I expect a formal acknowledgement of this letter and a clear outline of the specific steps the Councils will take to address this serious failure of oversight within 14 calendar days. I will continue to keep my MP and the oversight bodies (IOPC/OPCC) appraised of the Council’s response.
Sincerely,