Reform UK run council removes all trans books from children's library section
Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said in a post on social media the books will be removed with immediate effect in a 'victory for common sense in Kent'.
Councillor Paul Webb, cabinet member for communities and regulatory services at the council, said that he acted to remove all the books after concerns from a resident.
In a video posted on X, he said: 'I was recently contacted by a concerned member of the public who found trans ideological material and books in the children's section of one of our libraries.
'I looked into it and this was the case. I have issued an instruction for them all to be removed from the children's section of any of our libraries. They do not belong in the children's section of our libraries.
'Our children do not need to be told they were born in the wrong bodies and from today this will stop.'
It is understood that the books will not be completely removed but rather relocated to different sections in libraries.
Ms Kemkaran added in a post on X: 'Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable.'
The book at the centre of the controversy is titled The Autistic Trans Guide to Life, which is described by its publishers as an 'essential survival guide gives autistic trans and/or non-binary adults all the tools and strategies they need to live as their very best self'.
It is not yet known exactly which books will be removed and how the council will classify what 'trans material' is.
Erin Strawbridge, manager of The Folkestone Bookshop, an LGBT+ bookshop in the county, told BBC Radio Kent: "Censorship does not stop people from learning information but it does send the message, and it's sending a message to the young people of Kent that they're not safe and they're not welcome if they're LGBT or trans.
"It just pushes kids into the closet, into worse mental health situations. It's just going to scare young people."
The county council is in charge of 99 community-run libraries.
A statement from Kent County Council said: 'Kent County Council have confirmed that children are not and will not be exposed to adult transgender literature in our libraries.
'Staff at the county's 99 libraries have been asked to ensure that books are always stocked in age-appropriate categories and that no adult literature makes its way into areas specifically aimed at children, or where children will be selecting books, such as the public welcome displays.
'It follows feedback from a resident who spotted a transgender book aimed at adults in a public display at the entrance of one library in Kent. The book has since been relocated to a section that is unlikely to be visited by children.'
Mr Webb added: 'We rightly place child protection and safeguarding at the very top of our list of priorities, as should all adults, especially those that hold public office.'
The Kent Library Service confirmed that staff will 'ensure that only age-appropriate books are being displayed in children's sections of libraries' or areas where children will be selecting books to borrow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
An institutional intifada is coming to crush a Reform government
In England's fractured five-party system – featuring Labour, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, Reform and the Green/Islamist/far-Left movement – a hung Parliament is certain sooner or later, in any event. Especially once Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are factored in, with their nationalists and unionists. This explains why Labour is likely to form a new government after the next election – even if it exhausts its stupendous parliamentary majority, the second largest since World War Two, in much the same way that it is exhausting the nation's finances. For in a hung Parliament, one must have allies. And Labour has more potential partners than anyone else: the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Nationalists, Plaid Cymru, Northern Ireland nationalists, Greens and Islamists. None of these may want to join a coalition government with Labour if one is offered. But they will surely be even more unwilling to form one with parties of the Right. Meanwhile, the Conservatives and Reform would have only – a few Ulster unionists apart – each other as potential partners, if one assumes that the Liberal Democrats won't work with either. Which would be bigger? Perhaps by the next election the party of which I'm a member, the Conservatives, will once again be the main party of the Right – especially in the event of a crash in the markets that leaves other parties, with their promises of higher spending and lower taxes, over-promised and under-prepared. But as I write, it looks unlikely. It is no longer absurd to imagine Reform as the larger of the two Right-wing parties in parliament. What would happen next? Perhaps Nigel Farage would offer the disorientated Tories a coalition, and so swallow up whatever was left of them. For what it's worth, I would prefer a confidence and supply arrangement – partly because I'm a convinced Conservative, even in these unpromising circumstances, and partly because I'm not convinced by Reform. But regardless of our party political preferences, we should want a future Reform administration to succeed: all of us, because it is in our interest for government to work, and Conservatives in particular, because – as conservatives with a small C as well as a large one – a legitimate Right-wing party should be preferable to a legitimate Left-wing one. But if parties with experience, like the Conservatives and Labour, find it hard to govern, one without it, like Reform, would find it next to impossible. Here are three illustrations. On day one, the new Reform administration instructs the Royal Navy to return small boats containing illegal migrants to France as they cross the Channel. Naval officers refuse, asserting that the French will refuse to accept the returns, that there is a risk that migrants will scupper their boats, and that in these circumstances refusing to take them to Britain would breach international law. On day five, Reform's new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a businessman with no political experience, is accused of bullying civil servants. Downing Street's Propriety and Ethics unit steps in. Staffed by civil servants and based in the Cabinet Office, the unit has a formidable reputation. It helped to investigate Nadhim Zahawi, Priti Patel, Dominic Raab and Chris Pincher under the last government. All were forced out, rightly or wrongly. On day 10, the new Reform home secretary, like Suella Braverman, demands that the Progress flag, which represents the LGBTQ+ cause, no longer be flown above the Home Office. He has no more luck than Braverman, who said later: 'I couldn't even get the flag of a horrible political campaign I disagreed with taken down from the roof of the government department I was supposed to be in charge of.' There is a fashion on the Right for blaming a 'blob' of unaccountable quangocrats, activist judges, politicised civil servants and outdated international agreements for intensifying Britain's problems. Some Labour MPs, since their party took office, have overlapping complaints. Both underplay the main source of the problem: a House of Commons that is no longer providing enough effective, coherent legislation and efficient, commanding ministers. But regardless of one's view of the matter, there can be no doubt that a Reform government would be seen, in some corners of Westminster and Whitehall, as illegitimate. And would be met from day one by an institutional intifada. My impression is that those at the top of Reform think of themselves as Big Men with Strong Views. They certainly have the latter – hence the falling out of Farage and Rupert Lowe. And maybe, in government, they would prove themselves the former. Perhaps a Reform government would beat establishment resistance to a pulp (metaphorically, not literally). But as matters stand, it looks like Reform that's cruising for a bruising – if it ever makes government at all. Getting the system to work takes time even if it likes the look of you. Tony Blair complained of 'scars on my back' after trying to reform the public sector. The Civil Service came to terms with Margaret Thatcher only in her second term. Before she won her first election, John Hoskyns, a businessman, devised a plan for government to tackle the problems of the day: inflation, trade union militancy, decline. It was called Stepping Stones. If Farage is to follow in her footsteps, he needs a modern equivalent: a strategic plan for getting his most radical measures – leaving the ECHR, abandoning the net zero targets, scrapping the Equality Act – through Parliament (where they would meet particular resistance in the Lords) in order to ensure that they gain the democratic legitimacy to which the courts would bow. During the 1980s, the key question was what a new Right-wing government should do. Today, it's how to do it. Are the Big Men thinking big enough?
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Judges are deporting record numbers of young children under Trump
A far cry from the 'bad, hard criminals' Donald Trump said his undocumented immigrants crackdown would focus on, record-breaking numbers of deportation orders have been issued to young immigrant children under the Trump administration, The Independent can reveal. More kids aged 11 or under — 8,317 — received a removal order from an immigration court in April than any other month in over 35 years of data collection, according to court data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). Since Trump's inauguration in January, judges have ordered removals for over 53,000 immigrant minors. Those children are predominantly elementary school age or younger. Some 15,000 children were aged under four years old, and 20,000 of them were children aged four to eleven. Teenagers are also experiencing climbing deportations, with 17,000 seeing a court-ordered removal, although that's lower than their all-time peak in 2020 under the first Trump administration. Some of these children being deported are unaccompanied minors, who do not have a legal guardian in the US; though the exact number is unclear, since immigration authorities stopped recording this data years ago. Children, including toddlers, are required to show up at immigration hearings to be questioned by a judge – and many, unsurprisingly, do not understand what is happening nor the gravity of their situation. In one case, a source tells the Independent, a young child from Haiti had his immigration court hearing remotely in front of a screen. The child, who had a learning disability, was fidgeting and running around the room. Finally, he pointed at the judge on the screen and asked – 'Who's that?' In other cases, children are being arrested by ICE with their families, but held in detention and deported separately. 'A six year old child was picked up [by ICE] with his father, separated from his dad, and parked in custody for four months before being deported,' a lawyer familiar with children's immigration cases told the Independent. The child was unable to receive legal assistance, as he was deported while federal legal funding had been cut. The deportation outcome rate for immigrant children under age 11 is higher than in any other age group, latest figures show, and has jumped significantly since Trump came into office. What's more, under-18s account for one in four (26 percent) of all deportations ordered in immigration court since January – despite the fact that minors make up just 11 percent of the undocumented population. The vast majority (76 percent) of children under 11 do not have legal representation, and cases are being sped through the system, according to sources close to the courts. 'This is pumping up the deportation numbers on the back of kids – their rights to safety and due process are not respected,' the immigration lawyer told the Independent. 'This is about striking fear in the hearts of everybody. It's demonstrable cruelty in the name of so-called deterrence.' Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin responded to the Independent: 'Accusations that ICE is 'targeting' children are FALSE and an attempt to demonize law enforcement. ICE does not 'target' children nor does it deport children. Rather than separate families, ICE asks mothers if they want to be removed with their children or if the child should be placed with someone safe the parent designates.' Highest-ever deportations for young children Immigration crackdowns across the country have been almost indiscriminate, with new data revealing that ICE is arresting more non-criminals than ever. The number of people who have been deported under the Trump administration is murky; ICE has not disclosed official figures since January, and available immigration court data is not comprehensive, with age not recorded in 13 percent of cases. But analysis of court data reveals that children have been increasingly, and disproportionately, marked for deportation in recent months. Under the Trump administration, immigration courts have quickly ramped up deportation rates. Around two thirds (68 percent) of all immigration court proceedings ended in deportation in May, compared to 39 percent in January. But for children under 11, the removal rate is even higher, at 75 percent in May; and 78 percent for kids under 4 years old, both substantially higher than the 45 percent seen on average for young kids in January. This suggests that children are being disproportionately targeted for deportations under this administration, overrepresented by 2.3 times more than their proportion of the illegal immigrant population, our analysis shows. 'What we're seeing right now is basically a grist mill in immigration court, just scooting kids through the process as quickly as possible,' the lawyer, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Independent. At the same time, children facing immigration court are more vulnerable and less protected than ever. In spite of this, the Trump administration has been fighting to cancel funding which provides legal aid for unaccompanied immigrant children. The government first issued a stop-work order in February, and cancelled federal contracts in March. In April the federal district court ordered the Trump administration to restore funding, saying it is congressionally mandated under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Legal assistance programs told the Independent that they had since been re-contracted; but remain on 'pins and needles' as the government appeals the court ruling, and Trump's Big Beautiful Bill makes it harder and more expensive to sue against his policies. Rocket dockets and separating families In the meantime, children are being put on expedited paths through immigration court, known as 'rocket dockets', according to the immigration lawyer. Many of these cases are going through in just two weeks from start to finish – which leaves little-to-no room for a child to prepare the necessary documents and arguments. 'Of course, a child is going to file a case that's not completely fleshed out in all the legal arguments, because they don't understand the legal argument,' the lawyer told the Independent. 'This is also really damaging for trafficking victims. Kids who have experienced severe trauma need the time to have their nervous system relax, to understand that they're safe, to share some of the most sensitive details about their cases.' These tactics evoke the family separation policy, employed in 2018 under the first Trump administration, which forcibly kept parents and children apart when detained at the border – with as many as 1,360 families never reunited, according to Human Rights Watch. 'It is seen as against the due process rights of a child to be systematically separated from their parent or legal guardian,' the lawyer explained. 'What's clear is that they are sidestepping the legal settlement to protect children from these cruel techniques."
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Wales' news Sustainable Farming Scheme absolutely right, minister says
A new flagship farming policy is "absolutely the right scheme", according to Wales' agriculture ahead of its launch, Huw Irranca-Davies said he was "hopeful it will land to a good reception", even though he conceded "there will be the odd person" who wished it had been done second iteration of the Sustainable Farming Scheme (SFS) and the rate of payment farmers can expect for joining it is due to be announced next week, after unions and farmers rejected the original scheme, staging plans included a requirement for farmers to plant trees on 10% of their land to qualify for subsidies, but they claimed that could lead to huge job cuts. Farming union NFU Cymru want "at least the same level of stability to farm business, rural communities and supply chains" as the current scheme, known as the Basic Payment Welsh government has been holding roundtable discussions with farming leaders, as well as environmental and nature campaigners, to revise the plan which it hopes will make farming businesses sustainable and help to reach its 2030 climate and nature targets. Irranca-Davies, Wales' deputy first minister and secretary for rural affairs and the environment, said the final scheme was "the result of more than 12 months of intense work" involving farming unions, meat, livestock and dairy sectors as well as environmental groups "to get the balance".Although he would not give any detail about the scheme, he told BBC Politics Wales it was "going to be unlike anything else that's been delivered in the UK"."It'll be a whole farm approach and a whole nation approach that delivers for the people of Wales," he said."They want to see farming that produces good food to high animal welfare standards and also does the right thing for the environment."The minister would not commit to publishing an impact assessment of the final iteration as he said work was assessment of the first iteration of the scheme predicted 5,500 jobs would be lost and livestock numbers would be the government is also under pressure from environmentalists to ensure that the plan is 80% of Wales' landscape is under the care of farmers, it is also argued they have a key role to play in helping the effort to tackle climate change and the losses in nature. NFU Cymru president Aled Jones said it was "imperative that the revised scheme and budget attached to the SFS avoids such a shocking impact on one of Wales' iconic sectors". "The SFS must work for all farming sectors and areas of Wales and help ensure that Welsh farming can continue to underpin the £9.3bn food and farming supply chain," he about the impact assessment, Irranca-Davies said his "feeling was that it'll be better" for both "viable farm businesses and environmental benefits as well".Again refusing to pre-empt the announcement, he said there would be mitigations in order to ensure those in agriculture would not be left behind as Wales moves towards a greener economy with "real subtleties" within the scheme that would be Cymru's Delyth Jewell MS said: "I think there has been frustrations for a long time that lots of people in the farming community feel they haven't been heard. "We have to make sure - these are people who sustain our lives - we need to make sure their lives are made sustainable too."Conservative Senedd leader Darren Millar MS said he wanted to see the policy voted on by politicians to ensure "democratic legitimacy" for the plan."We've got to make sure that the new scheme has food security at its heart, and that it will actually deliver the sustainable future for our farmers that they need," he said.
