LGBT+ group challenges Rochester Literature Festival
Rainbows Over Medway pens open letter on trans inclusion at Medway event. Plus devolution and Chatham Docks dominate full council, news in brief, and more
Literature festivals and LGBT+ groups don’t often disagree, but a public dispute is brewing between the relaunched Rochester Literature Festival and Rainbows Over Medway. The festival claims to be hosting a series of events to celebrate International Women’s Day. At the same time, an LGBT+ group is concerned that the event will promote anti-trans rhetoric, given the festival director's outspoken views. We’ve been talking to all involved to try to get to the bottom of it.
Last week also saw the full first Medway Council meeting of the year. It was a marathon session, with devolution, Israel-Gaza, farming, Chatham Docks, and - somehow - city status all on the agenda. We’ve got the full rundown of what happened before, as well as our usual news in brief.
LGBT+ group challenges Rochester Literature Festival
Rochester Literature Festival returns in March following a five-year hiatus. The longstanding festival will return with events to mark International Women’s Day, with various authors, Medway figures, and political women scheduled to speak across the month of events.
Events held in Rochester, Strood, and Walderslade will cover subjects like ‘challenging stereotypes’ and political women who broke through the glass ceiling, as well as highlighting ‘Medway’s female community doers.’
On paper, this should be a welcome addition to the Medway cultural scene. Still, concerns have been raised about the festival by LGBT+ group Rainbows Over Medway, who identify the festival director as ‘coordinating the largest anti-transgender network in Kent.’
As a result, they have published an open letter calling on the festival to publicly commit to affirming trans women will be welcome at the events and that no transphobia will be platformed.
The open letter from Rainbows Over Medway to Rochester Literature Festival has been signed by over 70 individuals so far, including representatives of the University of Greenwich, Gillingham Street Angels, Spotlites Theatre, Medway Pride, and a number of prominent Medway figures:
Since 1911, when the first International Women’s Day gathering occurred, the day has been marked in a variety of ways. Rainbows over Medway has worked on numerous projects with many partners to help in the fight for gender equality and stopping violence against women and girls. This year’s campaign theme is Accelerate Action.
It has been brought to our attention by many in the Medway community, that there is a literary festival planned around International Women's Day during March 2025. Whilst this is something that we would normally celebrate and support, the director of this festival also coordinates the largest anti Transgender network in Kent and has on numerous occasions posted anti Transgender messages on social media.
We believe, as do the team at International Women’s Day, that we should call out and challenge discrimination wherever we find it. Therefore, we call upon the organisers of this festival to publicly commit to the following:
• That Trans women are not only welcome, but valued at their events
• That no Transphobia in any form will be platformed at these events
• That Trans women are womenWe hope that the community can be assured that this is indeed the case and we look forward to a welcoming, inclusive, diverse and empowering festival for all women.
While the letter does not name the individuals and organisations involved, it refers to Rochester Literature Festival director Jaye Nolan, who is also the coordinator for Women’s Rights Network Kent & Medway. While WRN claims to fight for women's rights, LGBT+ groups accuse it of being anti-trans.
Speaking to Shea Coffey, one of the founders of Rainbows Over Medway, about why she felt the need to put the letter together, she told us that she “and others are deeply concerned that this festival is more of a recruitment tool for anti-trans views than it is a celebration of female empowerment.” She points to “the fact that some of the speakers are deeply anti-trans makes some question why would you specifically ask those individuals to speak?”
Shea says she is particularly concerned about “the prominent community and political figures that are speaking. I’ve reached out to express my concerns, and the thing that worries me most is none of the political leaders speaking have responded to me at all. What conclusions should I draw from that?”
Local Authority contacted several Medway speakers listed on the festival website. Cllr Nina Gurung, Medway Council’s Portfolio Holder for Heritage, Culture and Leisure, is scheduled to give the keynote speech at the festival's opening event. She told us:
I was contacted months ago by the organisers to deliver the opening speech for Women’s History Month, by sharing my journey and experiences as Medway’s first female Mayor from minority ethnic background. The objective was to empower women and girls to reach their full potential. It is important that we share, celebrate and highlight the achievements and contributions made by women and girls, which Women’s History Month commemorates.
When I was made aware of the open letter, I sought assurance that the Women’s History Month events will be inclusive, and the organisers have assured me as such.
This community belongs to all of us; there is so much we can learn from one another and we can do so respectfully. I sincerely hope that the Women’s History Month events here in Medway will be inspiring and positive.
Another scheduled speaker, Chair of Creative Medway, Dr Carol Stewart, expressed a similar sentiment in a statement to us:
As chair of Creative Medway, we have been made aware of an open letter expressing concerns about the content of the festival, and we have sought assurances that people of transgender will be made to feel welcome at the programme from the festival organiser.
We spoke to two other speakers who are listed as part of the festival schedule, both of whom told us similar things off the record. Both told us that they were unaware of any anti-trans sentiment of the organisers, but since the letter came to light, they had sought assurances that the event would be inclusive for all.
Following a request for comment from Local Authority, Rochester Literature Festival told us that they were ‘happy to confirm that everyone is welcome to attend and all will be treated with the same courtesy and respect as we too expect to be treated’:
The RLF is proud to have produced a programme for Medway Women’s History Month that is an uplifting and positive celebration of women.
We’re happy to confirm that everyone is welcome to attend and all will be treated with the same courtesy and respect as we too expect to be treated. We have a range of diverse voices and our venues are fully accessible to wheelchairs and other mobility aids.
True diversity and inclusion in a pluralistic society must include diversity of thought, and include people whose opinion you may not agree with, since democracy and free speech are the bedrocks of a pluralist society.
That free speech element might be the one thing that the two organisations agree on. Shea tells us that she has no desire to stop the festival from going ahead. “No, despite the rollback we’ve seen in LGBT+ rights in the US this last week, I believe completely in free speech. I want their views to be heard, if only so I can say ‘Do you think this is acceptable?’"
Alongside the statement from Rochester Literature Festival, we also received the following statement from Women’s Rights Network, for whom Rochester Literature Festival director Jaye Nolan is a coordinator of the Kent & Medway branch. Whilst we did not seek a statement from the organisation, we feel it adds context to publish it:
This statement does not directly refer to the name of the organisation/group which it terms hateful and transphobic, but we are assuming – given previous interaction with various individuals – that they refer to the Women’s Rights Network. Neither are its accusations explicit, but rather they are inferred.
Women’s Rights Network is exactly that. A rapidly growing grass roots network of women working and campaigning to protect the rights, privacy and dignity of women and girls. WRN is not ‘anti Transgender’, it stands up for women, for reality and for freedom of speech — as is evidenced by our actions.
Our members have used Freedom of Information requests to expose the scandal of sexual assaults in hospitals, we have consistently argued for the evidence-based healthcare for gender incongruence set out in the Cass Review, and we are currently holding a series of vigils in support of the women and girls of Afghanistan.
We make no apology for stating fact that trans women are not women, they are males. UK courts have confirmed that people may identify as they wish, but they cannot force others to share their beliefs.
And the Equality Act makes it clear that sex and gender are not synonymous. Sex is based on biological reality while gender is fluid and based on an individual’s feelings at any moment in time.
To liken these lawful and widely accepted views as ‘transphobic’ says more about those making these ideologically driven accusations than it does about WRN.
It remains to be seen whether the responses from Rochester Literature Festival and the Women’s Rights Network will reassure the Rainbows Over Medway letter's organisers or those who have signed it.
Devolution and Chatham Docks dominate first full council of the year
Last Thursday saw the first full Medway Council meeting of the year. Despite ongoing efforts to reduce the length of such meetings, it ran well over five hours, leaving councillors sitting there past midnight about a litany of issues facing Medway.
It was a packed agenda, which we’ve condensed down to the core issues below:
Performative public questions
Usually, January is pretty quiet for members of the public turning up to ask questions, but this time around, Medway has multiple by-elections on the horizon, so the question list was littered with candidates wanting to get their soundbite. All three Labour candidates came along to ask questions on classic issues like potholes, helping pensioners, and regenerating Gillingham High Street, giving administration members to talk about all of the fantastic work being done in these areas. Elsewhere, Conservative and Lib Dem candidates with questions didn’t turn up. Two Green candidates made it along to ask about electoral reform and affordable housing. In contrast, a third, who submitted a factually false question about Medway cancelling elections, didn’t make it along. Elsewhere, a limited number of non-candidate members of the public asked questions, including one on whether the travellers in Wigmore have been allowed to stay (they haven’t, but the case is going to court) and another asking why Medway Council won’t accept and debate a motion on a ceasefire in Israel and Gaza, which leads us to…
Medway Council debates motion on ceasefire in Israel and Gaza
The most contentious motion of the night came from independent councillor Satinder Shokar, who submitted one calling for a complete ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, for the UK to suspend arms sales to Israel, to sanction Israel, and to call on Medway employer BAE Systems to stop supplying arms to Israel. Given that Cllr Shokar sits alone, whether anyone would even second the motion to allow it to be debated was unclear. Another independent councillor Chris Spalding came to the rescue, though, making it clear that while he didn’t support the motion, he would second it as he believes any councillor should have any motion they feel strongly about debated. However, it was all downhill from there. Deputy Leader of Medway Council Cllr Teresa Murray (Lab) said Labour would not support the motion because a ceasefire was now in place, going on to call BAE a ‘good employer’ and worries that the motion might feel like ‘we don’t appreciate them’, which is quite the take given their history. Leader of the Opposition Cllr George Perfect (Con) said his group also wouldn’t support the motion and that he agreed with Cllr Murray’s response. Cllr Shokar (Ind) takes none of this well, asking why Medway Council is supporting BAE and accusing fellow councillors of ‘cheerleading Israel.’ Medway Council Leader Vince Maple (Lab) asks Cllr Shokar to withdraw the comment, which Cllr Shokar refuses to do. In the end, only Cllr Shokar voted in favour of his motion, with all but one Labour councillor (Cllr Mahil being the exception) and every Conservative voting against, while the Independent Group and Cllr Spalding (Ind) abstained. Immediately after the vote, Cllr Shokar packed up his things and left the meeting.
More Chatham Docks drama
One of the more remarkable moments of the evening came when Independent Group councillor Elizabeth Turpin proposed a motion to save Chatham Docks. As soon as Cllr Turpin moved the motion, the council’s legal officer Bhupinder Gill read a statement explaining that the motion shouldn’t move forward as it could jeopardise the Local Plan process by prejudicing the outcome, exposing the council to legal challenges. He went on to highlight that should the motion pass, it would be asking the council to act lawfully and that any councillor speaking on it would likely need to remove themselves from any future Local Plan discussions. The legal officer suggested the motion should be withdrawn, though there is no mechanism to allow that to happen other than the motion not being seconded. He reveals that he only became aware of the issue at 11pm the day before, leading to criticism from Cllr Turpin. The legal officer said a new version of the motion had been drafted, which would have been acceptable, but Cllr Turpin proposed the original version instead, hence his intervention.
Cllr Maple (Lab) says that if the motion is seconded, he will seek a recorded vote on it so it is clear how everyone voted, suggesting abstention is the only legally safe route. But things aren’t so simple, as Cllr Perfect (Con) raises. If the majority abstains, the motion could be passed with few votes in favour. The legal officer responds that he will have to determine whether the council has acted unlawfully and put together a report for the next meeting if that has been the case. Mayor Marian Nestorov (Lab) proposes adjourning the meeting for a period so more legal advice can be gathered. Cllr Michael Pearce (IndGroup) calls this an ‘affront to democracy’ and attempts to second the motion regardless, as the Mayor adjourns the meeting.
After half an hour of everyone standing around not knowing what is happening later, the meeting resumes with Chief Executive Richard Hicks proposing the motion be adjourned to the next meeting, allowing the council to receive further legal advice. He apologises to Cllr Turpin and the Independent Group for the debacle, which seems to placate anyone, and we can all get on with our lives.
All farming, all the time
Two different motions highlighted taxation issues with a particular interest in farmers in our communities. Cllr Lawrence (Con) put one forward, supported by Cllr Tejan (Con), on increased taxation under the government, which highlighted several issues, but the conversation quickly turned to farmers. Cllr Curry (Lab) pointed out that farmers used to pay inheritance tax, so it’s hardly a radical idea that they should now, pointing out that farmers have lost billions in subsidies thanks to Brexit. Cllr Pearce (IndGroup) says that every supermarket now supports the farmers while also raising that ‘overseas farmers’ receive £500m in UK aid. Cllr Browne (Lab) asked Cllr Tejan how many farmers in his St. Mary’s Island ward were upset about the changes before accusing the Conservatives of ‘talking the country down.’ Cllr Lawrence hit back that he doesn’t know where Labour gets their news from, but he gets his from ‘the real world.’ At this point, Cllr Mahil (Lab) raised a point of clarification that he means the Daily Telegraph, leading to laughter. The motion was lost at the vote, with the Conservatives, Independent Group, and Cllr Spalding (Ind) voting against, with Labour and Cllr Shokar (Lab) voting against.
Cllr Spalding (Ind) submitted a more precise motion on protecting farmers from tax and farmland from being built on. Cllr Pearce (IndGroup) is finally allowed to second a motion, cheerfully calling himself a ‘proud NIMBY’ while claiming ‘local democracy is dead.’ When challenged on being proud of being a NIMBY, he points out that ‘everyone here’ is, suggesting he is just honest about it. The motion quickly goes to a vote and is lost on the same lines as above.
City status rears its head again
As part of his Leader’s Report, Cllr Maple (Lab) did something he usually resists: Pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Toward the end of his report, he announced that in light of devolution and local government reorganisations where Medway Council will likely cease to exist, he has written to the government to make an exceptional request for city status to be granted to Medway. Yes, despite repeated failed attempts to make Medway a city, we’re back here again. Cllr Maple was eager to point out that there was no cost to the request, and Cllr Perfect (Con) stated that his group supported the effort. Cllr Pearce (IndGroup) says that Medway should have democratic input on city status, suggesting residents may - shock horror - prefer city status returned to Rochester instead. Cllr Maple asks Cllr Pearce to point out where £250k can be cut from the budget so that a referendum can be held. It feels unlikely that Medway will have any more success in this attempt to gain the title this time around, but the Labour administration clearly thinks it’s worth pursuing one last time.
Devo-a-go-go
Following months of behind the scenes wrangling a formal request for Medway Council and Kent County Council to be ultimately abolished in favour of a new structure, the matter finally came to Medway’s council chamber for discussion. Cllr Maple (Lab) pointed out that it isn't usual to start a debate in a council chamber that will ultimately cause that chamber to cease to exist. He argues that devolution will ‘take back control’, bringing new powers to Kent, noting he is ‘insanely jealous’ of Manchester’s Bee Network bus system. We’ll find out whether devolution is approved for Kent this week, and conversations will imminently move on to local government reorganised and who Medway will end up being merged with. Cllr Murray (Lab) stakes an early claim for Medway dominating the surrounding councils with talk of a new ‘Greater Medway’, which might be challenging to sell to the good people of Dartford and Sheppey. Labour and Conservative speakers all favour the plans, with Cllr Pearce (IndGroup) once again providing the voice of dissent. He says he is worried that history is repeating itself, like when Medway Council was effectively imposed on the area, returning to the old favourite of Rochester and losing city status. Despite that, the council unanimously supported the report on devolution.
If you want to relive the excitement from all five hours of the meeting (and why wouldn’t you?), you can watch the entire thing here:
In brief
🏢 The former UCA building in Rochester has been purchased for £2.8m. The new owners have pledged to create a contemporary, eco-friendly, and affordable residential conversion of the site.
🏪 Tesco will face a Licensing Hearing Panel next week over their application for a premises licence for a new Express store in Gillingham. The plans for Napier Road have received objections from nearby residents, echoing a similar situation recently in Rochester, where the company withdrew their application.
🏥 A Care Quality Commission report looking at the state of Medway Hospital’s A&E department is still unreleased, a year after the inspection occurred. The report is stuck in limbo due to an IT problem, with no timeline for when it might be released.
💉 Medway Hospital has a pop-up vaccine clinic for flu and covid jabs this week. No appointment is necessary, with eligible patients and visitors able to drop in and get vaccinated before this winter’s scheme ends.
🏗️ A blueprint for the former gasworks site next to the Strand in Gillingham has been put forward. Blueberry Homes proposes 500 flats across seven blocks, as well as a supermarket and additional commercial space on the site.
🛒 Aldi has purchased the former St John Fisher School site on Maidstone Road in Chatham. The location is only 1.5 miles from their other Chatham store, further up the same road.
More Authority
For our weekend interview, we spoke to Sean Cameron. Sean is a writer from Medway who is most famous for his Rex & Eddie Mystery series and now resides in Los Angeles. We talked about the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, what took Sean from Medway to LA, his life in since he got there, and lots more.
"There's been fires nearly every year since I came here”
Sean Cameron is a writer from Medway who is most famous for his Rex & Eddie Mystery series and now resides in Los Angeles. Steven caught up with him via Zoom to discuss the recent wildfires in Los Angeles, what took Sean from Medway to LA, and what he has been up to out there.
Footnotes
Follow us on social media! We’re on Facebook, Instagram, BlueSky, and Threads, but not that other one.
If you enjoy Local Authority, please share it with your friends, family, associates, and enemies. We have no meaningful marketing budget, so we rely on word of mouth from our readers to find new readers. You can even get some sweet rewards for sending new readers our way. Details here.
Music that soundtracked the creation of this edition: Best Buds by Mom Jeans, The Singles by Tullycraft, and Hello Sadness by Los Campesinos!
Where are the accusations of transphobia? Who said something that is specifically anti - trans? Who, what and where? If you are going to say that there’s transphobia you must back it up. Inference means nothing.
If being pro-women makes someone or thing anti-trans, it must mean that there is a clash between the rights of those two groups. Coffey ignores the fact that there are females who are trans so really this is more about males wanting to muscle in on events aimed at females.