Andrew Gilligan Sunday Times Challenor Green Party

I feel for Aimee. It must have been a dysfunctional childhood.

twitter.com/AimeeChallenor/status/1035526985643118592

Another handclap for ROwan

I nominate R0wan for next editor of BBC News. With a few honourable exception, she puts so-called journalists to shame.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

LangCleg

parfois oui!

The thing I wonder about though is what is stopping them (not just journalists but other organisations) from doing the most cursory of questioning.

The blatant, flat out lying is incredible. The trustees of Pride knew of DC's upcoming court case and (quite rightly) suspended him. AC was one of those trustees. Yet AC claims not to have known anything till "recently" about DC's impending trial.

Two years is not "recently" in this context. Maybe if one is discussing geology, but not in the context of using your father as an election agent after his impending criminal trial has been drawn to the attention of the board of trustees of which you are a member.

I haven't had time to read everything here and I don't have a lot of time to comment, but I couldn't pass by without saying something.

I feel sickened and saddened by this. I read the BBC article first and then The Times (thank you for the token). Many, many layers to the onion here. The BBC are shameful.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

We are in this mess because there isn't the revenue and resources given to 'proper' journalism atm. Click bait is much more profitable. In a declining press market, its particularly true.

As much as it pains me to admit, there is an argument to say that The Times being paywalled potentially gives them more of an ability to do so.

I also think that in an age of social media, we all have something of a social responsibility to do what we can to fill in the gaps, because its ultimatey in our interests to do so.

I know that a sizeable amount of investigative journalism is simply to trawl through vast quantities of documents or to use google these days. More complex stuff like getting interviews or doing FOI etc perhaps is a better spend of journalists precious time.

I don't like this reality, but I recognise this reality and think its a necessity for us to do so, whether we like it or not.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

I think it's a good thing for journalists and opinion formers to feel that it is worth checking out the MN threads for this kind of info.

Wow that Twitter thread is quite something. Tina Challenor ran for the Green Party as well? That family essentially WERE the Green Party in Coventry, weren’t they?

What is amazing to me is how few journalists or with a responsibility to fact check have not established this sooner.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

That Twitter thread is amazing, R0wan.

On the issue of why Aimee feels able to get away with lying, well, I guess, if certain journalists on certain publications don't even do the basic journalistic task of spending 10 minutes on Google to check their facts, then it's very likely Aimee will get away with lying.

There is also a question I think to ask of Coventry Pride board of trustees.

Whilst they have clearly condemned DC's crime they will need to make clear that the possible conflict of interests with his family member was established and dealt with appropriately. This should have been recorded so will be easily evidenced.

AC seems to think they can get away with anything.

perhaps because in a number of situations in the past she has?

And AC is lying when they say they only found out about DC’s crimes after the sentence, since Cov Pride knew all that time ago. AC seems to think they can get away with anything.

Thanks Rowan and James

From the Coventry Pride statement,
"A directive was issued to those responsible for volunteer recruitment that Mr Challenor was not to be accepted as a volunteer at the Charity’s events and if he attended public events organised by the Charity he was monitored by the trustees"

Surely there is a question to ask if Aimee Challenor was a trustee during this time, did she assume responsibility for her father at events?

Gilligan is still on the case

The information about Aimee Challoner being a trustee of Coventry Pride was available to anyone who spent 20 minutes using Google. I didn't go looking for it and it was very quickly clear.

What is amazing to me is how few journalists or with a responsibility to fact check have not established this sooner.

Eh? AC went to private school? With unemployed parents living in a 2 up 2 down?

Hmmm.

I had never read Breibart before, and though that article was OK, the rest was distasteful.

But I want the right to hear views that are different from my own (unless they are illegal) and I want the right to express by views, even to those who disagree with me.

Isn't that what gc women are asking for.

FWIW I once read a great article by Katie Hopkins about dementia. It does not mean I agree with other things she writes. However after looking after a parent who has had Alzheimer's for a decade and who, when lucid, says she want to die, I am glad some people say the unsayable. Deciding there is only one version of the truth and shutting down the debate is a sure fire way to totalitarianism. The best counter to people with daft/unsavory views is open debate. Very sad though, on this one, that it took DCs conviction for people to feel able to speak out.

Gilligan is still on the case:

twitter.com/mragilligan/status/1034776005326581767

He has just tweeted:

"This, by Coventry Pride, is really tricky for Aimee Challenor. She was a trustee at the time (Nov 2016) when the trustees were "made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against [her father]" and banned him. But she still used him as her agent in 2017 and 2018 elections".

I don't think its tribalism to object to people linking to far right or Nazi propaganda sites so I'll continue to report whenever I see it. Obviously you disagree, which you're entitled to Except AuntiePushpa you are insisting on your right to censor which obviously cancels out my right to disagree. Perhaps you could put your efforts into lobbying the guardian and bbc to properly report the news. That is the best way to keep people away from Breibart (which I abhor as much as you)

Breitbart are at least open about their affiliations, as to be fair, are the Guardian, although you would like to think they would still have some professional pride and standards. The BBC are supposed to be impartial - absolutely no excuse for them.

Agree with Lass and Lang. You can correct for a known bias. But you can't evaluate what's not published, So bias by ommission is absolutely pernicious and that's what the Graun and BBC are guilty of.