Andrew Gilligan Sunday Times Challenor Green Party

YouGov Guidance for trustees of charities:
(extract)
"When you and your co-trustees make decisions about your charity, you must:

act within your powers
act in good faith, and only in the interests of your charity
make sure you are sufficiently informed, taking any advice you need
take account of all relevant factors you are aware of
ignore any irrelevant factors
deal with conflicts of interest and loyalty
make decisions that are within the range of decisions that a reasonable trustee body could make in the circumstances
You should record how you made more significant decisions in case you need to review or explain them in the future."

www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved

Wow. Good work, R0wan.

HuffPost article January 13th 2017 by Aimee Challenor
"Three years ago, when I was sixteen years old, I took a huge step in my life: I went to prom. I went to prom, like hundreds of thousands of school leavers that year, and, just like so many others, I wore a dress to prom. That's how I came out as transgender to my conservative private secondary school.

Three years is both a very short time and an eternity. In those three years, I've grown, I've become a trustee of Coventry Pride, a registered charity, and been involved in organising our local LGBT+ celebration since 2015. I joined the Green Party, was elected chair of LGBTIQA+ Greens, and now find myself the equalities spokesperson for the party. I've grown. I've progressed. I've achieved. I am still growing."
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/aimee-challenor/trans-children-who-knows-best_b_14143156.html

28th August 2018 Coventry Pride Statement:
"Mr [David] Challenor volunteered for the Charity in 2015 and 2016 he assisted with event set up and take down, and designing some posters and leaflets. The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016. 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. Mr Challenor no longer has any links with the Charity."

www.coventrypride.org.uk/2018/08/28/a-statement-from-the-trustees-of-coventry-pride/

You want people to return to the political centre ground? Don't try to do it by censoring Breitbart (which will only turn them into "free speech" martyrs). Do it by demanding the BBC and Guardian return to doing proper journalism.

So far as the Mail etc- they have an agenda - they are openly right wing. One reads them knowing that an applies whatever filters one thinks necessary.

Hear, hear.

The BBC article is shameful.

There is nothing untoward in The Breitbart article. It is factual, well written and avoids the sensenational language The Sun et al used (although I am still grateful the red tops covered the conviction and for once "evil" " sick"" monster" etc is fair comment)

I'm bored by the " we can't read The Fail/ Spiked/ Vice/ Breitbart" vapouring by some posters. It is patently obvious the "good guys" like The Guardian and the BBC can't be trusted.

So far as the Mail etc- they have an agenda - they are openly right wing. One reads them knowing that an applies whatever filters one thinks necessary.

I bet the Mail however in its entire history has never considered the imprisonment, rape and torture of a 10 year old girl too trivial to report - which is what the BBC's brush off response was.

Well, MNHQ haven't deleted the link.

It only rehashed The Times article anyway. Didn't say anything controversial.

Google and other search engines censor thousands of sites. Web hosting platforms refuse to host thousands of sites. Breitbart isn't one of those

If you don't like it, fine, but it's not a banned site - and it's not even the "worst" of the mainstream, more extreme sites either (have you ever wandered around 4Chan? )

People link to everything from the Pink News (lesbians should accept penis, incest is fine) through the Morning Star (unashamedly communist) to Breitbart on here. We're adults. We can check out the provenance of sites, work out their political leanings and take that into account. I'd rather know what political extremists were thinking than stick my fingers in my ears going "la la la la la, can't hear you."

Putting yourself inside an echo chamber is how the Democrats in the USA sat cheering Hillary on as she made her infamous "basket of deplorables" comment (yes, I know it wasn't intended to encompass all Trump voters, but that nuance was never going to come across in a sound bite), then were surprised when Trump won.

And when the mainstream press (I'm looking at you, BBC) deliberately tries to censor the news (it's taken them till 28th August to cover this at all, and then they've left out the word "rape" and basically re-printed Aimee Challenor's press statement, taking it utterly at face value), it fails in its duty to report the facts and dig out the story underneath interested party's own, partial, slanted accounts. That drives people into the arms of Breitbart.

You want people to return to the political centre ground? Don't try to do it by censoring Breitbart (which will only turn them into "free speech" martyrs). Do it by demanding the BBC and Guardian return to doing proper journalism.

I agree it is not prohibited Prawnofthepatriarchy but I'm not aware of any site being banned or prohibited (by who? The global internet police?!). That doesn't mean the mumsnet community can't maintain any standard. 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.

I feel more affinity with rightwing women than leftwing men at the moment. Very pissed off with the Guardian, and with the Labour party. And with the SNP.

Breitbart isn't a prohibited publication, AuntiePushpa. I'm fed up with people saying oh, you can't read X or quote Y because X/Y has said something that's considered beyond the pale or is out of line with our position on whatever. This sort of tribalism is unhelpful.

There were lots of dissenting voices when the Hands Across the Aisle initiative started - radfems joining forces with conservatives and Christians. But it made perfect sense. All were stakeholders facing a common enemy: transactivist ideology.

If Breitbart is reporting the Green Party debacle accurately and in detail, then so much the better for the gender critical cause. The comments below the line demonstrate that anyone attacking FWR for transphobia needs to get out more.

This matters, as then the article isn't the red flag it should be for the local community, to know this man has been at large in their community (cub scout leader, involved in gynmastics etc). Families need to know about this, so they can ask - did this man have contact with my child?

It's not even a transgender issue, but seems to be being cloaked by that small aspect of the case.

Agreed, it's appalling.

The BBC story is shameful. It's an exercise in minimising. They've obviously learnt absolutely nothing from the serious criticisms in how they treated the accusations against Saville.

Headline:

Green Party member ends deputy leader bid after father's abuse conviction

Abuse?! They don't even use the word rape. If they want to focus on Aimee, it should be something like:

Green Party politician ends deputy leader bid after father sentenced to 22 years for torture and rape of child

The word "abuse" could mean all sorts of different things.

Although the article mentions the victim was 10, it minimises the heinous nature of the crimes. It does not mention torture, nor rape. Also, as most abuse occurs within families, the way this article is written, it could be taken to mean the abuse was of a family member. This matters, as then the article isn't the red flag it should be for the local community, to know this man has been at large in their community (cub scout leader, involved in gynmastics etc). Families need to know about this, so they can ask - did this man have contact with my child? None of this is mentioned.

And at long last, story on the bbc website. Tucked away in the local news. Sorry can't do a click link on this elderly tablet.

if anyone is nervous about reading the Breitbart article, it is ~(bizarrely) - perfectly sensibly worded and cites The Guardian as its source (even more bizarrely).

I'm not going to look at the comments though -

Breitbart ain't my cup of tea, but it's not a banned publication so there's no reason why it shouldn't be linked to on MN

I''m waiting for the TRAs to campaign for Breitbart to be shut down for its transphobia....or maybe female dominated spaces are easier for them to bully... (In any case, the comments there...that is what transphobia looks like, not "women don't have penises")

But I cannot believe that the BBC is keeping silent on this.

Me neither and it is starting to look like the BBC has an agenda that is not just misguided.

I mainly lurk on these pages as I'm not as articulate as everyone else, and comment when I can on consultation docs etc.

But I cannot believe that the BBC is keeping silent on this. Where is its integrity?

I have tried to be objective and understand how it might not be frontline news to those not aware of the gender critical debate / radical trans activism. But I can't see it at all. A candidate in a mainstream political party employing someone charged with gross crimes. How is it not news? I just can't understand how the BBC will justify its silence. Has it learnt nothing from Savile etc?

I will email the complaints department and no doubt get fobbed off, but I feel like somehow barging my way into their broadcasting to ask someone the question directly.

Why would anyone think linking to Breitbart or other far right propaganda sites on mumsnet was acceptable? And encourage people to go read stuff on their site? Not on.

If its not against mumsnet rules yet it should be. Reported.

Because we won't get a sensible conversation about this in the current political climate. Indeed its more likely to be dominated by the propaganda of Leave.EU, Breitbart and the Bannon PR machine rather than by moderates.

Why would it need to be up to the far right? I am not far right, but I am dead against tolerating the kind of behaviour that the so called liberals have allowed to run rampant through our society. In the quest to be tolerant and liberal we have allowed perversion and depravity run amok. The road to hell is paved with good intention, and we are on the road to hell.

600 comments now. Wow when pp are finally allowed to talk about this subject they sure have a lot to say!

I wasn't speculating; that was simply a way of saying surely this is as bad as it can get.

Could it get any more toxic that that?

Be careful when you speculate like that.