Caroline Lucas on Aimee Challoner in the Guardian

According to several people involved in child protection/dealing with CSA this is procedure in such cases, also followed here:

-the police interview everyone living at the crime immediately (we know this is true from Aimee's own FB message to David in 2015)

-in the interviews the seriousness of the alleged offense is made clear

-anyone connected with the scene of the crime is also informed, this information includes the nature of the crime - CSA - but not necessarily the details. This would include Green Party HQ (Green Party statement is that they did know but Aimee informed them, nothing about the police)

Serious questions that arise from this:

Is the police obliged to inform all kids orgs that someone accused of CSA is involved with them? At which point in the proceedings? If not why not?

I ask this because according to the details of the case, the child finally told someone in 2015, this person then informed the police, the police got a warrant for the Challenor house and found the torture chamber set up as described by the child and photographs showing the child/the child being abused.

In 2015 therefore the police had a lot of hard evidence (of a material nature, not merely a witness statement or circumstantial) corroborating the accusation of CSA.

Given the close correlation between animal abuse and child abuse and that the Challenors had already been convicted because of the former and their kids taken off them several times because of the latter (these are facts the Green Party would have been aware off due to the very public campaign the Challenors fought to get their kids back), why was it possible for David Challenor to get access to other people's kids?

And given all of the above incl the admission by the Green Party that they knew of the allegations, how could someone guilty of animal and child abuse and now accused of child sexual abuse be allowed to inform Green Party policy on the safeguarding of children?

Where did we go wrong? What proceedures do we need to bring in at volunteer-led organisations to prevent this from happening again?

P.S. To state the blatantly obvious, trans does not come into any of the above.

Just think the wording was interesting

In light of recent events I tend to agree. I wonder how "known" the family was in the area.

I know that. Just think the wording was interesting.

It's quite a specific accusation.

Unless AC provided the committee with copies of the written accusations it's difficult to know if this was random abuse being hurled by a random person who conflates trans/sexuality with unnatural predilections.

Not commenting on AC's committee evidence here but one of the most annoying aspects about the court case involving QMU, the PACE research team, and various fibromyalgia charities/researchers, was that the academics had claimed to have received threats of violence, death, and general intimidation. When the case came to court, there was no evidence of these threats. (The case relating to the release of the trial data is covered by the excellent Retraction Watch amongst others.) Senior academics have been known to misrepresent the activities of those with whom they disagree - in this case, in an attempt to forestall further discussion and discredit those requesting release of the data.

It's quite a specific accusation.

“delusional child abusing freak”

Does this suggest David Challoner's crimes were known and Aimee Challenor not missing a beat in continuing to work with him angered people?

I wonder if the first aid ambulance stuff has some things that are going to come out.

Why would you back someone as a spokes person for your party who speaks like this about women or anyone else?. Why is this ok? Is this what we have come to now on the U.K. this is acceptable.

cf Aimee Challenor's evidence on behalf of Green Party & response to her:

Committee of Standards in Public Life, Intimidation in Public Life: Evidence from the Green Party:
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING WITH AIMEE CHALLENOR, GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE FOR COVENTRY SOUTH IN 2017 GENERAL ELECTION
21 September 2017, London
Committee members present: Lord Bew (Chair), Sheila Drew Smith OBE, Dr Jane Martin
CBE, Jane Ramsey, Monisha Shah, Rt Hon Lord Stunell OBE

(extracts from AC's evidence)
"In the election campaign, I was targeted because I was an openly transgender person in politics, I received tweets or direct messages calling me a “delusional child abusing freak” . I had people telling me to kill myself, comments saying “zero debate needed, just point and
laugh hysterically. This needs bullying”. It is quite clear from the most recent general election in the UK, as well as conduct during other recent elections around the world, that politics is becoming more toxic. Intimidation from activists, members, and indeed other
candidates is growing. More can, and should, be done by all parties to tackle this behaviour and offer support to candidates.
These actions should include implementation and proper enforcement of Codes of Conduct, as well as the introduction of a ‘Candidate Welfare Officer’ or similar, so that Candidates may have a point-of-contact. It is also my belief that action needs to be improved beyond political parties, social media websites need to improve at removing abusive content: too often I see “We reviewed your report carefully and found that there was no violation of our Rules regarding abusive behavior” - this has happened with some of the comments I read out to you earlier. Division in society is fuelled by social media; people feel they have an anonymous face. And it is fuelled by others behaving in a hateful way, it encourages others."

"More needs to be done by the Police, when I myself have reported abusive content to the appropriate authorities, it’s been brushed aside and eventually not even forwarded on to the Crown Prosecution Service."

"There should be a strong Code of Conduct. We [Green Party] have one and a specific policy with regard to bullying behaviour. We don’t tolerate it. There should be a welfare officer, if only to signpost further. Local Council candidates in general face it too. The public see no difference between local and national candidates"

" We [Green Party] have particular groups e.g. Greens of colour, women, LGBTIQA+ and others. These groups specialise in supporting these people - has led to better relations with the Party. At election time they form a key part of supporting those groups of people.
Generally, it’s support with emails, social media, and peer support. We did some press handling too for a transgender candidate where the local media wanted to write pieces referring to the candidate’s gender identity in a sensationalist way and the candidate was very uncomfortable with their use of language. We worked with the paper and also reported to Trans Media Watch, which did help. After we spoke to the newspaper, they did write a piece using more appropriate language."

"We should be in a society where we teach to treat each other with respect. It comes from the top and bottom. Politics is toxic. A lot of campaigns involve negative campaigning. We need to see less of that to see a decrease in negative campaigning.
With respect to the Green Party, there is an executive, and a regional committee. We can recall leadership if they are bringing the Party into disrepute. There have been no difficulties with Caroline Lucas or our other Spokespeople."

www.gov.uk/government/publications/intimidation-of-parliamentary-candidates-evidence-from-the-green-party

Yes, I think excuses can be made for Aimee Challenor, but the excuse is not that they are trans and therefore vulnerable. The 'excuse' is actually the very real reason, not an excuse, that they grew up in a dysfunctional household with an abusive parent.

Thanks again arranfan for all the tweet references.

I have more time for excuses made for Aimee Challenor than I have for any colluders within the Green Party, should there be any. And I have even less after reading that Green Women statement. However I do sympathise with decent, hardworking members - I know there are many.

Not sure I'm buying this, "someone was told but didn't act because they didn't realise the significance of what they'd been told" idea. If they were given anything like the facts without omissions the significance was horribly clear. If there were omissions then why and by whom?

Given the Green Party support the paid rape of women it’s not surprising they are run by child rape apologists.

Tried to catch up last night- read Caroline’s piece. One thing that keeps coming back to me is the image of the tweet by Aimee it’s on the Green Party statement thread-I think I’ve managed to attach it. It’s from 2016. Surely all this kind of communication is available for checking out by the Green Party. Before someone becomes heavily involved in their party. Why would you back someone as a spokes person for your party who speaks like this about women or anyone else?. Why is this ok? Is this what we have come to now on the U.K. this is acceptable. It screams of red flag to me. The fact that either this type of communication is ok for Caroline and the Green Party/was not ok but she didn’t have the clout to do anything, (which is frankly buck passing please see her moan about TERF blocker.) or dare I say it they just don’t do background checks of any kind. Sums the whole mess up. I would think that any employer in any capacity would see this ( I know there are loads more.) and not take them on. No way would I employ anybody communicating in that way. Violent words breed violent actions in my opinion.

Caroline may not have any power in her party, and on that I do believe her. But surely as the only MP and well respected in her own right, does she not retain the nuclear option?

Could she not cross the floor if she feels powerless in regard to egregious actions within the Green Party ?

EverardDigby - that's very helpful, thank you.

This clearly creates possibilities for things to slip through the net. It may be that the woke over-rode the better judgement of other Party officials...It may be that AC picked someone busy / poorly trained to tell, who knows.

I wonder if this might intersect with the discussion about the entire internal communications team on other threads? Tho' I find it hard to envisage the circumstances in which even a barebones outline of the charges wouldn't trigger some alarm and concerns about "the look" of having someone continuing in even a support role while this was happening.

I saw somewhere else Feminist Roar saying she (?) never got a response

Floisme - RTB also has an eye-opening Twitter screenshot of CL's in the Green Party 3 thread: RedToothBrush Sat 01-Sep-18 02:51:28

It would be interesting to learn if Feminist Roar ever did hear back about the discussion in re: the blocked women etc.

Thanks arranfan I'll take a look.

In that sort of set-up, who had the right to say something was significant and ought to be acted-upon if others out-voted them?

As an ex (of yesterday) Green Party member, there are some things that will be regulations / standing orders, e.g. informing the Party of anything that might bring a candidate into disrepute, and some things that will be a matter of democratic decision, and TerfBlocker would be an example of something that wouldn't be provided for in the Party's standing orders and so would be a matter for internal discussion. There are internal committees and processes to deal with disputes, so Caroline is right that she has no privileged rights in the process, although as people have pointed out on here, she could have raised the issue herself, but then she would have faced an outcry within the Party for going against a democratic decision, so she's going to face criticism whatever she does.

There are six members of national staff listed on the members website, I think there is some regional support too, maybe up to one person a region. Everything else is carried out by volunteers, mainly working part time (the young, woke ones may have nothing else to do, but most people have jobs and families). This clearly creates possibilities for things to slip through the net. It may be that the woke over-rode the better judgement of other Party officials, but it may just be someone busy / poorly trained etc. didn't recognise the importance. It may be that AC picked someone busy / poorly trained to tell, who knows.

None of this is an excuse for what has happened (which is why I resigned) but hopefully helps people to understand the situation within the Green Party a bit better.

Floisme - it's the Gilligan Challenor thread that has the CL Twitter screenshot: WomblingWoman Fri 31-Aug-18 18:45:25

Some discussion following it.

One of the many threads has a screen shot from CL's Twitter in which she's asked if she knew about AC's involvement with the blocker and what she thought of the blocker.

CL said, yes she did and that she was vocal internally about her objections but she was effectively 'out-voted'.

Is there any record of Caroline Lucas voicing her objection to the blocker. Anywhere?

all those who failed to grasp the significance are even more culpable than Amy in my opinion.

If this were to be the invesigator's finding, I think it will be the flat structure of the GP that will be identified as the key factor. It's possible that Caroline Lucas' seemingly disingenuous claim is a strategic gambit. CL has already put it out there that senior officers had no power to act against things to which they objected (e.g., the blocker) or with which she was in profound disagreement because those roles do not carry privileged powers.

In that sort of set-up, who had the right to say something was significant and ought to be acted-upon if others out-voted them?

Sorry - Aimee. I'm going to be screenshot now aren't I?

If that turns out to be the case then all those who failed to grasp the significance are even more culpable than Amy in my opinion.

The Green Party statement does at least talk about the investigation looking into the circumstances that led to all this. (Sorry can't remember the exact wording but that was the gist.) It will need to.