Veritas report due tomorrow (Thursday) at midday re: Aimee Challenor

Is there another similar lobbying group with the same influence as Stonewall?

For its size, Mermaids punches well above its weight.

As for individuals - the NHS and Tara Hewitt come to mind.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc?pg=1

AC works with Stonewall.

The report clearly suggests that AC does not understand safeguarding and does not have the capacity to understand safeguarding. As repeatedly said all over this board, Stonewall are advising on safeguarding policy ffs, and multiple times people trained in safeguarding within their work have raised that their advice contradicts the standard safeguarding framework and practice they follow. Helen from the Guides was sacked for refusing to stay quiet about this. Even the NSPCC don't dare discuss the conflict between Stonewall and other lobby group advice and standard national safeguarding practice.

MPs and journalists please take note.

This is a scandal. Members of political lobby groups have been allowed to train and influence safeguarding policy without themselves being trained in safeguarding or understanding it.

They have done this without qualification, awareness or regard for the particular needs of or the impact of their policy on vulnerable people and children not part of their lobby group's focus.

Safeguarding policies across the UK have been compromised and need to be urgently reviewed and repaired by professionals trained in safeguarding and not representing a lobby group.

This has been able to happen because even trained, named safeguarding leads have been afraid to speak out and protect safeguarding from politically motivated changes, and organisations such as the NSPCC have equally been too afraid of being called bigots and worse to stand up against this. In part, because they have seen how those who do have been punished. Things have been made unsayable. People have been exempted from standard expectations, practice, values and guidelines.

This should be on the front page of every newspaper. The DfE and the government children's safeguarding lead need to urgently sort out the mess they have allowed to be made on their watch.

Is there another similar lobbying group with the same influence as Stonewall? They aren't challenged on anything. Even the NFU doesn't seem to be as close to government and major organisations.
There are powerful lobby groups, granted, but are there any others who get to write government policy for them, "educate" business, government and schools, all with government funding and what looks like zero oversight?
Are Stonewall getting a free pass because they're Stonewall?

Unlike LGB rights, trans rights conflict with other peoples rights and protections. Our society needs to balance these rights appropriately. (My view being that the rights/needs of the vulnerable should be weighted far more heavily than trans rights.) But Veritas seem to be suggesting that Aimee lacks the capacity to understand this. So instead we have from Stonewall: TWAW, #nodebate, and trans-rights are human-rights
Good point. If AC can't understand the concept of competing interests that inability will inform the sacrosanct guidance Stonewall dish out to passive organisations.
There are no checks and balances on that guidance or where/who it comes from. The Stonewall stamp seems to serve as proof enough that the content is valid/true/legally accurate but as per the police guidance on transphobia, we know that's not the case.

It looks to me like the got most of the information in vaguely the right direction from AC (but not through formal channels), then minimised it when it got passed on (no formal safeguard to ask questions), then it fizzled out. As if someone's dad that they had never heard of might have got caught stealing a beer glass, and AC might get upset if someone mentioned it.

Then they got told on the day, knew nothing about anything and didn't try and find out, and it hit them in the face.

You could have run rings around them and they wouldn't have seen.

If all the organisations currently promoting the further rights of trans people work like that, then there will be a lot of rings being run. Only they won't know.

However, I expect there must be many with safeguarding leads who think they are safe on paper but are not thinking the implications of changes through from all perspectives, which is what they are being told with this new magical thinking where men become women in all ways. Actually, that is what is happening isn't it GG, NHS etc etc etc...……….. The safeguard is being nobbled.

Aspie, yes. Plus presumably AC was promoted in part because she added the experience of being "trans" to the organisations diversity. However if she lacks the capacity to understand other people's experiences and needs, or the relevence of protecting the vulnerable, she takes away from the organisations ability to appear/represent a diverse constituency.

Thus shocking that she is secretary to Stonewall's trans- advisory Committee. Unlike LGB rights, trans rights conflict with other peoples rights and protections. Our society needs to balance these rights appropriately. (My view being that the rights/needs of the vulnerable should be weighted far more heavily than trans rights.) But Veritas seem to be suggesting that Aimee lacks the capacity to understand this. So instead we have from Stonewall: TWAW, #nodebate, and trans-rights are human-rights.

(Rarely has and organisation lived up to its name as Stonewall does. Aimee appears to put it all down to her "autism". I think that suggestion is beyond rude to autistic people. But whatever her problem, Stonewall seems to suffer the same. They deserve each other, but neither deserve to advise anyone.)

I cannot believe that an official political party of the UK didn't have a safeguarding lead.

However, how interesting that some of the safeguarding might be influenced by Stonewall (with AC on a relevant panel) and similar organisations...

We need the Miller Committee report walked back and we need any company policies based on Stonewall or similar organisations' input to be redacted and re-commissioned.

Or do they accept that sometimes certain people do not have the competence to fulfil positions of responsibility within their party? And that sometimes groups with dark motives will use someone like AC in order to promote their own aims. And that the Green Party were complicit in treating AC as a special case to whom normal rules did not apply.

All of this and worse - consider that DC often accompanied AC as "support". AC relied on DC and even asked them to attend a GP complaint hearing on their behalf. So at best AC was subject to undue influence from a sexual sadist probably with psychopathic tendencies. Who knows what DC was advising. And who knows how much of that advice made its way into policy and advice decisions via Stonewall. You can see the mess caused in the GP but Stonewall's reach is a lot-lot longer and wider. How many other organisations have adopted policy recommendations from Stonewall based on AC's input influenced by DC and/or others?

Anyone who objects/ed to the wholesale recommendation of the dismantling of historically proven safeguards is still today silenced - irl and on social media. And the means to silence us on social media (blocker) involved AC as they themselves have said.

At its worse, this could be considered akin to members of PIE getting into positions of influence like Head of Children's Services, where they deliberately obfuscated and misinterpreted policy giving license to predators to normalise sex with children in care by their care-workers and the like - and other "responsible adults" turned a blind eye because their boss said it was OK to have sex with a minor provided it was consensual - and who got to define "consensual" - you got it - the perpetrators.

This is a huge scandal

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one...

When I had a small training company, of 2 people, we had a safeguarding lead from the time we started the company. I cannot believe that an official political party of the UK didn't have a safeguarding lead. And hadn't put people through safeguarding training.

This is atrocious.

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one..

Oh well. stable door and all that.

No expert, but I always thought you had to have a go-to person. That is the way I have seen it work.

I hate the use of the word ‘diverse’ to describe individuals.

A group can be diverse but unless they have some kind of mosaic condition an individual can’t.

^^Did they actually have a safeguarding officer/lead anywhere? I am getting the impression that it was not a particular person's responsibility?

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one...

All of those people in authority (like AC and other members of the relevant GP committees) and, in retrospect, none of them had any understanding of what they were doing?

Did they actually have a safeguarding officer/lead anywhere? I am getting the impression that it was not a particular person's responsibility?

Incompetently? With no due diligence? A bit like a bunch of amateur politicos with no actual understanding of any but buzzwords? Am I getting close?

I think so. But a bit worse.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

Is the Green Party really going to provide full-time carers to someone like AC? Or do they accept that sometimes certain people do not have the competence to fulfil positions of responsibility within their party? And that sometimes groups with dark motives will use someone like AC in order to promote their own aims. And that the Green Party were complicit in treating AC as a special case to whom normal rules did not apply.

I totally agree popchyk

And her continuing role as vice-Chair of a Coventry youth group - Prism.

Yeah DV looks into your entire family, and all your finances too. I wouldn't volunteer if I had to go through it, you're effectively sacrificing their privacy too.
I think it's impossible to know everything through vetting, but DBS checks are good to have. Don't forget your police record will have every time you've had an interaction with them on it, not just actual convictions. It just makes up part of safeguarding, it's not the be all and end all.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

IF this is now out there, where does it put AC's advice to Stonewall, AC's addresses to police organisations etc.? Miller Committee?

Guide groups etc. that I have been involved with all insisted on DBS for all regular helpers, and non DBSed people had to be supervised at all times.

But DBS is pretty weak: if you haven't actually been in contact with the police it's unlikely it will show anything up, and even an enhanced DBS requires that you have been on the police's radar.

The alternative is things like DV clearance, required for people with regular access to very sensitive material and places, which probes motivation and trustworthiness. But volunteers would be unwilling to do that, it would be wildly invasive (people who work in those worlds refer to "giving up their privacy") and in any event it routinely takes a year and costs ten grand to do. I could do some other things at work if I had DV, but I have declined it on several occasions because of how invasive it is.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

If Veritas could see this, why couldn't people in the green party? Perhaps lots of people in the party don't understand safeguarding.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

Ever.

Even after this horrific tale that has been going on for years, AC still does not understand.

Veritas could not have put it more clearly really.

And this is the problem. All parties have been guilty of promoting less capable people for woke points. It's patronising and in this case dangerous.
I agree with the pp (sorry it was a long thread and I can't remember who said it) who compared the fear of being labelled racist re. grooming/rape gangs and the fear of being labelled transphobic in this case.
AC is either not capable, and should therefore be supported (now by LDs) to carry out a role AC can actually do, or AC is capable, but has horrendous judgement and is unable to deal with debate (block lists) so is unsuitable for public life full stop.
Either way AC should not have ever been in that position, no matter how hard up the GP was for membership/volunteers.
On a final note - is this a case of quantity over quality or did the GP actually consider AC as electable?

There's a link above which explains what does and doesn't show up on the different types of DBS checks.

Organisations such as sporting bodies, guiding etc will have policies about which adults are DBS checked, at what level and how frequently.
They will also have policies about how to respond to information which is disclosed.

The DBS check was originally called the CRB check. This came about after it was established that Ian Huntley had been known to several police forces but the information was not centrally held. His previous addresses could not be verified by the checks used at the time.

Its purpose was to close the loophole so that individual's could not hide their offending behaviours by using different names and addresses.

It is though a check for a specific range of information at a particular point in time.

This is why it is part of the Safeguarding framework.
An important part.

If someone changes their sex (or self IDs) and are called, say John Smith, can John Smith then put ‘Mary Jones’ on any DRB
form and not state that they were until recently John Smith, litten drowned, bank robber and flasher of the parish? Because admitting that they were John would be upsetting for them.

do you not know how the Green Party works?

Incompetently? With no due diligence? A bit like a bunch of amateur politicos with no actual understanding of any but buzzwords? Am I getting close?