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

Popchyk - the real worry is will the Lib Dems read this and put the correct safeguards in place for AC if she will never have the capacity to understand (a bit like David Blunkett having a Dog for his disability)? They have already had Aimee be on the panel at a least one training/motivational event.

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.

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

He hadn't been charged with the rape at that point, and it might not even have happened.

Although you would have thought that animal cruelty would have shown up on a standard check, and the fact that his children had been removed might show up on an enhanced check.

I know of at least one Guide leader who has said in the past that they only DBS check people who seem dodgy. Which is appalling, but I suspect not implausible.

Aimee's dad had "untold influence on public policy" - um, srsly, do you not know how the Green Party works?

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.

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 just can't see the Greens doing the self-examination necessary to effect real change.

sorry "provide a list of"

Andy

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

Exactly. He would have done at DDs sports club, because we had a framework to follow and needed to provide of active coaches adn volunteers including their DBS numbers. But this is far from universal. The requirement to do a check led to people walking away for both our club and neighbouring ones, so was a useful filter in itself. But interesting that when problems were found it seemed that these people had already, like DC, managed to volunteer in a variety of organisaitons/activities without checks.

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

The requirement to have DBS checks will depend on the circumstances, role and the type of contact with children.

There are different types of DBS checks:

'What is the difference between a standard and enhanced DBS check?

A DBS check is what used to be called a CRB check. A standard DBS check involves a check of an applicant's criminal record against the Police National Computer for any reprimands, warnings, cautions or convictions.

An enhanced DBS check includes all the information included as part of a standard check, plus any information held locally by police forces that’s considered relevant to the child workforce and post applied for.

Who needs an enhanced DBS check?

Any job that involved caring for, supervising or being in sole charge of children of adults requires an enhanced DBS check.

What is the Children's Barred list?

The children's barred list contains a list of people barred from working with children. This is because they have been dismissed or removed from working in regulated activity because they have, or might have, harmed a child.'
www.strictlyeducation.co.uk/online-dbs-further-information/

At the moment, there is no requirement for an MP or a working member of a political party to have an Enhanced DBS check done, which I find amazing as they often visit places where these would normally be required.
Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

If the behaviour is a potential, safeguarding protocols should be in place to minimise the risk of the potential being fulfilled (the duty of care is twofold: to the vulnerable adult themselves, and to the people they may harm). Also, clearly not happened here.

I see no indication from this report or within the Green Party (and other parties) that this basic understanding of safeguarding is, in any way, in place. It's shocking.

This ^^

Such frameworks should include who needs to be DBS checked and at what level, policies if supervising children on trips away, recruitment procedures - what certificates need to be seen and what references taken, training requirements - who needs to be trained in safeguarding, first aid etc, a designated welfare office and clear complaint procedures, insurance, etc.

These are policies. Policies and legislation are important parts of Safeguarding frameworks.
There has to better understanding first.

When does vulnerable adult become liable for consequences of their aggressive adult behaviour and harm to others?

If the behaviour has already occurred, as soon as it has occurred. Clearly not happened here.

If the behaviour is a potential, safeguarding protocols should be in place to minimise the risk of the potential being fulfilled (the duty of care is twofold: to the vulnerable adult themselves, and to the people they may harm). Also, clearly not happened here.

I see no indication from this report or within the Green Party (and other parties) that this basic understanding of safeguarding is, in any way, in place. It's shocking.

R0, I dont think we disagree.

Safeguarding frameworks should be written by people who understand safeguarding. (Not by Aimee Challenor or Pips Bunce.) People who, as you say, understand safeguarding.

Such frameworks should include who needs to be DBS checked and at what level, policies if supervising children on trips away, recruitment procedures - what certificates need to be seen and what references taken, training requirements - who needs to be trained in safeguarding, first aid etc, a designated welfare office and clear complaint procedures, insurance, etc.

As a naive volunteer whose 11 year old was part of a sports club, I was daunted by the three page check list, but as I worked through it I realised each and every item was important. (And indeed ticking all the boxes meant the Club avoided a couple of major problems.) In retrospect that check list was vital. And, appropriately written, would be equally useful for people in a variety of under resourced organisations, whether the Green Party, Coventry Pride and Prism, or even Mermaids. It took a fair amount of Googling to find a Mermaids safeguarding policy, and even then I could not be sure it was up to date. Plus it included an unsafe approach on involving parents. My experience in contrast was having to gather together the key policies, have them on the website where coaches and parents could see, and have them approved in order to get the accreditation.

I can fully understand community volunteers in a variety of roles not being expert in safeguarding, which is why there should be clear, sensible frameworks available, and organisations serving the community should be encouraged to gain accreditation. The police's role is to arrent and prosecute people like DC. Great if they also join the dots. And better if their returns on DBS applications are complete and accurate, but they can't be expected to fill gaps when organisations fail to carry out proper safeguarding checks.

I also feel that more attention need to be given to people who go into schools and provide advice, like Stonewall, Mermaids etc, to ensure that their advice is compatible with standard safeguarding procedures. If the Council educational department is not content, they should not be there.

I think that Stonewall needs to come clean about whose policies and procedures have been amended using advice given by someone who [as shown in this report] clearly has absolutely no knowledge, experience or qualifications in safeguarding.

And then inform all of those bodies that their policies and procedures are flawed and to backtrack to previous policies and procedures and make hold an internal investigation into how these got signed off.

That's just my opinion of course.

When does vulnerable adult become liable for consequences of their aggressive adult behaviour and harm to others?

Conatus News article

concludes:
"Aimee participated in Green Party politics as a candidate four times, each time without further disclosure of David’s charges. Furthermore, Aimee encouraged him to become more involved in the Green party throughout that time. The report finds that Aimee made several errors in judgement not just in the course of protecting others but also putting Aimee’s own reputation at risk. Aimee claims that both autism and the pressures of the time made it difficult to make the appropriate judgement calls. However, if Aimee’s reasoning was impaired during the period David was charged, was it also impaired over the course of the four times Aimee stood as a Green Party candidate?

Verita found that ‘Those in the party who were told about David Challenor’s activities saw the issue as primarily a communications one – about protecting the reputation of the party.’

Were they primarily concerned about protecting the party, or primarily concerned about Aimee? Did Aimee’s status an an autistic, transgender teenager from a troubled background prevent Matt and Clare from taking an objective view of the situation – focusing primarily on Aimee’s well-being rather than the reputation of the party or safeguarding concerns? Verita argue that, although the pursuit of including ‘young, diverse and potentially inexperienced people’ in the party and in particular in leadership positions is noble, more training and support needs to be given to such individuals.

This raises concerns that people are being elevated into roles they are not capable of fulfilling, solely based on their status as ‘diverse’. While we should remember that such ‘diverse’ people have often been excluded from positions of power and influence, to commit to inclusion means to treat them like human beings – flawed but capable of making decisions for themselves. Not as simultaneously someone who can hold positions as a national spokesperson on LGBTIQA+ issues, a member of the executive of the national party, and a suitable candidate for deputy leader of the party, and yet also be a vulnerable and innocent teenager whose autism and stressful circumstances lead to them potentially allowing children to be exposed to a sexual predator.

The Green Party has wholly accepted the recommendations of the Verita report and have resolved to implement them immediately. Aimee Challenor has responded by updating their twitter photo to display a Liberal Democrat party emblem."

conatusnews.com/green-party-verita-report-challenor/

How? "Please bring in your complete medical records so that our doctor can check through them?"

Surely there must be a self-declaration of medical diagnoses that may affect/ could possibly affect the ability to do the job/work? ODD would be one such condition that would need declaring...not my area of expertise however if candidates aren't asked this, that's another gross failing....still not perfect as it relies on honesty and as we can see, honesty is in short supply at critical times

Needmoresleep
I think the more pressing issue is that anything to do with Safeguarding should be led by people with knowledge and profesional expertise in what it is and how it should work.

There's a whole host of misconceptions, policies which have evolved beyond the point where they can actually safeguard children and vulnerable adults.

Effective safeguarding and child protection training should start with basis first principles.

The understanding has to come before the policy.

But they are not the subject of the investigation, and would be unwise to vicariously make themselves the targets of someone else's. If you think they should similarly reflect, you should ask them about it. I think their statement is fine.

They aren't the subject of this investigation which was commissioned by the Green Party.

In terms of priorities of investigations, Stonewall should be starting theirs, so too Mermaids.

David Challenor was involved and supportive of Aimee's work with The Green Party, this report has examined the Safeguarding issues presented there. Similar questions should be asked of the two influential trans-rights charities.

The gap between grass roots and Head Office seems to be a problem in many organisations.

So the Girl Guides can, at National level, have happy consultations with the likes of Pips Bunce and the Aimee Challenor advised Stonewall, but volunteers can be largely on their own if the local "eccentric" turns up, says they are a woman and they want to volunteer. (What I suspect may have happened with Coventry Pride is that the local grapevine will have worked. Someone, whether a neighbour, a police employee, etc, will have had a word with their mate in Coventry Pride and warned them to be careful. Coventry Greens were the Challenors, so the GP would not have had the same information. Coventry Pride can't say anything because they wont want to reveal their informal source.)

The solution is safeguarding frameworks. HQs can also have their hands tied. For example, and really bizarrely, a sports association cannot tell you if a sports coach has lost their registration because of bad behaviour at a previous club. So a volunteer sees an old certificate and does not know. But at least with a proper safeguarding framework the HQ will nag them to get accreditation and explain that they need to see up to date origionals.

We need:

1. Proper national safeguarding frameworks for ALL relevent sectors, along the lines of Sport England Club Mark. This would include political parties (they could have a common framework for those sending volunteers interacting with the public so small parties are not disadvantaged.) But also charities, youth groups (including Coventry's PRISM) and even people like Council Housing maintenance departments. Organisations would receive a proper, and recognisable accreditation. Organisers at a grass roots level would not have to reinvent any rules.

1. Such safeguarding to centre around the needs of the vulnerable. Transgender lobby groups like Stonewall, do not write them. Yes they might be consulted but children and the vulnerable have priority should there be conflicts of interests.

1. There should be a feedback loop so that policy makers actually hear the issues faced by grass-roots volunteers. My own experience is that constant vigilance is required. The majority of sports coaches are wonderful, but a few are very odd. Someone working in a boarding school said the same of applicants seeking jobs in that sector, and I have no doubt the same applies to the Girl Guides. Sports organisations tend to recruit former performance athletes. Charities and the Girl Guides seem to look for woke career administrators who understand funding and political currents. But the problems occur at grass roots levels and however pretty Pips Bunce looks in a dress, I doubt he/she has relevent experience.

aren't medical records checked as well for key spokespeople?

How? "Please bring in your complete medical records so that our doctor can check through them?" I don't think you even need to do that for DV clearance, and you certainly don't for SC.

It's not possible to deduce that this was 'their only failing'. It would be naive to do so without full knowledge.

That's a fair comment. But they are not the subject of the investigation, and would be unwise to vicariously make themselves the targets of someone else's. If you think they should similarly reflect, you should ask them about it. I think their statement is fine.

The incident may well have been explained as misguided SJW by a young person under considerable pressures.

AC was young and has been open about her family difficulties, medical issues as well as her 'transition'.

I'm sure that's the case - but conduct disorder is a huge red flag ...aren't medical records checked as well for key spokespeople?

AC retells their history with more than a little gild on it where significant aggressive behavioural issues are now on the record as "medical issues" and "family difficulties" but legally, these wouldn't be mitigation for the aggression in adulthood imo - they would still be deemed responsible for their actions and inactions. Also, as others have remarked, autism seems to be used as a get out for ODD/conduct disorder

Did the GP do no due diligence at all?

The incident may well have been explained as misguided SJW by a young person under considerable pressures.

AC was young and has been open about her family difficulties, medical issues as well as her 'transition'.

Hence my next sentence "Their only failing, in 20/20 hindsight, was to not recognise that "supervised by trustees", normally a strong position, is undermined if the suspect is a trustee's father. "

Its not possible to deduce that this was 'their only failing'.
It would be naive to do so without full knowledge.

I am pretty sure there were some comments at the time from key member/s of Coventry Pride which suggested that there too those questioning and raising legitimate concerns about accountability and safeguarding were shut down and smeared as 'transphobic' etc.

A simple google search of the family names reveals all that Aimee Challenor has done politically as well as her previous arrest for 'hacking' when a teenager. That arrest would also be part of police intelligence.

Did the GP do no due diligence at all?