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

How would we find out which organisations' policies AC would have 'advised' on? FoI?

And as a side issue having read the report -
did stonewall, the Greens et al really think this person had something valuable to say, or was it a woke-point-gathering exercise?

Isn't Challenor now a member of the LibDems? I wonder what their reaction is.

OTOH, I can guess: most likely circling the wagons.

From one autistic person to someone who claims to be another, fuck right off with the ‘helpless autistic’ shit.

Don’t fucking drag the rest of us down with you.

Agreed. When you're autistic you get a lot of shit thrown at you and the last thing you need is someone who is as toxic as Challenor using this condition as an excuse for poor judgement.

The last thing we need is for people to see autism = poor judgement / irresponsibility.

Safeguarding and now giving advice through stonewall? What about Amy's apparent baby fetish that's plastered across the web?

I don't get it. Why is it being ignored?

Is it worth emailing the nspcc and gg the full report?

Although it isn't as detailed and truthful as it should be it still clearly states she knew and hired him Any way. Blocked anyone who questioned safe Guarding and has no understanding of what safeguarding is and what it's for.

The whole concept of safeguarding is about having frameworks - not assuming one individual will do the right thing - because predators and manipulators deliberately don't.

I find it odd that Verita focuses exclusively on what individuals did and didn't do instead of also referencing safeguarding frameworks that should mitigate these - is this a shortcoming of the TOR, or in Verita's expertise and/or covering up the Greens lack of due diligence - or all 3?

I also see a lack of self-insight, self-reflection and evasion of responsibility in many of the answers given by AC. Some examples below:

6.19 Aimee told us that she did not ask her family for details of the charges:
“I tried mostly to stay out of it, and that is perhaps idealistic of me, naïve of me. For me, though, it was a case of this is a time of major, major stress for me and my family, and I just wanted to provide a sense of relief at the break.”
Comment
Discussion of the decisions Aimee Challenor took must be seen in the context that this was a very difficult and stressful time for her personally

6.53 “No consideration is given, or questions asked, regarding whether I would (for example) have wanted my father specifically to support me as an election agent had I not also required support in the context of my autism, or had the local party themselves given support as a reasonable adjustment. Again, no question is made as to whether the local party even offered me adjustments, or indeed had any process to collect information regarding disability and required support”

6.62 From our conversations with her, it is clear that Aimee Challenor did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to

6.82 Aimee Challenor told us that after this she was asked to step aside from the deputy leadership election and was ultimately suspended from the party. Aimee believes the party changed its stance from initially being supportive to ultimately suspending her because of pressure on social media, some of which was transphobic. She resigned from the party on 5 September 2018.

Page 61
She did not consider the safeguarding implications of her father’s arrest on charges of sexual offences.

Page 63
Overall comment on Aimee Challenor’s explanation of her actions
We find it hard to understand some of Aimee’s actions and explanations as set out above:
• we do not understand how she could not have been aware that, in giving her father official roles in the party, she was putting her own reputation at risk.
• we do not understand how she could have had the good judgement to inform officials in the party about the charges that her father faced, but the poor judgement not to make sure that all relevant information was included. It would have done her no harm to have told the officials that her father was a party member. If she had done so, it seems highly likely that Aimee would have been guided away from using him as her election agent.
• we accept that Aimee chose not to seek further information about the charges her father faced, but we do not understand why she did not recognise that this was a mistake. Once again, sheer self-preservation would suggest that she should know as much as possible about these matters, so that she could make well- informed decisions about her own actions.
Aimee told us about the pressure she was under during this period and about her autism, and we accept that these could have affected her judgement and thinking, but we are not qualified to come to any definite conclusion on such matters.

Have any media outlets ran this story yet?

I presume that Caroline Lucas will be doing a "sad face" column in The Guardian at some point...

and here's the obfuscation of the impact of ODD upon others:

Aimee Challenor, a 20-year-old trans woman who is the equalities spokesperson for the Green Party, described her battle to succeed despite her diagnosis with Oppositional Defiance Disorder, which manifests as defiant or hostile behaviour towards adults as a child.

“I was often seen as a troublemaker and whatnot, questioning authority. But now I’m doing politics I’m turning this negative thing, where people have said it will get in my way and I won’t be able to do things and achieve, into a positive.

“I’m using it in my politics as a tool to hold people to account.”

So their way of holding people to account is to develop hostile tech bots that block and silence anyone who doesn't agree with them - right - no harm there at all /s

Obviously holding others to account doesn't apply to themselves and parents plus other rather dubious and red-flaggable furry friends.

Let's have some sympathy and try to remember who the real culprits are here.

NO. Our first priority should be to prevent harm to women, vulnerable adults and children.

Any trauma of Aimee's needs addressing by a professional and not us and is not mitigation for any harm Aimee does.

Eloquently stated.

I find it abhorrent frankly that the harm done by the said person is discounted and downplayed by excuses like a young person, vulnerable, autistic, bad family etc All of that may be true, but legally the person is an adult and hence has to be dealt with as such. You can be sure they will be still be getting advice on how to run rings around the system by their parents, who have demonstrated time and time again they excel at this.

People only learn through consequences - let the person get the consequences and see if they respond by getting appropriate, professional help.

The elephant in the room is why someone with a diagnosis of ODD as a teenager was, and is, allowed to take on any position of responsibility. Here is the definition and prognosis of ODD:

Conduct disorders are the most common type of mental and behavioural problem in children and young people. They are characterised by repeated and persistent patterns of antisocial, aggressive or defiant behaviour, much worse than would normally be expected in a child of that age. Types of behaviour include stealing, fighting, vandalism, and harming people or animals.
Younger children often have a type of conduct disorder called “oppositional defiant disorder”. In these children, the antisocial behaviour is less severe and often involves arguing (“opposing”) and disobeying (“defying”) the adults who look after them.
In teenagers with conduct disorders, the pattern of behaviour can become more extreme and include:

•	<span class="italic">aggression towards people or animals</span>
•	<span class="italic">destruction of property</span>
•	<span class="italic">persistent lying and theft</span>
•	<span class="italic">serious violation of rules</span>

Children and young people diagnosed with conduct disorders often fail at school or college and become socially isolated. In adolescence, they may misuse drugs and alcohol or become involved with the criminal justice system. As adults, this group do badly in terms of education and jobs, are often involved in crime and also have high levels of mental health problems such as antisocial personality disorder.

Plus:

Adults can have oppositional defiant disorder, too. In about 40 percent of cases, adults with ODD become progressively worse and end up developing antisocial personality disorder.

Also the Sunday Times reported that legally ACs election leaflets were supposed to include the proper name of the election agent but only referred to Baloo Challenor again this was not mentioned in the report. Both a failure by AC and GP both of whom cannot deny they were at the very minimum aware of David Challenors real name

The question I had was not answered in this report and I'm disappointed as I believe it showed a serious lack of judgment on behalf of AC and Coventry GP; why was DC registered as election agent under the fake name of Baloo Chanellor? Why did this not set off any red flags within Coventry GP who knew his real name?

The nomination pack for appointing an election agent requires the candidate to sign that this is their agents name and also requires the party to check that the agents name, address etc are on the form, why was this not done and was it fraud for AC to sign off on a name that AC knew not to be DC's real name or anywhere close to his real name?
The form allows for candidates to state if there is "commonly used" name that they would prefer to be known as but does not make any such facility available to election agents, so any reasonable person would conclude the name provided should be the persons legal name or should at the very least include the legal name somewhere David aka Baloo Chanellor or David "Baloo" Chanellor, its not exactly like going from David to Dave.

It seems like the GP are so desperate for representation at every level even if they know there is little chance of their candidate being elected, they are willing to put quantity over quality. IMHO they fail to grasp the damage that poor or incompetent candidates can do their parties overall image. They seem to have no idea who is representing their party and don't seem to care

The family court report about Aimee mentioned ODD & other things for everything but nothing at all about autism. It may be that Aimee self identifies as autistic.

Aimee Challenor - who didn't and doesn't - understand safeguarding created a twitter blocker to silence the voices of people who may have included those who were trying to raise safeguarding concerns. They legitimatised the use of such blockers in these circumstances and shared it widely.

Is Challenor still doing this?

Where does this leave the LDLGBT twitter feed which is currently actively using such a blocker?

I note that the US has just had a court ruling about elected officials and Facebook blocks on the grounds of the 1st Amendment
www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/en/news/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

Whilst this doesn't have any baring in the UK its still a very interesting ruling, and one that people should keep an eye on especially with politicians having problems with social media abuse and seeking to perhaps create new laws here. It's highly relevant and important.

Abuse of politicians and political figures is appallingly but what about situations like this? The treatment of Andy Healey is an example of where it could all go wrong.

twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1083495624958504960

Aimee Challenor is a political liability and now completely toxic.

Their political career should be dead.

But I strongly suspect it won't be.

I have no idea how anyone thinks that AC has anything sensible or useful to offer as a politician.

Aimee Challenor was a vulnerable young person (see parents, former looked after child & disability).
There are serious quuestions to ask of all of the organisations as to whether Aimee Challenor was appropriately supported, trained and/or supervised. Mermaids, Stonewall, Green Party, Coventry Pride, LibDems etc have to consider if they have fulfilled their obligations and duty of care not just to Aimee Challenor but also those who have been affected by her decision making.

They can't keep them on now can they?

This is 2019. Having the brass front to stick it out seems to be sufficient these days. Sadly.

"From our conversations with her, it is clear that Aimee Challenor did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to."

I hope the Lib Dems are paying attention to this.

They won't. And it will bite them on the arse eventually.

Aimee goes on to say 'if the party had given me proper support, what with me a helpless autistic person', I wouldn't even have NEEDED to appoint a rapist as my aide

How far does that excuse wash? Either you are someone who is capable of standing for election and representing the public on your own - or you are freely admitting you aren't up to such a serious job and don't take that responsibility seriously enough. It sounds like an admission that AC couldn't do the job without significant influence and input from DC. I note at this point that AC didn't just stand for election. AC thought they were capable of being deputy leader of the greens.

AC can't have been unaware that the Green Partys limited resources mean that they could only ever possibly provide support on a professional level for elected representatives (and even then they have struggled) not other members of the party and they are wholly reliant on volunteers. The Green Party with the best will in the world can't provide that.

Being a politician is a high pressure and high responsibility task. It's one thing to need extra support. It's another to be into the realms of effectively needing a carer to do basic and essential parts of the job. If you are so autistic that it's this prohibitive, can you represent the best interests of the people you are supposed to represent, or can you only manage to represent your own personal interests and then merely present that as if you are representing lots of others? You have to be able to represent people with wildly different views and competition interests.

It just sounds like autism is just being used as an excuse and a shield to mask the self interest without any regard to the wider responsibility. That in itself is a red flag about suitability for office.

Note here: the Liberal Democrats DO NOT have any more resources than the Greens to provide Aimee with the resources and support Aimee seems to feel they need. They should not be allowed to stand for any position if their needs are this severe as its not in the best interests of those they are supposed to be representing. There are sadly limits to ability that constrain even the best of us, and if we are responsible we recognise these limitations and act accordingly if we have the best interests of the people, things and issues we care about passionately.

Seeing that single paragraph in black and white is so telling.

And its really not limited to AC. It's indicative of other parties, groups and individuals. And it's shocking.

But it doesn't come as a surprise to so many of us here. Purely because we understand what safeguarding is.

The full report is a must read. AC's own words are extremely telling. Too much of this has been left out of the exec summary.

I have no idea how anyone thinks that AC has anything sensible or useful to offer as a politician.

LibDem Voice article by Aimee Challenor:

'Why the National Autistic Society were right to reverse their decision on award winning charity Mermaids'
Sun 7th October 2018

(extract)
This week, in a move described as “worrying” by LGBT+ Lib Dems, the National Autistic Society removed all links to the trans youth charity Mermaids from their Gender page. Yesterday they reversed their decision and apologised. As a trans person with autism myself, I know it’s crucial that signposting to proper support is essential.

I was diagnosed with autism at 4 years old. It’s a diagnosis that has been constantly rechecked throughout my life.

When, aged 16, I came out as transgender, one of the first things I faced was disbelief in my Gender Identity by medical professionals because of my autism. Instead of seeing gender specialists, I was sent back to Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS).

I turned to Mermaids for support, who helped me secure a referral to the Tavistock and Portman NHS Gender Identity Services. If Mermaids had not have been there for me, I likely would’ve continued to experience rejection of treatment because of my autism. I continue to be asked about my autism at Gender Identity appointments, despite it being repeatedly addressed. (continues)

concludes:
I’m thankful that the National Autistic Society realised quickly they made a mistake and worked hard to fix it. Thanks to people supporting autistic trans people, and the NAS reacting quickly. I know that more people will be supported in accessing support.

People’s perception of my autism diagnosis nearly stopped me from being able to be myself. I hope that other trans people soon won’t have to face similar identity policing. You can help make that a reality by responding to the Government’s consultation on the Gender Recognition Act until 19th October. There are guides available from both Stonewall and LGBT+ Lib Dems.

I dedicate this article to Kayden Clarke, a trans man who was shot dead by police in February 2016. He’d just been denied treatment because of his autism.

• Aimee Challenor is a member of the Stonewall Trans Advisory Group and speaks openly about her experiences of being a young transgender woman with autism."

www.libdemvoice.org/why-the-national-autistic-society-were-right-to-reverse-their-decision-on-award-winning-charity-mermaids-58805.html

Isn't Aimee the one who said they had constant, regular confirmation diagnoses of their autism? And I think someone said that never happens?

And we mustn't forget that Aimee's mum took them to the doctor something like a 100 times in one year, indicating Munchhausen's. Or whatever it's called now.

Someone who seems to be relying so much on autism as an excuse, would make me want to check it out.

Aimee goes on to say 'if the party had given me proper support, what with me a helpless autistic person', I wouldn't even have NEEDED to appoint a rapist as my aide (@ page 42)

From one autistic person to someone who claims to be another, fuck right off with the ‘helpless autistic’ shit.

Don’t fucking drag the rest of us down with you,

How odd that so many institutions have taken on board policies and procedures written by someone with no actual knowledge of safeguarding.

From the Guides, to the police, to universities, councils, everywhere.

Tomorrow's Telegraph covers NHS hospital ward policy:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3475792-Telegraph-article-NHS-trans-row-as-men-get-access-to-womens-wards-if-they-identify-as-female

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

How odd that so many institutions have taken on board policies and procedures written by someone with no actual knowledge of safeguarding.

Well, her father has detailed knowledge of how to avoid safeguarding, so there's that.

pp63-65 are where the action is.

9.11 is shocking. Post-Saville, it's completely unacceptable, and Caroline Lucas should be treated as a political leper for leading a party which was so cynical.

How odd that so many institutions have taken on board policies and procedures written by someone with no actual knowledge of safeguarding.

From the Guides, to the police, to universities, councils, everywhere.

Shame on you all.