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

Thanks Hedgehog!

for public consumption:
www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/national-site/Final%20report%20-%20Executive%20summary-%20cover.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2OlqfVWdi2u23eij7Ho7aI8MC7lPyq59cJgEYWwOokgkQmg3aWGMMuuKY

Private Eye on Verita...
twitter.com/StanFastic/status/1083432468114485249?s=19

I'm not sure how you can categorise that tweet as dissembling

Announcing the publication of a report that is not published is what, then? Bants?

I wonder if the Green Party ever consider that their constant inability to stick to their own defined deadlines might actually reflect poorly on them as a political party.
This report was supposed to be published in November last year.
It makes them look like they can't even do the absolute basics.
Remember the "Green Party had no knowledge of this" statement that was issued after Challenor was sentenced? Which was quickly deleted when some of their own members gleefully took to social media to contradict it.

To be fair, they have acted swiftly when a member has committed the heinous crime of misgendering.
Perhaps they're hoping to bury the bad news in the turmoil of the Brexit vote next week.

We have to keep the pressure on for this to be published and hope that perhaps a mainstream journalist might be interested too. I will be calling them tomorrow.

I'm not sure how you can categorise that tweet as dissembling tbh...maybe I've missed something?

He called for the scope to of the enquiry to be broadened

So what? As a senior member of the party he is dissembling on Twitter about a publication that hasn't happened.

Surely the Freedom of Information Act can help here?

Of course it can't. That applies to government bodies and things funded by the government. The Green Party are (rightly) no more subject to the FoIA than your diary is.

Come on - somebody's going to leak the whole thing at some point, surely?

Someone will hopefully leak both versions.

Surely the Freedom of Information Act can help here?

Shahrar Ali imho is one of the Greens to come out of this with some dignity.

He called for the scope to of the enquiry to be broadened to include the disciplinary process where former members claim it had been abused - and got a lot of flak for doing so.

You can't say he's GC by any means but neither does he seem to have drunk the kool aid.

Personally I think their credibility (such as it is) requires nothing less than full publication.

However we are dealing with a party where one of the co-leaders (Ms Berry) was alleged on SM of a major twitter clean up (on one specific topic - guess which) after this scandal broke.

As a former GP Mayoral candidate she's part of an archived twitter account that logs any deletions....

Oh, and to show the state of Green politicians, here's their "Home Affairs spokesperson" this morning on twitter: "No ordinary day. 1. @TheGreenParty to announce to members long awaited @VeritaUK report into #Challenor & #safeguarding."

If someone fancies the lols, perhaps ask him about that.

Or perhaps not bother, as silence is eloquent.

twitter.com/ShahrarAli/status/1083275968289099776

Come on - somebody's going to leak the whole thing at some point, surely?

Presumably they can do what they like. But as questions will be asked, in public and very loudly, them not answering them will not be a good look.

I thought it was delayed until today, because it had to be passed around all the interested parties to get their approval?

ie already redacted.

Presumably they may decide to publish only the recommendations section of the report.

And thus avoid having to name anybody who may have acted in an improper manner.

Is it worth tweeting the green party and publically asking about it?

But they could publish a redacted version.....

Right now, most decent people realise that the Greens are in the same position, for the same reason, as the SWP, except that instead of having a party official who coerces vulnerable adults into sexual relationships and gets his mates to cover it up, they have a member who sexually molests children and then is appointed to an official public position in the party while on trial. So anyone who stays a member of the Greens today should be treated with the contempt reserved for people who are still members of the SWP.

People who have children and are members of the Greens should think: why am I am member of a party whose safeguarding is a vile joke and which is now concealing a report into it?

Thank you WorkingItOutAsIGo - which ironically is what the Greens are probably doing right now

But they could publish a redacted version.....

It's possible that there's pressure on them to keep certain sections/conclusions private.

Do they have to publish it? I mean is it obligatory?

As far as I remember it is up to the Greens if they publish. But it will look really bad if they don't - openess and transparency and all that...

What does this mean then?