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

Why would you have to call that number if your previous name was getting flagged up anyway?

Because the potential employer etc will only get the report back in your current name - it will cover all previous identities but under the current name.

That's the idea, anyway. But crickets from officialdom to all questions asking if this is open to abuse.

So giving one name automatically flags up all other names associated with it?

But I'm sure I read that if you are trans, you have to call a confidential phone number, who will then preserve your privacy.

Why would you have to call that number if your previous name was getting flagged up anyway?

At the risk of becoming a stuck record, DBS checks are a part of some Safeguarding policies and are part of the Safeguarding framework.

Organisations which do not require emplyees or volunteers to have DBS checks, still have obligations to understand Safeguarding which will be informed by policies.

It seems the serious lack of understanding of Safeguarding contributes to a systemic failure within many organisations which intersect with transrights activism.

Im wondering WHY you need to disclose all names if they can check all names.

They will do additional searches on those names.

There would also be an issue (bearing in mind the reason for the DBS) if it came back and all names had not been disclosed.

It would be regarded as a potential red flag in situations of trust.

It's not impossible he had ID in the name of Baloo, of course. He managed to get himself appointed as an election agent in his made up name, after all. If someone wants to maliciously represent themselves as having a different name it's not that difficult.

It would show up on DBS.
ID may be used in other situations where an employer, landlord etc is solely obliged to see a copy of ID.

DBS works differently, it has a different function and uses a range of checks.

I know we’ve talked about DBS checks and name changes before.

Im wondering WHY you need to disclose all names if they can check all names.

In many countries they have population registers so you’d put ‘Jane doe, ID number 123456’ and they’d be able to tie that number to all identities.*

So why ask for previous names if they have a way of seeing them all from current ID?

Can they see identities or not? If Jane Doe applies and doesn’t mention she was Jane Smith before marriage, there’s a paper trail but how is it visible?

I’m asking how the process works - if Jane sends in a DBS and misses a name change off, how can the people checking see that?

• I think one EU country is having pressure put on to change the ID numbers because it ‘deadnames’ people (you can tell the sex from the number odd/even.)

When an organisation carries out the check the applicant has to fill in any previous names they were known by. Their current full name has to match their ID.

It's not impossible he had ID in the name of Baloo, of course. He managed to get himself appointed as an election agent in his made up name, after all. If someone wants to maliciously represent themselves as having a different name it's not that difficult. Even the lower and less exotic forms of security clearance want all your names back to birth and require evidence of it which is checked; that's not so far as I understand it the case for DBS. Rapists lie, unsurprisingly

Having seen how difficult it is to get any prosecutions for animal cruelty, I’d say the conditions he kept his animals in must have been appalling.

Sorry, ^^ was for Alexander

Reflectent - this summarises the animal cruelty conviction (as well as DC's other crimes)

Challenor was also convicted in 2013 of “failing to provide suitable environments for two corn snakes, a bearded dragon, two cats, three dogs, a hamster, two hedgehogs and two rabbits.” He was jailed for 12 weeks, suspended for 12 months, with 200 hours’ unpaid work, and told to pay an £80 victim surcharge and £500 costs

So not something like failing to clean the litter tray out every day or having a couple of extra fish in a small tank

Given how long social services were involved with this family, presumably there's a serious case review in the pipeline too?

This needs to happen

If it turns out they sought a DBS check in the name of "Balloo Challenor" then that will be a massive thing.

When an organisation carries out the check the applicant has to fill in any previous names they were known by. Their current full name has to match their ID. So unless DC legally changed his name to Baloo and had matching ID it wouldn’t be possible. I used to employ performing arts teachers and they had to list their stage names.

There is now a process for transgender people who don’t want to disclose their sex to their employer (which I don’t agree with) but they still have to disclose those names to the DBS but on a confidential firm the employer does not see.

The animal cruelty thing is interesting. Someone may have had to make a judgment call but it depends exactly what the conviction was. I made a judgment call that a girl resisting arrest and ‘attacking’ a police woman when she was a silly drunk 17 year old didn’t mean she was any risk to kids as a 20 something teaching drama and the local authority where she worked first as a teacher, then a TA obviously made the same decision.

I read a published newspaper article shortly after the verdict was announced that suggested Tina Challenor was on the radar of social services long before she met David Challenor. Childhood on, IIRC. I was left with the strong impression, though, that DC was one of those people who fight tooth and nail against SS and sometimes succeed in getting SS decisions overturned by the courts, as I believe he did.

Given how long social services were involved with this family, presumably there's a serious case review in the pipeline too?

One would hope. Quite rightly, one thing that is not publicly known is who the child victim was, and therefore how the Challenors came into contact with her. If it turns out, as would hardly be surprising, that the child was on social services' radar for other reasons then it's a total scandal. If the child was otherwise unknown to the authorities then it isn't quite the same issue, but the way in which the David Challenor managed to get his way into a network of volunteering should be a matter of great concern to social services.

Given how long social services were involved with this family, presumably there's a serious case review in the pipeline too?

Indeed and those organisations which have a duty of care towards children eg scouting, gymnastics etc should now be carrying out internal investigations

I'd be curious to know how the animal cruelty conviction wasn't a red flat for them. If they didn't know, was that because (a) it wasn't picked up by a DBS check because...who knows? or (b) it was spent or (c) it happened after the check. Dunno, but it needs to be thrashed out.

If it turns out they sought a DBS check in the name of "Balloo Challenor" then that will be a massive thing.

Wasn't the CSE inquiry going to look into DC and the Greens. Presumably they'll be given the full report.

We can probably assume that DC did not tell any of the organisations he was involved in.

Indeed and those organisations which have a duty of care towards children eg scouting, gymnastics etc should now be carrying out internal investigations. If they were also not contacted by the investigating police force, this may become a matter for further reviews.

Okay thanks (re Scouts). That is basically what I wanted to clarify.

We can probably assume that DC did not tell any of the organisations he was involved in.

ReflectentMonatomism
People from Soham know.
Please stop derailing the thread with your theories.

including amongst politicians and many others who should know better. I still recall a senior (Labour) minister saying when CRBs were brought in that 'parents would be able to be 100% confident their children were now safe at school'.

Exactly. comments such as this by politicians demonstrate their failure to understand Safeguarding and raise unrealistic expectations that any framework can prevent risk 100%.
Professionals who work within Safeguarding understand that this is never possible.
This is why protecting the frameworks is so vital.

Thread which collates some of the potential failings/failures of Safeguarding and Child Protection frameworks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

Yes absolutely they might. They were 10 years old so presumably they were going to be attending that school soon. They may have had visits there, used the facilities, whatever. They lived close enough to the school to walk past from the homes of one of the girls. He would have been seen as a trusted person.

Didn't I see the other day there are some new press guidelines about not using other words for "rape"?

The fact was Huntley lived in a school caretakers house on the grounds of the school was probably instrumental in why the girls entered the house

Perhaps. We'll never know. It wasn't their school, however; he was caretaker at a secondary school while the victims were at primary school. Would primary pupils regard a house on the premises of a school they don't attend as any safer?

Has anyone posted up the fact that the Guardian has covered this today?

Interestingly, when I looked this morning the Guardian coverage didn't actually name or list the offences, while the BBC did. You could read the Guardian coverage and not know, aside from the length of the sentence, that he was guilty of grave offences.