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

Stonewall video from 2014. Youth Volunteering Programme.

Young Challenor in the middle of the crowd scene. At 1.12.

I'm guessing that Challenor senior wasn't far away either.

AC later states "someone recommended I should join a political party, so I joined the Green Party. I got involved with the LGBTIQA+ association in the party, and then the Chair role came up. I was encouraged and supported to go for it. I’d been on the Stonewall Youth Volunteering Programme, so I had the knowledge of how to campaign and get involved."

Stonewall was there. Right at the start. And seems to have selected AC as someone who would be useful to the cause. Groomed you might say.

DBS wasn't ever intended as a "is this person a good egg?" check, it was supposed to be a "is there anything in the police records that means that we need to be cautious about allowing this person to have unsupervised access to vulnerable people" check.

YY It has a specific and worthwhile purpose to ensure that police intelligence and relevent convictions remain linked to an individual so that they can be known to potential employers. This is of course especially relevent with regards Safeguarding and Child Protection.

It may also be relevent for example with regards financial crimes and frauds etc

I agree Reflectent. DBS wasn't ever intended as a "is this person a good egg?" check, it was supposed to be a "is there anything in the police records that means that we need to be cautious about allowing this person to have unsupervised access to vulnerable people" check.

AFAIK, a DBS check - even an enhanced one - wouldn't show up that the Challenors repeatedly had their children removed from them (but would have shown the conviction for animal cruelty), which is a bit of a lacuna

Bittermints
There is an argument in that direction though. Developed Vetting clearance is very intrusive, for example. I wouldn't volunteer for anything that required it. It should be for secret service and MoD staff, for government officials etc. If it were extended to race marshal volunteers and first aiders at sports events (for example) that would be overkill (and prohibitively expensive).
There needs to be some form of dbs check but as pp pointed out it doesn't flag up suspicions.
But if it did - how moral would that be? I could raise a suspicion that you were a dangerous paedophile and my unwarranted (or malicious) suspicion could lose you your job.
We have to be careful about relying too much on one thing for safeguarding, and we have to comply with data laws.
On a related note, terrorists often use "clean skins", people who have no prior police contact and no criminal record. It's feasible a paedophile gang could do likewise, maybe going so far as to coercing a vulnerable adult to entice children.
All the background checks in the world won't stop that, so other measures are factored in.

There are quite a few TW trying to promote polyamory, inter ali I can think of that Lib Dem from Cambridge and that Tory one who lectures the NHS about bdsm.

Sarah Brown & Zoe O'Connell interviewed in The Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/20/greatest-sexual-taboo-polyamorous-transgender

Tara Hewitt
Interview 2016
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-its-like-transgender-catholic-10810323

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

At the present time, MP's are NOT required to undergo a DBS check

There are good reasons for that.

Firstly, MPs do not have regular, unsupervised access to children by virtue of their job. That is the starting point for DBS: that the access be both regular and unsupervised. There are other reasons, but I don't think they are relevant. Cyril Smith, before the example is raised, absolutely would be DBS checked today as someone working as a board member in children's homes. That doesn't mean that MPs qua MPs need DBS.

Secondly, we have historically been very cautious, and rightly so, about erecting shadow barriers to people being MPs. Although there is now some change to this - members of the Intelligence Select Committee I think are DV'd - MPs are not in general security vetted, because many MPs, particularly on the left, would historically fail vetting (you might get DV these days if you were a former member of the SWP or the CP; you certainly wouldn't have done thirty years ago).

Why do you think MPs should be DBS checked?

Mary, that seems to make sense. I had started to think ACs family was even weirder than it is. On other threads I have seen reference to 'Trans-mothers' offering to support TG teens....in place of their own 'unsupportive' families. Not dissimilar to the way a cult might seek to separate young people from their families.

Quite an overlap with narcissism there, then.

'Me? Fill in that form and let all and sundry know my private business? Go on that mandatory training with a bunch of nobodies? I know you have to have these bureaucratic rules these days, but come on, this is me we're talking about! I take great exception to the fact that you would even mention this to me. I'm no risk to anyone and it's an insult to suggest I am. I know why you're doing this, it's because I'm [insert characteristic of your choice here] This is blatant discrimination and I won't stand for it. You haven't heard the last of this.'

Etc etc etc.

You know how when you were 14 you dyed your hair and adopted communist politics to get a rise out of your parents? Every fucking member of the Greens, right there

Clearly not true.

What is true from the threads on the board is that women especially who have been committed to grassroots, ecological and Green politics have been smeared and excluded by a small group of influential TRAs and young people at the National party level.

Thanks to those who answered my earlier post about DBS/CRB checks, because this thread has highlighted that the Green Party didn't have any safeguarding procedures in place, because they are so desperate for members, that they would rather sweep everything under the carpet and hope nothing happens.
At the present time, MP's are NOT required to undergo a DBS check, and on 3rd May 2017 someone started a petition to attempt to change this situation. The petition only managed to get 17 signatures - shocking.

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/179089

Meanwhile, as others on here have pointed out, it looks as though AC has drifted over to the Liberal Democrats, where they will probably be warmly received, and if that doesn't work out then I wouldn't be surprised to see them being welcomed into the Labour Part - now known as "New Woke Labour".

As LangCleg repeatedly points out on FWR, the Safeguarding protections that are being damaged by TRAs put the children and young people who identify as transgender at risk.

This is what escapes the woke. Safeguarding is not pro-TRA, anti-trans, pro-GC or anti-GC. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. It's about protection of the vulnerable from the predatory (or even the clueless). That's it.

Safeguarding is sceptical because that is the entire point of it. It doesn't pick out any group or belief system or ideology to be sceptical of: it's sceptical of everything and everyone because that is how we protect the vulnerable.

As R0 points out, orgs and institutions involved in and with transactivism have a systemic problem with safeguarding because they don't understand this and take it as an injury to identity. Conversely, safeguarding frameworks take no account whatsoever of identity.

"Is that Aimees older brother may also share both the transexuality AND the fetish stuff. But that child was taken away from Aimees mum when they were little (and has a different dad). "

Not quite.

Aimee has two older half-brothers, who grew up in Scotland away from DC. Neither of them are trans. One of them has I think now moved to the Coventry area.

The 'brother' being referred to is another care leaver, completely unrelated to Aimee, who is now engaged to be married to an entirely unconnected TW. Said 'brother' was only referred to as 'brother' by Aimee as fetish language. The same way you'll see Aimee posting currently on Twitter about being away with 'family'. (a strange word to use to describe going away for the weekend with your polyamorous lovers)

So basically it was an older TW who was once in Aimee's love circle and referrred to as 'brother' or 'pup' or member of the 'pack' (furry language). There are quite a few TW trying to promote polyamory, inter ali I can think of that Lib Dem from Cambridge and that Tory one who lectures the NHS about bdsm.

This is the party that believes that sex-work (sic) is made safer by the decriminalisation of the buying and selling of sexual services to men.

There has always been a fringe of feminism, desperate to appear non-judgemental of "choices", which holds that prostitution is no different to any other physical labour, and/or that prostitution is no different to marriage. The agendas this is the consequences of aren't hard to see, and the reality - that most women working in the sex industry are not going to be played by Billie Piper after getting their PhDs, but are socially, economically and emotionally marginalised victims of male violence - is conveniently forgotten. It's hardly surprising that the Green Party - slogan "yes, our policies might make bread more expensive, but we can always eat organic Brioche" - is enthusiastic about fringe, middle-class fantasies based on nothing factual.

You know how when you were 14 you dyed your hair and adopted communist politics to get a rise out of your parents? Every fucking member of the Greens, right there.

This is the same Claire that was completely relaxed about a rapist putting forward motions and acting as an agent. You can see where the Green Party stand on child rape: indifferent. Rotten people. Rotten party.

current thread which was started January 2018 and shows how many women could no longer support The Green Party after its 'men and non-men' policy from one of the 'Young Greens' groups:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3152500-Any-gender-critical-Green-Party-members-on-here

recent comment by theOtherPamAyres

"The Green Party has to make some positive noises before I would consider voting for them, let alone joining as a member.

I won't forget that just a few months ago, one of the co-leaders, Sian Berry, tried to get three women removed from outside the GP Conference venue in Bristol. The women were handing out FairPlay for Women GRA leaflets in a public place. The police were called.

This is the party that believes that sex-work (sic) is made safer by the decriminalisation of the buying and selling of sexual services to men.

Unlike other parties, it does not publish a manifesto for Women. Instead it has a Gender Equality manifesto (because transwomen are women and transmen are men).

It has been hi-jacked by groups promoting hobby-horses that have nothing to do with social and environmental justice.

It will take a long, long time for this small party to shake out those members who have jumped on its back. It will take even longer to get rid of those people at the top who subscribe to transgender privileges before women's rights.

Until they do a reverse ferret, they are off my radar as a contender for my vote."

thread re TRAs at last year's Green Party conference:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3386612-Police-called-to-Green-Party-Conference

But hey! We'd love to hear your ideas on schools
It'd be funny if it wasn't so scarily accurate.

What I understand (from the evidence links posted on KW farms). Is that Aimees older brother may also share both the transexuality AND the fetish stuff. But that child was taken away from Aimees mum when they were little (and has a different dad).
It's not just a house of horrors, it's a network of horror. How they are all interconnected is the stuff of nightmares.

But hey! We'd love to hear your ideas on schools 😍

This is on the Kiwi Farms thread about AC - the Twitter link doesn't seem to work any more but I wonder if this is related to the disciplinary incident that the report mentions (where DC was attending with AC and to act on their behalf if necessary)

These dox have just appeared on Twitter, this being court papers from Aimee Challenor trying to silence Andy Healey, and the statement in support of this from Claire Phipps, Chair of the Green Party Executive till November 2017.

^The dox are dated April 2017 and were released by Andy himself. twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1083483340685144067^

The question is who funded this injunction?

The first page defines acronyms, including 'TERF' and cites two 'non-binary members' of the Green Party in support.

The third page cites a tweet from Aimee 'Blocked another TERF SWERF twitter user. Goodbye @djandyhealey Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Cunt.'. Claire said she offered sympathy to Aimee but 'could never truly understand what it's like to receive 'tweets that invalidate ones identity as a transwoman'. Claire told Aimee to lock down his social media, stop swearing publicly and apologise.' Aimee's reply was 'I'll only apologise if he asks for an apology, and I can't apologise publicly on Twitter, where I insulted him, because I've blocked him' and 'I may make a complaint about him'

Subsequently Aimee & his LGBTIQ Greens group ganged up to make a complaint against Andy about 'transphobic abuse'

Aimee added 'Andy is being a pain on twitter again'

Claire decided that the solution to Andy triggering Aimee, in order to put forward a 'Transwomen are women' motion at the party conference. When this motion was passed, Andy Tweeted 'Gpconf had a choice of pandering to delusions or seeking truth'.

[Note - I think I've edited out the bits that fall foul of FWR Talk guidelines]

In terms of older friends, someone once posted a link to ACs profile on a Furry site from several years ago, when she would have still been a minor and possibly before her transition. The one "friend" appeared to be someone who has since emerged as a high profile TRA, again possibly before their own transition. All the evidence (being taken into care, the nature of her father's conviction, autism etc) points to AC havin had a very difficult childhood.The report focusses on processes. However the real question is why was the GP using a young, probably vulnerable, person to achieve woke points, without providing proper mentoring or support.

The more pressing issue (for Safeguarding reasons) is the role that organisations and charities such as Mermaids are having on vulnerable young people they claim to support and represent.

As LangCleg repeatedly points out on FWR, the Safeguarding protections that are being damaged by TRAs put the children and young people who identify as transgender at risk.

previous post on the thread, theOtherPamAyres
Here's Aimee Challenor writing for Liberal Democrat Voice about how Mermaids helped her to circumnavigate medical professionals

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

This is about the duty of care to protect children and young people.

Mermaids clearly do not understand Safeguarding
Its a systemic failure.

When challenged he recognised this specific issue and Samaritan's guidance.
I am unconvinced that he has any understanding of Safeguarding though any more than any other TRA who prioritises 'rights' :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=4
This is a systemic failure within transactivism

YY - asking for special privileges and countering any concerns with indifference or some bizarre "trans people don't do that sort of thing" argument.
Activists like AC belong in single-issue interest groups. They should not be promoted by political parties when they have such narrow interests.

I would love to know what the investigators covered in their informal notes but concluded that were outside the scope of the investigation (or were removed following discussion with the Green Party). For example, they note (uncritically and in passing) that DC was known by the nickname "Balloo", attributing it to his involvement in the Scouts rather than his furry fetish

Bloody hell. I had missed that express article. They don't hold back, do they? I'm sure most people reading it don't quite realise the extent of it, either.

Indeed, I had missed it too.

The Veritas report was specific and limited in its scope as per the instructions of the Green Party.
Coventry Pride was a relevent parallel due to their response to David Challenor following AC advising them in similar time/manner of his arrest to The Green Party.

R0wantrees

Bloody hell. I had missed that express article. They don't hold back, do they? I'm sure most people reading it don't quite realise the extent of it, either.

Interesting that Veritas contacted Coventry Pride, the organisation that got it "right", well almost, but not Prism or Stonewall, the two organisations that AC boasts about having influential positions. The former especially as it involves active involvement with LGBT youth. Does Aimee had an enhanced DBS check or untertaken a safeguarding course. If Veritas have concerns about AC's capacity to understand autism, surely they have some sort of obligation to alert the youth group she is involved in. Even if it is in the form of just sending them a copy of the report.

In terms of older friends, someone once posted a link to ACs profile on a Furry site from several years ago, when she would have still been a minor and possibly before her transition. The one "friend" appeared to be someone who has since emerged as a high profile TRA, again possibly before their own transition. All the evidence (being taken into care, the nature of her father's conviction, autism etc) points to AC havin had a very difficult childhood. The report focusses on processes. However the real question is why was the GP using a young, probably vulnerable, person to achieve woke points, without providing proper mentoring or support.