To think that Nightwatch should have specific "orders"

[Maryzsnewaccount]

And that if they are going to delete threads about child rapists, they should be ordered to deleted every news story, on every topic. Or none at all.

Because the alternative makes it look as though there are some Nightwatchers (who I admire as a group, in general) who are going beyond their brief.

Again, what I want to know is who/what organization is working behind the scenes persuading newspapers to edit old articles and in some cases remove them. That is some sinister shit, and the public have a right to know what's going on

There may be other under 18s associated with this case who might be identified if more information is published. This is often the case when abuse in a family has been identified and a perpetrator prosecuted, for instance, Karen Matthews, Fred West. Many details were omitted from press coverage to protect younger family members from being identified in the press.

The reason these threads are getting deleted is because people keep insinuating (or outright stating) that the perpetrator's family, including his politically active daughter, knew and / or were actively involved in his crimes. This is potentially libellous and I don't blame MNHQ one bit for being cautious.

Y.Y peach. And will push it and push it on threads and force deletion, then report that deletion as confirmation of some kind of conspiracy or cover up

It's not all that well covered in the press. I heard abour the case on here.

I just Googled the name and first page brought up articles from The Mail, Independent, The Mirror and The Times.

Oh - I read the papers and listen to the radio. Not much on there!

Andrew Gilligan’s article states the timeline and facts as they are. No need to insinuate or suggest anything, as people can now make their own minds up about potential involvement/awareness.

What peach said.
Nothing can be said here that would prejudice any further trials which may or may not be planned

Also, our desire to discuss the case does not trump the rights of the victim or victims and those of any minor children involvedeither as victims directly ir as part of the wider case as, for example, family members of the perpetrator. .

I've just read the article in the Times. I had no idea about the case up until now and I'm generally an avid news hound.

It's appalling on so many levels and there are so many issues.

One side issue arising from the case must be that the Green Party really need to up their game if the first they heard of it was after his trial and conviction. Surely there should be some central office with responsibility for knowing more about election agents or just more awareness of what was going on in the local community that might have an impact on their party?

You'd have thought that if someone was being considered for the deputy leader position the party would background check everyone close to them so as to avoid both potential PR nightmares and safeguarding problems. Apparently not.

.

Gossip being what it is - I find it hard to believe that they hadnt heard the rumours. Maybe they decided to consider it a 'innocent until proved guilty' but why they didn't have a quite word with doodah (distance yourself from your dad professionally) I don't know.

However from what I've read about rhem maybe they went on the defensive and started banging on about their rights (and stuff everyone else)?

On a seperate note I really think this type of reporting (leaving out key facts) fuels the right wing agenda & gives it ammunition. I used to be an avid Guardian reader but I trust it as much as the Daily Mail now.

There are 5 children in the family. I assume any under 18s are now in care and details are scant to prevent their identification.

So someone should lose their job simply because their dad is a monster?

They have disowned them but when did the UK justice system become sins of the father are now sins of the child...

They have disowned them

Link?

It was mentioned previously i am not going trawling through twitter again. But what more can said person do she cannot help who her family is why should she stand down be punished for her fathers crimes where does it stop?

Grand parent is a peodo should his grand children and children now lose there jobs as teachers because they are related to a monster?

Should the entire family be mentioned in the press oh such and politican is 2nd cuision of a politcian they should step down.

Where does the buck stop? I say it should stop at the criminal only.

So someone should lose their job simply because their dad is a monster?

No one has said that. What is the case, however, is that Challoner junior allowed Challoner senior to use a false name (a breach of electoral law) in order to act as Challoner junior’s election agent, at a time when Challoner senior had already been charged with the rape and torture of a child. They not only did not disclose this to the Green Party, but allowed the address of the paedophilic torture den to be used as the Party’s Coventry HQ. And, working together, the Challoners campaigned aggressively to allow self-ID to override safeguarding, even creating software to silence those concerned about this.

Do you think that is acceptable behaviour for the candidate for Deputy Leadership of a Party has has representation in Parliament?

And, as AAK implies, there is no evidence that Challoner junior has disowned their father. They were working closely together during the period between Challoner senior being charged and his sentencing.

Aimee should stand down because Aimee would have been interviewed or otherwise been made aware of the investigation into the dad's crimes during the police investigation and Aimee apparently did not inform the Green Party. There's a timeline in the Times article - people can post links but can't make you read it.

If they had disowned their father rather than choosing to work closely with them the situation would be far less alarming.

Aimee should not be judged on her fathers actions but hers, which were wrong.

I agree - the children shouldn't be punished for the sins of their father BUT this particular child has been so close to their father, has known to childrens services througout their life and has not had the time or space to process what has happened. I am not saying they should never be allowed to be a public figure or enter the political arena, but they are so young. This time would be better spend getting their head sorted than out and about, on the party politics merry-go-round.