Green Party statement

[Destinysdaughter]

Sorry it’s so tiny, I screenshotted it on my phone from Twitter! It’s a bit mealy mouthed...

That's what alarms me, pickle, that if a small number of private citizens hadn't looked into this nobody would ever have known and the GP would most likely never have acknowledged any connection to them.

(And also that the injunction was allowed.)

yy, had the police not been on the ball the evidence, especially the photographic evidence would have presumably disappeared.

It makes me weep thinking how many other men are like this, and indeed how many other children may have been involved in various ways with this man.

How anyone can back the weakening of safeguarding rules is beyond me.

That statement is such a disgrace. I'm so shocked.

Does anyine understand why this case has taken 3 years to get to court? That can't be the norm. I can't imagine how that alone must have hung over the victim for all that time. How is she supposed to have been able to move on in any way and start processing her traumas?

Agree with you all - if it wasn't for the so-called TERFs checking this shit out, it would have all gone under the radar. Shameful - and I have a feeling it's what they all wanted - protect the name of the Green Party and Aimee Challenor - someone who has actively worked for silencing women's voices on the subject of safeguarding.

I have no end of admiration for the 10 year old girl (same age as my daughter) and the police & prosecution here. Convictions are difficult to get in these cases.

Could the injunction have anything to do with AC's campaign to get elected to Deputy Leader? The voting closes on 30th August.

Surely not. Surely you wouldn't keep such a secret from your party, or your colleagues on the Green Party Executive, or the people campaigning for you, and gag the press, just to win an election?

Re the disappearance of news stories, internet links etc. People have screenshots as this was always going to happen. Its still bloody scary though, the attempt to re write history. Unfortunately for the Challenors, they'd posted their lives all over various social media. Including a fb account to try and get their children back, fun runs for DC etc. Its a wonder they weren't deleted pre trial.

There may be other cases ongoing in respect of David Challenor, and that is why reporting is restricted, in case media information at the moment jeopardises another criminal case. Which may involve minors. That might explain the 3 year criminal proceedings - because there are other linked cases to follow.

However, it doesn't explain why certain media outlets are covering his conviction. And others are silent.

I think it is interesting that the Green Party are the only organisation on the entire internet who has published the link between DC and AC. And yet they are the ones most damaged by this link getting out. And no, I don't think bravery and decency were the reason that they made the statement.

My own feeling is that the Green Party never actually intended to issue a statement about this today. They only did so because their draft statement (which they put together in the event that media started reporting the link between DC and AC) was either leaked or was published by mistake. That's why they have been floundering around. Their hand has been forced by the draft statement getting out.

The draft statement getting out is reminiscent of Jess Bradley's behaviour being unveiled on an anonymous Twitter account.

Evening everyone. We just wanted to reminder you all of some of our posts from the other day, which still apply here.

We understand the interest in this case, but please remember that AC was a child when these events took place, and that we don't allow any speculation regarding individual children and sex/sexuality/sexual abuse.

We'll also delete posts which imply in any way that a child could be complicit in this awful crime and we will take down speculation about other members of the family, too.

If we end up having to delete large swathes of the thread we will have to get rid of the whole thing so please do think very carefully about what you might be accidentally implying when posting, as well as sticking, more generally, to our usual talk guidelines. Thanks.

My other question would be why a 20-ish year old person is even being considered for Deputy Leader.

Re the initial draft statement. It was tweeted by a green party member. Then swiftly deleted as far as I know. So, not sure what to make of that.

Mmm. "Thanks" MNHQ.

V disappointed to see Barrack's posts deleted - presumably for misgendering. I mean really???

They were extremely good, well written posts.

I feel very defensive that on a parenting website the whole "gendering" thing seems to be more important to HQ than the issue of child safe-guarding?

police can only put out a press release if you have a reasonable belief that there are other victims.

Given how extreme his criminal activity was, I don't understand why they were so sure he wouldn't, or couldn't have enacted similar, or equally horrible abuse on another child.

How high is the reasonable belief bar for a press release ?

Lou, I get that, but no-one here is alluding to anything anyone did when they were a child. AC has not been legally a child for over two years. Surely we are allowed to comment on what an adult has done. Which includes, but isn't limited to:

Blocking women from talking on twitter
Hiding the fact that her father had been accused of raping a child
Either (1) not telling the Green party he had been accused or (2) telling them, but insisting he was innocent/the child was lying
Attempting to reduce safeguarding standards for children (see girl guides)
etc etc etc

If AC is being listened to as an adult, AC should be open to being criticised as an adult.

AC may have been a child in 2015 when these offences occurred but AC has been an adult since 2016 and should be held accountable for actions since then.

It will be quite extraordinary if you delete yet another thread with useful and relevant links to many things that the mainstream media (and the public) should know about, simply because someone who is now an adult was a child three years ago

And the deletion of Barrack's posts is disgraceful.

She was referring to male dominance, male violence - we, as women, should be allowed to do that.

At the very least you should "regender" here execptionally informative and interesting posts. If you delete her (and worse, ban her), you are nailing your colours to the mast.

I have screenshots from Tina Challenor's FB telling her version of the events when the children were removed. It's still there if you search her on FB as she posted in public groups about it. I'm unsure how old the youngest is so I won't post them in case they are still under 18, but anyone interested can easily find it.

The description of a hearing about taking various children into care is very interesting. The father in that case certainly knew/knows how to play the system - and play the victim. The case cost SS almost half a million! Over thirty years of SS involvement, getting nowhere, being obstructed every step of the way.

If Barrack is getting a strike for those comments I will be very concerned about HQs priorities. The person in this scenario who attempts at protection should focus on is the little girl who DC was convicted of abusing.

yy, any criticism of the person who raped a child should be allowed on mn.

Any criticism of the person who covered up the rape/supported the rapist should be allowed on mn.

Banning anyone who criticised the rapist/the person who covered up for the rapist is at best misguide, at worst utterly appalling contempt for the legal process that found the rapist guilty and thus the coverer-up also guilty.

MN need to take a stand on this case. It will be very interesting which stand they take.

Those in the know about these things, is it standard for cases to be that long? Re the family law link upthread.