I don't mean A as victim of A's father's depravity. I mean a victim in a broader sense.
Sorry, getting inarticulate, this has cut deep for me.
We don't know if A even knew that her father was going to court, or knew what the charges were.
And even if A did know, I would suggest that the denial involved in disbelieving was the product of the dysfunctional family.Again, not As fault.
Families where there have been previous care proceedings , even when healthy compared to this family, often react by denial, closing ranks, right it's us against the malevolent world. This aspect too may have been a factor.
A might have known, or might not have known even that A's father was due in court. We'll probably never know.
Due diligence from the Green-eyed I thought this too, but , you know, election agent , whilst having some legal info duties, isn't a big role ,would be voluntary in a small party. Should they have googled every member of a candidate s family? Maybe. But apart from the animal stuff, which I haven't seen, there wasn't a lot. Googling with 20/20 hindsight is easy. If the GP had noticed a somewhat dysfunctional family background, should that have barred a candidate?
Should that bar me?
But then, I'm so much older and probably tougher than A. Perhaps all should be wary of young candidates. And more protective towards them. Not just A, but others who almost certainly wouldn't be in the positions they are in if they were natal young women. The parties and organisations who seem to feel little duty to the young and vunerable have a lot to answer for.