Andrew Gilligan Sunday Times Challenor Green Party

[WaddIelikeapenguin]

"A young politician and transgender activist who is running for deputy leadership of the Green Party was fighting for her political life last night after it emerged that she had used her father as her election agent even though he faced charges of raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl."

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rising-greens-star-aimee-challenor-will-not-quit-over-rapist-father-kngjwc8l5

Google and other search engines censor thousands of sites. Web hosting platforms refuse to host thousands of sites. Breitbart isn't one of those

If you don't like it, fine, but it's not a banned site - and it's not even the "worst" of the mainstream, more extreme sites either (have you ever wandered around 4Chan? )

Well, MNHQ haven't deleted the link.

It only rehashed The Times article anyway. Didn't say anything controversial.

The BBC article is shameful.

There is nothing untoward in The Breitbart article. It is factual, well written and avoids the sensenational language The Sun et al used (although I am still grateful the red tops covered the conviction and for once "evil" " sick"" monster" etc is fair comment)

I'm bored by the " we can't read The Fail/ Spiked/ Vice/ Breitbart" vapouring by some posters. It is patently obvious the "good guys" like The Guardian and the BBC can't be trusted.

So far as the Mail etc- they have an agenda - they are openly right wing. One reads them knowing that an applies whatever filters one thinks necessary.

I bet the Mail however in its entire history has never considered the imprisonment, rape and torture of a 10 year old girl too trivial to report - which is what the BBC's brush off response was.

You want people to return to the political centre ground? Don't try to do it by censoring Breitbart (which will only turn them into "free speech" martyrs). Do it by demanding the BBC and Guardian return to doing proper journalism.

So far as the Mail etc- they have an agenda - they are openly right wing. One reads them knowing that an applies whatever filters one thinks necessary.

Hear, hear.

HuffPost article January 13th 2017 by Aimee Challenor
"Three years ago, when I was sixteen years old, I took a huge step in my life: I went to prom. I went to prom, like hundreds of thousands of school leavers that year, and, just like so many others, I wore a dress to prom. That's how I came out as transgender to my conservative private secondary school.

Three years is both a very short time and an eternity. In those three years, I've grown, I've become a trustee of Coventry Pride, a registered charity, and been involved in organising our local LGBT+ celebration since 2015. I joined the Green Party, was elected chair of LGBTIQA+ Greens, and now find myself the equalities spokesperson for the party. I've grown. I've progressed. I've achieved. I am still growing."
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/aimee-challenor/trans-children-who-knows-best_b_14143156.html

28th August 2018 Coventry Pride Statement:
"Mr [David] Challenor volunteered for the Charity in 2015 and 2016 he assisted with event set up and take down, and designing some posters and leaflets. The Trustees were made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against Mr Challenor in November 2016. A directive was issued to those responsible for volunteer recruitment that Mr Challenor was not to be accepted as a volunteer at the Charity’s events and if he attended public events organised by the Charity he was monitored by the trustees. Mr Challenor no longer has any links with the Charity."

www.coventrypride.org.uk/2018/08/28/a-statement-from-the-trustees-of-coventry-pride/

Wow. Good work, R0wan.

YouGov Guidance for trustees of charities:
(extract)
"When you and your co-trustees make decisions about your charity, you must:

act within your powers
act in good faith, and only in the interests of your charity
make sure you are sufficiently informed, taking any advice you need
take account of all relevant factors you are aware of
ignore any irrelevant factors
deal with conflicts of interest and loyalty
make decisions that are within the range of decisions that a reasonable trustee body could make in the circumstances
You should record how you made more significant decisions in case you need to review or explain them in the future."

www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved

Agree with Lass and Lang. You can correct for a known bias. But you can't evaluate what's not published, So bias by ommission is absolutely pernicious and that's what the Graun and BBC are guilty of.

Breitbart are at least open about their affiliations, as to be fair, are the Guardian, although you would like to think they would still have some professional pride and standards. The BBC are supposed to be impartial - absolutely no excuse for them.

I don't think its tribalism to object to people linking to far right or Nazi propaganda sites so I'll continue to report whenever I see it. Obviously you disagree, which you're entitled to Except AuntiePushpa you are insisting on your right to censor which obviously cancels out my right to disagree. Perhaps you could put your efforts into lobbying the guardian and bbc to properly report the news. That is the best way to keep people away from Breibart (which I abhor as much as you)

Gilligan is still on the case:

twitter.com/mragilligan/status/1034776005326581767

He has just tweeted:

"This, by Coventry Pride, is really tricky for Aimee Challenor. She was a trustee at the time (Nov 2016) when the trustees were "made aware of criminal proceedings being taken against [her father]" and banned him. But she still used him as her agent in 2017 and 2018 elections".

Hmmm.

I had never read Breibart before, and though that article was OK, the rest was distasteful.

But I want the right to hear views that are different from my own (unless they are illegal) and I want the right to express by views, even to those who disagree with me.

Isn't that what gc women are asking for.

FWIW I once read a great article by Katie Hopkins about dementia. It does not mean I agree with other things she writes. However after looking after a parent who has had Alzheimer's for a decade and who, when lucid, says she want to die, I am glad some people say the unsayable. Deciding there is only one version of the truth and shutting down the debate is a sure fire way to totalitarianism. The best counter to people with daft/unsavory views is open debate. Very sad though, on this one, that it took DCs conviction for people to feel able to speak out.

Eh? AC went to private school? With unemployed parents living in a 2 up 2 down?

Gilligan is still on the case

The information about Aimee Challoner being a trustee of Coventry Pride was available to anyone who spent 20 minutes using Google. I didn't go looking for it and it was very quickly clear.

What is amazing to me is how few journalists or with a responsibility to fact check have not established this sooner.

From the Coventry Pride statement,
"A directive was issued to those responsible for volunteer recruitment that Mr Challenor was not to be accepted as a volunteer at the Charity’s events and if he attended public events organised by the Charity he was monitored by the trustees"

Surely there is a question to ask if Aimee Challenor was a trustee during this time, did she assume responsibility for her father at events?

Thanks Rowan and James

And AC is lying when they say they only found out about DC’s crimes after the sentence, since Cov Pride knew all that time ago. AC seems to think they can get away with anything.

AC seems to think they can get away with anything.

perhaps because in a number of situations in the past she has?

There is also a question I think to ask of Coventry Pride board of trustees.

Whilst they have clearly condemned DC's crime they will need to make clear that the possible conflict of interests with his family member was established and dealt with appropriately. This should have been recorded so will be easily evidenced.

That Twitter thread is amazing, R0wan.

On the issue of why Aimee feels able to get away with lying, well, I guess, if certain journalists on certain publications don't even do the basic journalistic task of spending 10 minutes on Google to check their facts, then it's very likely Aimee will get away with lying.

What is amazing to me is how few journalists or with a responsibility to fact check have not established this sooner.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

Wow that Twitter thread is quite something. Tina Challenor ran for the Green Party as well? That family essentially WERE the Green Party in Coventry, weren’t they?

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

I think it's a good thing for journalists and opinion formers to feel that it is worth checking out the MN threads for this kind of info.

They seem to be letting us do the work for free, non?

We are in this mess because there isn't the revenue and resources given to 'proper' journalism atm. Click bait is much more profitable. In a declining press market, its particularly true.

As much as it pains me to admit, there is an argument to say that The Times being paywalled potentially gives them more of an ability to do so.

I also think that in an age of social media, we all have something of a social responsibility to do what we can to fill in the gaps, because its ultimatey in our interests to do so.

I know that a sizeable amount of investigative journalism is simply to trawl through vast quantities of documents or to use google these days. More complex stuff like getting interviews or doing FOI etc perhaps is a better spend of journalists precious time.

I don't like this reality, but I recognise this reality and think its a necessity for us to do so, whether we like it or not.