Green Party statement continuation thread

[Destinysdaughter]

Thread was filling up so I've started this for further discussions

Previous thread

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3346448-Green-Party-statement

A previous poster mentioned that to stand for the labour party, they had to answer questions re finances etc in order to try to prevent anything like this. I know the thread has moved on but I thought it important to mention that as an ex Green candidate in the local elections, I was never asked any such questions.

Labour have been bypassing normal procedure in certain cases.

Strangely enough Mr O'Mara has turned out to be one such case.

They have since, outwardly done some PR to suggest that they dropped the ball on a one off and they will tighten up. But nothing seems to suggest they actually have because they are too busy with their bull shit factional wars.

Aimee Chanellor @ GreenPartyAimee
This is the only further comment on the topic because investigations are ongoing but I also need to move on in my life. Someone else's actions don't define me. Thanks and sorry for the long thread.

Btw I'll start RT'ing stuff from today as you've seen. May not reply to notifs

I'm pretty concerned about the actions Aimee has done.

Hiding behind the idea that we can't talk about Aimee's actions because that's somehow something DC did, not Aimee, is where this is going to head now...

Poor AC. She is not a politician is she?

There is a time to lie low. She will discover that her value as a representative of younger transgenders has gone. Her former 'friends' will see her as an embarrassment. It suggests that she really thought she could just carry on and ignore it all.

I think all political parties dropped the ball a bit due to the ‘snap’ nature of the last election.

O’Mara wasn’t supposed to be able to win that seat (was considered safe for Nick Clegg) so no one cared that much about the selection.

Hopefully, a lesson learned!

I know my MP was asked the ‘potentially scandalous history’ question during selection (some years ago now) and I know what her answer was (it wasn’t that bad, and it was the actions of a relative, not her) but the fact the local party know means we’ll never be blindsided by it coming out...

This is the only further comment on the topic because investigations are ongoing

Green Party investigations, or sadly (because it might suggest the existence of other victims), police investigations, I wonder.

This doesn't mean I'm quitting or going. The party have been clear of their support.

This is from Aimee's latest tweets.

Really? This isn't a case of holding Aimee responsible for their father's actions. This is so much worse than that. Aimee's own actions have been such that they shouldn't be anywhere near politics. 'The party' need to get their house in order.

BarrackerBarmer good to hear the post has been reinstated, not a moment too soon.

Well, as long as Aimee is in the public eye, WHAT AIMEE DID can be discussed.

And, unfortunately for the Green Party, what Aimee did - employing her father for Party work whilst she kne he was faced charges for child rape and torture - impact on the Green Party.

There has STILL been no official answer to the many questions raised. Just a vague promise that there will be an investigation with, presumably, answers at the end of that.

So, for as long as Aimee remains vocal and public, there remains a space in which people can ask the Green Party: 'How are those answers coming along? Why did you promote a vulnerable young person to a position of prominence without checks and balances? What sanctions do you apply if one of your candidates misleads your Party about someone they employ? What are you doing to stop that in the future?'

Those are just for starters.

Nothing to do with holding Aimee guilty for the crimes of her father, just her own judgment, undertaken with the (seeming) backing of the Green Party.

Until they firmly dissociate.

With their 'answers'.

Frankly, she's an ongoing liability.

And 'further investigations'?

I think her lack of judgment was significant, profound and ... well, I still don't think she has got her head around this.

A previous poster mentioned that to stand for the labour party, they had to answer questions re finances etc in order to try to prevent anything like this. I know the thread has moved on but I thought it important to mention that as an ex Green candidate in the local elections, I was never asked any such questions.

Labour have been bypassing normal procedure in certain cases.

See link below - Sophie Cook's selection to stand again for MP in their area was an issue due to their financial information (which I understand should have excluded them from selection). NEC stepped in & decided there was insufficient evidence to exclude them. Sophie is seen as best bet to become the 1st trans MP.

https://www.worthingherald.co.uk/news/politics/labour-nec-steps-in-over-selection-process-for-general-election-candidate-1-8509050

AC still does not get it, cannot see anyone hold her to account for DC's actions. AC is still responsible for grave errors of jdgement and seem too have learned. I just get cannot get my head around this: so thick-skinned to all the glaringly obvious errors AC has made and then so delicate and snowflakish in all things "trans".

errors of judgement and seems to have learned nothing

IIRC news reports stated that photographs were found on the computer, some of which were of the victim, and additional downloaded images were also found. So reading into that, it sounds like there were other victims.

Barracker - glad to hear that.

Hiding behind the idea that we can't talk about Aimee's actions because that's somehow something DC did, not Aimee, is where this is going to head now...

Indeed. This will be the attempt because the idea of being invisible for more than a day is unacceptable.

Fine by me. I'm quite happy to continue talking, as a PP said, about what Aimee did.

Very definitely quite happy to continue to talk about safeguarding failures on the part of the Green Party and Aimee's political agenda of having safeguarding procedures that are already failing, further weakened.

Happier than a happy thing to talk about that.

It suggests that she really thought she could just carry on and ignore it all.

Aimee probably can.

Purely because Aimee is a green and has no chance of being elected.

But it will be used, repeatedly against the party as a whole. The thing is that for the majority of the electorate the Green are already viewed as a bit of a joke and total amateurs, and this won't change the minds of those who don't view them like that.

Plus too many would be Green voters will take the line that Aimee is being victimised 'because trans'.

It wouldn't surprise me if Aimee 'wins' the deputy leadership on paper - I was under the impression that the ballot papers had already been issued so Aimee can't be removed before the ballot is closed.

That's the other card of 'redemption' Aimee will play.

Just watch.

Plus too many would be Green voters will take the line that Aimee is being victimised 'because trans'

They are certainly doing that on twitter.

I guess they will help shape the party into the form that they deserve.

I read somewhere that votes already cast for Aimee in the ballot might be redistributed to the other candidates; they seem to be keen on the Single Transferable Vote system, so maybe that's what they use for internal ballots.

I think it's enough that DC had the ear of the party and was pushing removal of safeguarding.

I can't believe the Greens are letting AC post in their LGBT officer role.

Who is running that party?

Oddly enough, it would be seen as quite a future statespersonlike (loathe that but couldn't think of another way of phrasing it) act if AC would contact Stonewall and any other organisation/enquiry to which AC contributed and asked for any submissions or evidence to be stricken as there may be some taint of a potential conflict of interest.

For different reasons, it would be appropriate for JB to state that with recent revelations, and upon mature reflection, likewise for JB's contributions to Miller's committee etc.

Odds on either of the above happening or the affected committees/organisations announcing such steps after a 'conversation'?

It's been posted by dionne on another thread that the BBC is now reporting. I'm so disgusted by the BBC minimising child rape and torture as 'abuse'.

I can't believe the Greens are letting AC post in their LGBT officer role.

Just a hunch, based on stuff I have read on here about things are organised. But maybe it was up to AC to create that twitter account independently , rather than have one made, managed and controlled by the party.

In which case, the Greens don't have the password, or I guess the right to take it off AC. Cos it's not theirs to take.

I guess in that sort of set up all they could do is make a statement that the account may say AC is their Officer, but the account is personal to AC, nothing to do with them, and they wish AC would stop tweeting in what looks like (but isn't anymore) their name.

However that would be pretty forceful, and based on what we know so far, that is not the Greens' style

I think it would be quite the thing if she wins the vote on paper.

I'm not sure she will. I think the official candidate will win.

But ... imagine: the Green Party put their members in a position where they voted for someone who knowingly employed a child rapist and torturer as their Agent.

Who saw no problem with that.

That is QUITE something.

And we're not allowed to suggest that Aimee might be a traumatised individual - because THAT raises all sorts of judgment & oversight questions for the GP, as well as being a bit too close to an anti-Trans position.

So THAT defence is gone.

Which only leaves you with the idea that Aimee consciously and thoughtfully decided it was a fine and fabulous idea to have a man facing charges of child rape and torture as her Agent.

And - somehow - the Green Party let it happen.

And because she OKd him, during the 3 years he was awaiting trial, the child rapist and torturer met lots of prominent Green Party members, and one is on record saying how lovely he is.

Ouch.

So, yes, Aimee, and even the Green Party, might try and rehabilitate this BUT there is a really strong counter-narrative to that rehabilitation.

Most sensible people, those not caught up in tribal and partisan politics, will really baulk at this.

Look at the madness in the Labour Party: schisms are appearing (at last) in the hard Left faction, between the 'respectable' hard Left and the 'cranks'.

Aimee has 'crank faction of the Greens' written all over her now.

And absolute shame on The Guardian for continuing to bury this by not doing a serious Comment and Analysis piece.

I suspect a lot of their readership are Green voters. They deserve to know.

Not least, what is wrong with the Party organisation that Coventry Green Party seems to have been very much run by a (seemingly) quite troubled family, who did not separate themselves from a criminal?