BBC on David Challenor - well, finally.... [Edited by MNHQ at OP's request]

[sociopathsunited]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-45328860

I wonder if their feet are sore from dragging their heels for so bloody long..

Squirmy
With regards BBC coverage of David Challenor. I spent less than half an hour reading first page Google search articles with an open mind, I had been away off-grid for a week so was simply catching up with a cup of coffee.

What is stopping BBC journalists either looking into or asking legitimate questions in this case?

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/

The obvious issue with this has been raised by Andrew Gilligan (Sunday Times)
"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".
thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3346800-Andrew-Gilligan-Sunday-Times-Challenor-Green-Party

Responsibilities of Charity Trustees: www.gov.uk/guidance/charity-trustee-whats-involved#making-decisions-as-a-trustee

The transcript of the court case will be available soon. That will make interesting reading...

squirmy BBC journalists (& others) should read and consider the article in Spectator yesterday, 'Aimee Challenor and the danger of transgender politics' by Melanie McDonagh. Its not without errors but it does at the least start to ask questions and join some dots.

Its discussed on the thread below which also has links to relevent discussions and background (free research!):
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3351406-Spectator-article-Aimee-Challenor-and-the-danger-of-transgender-politics

I'm reminded of the paradox of tolorence......

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

I complained to the BBC and have nothing yet except the automated response. Not holding my breath.

I also complained to the GMC about the Witchfinder General (medical variety). Crickets there too, and it's long after their stated timeline for a response. Hmm.

Hi Squirmy - thanks for putting your head above the parapet.

I'm interested in the dynamics of how someone becomes a "Rising" star and the go-to-person for interviews (Woman's Hour) or debates (BBC World Service programme). Which comes first - the platform on the BBC that leads to speaking engagements at the Oxford Union and Police Chief Conferences or vice versa?

What sort of research is done? Is it sufficient?

With regards theOtherPamAyres comment above, there are links and background to AC's possible influence towards the end of the current thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3347575-Aimee-Challenors-resignation

I also complained to the GMC about the Witchfinder General (medical variety). Crickets there too, and it's long after their stated timeline for a response. Hmm.

relevent threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3248676-dr-adrian-harrop-dr-misogyny-is-pursuing-another-woman

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3244781-dr-adrian-harrop-who-the-funk-does-he-think-he-is

What might have coloured the Beeb's lack of coverage is that over 400 trans people work for them, something that's easy to google.

I'm intrigued by the "400 trans" number at the BBC. If so, a huge number have joined in the small number of years since I stopped working for them. My role brought me into contact with a very large number of BBC staff throughout England and I never met a single trans person in the 15 years I worked for them. There were a lot of gay, some very high profile lesbians, and quite a few "right on" types who probably now identify as binary/queer (despite being thoroughly hetero or kissed-a-girl-once-bi) but no trans.

August 15th 2018 James Kirkup Spectator article, 'Is the BBC scared of the transgender debate?' focuses on two articles discussed on the 'BBC Bias' thread The Reality Check article about statistics of trans women and the prison female estate and BBC coverage of Cllr Gregor Murray's resignation:

James Kirkup concludes:
"Since I started writing about this issue here, I’ve spoken to several BBC journalists who say that the Corporation’s output in some cases fails to apply proper journalistic scrutiny to the issue, or to air a full range of opinions. (I should also say that I’ve appeared on BBC outlets a couple of times talking about this; sometimes it seems easier for a man to get on air talking about the silencing of women than for actual women to do so…) Some of my friends at the BBC say the BBC is institutionally scared of criticism by vocal and eloquent trans-rights groups, and so there is a tendency to shy away from the potential disagreement and tension that commonly arises when journalists do their job and put pursuit of the truth above the comfort of their subjects. This isn’t always the case, of course, and some BBC output is first-rate here. It’s possibly invidious to single out individuals, but Nick Robinson has, for example, done some outstanding work on the transgender issue.

The examples of failure I’ve given here, by contrast, are all about timidity; instead of applying proper journalistic scrutiny and scepticism to the information at hand on sex offenders and Cllr Murray, the BBC treated the transgender issue more softly, more cautiously. That is no small matter, and its importance goes beyond the narrow issue of the BBC, in these cases, falling short in its journalism.

The transgender debate, as I’ve argued repeatedly here for several months, is a story of political failure, where people in positions of authority and power are failing to scrutinise fully matters of public importance, and where some people (mainly women) are not being allowed to speak freely about such matters. The BBC is not, of course, responsible for the conduct of political debate, but its coverage and approach of an issue such as this does contribute to the wider political climate. It can, and should, do better here.

Like so many others, the BBC should be braver in talking about transgender issues. The truth is nothing to be afraid of."

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-the-bbc-scared-of-the-transgender-debate/

July 1st 2018 Daily Mail article;
(extract)
"The BBC has more than 400 transgender staff, a confidential internal survey has revealed.

The figure represents more than one in 50 of the workforce – about four times higher than the proportion in the population at large.

And it stunned the BBC executive behind the research, who described the total number of trans employees, at 417, as 'very, very high'.

Tunde Ogungbesan, the BBC's director of diversity, has now launched a major reform to make the Corporation more 'trans-friendly' following the findings"

Mr Ogungbesan told the Westminster Social Policy Forum that the results would lead to the rewriting of the BBC's 'style guide', which sets out the rules on 'fairness and terminology' at the corporation"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5905129/BBC-chief-stunned-secret-staff-sex-survey-reveals-417-workers-transgender.html

The Westminster Social Policy Forum: Next Steps for Transgender Equality (June 4th 2018) referred to in the article was discussed (it was a significant event):
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3268237-Westminster-Social-Policy-forum-today-Next-steps-for-transgender-Equality-WSPFEvents

Wow. Sorry for radio silence. Not being rinsed (haha) but had to spend two hours writing a risk register. It's not often like WIA but we do have moments which feel like that. Back now and will make a start on this but there's a lot there and I can't be completely comprehensive as I have other stuff to do. Here goes:

Charlie – still getting to the bottom of why we didn’t see it listed. Yes, still pursuing the story in various ways. Decisions are usually made locally on stories like this.

Procrastinator (and others) – yes there are some restrictions on what we can say.

Popchyk/NobodytoVotefor – we were reporting what Aimee Challenor said, that’s not the same as saying we know that to be the case. I think there’s an issue which hasn’t been properly resolved (because we can’t talk to her) about the timeline. Sorry you didn’t get a better response to your complaint, Popchyk.

That Damn Woman – Yes, and I will and I do and thank you.

Wanderabout/Sociopaths –. We’ve done many stories that honour the issues brought to us by, for and about women. Yes, sometimes it feels quite a traditional organisation and we do get things wrong but I think you’d be heartened by the many excellent female (and male) journalists who are doing things to change this and trying to extend the range of voices and stories we cover.

Shrodinger – as explained we incorporated it into the later story.

Pam - sorry don't have great contacts in Radio so can't really answer for WH or World.

Thanks for all the links and reading material. Won't be responding to the abusive ones (take a look at the way you treat people who are trying to talk civilly to you - seriously!).

That's going to be it for now I'm afraid. But I really do appreciate the feedback and yes I will pass it on and I do take it very much to heart.

Squirmy
Thanks for returning and your reply.
The points about BBC Radio (WH and World) are not complaints, they're questions... surely they are of interest to journalists, regardless of their department / employer?

The transcript of the court case will be available soon. That will make interesting reading

Where will it be made available?

Also Squirmy (with apologies to adding to your reading) there are three very important recent threads which collate the concerns and questions raised on this forum. They also provide what may be useful background for journalists interviewing TRAs:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3297184-Your-comments-for-Penny-Mordaunt

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/3297067-Mumsnet-moderation-response-to-yesterdays-feedback

thanks so much R0wan - I will print off and read on the train x

Thanks squirmy
Is it a long train journey?

I have no idea whether Jeff Potts is related to the other Potts from Coventry but I can comment that he's been a mealy mouthed and obstructive councillor in Solihull. I have as a local Green Party member been vocal in my opinion about the need for

Won't be responding to the abusive ones (take a look at the way you treat people who are trying to talk civilly to you - seriously!).

I've just re-read all the responses to your post - twice. The most robust I can see is 'I'm not buying it'.
Is this what you mean by 'abusive' or have I missed something worse?

ItsAllGoingToBeFine A transcript of the trial can be requested from Warwick Crown Court. It’s not free tho and I imagine since it was an 11 day trial it would be expensive. Perhaps we could crowdfund for it if there was enough interest?

Squirmy I would be very very happy for the BBC to prove me wrong. You'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath. I hope you excuse my skepticism but it's based on the reality that I see in front of me.

When two similarly distressing and disturbing sexual-abuse-against-children cases are reported on the BBC, in exactly the same area, on the same day, and they take entirely different approaches, you surely can see why questions are being asked? Why were they reported differently?

The Potts family were identified and their crimes were reported factually, with enough information to really understand the heinous nature of what happened to their victims at their hands.

The Challenors.....well, we were given a demonstration of "rah rah rah let's support Aimee, it's not their fault" cheerleading, some flimflam flummery over what crimes David Callenor had actually committed. Totally omitted were references to his sexual fetishes. He raped and tortured a ten year old female child, whilst he himself dressed as a giant baby in an enormous nappy and called himself Lucy. Not one word of that in your report. Just "poor Aimee". Aimee, who advises local authorities and governments on safeguarding for children. Aimee, who has had a significant say on legal changes to safeguarding for women and children. Aimee who has clearly dealt with a lot in their short life and should not be trusted to choose what they eat for dinner, has been given a say in how women and children are to be kept safe. From people like Aimee's own father.

I'm pretty certain you understand quite clearly why some of us are very, very angry.

The 400 trans people at the BBC (some of whom are no doubt reading this) will or should know that the safety of ten-year-old-children is more important than pretty much anything else and should support efforts to get things changed.

I hope some of them feel able to speak out as adults who care about the safety of children more than "not letting the side down".

I am angry because I want journalists to be like Andrew Norfolk and prioritize safeguarding children over political allegiances.

Sometimes there are, genuinely, court stories we miss and when we found out about this one neither the BBC's own reporters or our trusted agencies had been in court. This made it difficult for us to do the story immediately because of the way we check material. We absolutely understood the seriousness and horrific nature of the convictions and followed it up as soon as we could

The story concerned an abominable crime meriting a sentence which is in UK terms at the very upper limits of sentencing

The Daily Mail, The Mirror, The Daily Record, The Sun, The Mirror, The Independent , The Metro and the local press reported the story after the conviction and sentencing.

Initially none of them linked AC to it. This could have been because they didn't know or simply because reporting this horrendous case was enough on its own.

All of these quoted comments from prosecution and defence and the judge.

Are we supposed to believe BBC news journalists have no access to these news sources - or if they do, that BBC journalists think all of these sources were lying about what was said openly in a court?