Caroline Lucas on Aimee Challoner in the Guardian

[Latinista]

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/30/look-future-aimee-challenor-trans-green-party-caroline-lucas?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Starts off promising, then segues into trans apologia and mealy-mouthed justifications why she hasn’t taken further action

Too little, too late. Shameful focus on trans rather than on the small girl, and the enormous safeguarding risks taken by AC and the party.
“Here we have a candidate, Aimee, who has boasted of silencing 50,000 female possible voters, whose father, a trans/cross-dressing animal abuser is facing charges of rape, torture and imprisonment of a ten year old girl, and whose mother , also an animal abuser , is keen to be secretary and have lots of pretty data at her disposal, what do you think , Caroline ?”
“Hmm...”
“Also Aimee is Trans”
“Oh great, let’s set up some meetings”
“Oh and the Dad/cartoon cuddly bear/giant baby would like to do our posters too”
“Fab”.

Not sure if this has already been flagged up ... I'm trying to follow too many threads at the mo, but Caroline Lucas has confirmed on Twitter that she was privy to conversations involving AC about mass blocking of GC accounts.

"I know Aimee was, yes, and I was very vocally opposed to it at the time internally. My party is run on democratic principles though & I have no privileged powers as co-leader."

But if it's run democratically then that means that the majority either supported Aimee's plans or abstained from voting. Which doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the Greens as a party, or in their ability to investigate and resolve their current issue.

What was it Caroline Lucas said in The Guardian yesterday? Was it something about defending the right to free speech and replacing name calling with listening?

Bye Green Party.

And yes as red said (albeit possibly on another thread) all the other parties need to wake up too.

Gosh, that's quite a thing to admit to.

“Here we have a candidate, Aimee, who has boasted of silencing 50,000 female possible voters, whose father, a trans/cross-dressing animal abuser is facing charges of rape, torture and imprisonment of a ten year old girl, and whose mother , also an animal abuser , is keen to be secretary and have lots of pretty data at her disposal, what do you think , Caroline ?”
“Hmm...”
“Also Aimee is Trans”
“Oh great, let’s set up some meetings”
“Oh and the Dad/cartoon cuddly bear/giant baby would like to do our posters too”
“Fab”.
Fucking brilliant

"I know Aimee was, yes, and I was very vocally opposed to it at the time internally. My party is run on democratic principles though & I have no privileged powers as co-leader."

This is seriously damning IMHO
Does this mean terfblocker was party policy? CL has a twitter account herself, could she not at the time have openly said that she didn't personally support this even if it sounds like the party did? How much power did AC and other TRA's have in the GP, it sounds like they were running the whole show.

I've never had much time for the Green Party but Caroline Lucas plumbs the depths of uselessness.

Have you noticed that when CL describes the plight of trans people, she's really talking about transexuals?

It's either a cynical political ploy or she hasn't done her homework.

She was on Maria Miller's Committee. You would think that she had acquired some knowledge of the range of people presenting as transgender, rather than swallowing the dodgy assertions of the Trans lobby.

I said this before, but I think the injunction to stop that fellow Green putting forward his gender critical views is FAR more important than the twitter blocking. It is outrageous and undemocratic. Can someone raise it on Twitter with Caroline?

ThOtherPamAyres

CL's statement suggested to me that she had little engagement with large sections of the GP platform.

And that's a bit strange if she was speaking at MM's committee.

Not only that, but the Green Party actively assisted AC in providing "evidence" for AC to get an injunction against Andy Healey, fellow Green Party member. Six pages of evidence.

Andy Healey has the court documents that demonstrate the evidence put forward by the Green Party to support AC in silencing gender critical views.

I'd be asking how many other injunctions has AC tried to take out against GP members? Or others outside the party?

And how many injunctions in total (not just the AC ones) did the GP provide evidence for in the last three years, for example?

I'm guessing that the GP has only ever provided evidence for an injunction in support of AC, and no other individual. And the Greens only did that for the sole reason that AC identifies as transgender.

The fact that the Greens colluded in this looks, at this stage, unwise. And begs the question about whether the co-leaders knew about this.

They are all finished. Party politics was always a dirty game and the other parties are not going to leave out all this filth on the Green Party if they present any threat at local or general election time.

Bye bye Green Party and I say this as a passionate lover of conservation and green issues. You have let everyone down so badly I don't know how you sleep at night. Especially children and safeguarding. Pure evil to the very core.

If the GP's own non-men section's statement gains any traction then I suspect that this matter may well be resolved with exonerations all round.

The unidentified independent investigator may well discover that AC passed on (unspecified) information to the GP and somebody failed to grasp the significance of it. As nobody raised objections, assorted Challenors felts emboldened to continue as officers for the GP or to stand in elections for the GP.

As for what happened to Healey, Olivia, and various others? Not within the scope and remit of the investigation.

If that turns out to be the case then all those who failed to grasp the significance are even more culpable than Amy in my opinion.

The Green Party statement does at least talk about the investigation looking into the circumstances that led to all this. (Sorry can't remember the exact wording but that was the gist.) It will need to.

Sorry - Aimee. I'm going to be screenshot now aren't I?

all those who failed to grasp the significance are even more culpable than Amy in my opinion.

If this were to be the invesigator's finding, I think it will be the flat structure of the GP that will be identified as the key factor. It's possible that Caroline Lucas' seemingly disingenuous claim is a strategic gambit. CL has already put it out there that senior officers had no power to act against things to which they objected (e.g., the blocker) or with which she was in profound disagreement because those roles do not carry privileged powers.

In that sort of set-up, who had the right to say something was significant and ought to be acted-upon if others out-voted them?

Is there any record of Caroline Lucas voicing her objection to the blocker. Anywhere?

One of the many threads has a screen shot from CL's Twitter in which she's asked if she knew about AC's involvement with the blocker and what she thought of the blocker.

CL said, yes she did and that she was vocal internally about her objections but she was effectively 'out-voted'.

Floisme - it's the Gilligan Challenor thread that has the CL Twitter screenshot: WomblingWoman Fri 31-Aug-18 18:45:25

Some discussion following it.

In that sort of set-up, who had the right to say something was significant and ought to be acted-upon if others out-voted them?

As an ex (of yesterday) Green Party member, there are some things that will be regulations / standing orders, e.g. informing the Party of anything that might bring a candidate into disrepute, and some things that will be a matter of democratic decision, and TerfBlocker would be an example of something that wouldn't be provided for in the Party's standing orders and so would be a matter for internal discussion. There are internal committees and processes to deal with disputes, so Caroline is right that she has no privileged rights in the process, although as people have pointed out on here, she could have raised the issue herself, but then she would have faced an outcry within the Party for going against a democratic decision, so she's going to face criticism whatever she does.

There are six members of national staff listed on the members website, I think there is some regional support too, maybe up to one person a region. Everything else is carried out by volunteers, mainly working part time (the young, woke ones may have nothing else to do, but most people have jobs and families). This clearly creates possibilities for things to slip through the net. It may be that the woke over-rode the better judgement of other Party officials, but it may just be someone busy / poorly trained etc. didn't recognise the importance. It may be that AC picked someone busy / poorly trained to tell, who knows.

None of this is an excuse for what has happened (which is why I resigned) but hopefully helps people to understand the situation within the Green Party a bit better.

Thanks arranfan I'll take a look.

Floisme - RTB also has an eye-opening Twitter screenshot of CL's in the Green Party 3 thread: RedToothBrush Sat 01-Sep-18 02:51:28

It would be interesting to learn if Feminist Roar ever did hear back about the discussion in re: the blocked women etc.

I saw somewhere else Feminist Roar saying she (?) never got a response

EverardDigby - that's very helpful, thank you.

This clearly creates possibilities for things to slip through the net. It may be that the woke over-rode the better judgement of other Party officials...It may be that AC picked someone busy / poorly trained to tell, who knows.

I wonder if this might intersect with the discussion about the entire internal communications team on other threads? Tho' I find it hard to envisage the circumstances in which even a barebones outline of the charges wouldn't trigger some alarm and concerns about "the look" of having someone continuing in even a support role while this was happening.