- the woman's statement was issued roughly 9hrs ago after the main green party said in their statement there would be no further statement on the matter. Its therefore a direct challenge to the authority of the main party
- Despite the main green party saying they will learn any hard lessons that need to be from the independent report, the women's branch has already said that they effectively have decided Aimee is not guilty of any wrongdoing
3)the women's branch statement says:
"It will not make Mr Challenor's crimes any less horrific, or ameliorate our failure to properly vet his membership or his role as an election agent, by scapegoating his daughter. We want to state now that we will not tolerate any attempts to do so, or to blame young women for the party's failure. "
Except the party's structure is flat and supposed to give shared power to its members, but we are told at the same time, not responsibility. Ergo the party is responsible yet the party is a collective of individuals with fairly equal power. You can't blame an individual if they fail in their responsibility to the party you can only blame the party which is run off responsibility and power being shared amongst its members.
Or to put it another way, no one is accountable for anything. It can all be blamed on the concept of the party as a blob of a vacuum of no responsibility!
Honestly I hope the independent inquiry looks at this statement as part of the process as it says everything. There is a culture of no one taking responsibility for anything.
4) Also the above paragraph about 'victim blaming'; an election candidate has a legal responsibility about their declarations, so if they decide its appropriate to appoint anyone who has been charged with a criminal offense of any kind, they are exposing themselves to a whole world of potential trouble. It is Not in any way the responsibility of the party who the candidate appoints as their agent. In law the candidate and agent are distinctly responsible for promotion of the candidate and their declarations and their campaign material. The party itself isn't directly legally responsible. It's a quirk which means any attempt to deflect this back to the party is a failure to understand where responsibility lies.
5) we seem to be going back to this paradox of where young candidates are not responsible for their own actions despite being grown adults - but they are regarded as suitable to stand for election to parliament and to represent the interests of constituents and all that responsibility it entails. Sorry this does not wash. Either you are responsible or not. Invoking the 'they are too young' card is bullshit. In this case we also seem to be given the fragile poor little girl narrative. By the seemingly ever so feminist women's branch of the Green Party. I mean, seriously?!! How progressive. 
6) The women's branch are persisting with this line that Aimee had only limited knowledge. This despite Coventry Pride's awareness and action taken to tell all the Trustees. So let's see how long this line lasts.
7) And let's go back to Caroline Lucas.
Caroline Lucas says: I might be leader but we are a democratic party and we do things by debating them. I don't have individual power.
Also Caroline Lucas in 2016: I am fully aware of Terf Blocker and how it restricts the ability to property engage in debate.
Errr OK.
So are you democratic or not democratic. You can't be democratic and support methods which deliberately try to restrict debate.
8) What about Tina?
Funnily enough, the best way Aimee could have been protected from a lot of this would have been for Tina to take the fail early on. It wouldn't have solved everything, since responsibility for appointing an agent is goes directly back to the candidate, but Aimee could have argued "but mum checked all this out" a lot more. Instead, Tina is hiding behind Aimee.
If Tina is still a member, is she suspended. If not why not. If not, it highlights the extent of the cynical attempt to protect the party itself from scrutiny by wailing transphobia. Who is scapegoating young girls again?
In short, this is an epic clusterfuck with the Green Party coming out looking sexist and regressive from its women's branch, there being a lack of any chain of command or understanding of what people are responsible for, a culture of abdication of responsibility, a climate of bullying and intimidation where cliques dominate the party and people feel unable to speak out even about condemning a paedo without being anonymous because of the mere presence of someone trans and God forbid we might upset them, a total lack of understanding that encouraging and facilitating debate rather than creating tools to cut off debate and many women from engaging with party officials via social media because they happen to ask questions that might be a bit awkward...
... And the Green Party are sat their wondering why they are in this fucking mess and the best defence they have is 'because transphobia'.
Do fuck off.
If this investigation is in anyway independent and has any scope which is remotely interested in getting to bottom of this, it's going to be an absolute car crash.
As for Claire Lorraine Phipps the acting head of the women's green branch. Let's have a look at her.
www.greenparty.org.uk/news/2016/09/14/greens-select-disability-activist-to-contest-brockley-by-election/
From a 2016 biography. I assume this is the same person.
27 year old Phipps, who analyses public health data as part of a PhD, said that she was “really chuffed” to have been selected in “a highly winnable seat for the Greens” and that she had been “waiting years for the opportunity to fight back on behalf of residents."
And
Phipps trained in demography and public health, in which she is now undertaking a PhD with a research council scholarship.
Demographics and Data. Like what?!
The whole lot of them are utterly naive, stupid and not fit to run a stall at the loyal fete never mind a political bloody party.