Veritas report due tomorrow (Thursday) at midday re: Aimee Challenor

[criticalthinking]

Long time lurker, first time poster - subject says it all really.

I have no idea how anyone thinks that AC has anything sensible or useful to offer as a politician.

Aimee Challenor was a vulnerable young person (see parents, former looked after child & disability).
There are serious quuestions to ask of all of the organisations as to whether Aimee Challenor was appropriately supported, trained and/or supervised. Mermaids, Stonewall, Green Party, Coventry Pride, LibDems etc have to consider if they have fulfilled their obligations and duty of care not just to Aimee Challenor but also those who have been affected by her decision making.

Aimee Challenor is a political liability and now completely toxic.

Their political career should be dead.

But I strongly suspect it won't be.

twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1083495624958504960

Aimee Challenor - who didn't and doesn't - understand safeguarding created a twitter blocker to silence the voices of people who may have included those who were trying to raise safeguarding concerns. They legitimatised the use of such blockers in these circumstances and shared it widely.

Is Challenor still doing this?

Where does this leave the LDLGBT twitter feed which is currently actively using such a blocker?

I note that the US has just had a court ruling about elected officials and Facebook blocks on the grounds of the 1st Amendment
www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/en/news/court-rules-public-officials-cant-block-critics-facebook

Whilst this doesn't have any baring in the UK its still a very interesting ruling, and one that people should keep an eye on especially with politicians having problems with social media abuse and seeking to perhaps create new laws here. It's highly relevant and important.

Abuse of politicians and political figures is appallingly but what about situations like this? The treatment of Andy Healey is an example of where it could all go wrong.

The family court report about Aimee mentioned ODD & other things for everything but nothing at all about autism. It may be that Aimee self identifies as autistic.

The question I had was not answered in this report and I'm disappointed as I believe it showed a serious lack of judgment on behalf of AC and Coventry GP; why was DC registered as election agent under the fake name of Baloo Chanellor? Why did this not set off any red flags within Coventry GP who knew his real name?

The nomination pack for appointing an election agent requires the candidate to sign that this is their agents name and also requires the party to check that the agents name, address etc are on the form, why was this not done and was it fraud for AC to sign off on a name that AC knew not to be DC's real name or anywhere close to his real name?
The form allows for candidates to state if there is "commonly used" name that they would prefer to be known as but does not make any such facility available to election agents, so any reasonable person would conclude the name provided should be the persons legal name or should at the very least include the legal name somewhere David aka Baloo Chanellor or David "Baloo" Chanellor, its not exactly like going from David to Dave.

It seems like the GP are so desperate for representation at every level even if they know there is little chance of their candidate being elected, they are willing to put quantity over quality. IMHO they fail to grasp the damage that poor or incompetent candidates can do their parties overall image. They seem to have no idea who is representing their party and don't seem to care

Also the Sunday Times reported that legally ACs election leaflets were supposed to include the proper name of the election agent but only referred to Baloo Challenor again this was not mentioned in the report. Both a failure by AC and GP both of whom cannot deny they were at the very minimum aware of David Challenors real name

Let's have some sympathy and try to remember who the real culprits are here.

NO. Our first priority should be to prevent harm to women, vulnerable adults and children.

Any trauma of Aimee's needs addressing by a professional and not us and is not mitigation for any harm Aimee does.

Eloquently stated.

I find it abhorrent frankly that the harm done by the said person is discounted and downplayed by excuses like a young person, vulnerable, autistic, bad family etc All of that may be true, but legally the person is an adult and hence has to be dealt with as such. You can be sure they will be still be getting advice on how to run rings around the system by their parents, who have demonstrated time and time again they excel at this.

People only learn through consequences - let the person get the consequences and see if they respond by getting appropriate, professional help.

The elephant in the room is why someone with a diagnosis of ODD as a teenager was, and is, allowed to take on any position of responsibility. Here is the definition and prognosis of ODD:

Conduct disorders are the most common type of mental and behavioural problem in children and young people. They are characterised by repeated and persistent patterns of antisocial, aggressive or defiant behaviour, much worse than would normally be expected in a child of that age. Types of behaviour include stealing, fighting, vandalism, and harming people or animals.
Younger children often have a type of conduct disorder called “oppositional defiant disorder”. In these children, the antisocial behaviour is less severe and often involves arguing (“opposing”) and disobeying (“defying”) the adults who look after them.
In teenagers with conduct disorders, the pattern of behaviour can become more extreme and include:

•	<span class="italic">aggression towards people or animals</span>
•	<span class="italic">destruction of property</span>
•	<span class="italic">persistent lying and theft</span>
•	<span class="italic">serious violation of rules</span>

Children and young people diagnosed with conduct disorders often fail at school or college and become socially isolated. In adolescence, they may misuse drugs and alcohol or become involved with the criminal justice system. As adults, this group do badly in terms of education and jobs, are often involved in crime and also have high levels of mental health problems such as antisocial personality disorder.

Plus:

Adults can have oppositional defiant disorder, too. In about 40 percent of cases, adults with ODD become progressively worse and end up developing antisocial personality disorder.

and here's the obfuscation of the impact of ODD upon others:

Aimee Challenor, a 20-year-old trans woman who is the equalities spokesperson for the Green Party, described her battle to succeed despite her diagnosis with Oppositional Defiance Disorder, which manifests as defiant or hostile behaviour towards adults as a child.

“I was often seen as a troublemaker and whatnot, questioning authority. But now I’m doing politics I’m turning this negative thing, where people have said it will get in my way and I won’t be able to do things and achieve, into a positive.

“I’m using it in my politics as a tool to hold people to account.”

So their way of holding people to account is to develop hostile tech bots that block and silence anyone who doesn't agree with them - right - no harm there at all /s

Obviously holding others to account doesn't apply to themselves and parents plus other rather dubious and red-flaggable furry friends.

Have any media outlets ran this story yet?

I presume that Caroline Lucas will be doing a "sad face" column in The Guardian at some point...

The whole concept of safeguarding is about having frameworks - not assuming one individual will do the right thing - because predators and manipulators deliberately don't.

I find it odd that Verita focuses exclusively on what individuals did and didn't do instead of also referencing safeguarding frameworks that should mitigate these - is this a shortcoming of the TOR, or in Verita's expertise and/or covering up the Greens lack of due diligence - or all 3?

I also see a lack of self-insight, self-reflection and evasion of responsibility in many of the answers given by AC. Some examples below:

6.19 Aimee told us that she did not ask her family for details of the charges:
“I tried mostly to stay out of it, and that is perhaps idealistic of me, naïve of me. For me, though, it was a case of this is a time of major, major stress for me and my family, and I just wanted to provide a sense of relief at the break.”
Comment
Discussion of the decisions Aimee Challenor took must be seen in the context that this was a very difficult and stressful time for her personally

6.53 “No consideration is given, or questions asked, regarding whether I would (for example) have wanted my father specifically to support me as an election agent had I not also required support in the context of my autism, or had the local party themselves given support as a reasonable adjustment. Again, no question is made as to whether the local party even offered me adjustments, or indeed had any process to collect information regarding disability and required support”

6.62 From our conversations with her, it is clear that Aimee Challenor did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to

6.82 Aimee Challenor told us that after this she was asked to step aside from the deputy leadership election and was ultimately suspended from the party. Aimee believes the party changed its stance from initially being supportive to ultimately suspending her because of pressure on social media, some of which was transphobic. She resigned from the party on 5 September 2018.

Page 61
She did not consider the safeguarding implications of her father’s arrest on charges of sexual offences.

Page 63
Overall comment on Aimee Challenor’s explanation of her actions
We find it hard to understand some of Aimee’s actions and explanations as set out above:
• we do not understand how she could not have been aware that, in giving her father official roles in the party, she was putting her own reputation at risk.
• we do not understand how she could have had the good judgement to inform officials in the party about the charges that her father faced, but the poor judgement not to make sure that all relevant information was included. It would have done her no harm to have told the officials that her father was a party member. If she had done so, it seems highly likely that Aimee would have been guided away from using him as her election agent.
• we accept that Aimee chose not to seek further information about the charges her father faced, but we do not understand why she did not recognise that this was a mistake. Once again, sheer self-preservation would suggest that she should know as much as possible about these matters, so that she could make well- informed decisions about her own actions.
Aimee told us about the pressure she was under during this period and about her autism, and we accept that these could have affected her judgement and thinking, but we are not qualified to come to any definite conclusion on such matters.

Is it worth emailing the nspcc and gg the full report?

Although it isn't as detailed and truthful as it should be it still clearly states she knew and hired him Any way. Blocked anyone who questioned safe Guarding and has no understanding of what safeguarding is and what it's for.

Safeguarding and now giving advice through stonewall? What about Amy's apparent baby fetish that's plastered across the web?

I don't get it. Why is it being ignored?

From one autistic person to someone who claims to be another, fuck right off with the ‘helpless autistic’ shit.

Don’t fucking drag the rest of us down with you.

Agreed. When you're autistic you get a lot of shit thrown at you and the last thing you need is someone who is as toxic as Challenor using this condition as an excuse for poor judgement.

The last thing we need is for people to see autism = poor judgement / irresponsibility.

Isn't Challenor now a member of the LibDems? I wonder what their reaction is.

OTOH, I can guess: most likely circling the wagons.

How would we find out which organisations' policies AC would have 'advised' on? FoI?

And as a side issue having read the report -
did stonewall, the Greens et al really think this person had something valuable to say, or was it a woke-point-gathering exercise?

This is a very telling Twitter feed from back in September last year.

twitter.com/clovis_liz/status/1043085353047998465

The Green party were well aware of this complete, disgusting affair long ago, and Veritas are seemingly not to be trusted.

Here is the report.

www.greenparty.org.uk/assets/images/national-site/Final%20report%20-%20Executive%20summary-%20cover.pdf

So much obfuscation, just like the Chilcot report into the Blair and the Iraq war.
Well, that is another political party which I cannot vote for - doesn't matter, I am getting old, so why should I get angry about things I cannot change. Let's just leave the lunatics in charge of the asylum.
If the Twitter feeds are anything to go by, then this could see the end of the Green party, not that it will cause any massive political waves because they are pretty insignificant anyway.

did stonewall, the Greens et al really think this person had something valuable to say, or was it a woke-point-gathering exercise?

Acceptance without Exception

AC is secretary of the Stonewall Trans advisory group - let's hope AC understands the importance of accurate minute taking and report writing.

I have not yet caught up on this thread, but ODD is not autism.
The use of autism here are a ‘get out’ is really concerning.

as a ‘get out’

So, Matt Hawkins was told in Nov 16 that DC was facing 22 charges mostly of a sexual nature , but didn’t realise he was a party member, and then watched DC become election agent in 2017 and 2018....

The report seems somewhat under-shocked by this detail.

And given the comments about the nature of unstructured environments being a risk in safeguarding terms, the report summary seems undershocked by the lack of due diligence generally in having been able to appoint someone pending trial for the rape and torture of a child.

I don’t think Matt H and Clare P have been scapegoated at all. Their totally negligent, ignorant and reputation-focussed response was the foundation upon which DC was able to swan in as election agent. Under their very noses. And after Matt H had deliberately anonymised AC in tne matter when communicating with the rest of the party.

I don’t think this thread is bullying AC because she is Trans, as alleged by a PP, I think AC is being vilified as someone who was at the centre of s massive breach in safeguarding protocol and yet is frenziedly involved in silencing and shutting down any voices that raise safeguarding concerns. Such as Helen from the guides, and anyone simply asking questions about self if. That is where her Trans status and Trans lobbying becomes very relevant and it is crucial to look at the relationship between a culture of shutting people down and vilifiying critics as transphobes, and the kind of transparency, openness and communication needed to ensure safeguarding.

To put a blunt analogy on it: safeguarding in Rotherham was sabotaged by people hissing ‘racist’.
Safeguarding in the Green Party, Stonewall, The Girl Guides, is compromised by people shouting ‘Transphobic’.

AC is not a problem because she is Trans. She is a problem because shutting people down is her modus operandi.

I see the Green Party didn’t release the summary of the report til about 7.30 last night.

Too late for today’s Press?

I can’t find any Press cover of it?

Oh dear.... Never mind!

Seems to me AC is very much a product of AC’s upbringing. Some children of appalling parents rise above the damage and go on to lead positive lives. Others never question their parents’ moral values, but instead embrace and employ them.

AC doesn’t appear from this report to have a moral compass or even the level of judgment required to hide that fact. Like others, my principle shock is at the number of organisations that have raised AC up into positions of responsibility, where AC can have influence over policy.

Either AC’s stance over this is deliberately disingenuous and AC is a significant manipulator OR these organisations have utterly lost the plot. Possibly both?

Stonewall is one of the government's preferred 'providers' of LGBT training / advice to schools. They have a school's helpline and a school's education team. Many school are "Stonewall Champions' and they are currently involved in writing the new DfE guidelines for schools on Trans issues.
We have recently had some appalling scandals in the charity sector where Save the Children, Oxfam etc were found to be ignoring safeguarding practice at every level and employing people who were unsuitable for working with children and vulnerable people. Terrible things happened to vulnerable service users as a result of this. Given that Stonewall openly appointed someone under investigation for appointing a known paedophile, to their Trans Advisory group, Stonewall needs to urgently clarify what their current safeguarding procedures and standards are, how safeguarding is managed in their organisation and to what extent individual members of staff are able to influence practice and have access to children in schools.

Some people just diddle along as they please and don’t care about anyone else.

They have an absolute brass neck and will act and speak outrageously while defying anyone to challenge them as they rather enjoy an argument on the favourite subject (themselves).