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

[criticalthinking]

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

It really is less about the Greens and more about how TRAs are manipulating all political parties, politics, media and organisations.

There is a bigger picture

Exactly RO and I would add in social media to that. These top-down organisations generally have no idea what's happening at the coal face - or on SM. Add in TRA ideology and voila - an area where the uninformed think they can score woke points (in French accent) whilst being totally unaware of how their blind spots are being exploited and dominated by an agenda that disregards and dismantles basic safeguarding and is putting children in harm's way imo.

At least in her love letter to AC in the Guardian Caroline Lucas started with the victim. Before making it all about her lovely Aimee.

We need to make sure we focus on the right threat as most/many of us feel scared to speak up against the trans lobby

The issue of bravery is addressed by Indigenous and non-indigenous feminists in Meghan Murphy's video of the recent library talk. Walk tall and be no longer afraid....

It is also worth noting in the report the inbred nature of Green “governance”. The two main protagonists are in a relationship. One if them us also (subsequently?) in a job share where it is implied they are supposed to hand off to each other without audit.

This might be ok in a hand knitted yoghurt shop, but governance and safeguarding rely on independent challenge. When everyone is in everyone pocket’s, and beds, there is no challenge to poor behaviour.

The leadership of the greens who allowed this to develop should have a long period of silent introspection.

wfkaw thank you for that reminder.

It really is less about the Greens and more about how TRAs are manipulating all political parties, politics, media and organisations. There is a bigger picture.

YY R0wan.

ReflectentMonatomism
As I said earlier, there is a bigger picture.
The issues of misuse of power, accountability, political process and free speech are cross party.

Serious issues have been raised about many TRAs with considerable influence, eg:
Sue Pascoe (Conservatives, Channel 4 consultant)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383926-Sue-Pascoe

Tara Hewitt (former Conservative candidate, NHS)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc

Sophie Cook & Heather Peto (Labour)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3140517-Momentum-and-misogyny

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3375843-Failed-1st-transwoman-MP-hopeful-stamps-out-in-huff-on-losing-election

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3236275-Heather-Peto-is-slagging-off-Mumsnet-on-Twitter

Sarah Brown and Zoe O'Connell (Lib Dem, Stonewall)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3263172-Andrew-Gilligan-Latest-bullying-transgender-complaint-swiftly-rejected-by-parliamentary-standards-committee

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3400972-lib-dem-tra-s-hound-domestic-abuse-victim

Gregor Murray (SNP)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3316098-Childrens-Convenor-Elected-Councillor-calls-women-cunts-on-Twitter-rants
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3332582-Trans-councillor-leaves-roles-after-threats-to-life

But be careful if you win a stuffed toy.

I have to admit to some prejudice - I now can't look at most stuffed toys without getting images I'd rather not have flash through my mind.

Read the report and agree with the points already made on this thread. Clear evidence that this person should not be allowed to be part of any safeguarding policies. The report shows a deeply troubled individual who has been enabled by a national party in their harmful actions against women and girls. It would have been useful to have a timeline of all the policies,working groups with which AC has been involved.
As others have said my thoughts are with DC’s victim, the girl guide badge photo on the attic stairs that has been mentioned is horrifying.

A couple more things that stand out:

Green Party decided who should and shouldn't be named in this report. So not full transparency and accountability then .

Someone had told Aimee to inform the GP,. "Let’s just say, because I’d done what I was instructed to do, if you like, I’d informed the Green Party executive so what they do with the information is up to them. I believe you’ve spoken to Matt Hawkins so that’s all I can go on."

Coventry Pride did not reply to correspondence from Verita. So no insight into which people knew & if there is any other connection to the Green Party local/national.

Coventry Pride did not reply to correspondence from Verita.

That was wise on their part. They behaved almost entirely appropriately by any standard other than forensic hindsight. It's not their responsibility to encourage a failing organisation like the Greens to play "see! they were no better!" by distorting the narrative in a report intended to protect the Greens. Coventry Pride are mostly innocent third parties.

Coventry Pride were told that one of their volunteers was on trial for sex crimes and immediately barred him. Their only failing, in 20/20 hindsight, was to not recognise that "supervised by trustees", normally a strong position, is undermined if the suspect is a trustee's father. Particularly if he is controlling and abusive, which although they did not know could have reasonably inferred.

And one might ask why a 19 year old was a trustee of an organisation, although "some well-groomed blokes who do some floats" is rather different from "organisations advising national bodies on the safeguarding of children".

But Coventry Pride should be proud. As a small organisation, with a fraction of the resources of the Greens, their response was timely, appropriate and (by anything other than the strictest hindsight) effective.

Coventry Pride were told that one of their volunteers was on trial for sex crimes and immediately barred him

No they didn't. They put in place measures to ensure that he was accompanied by a trustee during events and limited his involvement.

Incidentally, Aimee Challenor was one of the trustees.

Hence my next sentence "Their only failing, in 20/20 hindsight, was to not recognise that "supervised by trustees", normally a strong position, is undermined if the suspect is a trustee's father. "

Anyone interested in the GP disciplinary committee of 10 March, 2018 in which a complaint about AC was heard?

It is only mentioned in passing because AC asked that DC attend instead of AC. In the event, both AC and DC attended.

Rather gives lie to AC's insistence that DC wasn't really involved in AC's Green Party career. He seems to have accompanied AC everywhere.

But I wonder who made the complaint against AC in the first place? Presumably it was not upheld as AC was not suspended from the party.

There are some really odd references to what the police ought to have done to inform the party about Challenor. There's even a paragraph suggesting that a 'nod and a wink' disclosure could have been done informally. (See below about how unlawful that course of action would have been)

Veritas recommends that the Green Party should have talks with West Midlands Police.

This presupposes that the police (a) knew that David Challenor was a Green Party member 2016-2018 (b) connected him with rising star Aimee Challoner and (c) aware that he was an active assistant to Aimee Challoner. Why would they know these things?

Police Conduct Regulations 1999, section 7

Confidentiality

1. Information which comes into the possession of the police should be treated as confidential. It should not be used for personal benefit and nor should it be divulged to other parties except in the proper course of police duty. Similarly, officers should respect, as confidential, information about force policy and operations unless authorised to disclose it in the course of their duties.

This presupposes that the police (a) knew that David Challenor was a Green Party member 2016-2018 (b) connected him with rising star Aimee Challoner and (c) aware that he was an active assistant to Aimee Challoner. Why would they know these things?

Given that David Challenor sexually assaulted and tortured a young girl, they would have (surely) investigated his computer, online footprint etc as well as drawing up a picture of his access to children through groups etc.
David Challenor was an amateur photographer (I think) hence why he became Aimee's official one when campaigning for the Green Party.

I think he was also involved with gymnastic teams, park runs and cubs/scouts.

A simple google search of the family names reveals all that Aimee Challenor has done politically as well as her previous arrest for 'hacking' when a teenager. That arrest would also be part of police intelligence.

A simple google search of the family names reveals all that Aimee Challenor has done politically as well as her previous arrest for 'hacking' when a teenager. That arrest would also be part of police intelligence.

Did the GP do no due diligence at all?

Hence my next sentence "Their only failing, in 20/20 hindsight, was to not recognise that "supervised by trustees", normally a strong position, is undermined if the suspect is a trustee's father. "

Its not possible to deduce that this was 'their only failing'.
It would be naive to do so without full knowledge.

I am pretty sure there were some comments at the time from key member/s of Coventry Pride which suggested that there too those questioning and raising legitimate concerns about accountability and safeguarding were shut down and smeared as 'transphobic' etc.

Did the GP do no due diligence at all?

The incident may well have been explained as misguided SJW by a young person under considerable pressures.

AC was young and has been open about her family difficulties, medical issues as well as her 'transition'.

The incident may well have been explained as misguided SJW by a young person under considerable pressures.

AC was young and has been open about her family difficulties, medical issues as well as her 'transition'.

I'm sure that's the case - but conduct disorder is a huge red flag ...aren't medical records checked as well for key spokespeople?

AC retells their history with more than a little gild on it where significant aggressive behavioural issues are now on the record as "medical issues" and "family difficulties" but legally, these wouldn't be mitigation for the aggression in adulthood imo - they would still be deemed responsible for their actions and inactions. Also, as others have remarked, autism seems to be used as a get out for ODD/conduct disorder

It's not possible to deduce that this was 'their only failing'. It would be naive to do so without full knowledge.

That's a fair comment. But they are not the subject of the investigation, and would be unwise to vicariously make themselves the targets of someone else's. If you think they should similarly reflect, you should ask them about it. I think their statement is fine.

aren't medical records checked as well for key spokespeople?

How? "Please bring in your complete medical records so that our doctor can check through them?" I don't think you even need to do that for DV clearance, and you certainly don't for SC.

The gap between grass roots and Head Office seems to be a problem in many organisations.

So the Girl Guides can, at National level, have happy consultations with the likes of Pips Bunce and the Aimee Challenor advised Stonewall, but volunteers can be largely on their own if the local "eccentric" turns up, says they are a woman and they want to volunteer. (What I suspect may have happened with Coventry Pride is that the local grapevine will have worked. Someone, whether a neighbour, a police employee, etc, will have had a word with their mate in Coventry Pride and warned them to be careful. Coventry Greens were the Challenors, so the GP would not have had the same information. Coventry Pride can't say anything because they wont want to reveal their informal source.)

The solution is safeguarding frameworks. HQs can also have their hands tied. For example, and really bizarrely, a sports association cannot tell you if a sports coach has lost their registration because of bad behaviour at a previous club. So a volunteer sees an old certificate and does not know. But at least with a proper safeguarding framework the HQ will nag them to get accreditation and explain that they need to see up to date origionals.

We need:

1. Proper national safeguarding frameworks for ALL relevent sectors, along the lines of Sport England Club Mark. This would include political parties (they could have a common framework for those sending volunteers interacting with the public so small parties are not disadvantaged.) But also charities, youth groups (including Coventry's PRISM) and even people like Council Housing maintenance departments. Organisations would receive a proper, and recognisable accreditation. Organisers at a grass roots level would not have to reinvent any rules.

1. Such safeguarding to centre around the needs of the vulnerable. Transgender lobby groups like Stonewall, do not write them. Yes they might be consulted but children and the vulnerable have priority should there be conflicts of interests.

1. There should be a feedback loop so that policy makers actually hear the issues faced by grass-roots volunteers. My own experience is that constant vigilance is required. The majority of sports coaches are wonderful, but a few are very odd. Someone working in a boarding school said the same of applicants seeking jobs in that sector, and I have no doubt the same applies to the Girl Guides. Sports organisations tend to recruit former performance athletes. Charities and the Girl Guides seem to look for woke career administrators who understand funding and political currents. But the problems occur at grass roots levels and however pretty Pips Bunce looks in a dress, I doubt he/she has relevent experience.

But they are not the subject of the investigation, and would be unwise to vicariously make themselves the targets of someone else's. If you think they should similarly reflect, you should ask them about it. I think their statement is fine.

They aren't the subject of this investigation which was commissioned by the Green Party.

In terms of priorities of investigations, Stonewall should be starting theirs, so too Mermaids.

David Challenor was involved and supportive of Aimee's work with The Green Party, this report has examined the Safeguarding issues presented there. Similar questions should be asked of the two influential trans-rights charities.

Needmoresleep
I think the more pressing issue is that anything to do with Safeguarding should be led by people with knowledge and profesional expertise in what it is and how it should work.

There's a whole host of misconceptions, policies which have evolved beyond the point where they can actually safeguard children and vulnerable adults.

Effective safeguarding and child protection training should start with basis first principles.

The understanding has to come before the policy.