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

[criticalthinking]

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

How? "Please bring in your complete medical records so that our doctor can check through them?"

Surely there must be a self-declaration of medical diagnoses that may affect/ could possibly affect the ability to do the job/work? ODD would be one such condition that would need declaring...not my area of expertise however if candidates aren't asked this, that's another gross failing....still not perfect as it relies on honesty and as we can see, honesty is in short supply at critical times

Conatus News article

concludes:
"Aimee participated in Green Party politics as a candidate four times, each time without further disclosure of David’s charges. Furthermore, Aimee encouraged him to become more involved in the Green party throughout that time. The report finds that Aimee made several errors in judgement not just in the course of protecting others but also putting Aimee’s own reputation at risk. Aimee claims that both autism and the pressures of the time made it difficult to make the appropriate judgement calls. However, if Aimee’s reasoning was impaired during the period David was charged, was it also impaired over the course of the four times Aimee stood as a Green Party candidate?

Verita found that ‘Those in the party who were told about David Challenor’s activities saw the issue as primarily a communications one – about protecting the reputation of the party.’

Were they primarily concerned about protecting the party, or primarily concerned about Aimee? Did Aimee’s status an an autistic, transgender teenager from a troubled background prevent Matt and Clare from taking an objective view of the situation – focusing primarily on Aimee’s well-being rather than the reputation of the party or safeguarding concerns? Verita argue that, although the pursuit of including ‘young, diverse and potentially inexperienced people’ in the party and in particular in leadership positions is noble, more training and support needs to be given to such individuals.

This raises concerns that people are being elevated into roles they are not capable of fulfilling, solely based on their status as ‘diverse’. While we should remember that such ‘diverse’ people have often been excluded from positions of power and influence, to commit to inclusion means to treat them like human beings – flawed but capable of making decisions for themselves. Not as simultaneously someone who can hold positions as a national spokesperson on LGBTIQA+ issues, a member of the executive of the national party, and a suitable candidate for deputy leader of the party, and yet also be a vulnerable and innocent teenager whose autism and stressful circumstances lead to them potentially allowing children to be exposed to a sexual predator.

The Green Party has wholly accepted the recommendations of the Verita report and have resolved to implement them immediately. Aimee Challenor has responded by updating their twitter photo to display a Liberal Democrat party emblem."

conatusnews.com/green-party-verita-report-challenor/

When does vulnerable adult become liable for consequences of their aggressive adult behaviour and harm to others?

I think that Stonewall needs to come clean about whose policies and procedures have been amended using advice given by someone who [as shown in this report] clearly has absolutely no knowledge, experience or qualifications in safeguarding.

And then inform all of those bodies that their policies and procedures are flawed and to backtrack to previous policies and procedures and make hold an internal investigation into how these got signed off.

That's just my opinion of course.

R0, I dont think we disagree.

Safeguarding frameworks should be written by people who understand safeguarding. (Not by Aimee Challenor or Pips Bunce.) People who, as you say, understand safeguarding.

Such frameworks should include who needs to be DBS checked and at what level, policies if supervising children on trips away, recruitment procedures - what certificates need to be seen and what references taken, training requirements - who needs to be trained in safeguarding, first aid etc, a designated welfare office and clear complaint procedures, insurance, etc.

As a naive volunteer whose 11 year old was part of a sports club, I was daunted by the three page check list, but as I worked through it I realised each and every item was important. (And indeed ticking all the boxes meant the Club avoided a couple of major problems.) In retrospect that check list was vital. And, appropriately written, would be equally useful for people in a variety of under resourced organisations, whether the Green Party, Coventry Pride and Prism, or even Mermaids. It took a fair amount of Googling to find a Mermaids safeguarding policy, and even then I could not be sure it was up to date. Plus it included an unsafe approach on involving parents. My experience in contrast was having to gather together the key policies, have them on the website where coaches and parents could see, and have them approved in order to get the accreditation.

I can fully understand community volunteers in a variety of roles not being expert in safeguarding, which is why there should be clear, sensible frameworks available, and organisations serving the community should be encouraged to gain accreditation. The police's role is to arrent and prosecute people like DC. Great if they also join the dots. And better if their returns on DBS applications are complete and accurate, but they can't be expected to fill gaps when organisations fail to carry out proper safeguarding checks.

I also feel that more attention need to be given to people who go into schools and provide advice, like Stonewall, Mermaids etc, to ensure that their advice is compatible with standard safeguarding procedures. If the Council educational department is not content, they should not be there.

When does vulnerable adult become liable for consequences of their aggressive adult behaviour and harm to others?

If the behaviour has already occurred, as soon as it has occurred. Clearly not happened here.

If the behaviour is a potential, safeguarding protocols should be in place to minimise the risk of the potential being fulfilled (the duty of care is twofold: to the vulnerable adult themselves, and to the people they may harm). Also, clearly not happened here.

I see no indication from this report or within the Green Party (and other parties) that this basic understanding of safeguarding is, in any way, in place. It's shocking.

Such frameworks should include who needs to be DBS checked and at what level, policies if supervising children on trips away, recruitment procedures - what certificates need to be seen and what references taken, training requirements - who needs to be trained in safeguarding, first aid etc, a designated welfare office and clear complaint procedures, insurance, etc.

These are policies. Policies and legislation are important parts of Safeguarding frameworks.
There has to better understanding first.

If the behaviour is a potential, safeguarding protocols should be in place to minimise the risk of the potential being fulfilled (the duty of care is twofold: to the vulnerable adult themselves, and to the people they may harm). Also, clearly not happened here.

I see no indication from this report or within the Green Party (and other parties) that this basic understanding of safeguarding is, in any way, in place. It's shocking.

This ^^

At the moment, there is no requirement for an MP or a working member of a political party to have an Enhanced DBS check done, which I find amazing as they often visit places where these would normally be required.
Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

The requirement to have DBS checks will depend on the circumstances, role and the type of contact with children.

There are different types of DBS checks:

'What is the difference between a standard and enhanced DBS check?

A DBS check is what used to be called a CRB check. A standard DBS check involves a check of an applicant's criminal record against the Police National Computer for any reprimands, warnings, cautions or convictions.

An enhanced DBS check includes all the information included as part of a standard check, plus any information held locally by police forces that’s considered relevant to the child workforce and post applied for.

Who needs an enhanced DBS check?

Any job that involved caring for, supervising or being in sole charge of children of adults requires an enhanced DBS check.

What is the Children's Barred list?

The children's barred list contains a list of people barred from working with children. This is because they have been dismissed or removed from working in regulated activity because they have, or might have, harmed a child.'
www.strictlyeducation.co.uk/online-dbs-further-information/

Andy

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

Exactly. He would have done at DDs sports club, because we had a framework to follow and needed to provide of active coaches adn volunteers including their DBS numbers. But this is far from universal. The requirement to do a check led to people walking away for both our club and neighbouring ones, so was a useful filter in itself. But interesting that when problems were found it seemed that these people had already, like DC, managed to volunteer in a variety of organisaitons/activities without checks.

sorry "provide a list of"

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

Ever.

Even after this horrific tale that has been going on for years, AC still does not understand.

Veritas could not have put it more clearly really.

Is the Green Party really going to provide full-time carers to someone like AC? Or do they accept that sometimes certain people do not have the competence to fulfil positions of responsibility within their party? And that sometimes groups with dark motives will use someone like AC in order to promote their own aims. And that the Green Party were complicit in treating AC as a special case to whom normal rules did not apply.

I just can't see the Greens doing the self-examination necessary to effect real change.

Aimee's dad had "untold influence on public policy" - um, srsly, do you not know how the Green Party works?

Wouldn't David Challenor have had a CRB/DBS check in order to be involved in clubs/schools/scouts etc?

He hadn't been charged with the rape at that point, and it might not even have happened.

Although you would have thought that animal cruelty would have shown up on a standard check, and the fact that his children had been removed might show up on an enhanced check.

I know of at least one Guide leader who has said in the past that they only DBS check people who seem dodgy. Which is appalling, but I suspect not implausible.

Popchyk - the real worry is will the Lib Dems read this and put the correct safeguards in place for AC if she will never have the capacity to understand (a bit like David Blunkett having a Dog for his disability)? They have already had Aimee be on the panel at a least one training/motivational event.

Guide groups etc. that I have been involved with all insisted on DBS for all regular helpers, and non DBSed people had to be supervised at all times.

do you not know how the Green Party works?

Incompetently? With no due diligence? A bit like a bunch of amateur politicos with no actual understanding of any but buzzwords? Am I getting close?

If someone changes their sex (or self IDs) and are called, say John Smith, can John Smith then put ‘Mary Jones’ on any DRB
form and not state that they were until recently John Smith, litten drowned, bank robber and flasher of the parish? Because admitting that they were John would be upsetting for them.

There's a link above which explains what does and doesn't show up on the different types of DBS checks.

Organisations such as sporting bodies, guiding etc will have policies about which adults are DBS checked, at what level and how frequently.
They will also have policies about how to respond to information which is disclosed.

The DBS check was originally called the CRB check. This came about after it was established that Ian Huntley had been known to several police forces but the information was not centrally held. His previous addresses could not be verified by the checks used at the time.

Its purpose was to close the loophole so that individual's could not hide their offending behaviours by using different names and addresses.

It is though a check for a specific range of information at a particular point in time.

This is why it is part of the Safeguarding framework.
An important part.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

Ever.

Even after this horrific tale that has been going on for years, AC still does not understand.

Veritas could not have put it more clearly really.

And this is the problem. All parties have been guilty of promoting less capable people for woke points. It's patronising and in this case dangerous.
I agree with the pp (sorry it was a long thread and I can't remember who said it) who compared the fear of being labelled racist re. grooming/rape gangs and the fear of being labelled transphobic in this case.
AC is either not capable, and should therefore be supported (now by LDs) to carry out a role AC can actually do, or AC is capable, but has horrendous judgement and is unable to deal with debate (block lists) so is unsuitable for public life full stop.
Either way AC should not have ever been in that position, no matter how hard up the GP was for membership/volunteers.
On a final note - is this a case of quantity over quality or did the GP actually consider AC as electable?

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

If Veritas could see this, why couldn't people in the green party? Perhaps lots of people in the party don't understand safeguarding.

Guide groups etc. that I have been involved with all insisted on DBS for all regular helpers, and non DBSed people had to be supervised at all times.

But DBS is pretty weak: if you haven't actually been in contact with the police it's unlikely it will show anything up, and even an enhanced DBS requires that you have been on the police's radar.

The alternative is things like DV clearance, required for people with regular access to very sensitive material and places, which probes motivation and trustworthiness. But volunteers would be unwilling to do that, it would be wildly invasive (people who work in those worlds refer to "giving up their privacy") and in any event it routinely takes a year and costs ten grand to do. I could do some other things at work if I had DV, but I have declined it on several occasions because of how invasive it is.

Veritas strongly suggested that AC does not actually have the capacity to understand what safeguarding actually is.

IF this is now out there, where does it put AC's advice to Stonewall, AC's addresses to police organisations etc.? Miller Committee?

Yeah DV looks into your entire family, and all your finances too. I wouldn't volunteer if I had to go through it, you're effectively sacrificing their privacy too.
I think it's impossible to know everything through vetting, but DBS checks are good to have. Don't forget your police record will have every time you've had an interaction with them on it, not just actual convictions. It just makes up part of safeguarding, it's not the be all and end all.

And her continuing role as vice-Chair of a Coventry youth group - Prism.