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

[criticalthinking]

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

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

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 totally agree popchyk

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?

I think so. But a bit worse.

Did they actually have a safeguarding officer/lead anywhere? I am getting the impression that it was not a particular person's responsibility?

All of those people in authority (like AC and other members of the relevant GP committees) and, in retrospect, none of them had any understanding of what they were doing?

^^Did they actually have a safeguarding officer/lead anywhere? I am getting the impression that it was not a particular person's responsibility?

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one...

I hate the use of the word ‘diverse’ to describe individuals.

A group can be diverse but unless they have some kind of mosaic condition an individual can’t.

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one..

Oh well. stable door and all that.

No expert, but I always thought you had to have a go-to person. That is the way I have seen it work.

No. The report says Verita have seen a paper saying GP intend to appoint one...

When I had a small training company, of 2 people, we had a safeguarding lead from the time we started the company. I cannot believe that an official political party of the UK didn't have a safeguarding lead. And hadn't put people through safeguarding training.

This is atrocious.

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.

All of this and worse - consider that DC often accompanied AC as "support". AC relied on DC and even asked them to attend a GP complaint hearing on their behalf. So at best AC was subject to undue influence from a sexual sadist probably with psychopathic tendencies. Who knows what DC was advising. And who knows how much of that advice made its way into policy and advice decisions via Stonewall. You can see the mess caused in the GP but Stonewall's reach is a lot-lot longer and wider. How many other organisations have adopted policy recommendations from Stonewall based on AC's input influenced by DC and/or others?

Anyone who objects/ed to the wholesale recommendation of the dismantling of historically proven safeguards is still today silenced - irl and on social media. And the means to silence us on social media (blocker) involved AC as they themselves have said.

At its worse, this could be considered akin to members of PIE getting into positions of influence like Head of Children's Services, where they deliberately obfuscated and misinterpreted policy giving license to predators to normalise sex with children in care by their care-workers and the like - and other "responsible adults" turned a blind eye because their boss said it was OK to have sex with a minor provided it was consensual - and who got to define "consensual" - you got it - the perpetrators.

This is a huge scandal

I cannot believe that an official political party of the UK didn't have a safeguarding lead.

However, how interesting that some of the safeguarding might be influenced by Stonewall (with AC on a relevant panel) and similar organisations...

We need the Miller Committee report walked back and we need any company policies based on Stonewall or similar organisations' input to be redacted and re-commissioned.

Aspie, yes. Plus presumably AC was promoted in part because she added the experience of being "trans" to the organisations diversity. However if she lacks the capacity to understand other people's experiences and needs, or the relevence of protecting the vulnerable, she takes away from the organisations ability to appear/represent a diverse constituency.

Thus shocking that she is secretary to Stonewall's trans- advisory Committee. Unlike LGB rights, trans rights conflict with other peoples rights and protections. Our society needs to balance these rights appropriately. (My view being that the rights/needs of the vulnerable should be weighted far more heavily than trans rights.) But Veritas seem to be suggesting that Aimee lacks the capacity to understand this. So instead we have from Stonewall: TWAW, #nodebate, and trans-rights are human-rights.

(Rarely has and organisation lived up to its name as Stonewall does. Aimee appears to put it all down to her "autism". I think that suggestion is beyond rude to autistic people. But whatever her problem, Stonewall seems to suffer the same. They deserve each other, but neither deserve to advise anyone.)

It looks to me like the got most of the information in vaguely the right direction from AC (but not through formal channels), then minimised it when it got passed on (no formal safeguard to ask questions), then it fizzled out. As if someone's dad that they had never heard of might have got caught stealing a beer glass, and AC might get upset if someone mentioned it.

Then they got told on the day, knew nothing about anything and didn't try and find out, and it hit them in the face.

You could have run rings around them and they wouldn't have seen.

If all the organisations currently promoting the further rights of trans people work like that, then there will be a lot of rings being run. Only they won't know.

However, I expect there must be many with safeguarding leads who think they are safe on paper but are not thinking the implications of changes through from all perspectives, which is what they are being told with this new magical thinking where men become women in all ways. Actually, that is what is happening isn't it GG, NHS etc etc etc...……….. The safeguard is being nobbled.

Unlike LGB rights, trans rights conflict with other peoples rights and protections. Our society needs to balance these rights appropriately. (My view being that the rights/needs of the vulnerable should be weighted far more heavily than trans rights.) But Veritas seem to be suggesting that Aimee lacks the capacity to understand this. So instead we have from Stonewall: TWAW, #nodebate, and trans-rights are human-rights
Good point. If AC can't understand the concept of competing interests that inability will inform the sacrosanct guidance Stonewall dish out to passive organisations.
There are no checks and balances on that guidance or where/who it comes from. The Stonewall stamp seems to serve as proof enough that the content is valid/true/legally accurate but as per the police guidance on transphobia, we know that's not the case.

Is there another similar lobbying group with the same influence as Stonewall? They aren't challenged on anything. Even the NFU doesn't seem to be as close to government and major organisations.
There are powerful lobby groups, granted, but are there any others who get to write government policy for them, "educate" business, government and schools, all with government funding and what looks like zero oversight?
Are Stonewall getting a free pass because they're Stonewall?

AC works with Stonewall.

The report clearly suggests that AC does not understand safeguarding and does not have the capacity to understand safeguarding. As repeatedly said all over this board, Stonewall are advising on safeguarding policy ffs, and multiple times people trained in safeguarding within their work have raised that their advice contradicts the standard safeguarding framework and practice they follow. Helen from the Guides was sacked for refusing to stay quiet about this. Even the NSPCC don't dare discuss the conflict between Stonewall and other lobby group advice and standard national safeguarding practice.

MPs and journalists please take note.

This is a scandal. Members of political lobby groups have been allowed to train and influence safeguarding policy without themselves being trained in safeguarding or understanding it.

They have done this without qualification, awareness or regard for the particular needs of or the impact of their policy on vulnerable people and children not part of their lobby group's focus.

Safeguarding policies across the UK have been compromised and need to be urgently reviewed and repaired by professionals trained in safeguarding and not representing a lobby group.

This has been able to happen because even trained, named safeguarding leads have been afraid to speak out and protect safeguarding from politically motivated changes, and organisations such as the NSPCC have equally been too afraid of being called bigots and worse to stand up against this. In part, because they have seen how those who do have been punished. Things have been made unsayable. People have been exempted from standard expectations, practice, values and guidelines.

This should be on the front page of every newspaper. The DfE and the government children's safeguarding lead need to urgently sort out the mess they have allowed to be made on their watch.

Is there another similar lobbying group with the same influence as Stonewall?

For its size, Mermaids punches well above its weight.

As for individuals - the NHS and Tara Hewitt come to mind.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3385533-Prominant-campaigning-role-of-Tara-Hewitt-NHS-TELI-Social-work-universities-etc?pg=1

And to add to the above: when people not trained in basic safeguarding, with no understanding of basic safeguarding never mind to the depth a school requires, advise and guide changes in safeguarding policy from the position of a political lobby group, the only purpose their advice and influence can then serve is to further their political agenda.

The government are funding Stonewall to do this.

Where the fuck is the due diligence?

I aghast reading that. I can’t believe the GP don’t even have a safeguarding lead.

Just after CRB checks came in I was involved in a national children’s organisation. My husband ran the local branch. As an adult living in his house (the correspondence address) I had to have a check done.

The Child Protection Policy as it was called back then was written by an external expert. One year the sh** hit the fan when it emerged that a local organisers husband had been convicted of internet related child sex offences.

She was immediately suspended even though he had no involvement in the group at all. UK office swooped in sending someone to run the group each week and diverting the telephone line and emails until someone could be found to take over. It was made clear that although she couldn’t be responsible for his actions she was in breach of the policy when she failed to inform U.K. office of his arrest and charges instead of waiting for the conviction.

Yes, they handled the press and tried to deflect comments etc but ultimately safeguarding was the priority.

This was sbout 12 years ago when such policies were in their infancy.

Yes AC cannot see what the issue is?

Agree Knicknack with everything you said.

Where the fuck is the due diligence?

Another T-shirt slogan....

As above, huge scandal with AC at the heart of it all.
Tumbleweed from all the others organisations who have used and continue to use the advice of AC for guidance. Will they now revisit their ill advised policies?

For its size, Mermaids punches well above its weight.
Good point. Both trans organisations, Stonewall wasn't originally but is now.

Any minority organisations? I don't think the Quilliam Foundation or MCB have this level of reach.

I'm struggling to think of organisations that do, with as little oversight.

What is it about trans rights that scares people paid to be safeguarding experts off challenging these two lobby groups?

And, you know, AC's "interests" are all over the internet.

It isn't just that AC does not have the capacity to understand safeguarding which is utterly damning in itself.

And Stonewall and Prism know all about it and are choosing to do absolutely nothing.

This is a huge scandal

Yes. And even more huge given that our entire mediating class of politicians, liberal journalists and third sectors orgs are playing the three wise monkeys and pretending they can't see a thing.

They have done this without qualification, awareness or regard for the particular needs of or the impact of their policy on vulnerable people and children not part of their lobby group's focus.

Even worse, the schools training actually places the children they are focusing on outside safeguarding frameworks afforded to all other children - eg confidential disclosures.

Thus shocking that she is secretary to Stonewall's trans- advisory Committee. Unlike LGB rights, trans rights conflict with other peoples rights and protections. Our society needs to balance these rights appropriately. (My view being that the rights/needs of the vulnerable should be weighted far more heavily than trans rights.) But Veritas seem to be suggesting that Aimee lacks the capacity to understand this. So instead we have from Stonewall: TWAW, #nodebate, and trans-rights are human-rights.

(Rarely has and organisation lived up to its name as Stonewall does. Aimee appears to put it all down to her "autism". I think that suggestion is beyond rude to autistic people. But whatever her problem, Stonewall seems to suffer the same. They deserve each other, but neither deserve to advise anyone.)

Well said.

It isn't just that AC does not have the capacity to understand safeguarding which is utterly damning in itself.

And Stonewall and Prism know all about it and are choosing to do absolutely nothing.

This and worse still - they and Mermaids continue to be very well funded from Govt and multiple sources to give advice that looks as though it could well be unfit for purpose. At least that has to be seriously considered and evaluated.