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

[criticalthinking]

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

I'm not sure of the correct terminology but a back to work type organisation (one that forces long term unemployed to do voluntary work) placed a man with us at work. Our own safeguarding procedures meant he was never in contact with children, but we are a public space. He disappeared one day. Jail. For possessing child abuse images.

A dbs check wouldn't have uncovered him, as it was a first time offence

I think there should be some kind of trigger list for pending accusations. The scouts will not have known! And they dbs everyone who steps foot in the place (in my experience).
All organisations, check check check your safeguarding procedures. It's on the ground stuff that matters most.

Oh and fuck you Aimee for not telling those organisations clearly what that monster was accused of

Yes I agree it's a cross party issue, just that Madigan and Challenor are similar in that they are both very young and have been given a lot of mainstream publicity/exposure on a national level in a way that someone like Sarah Brown hasn't.

Isn't this just a shift though?
Previously TRAs campaigners lobbied behind the scenes.
It seems very likely that those such as Sarah Brown (Stonewall and LibDems) have supported/guided/influenced younger TRAs such as Aimee Challenor, Lily Madigan etc

2013 Guardian article about Press For Change interviewed Sarah Brown, Stephen Whittle, Paris Lees Christine Burns etc

(extracts)
"Much of their campaigning remained on the quiet. The passage of the 2004 law to give trans people legal status was "remarkable," says [Christine] Burns, because "the government was able to pass an entire act in parliament without anyone throwing a fit in the press". In popular culture, the activists became more forthcoming in their attempts to increase popular understanding of trans issues." (continues)

"This is a source of personal heartache, but [Sarah] Brown is convinced that trans people's biggest single problem is access to decent healthcare. Within 24 hours of her creating the hashtag #transdocfail, she had been inundated with 2,000 tweets of trans people's negative experiences at the hands of medical professionals. "It revealed a massive level of abuse. If it was happening to any other minority it would be on the national news," says Brown. Another ongoing battle for trans people is to revise the World Health Organisation's International Classification of Diseases (ICD) so that transsexuality is not listed as a mental illness. (Ironically, this was added to the ICD around the time homosexuality was removed; campaigners such as Burns say it is useful to be in the ICD to help trans people access healthcare but it should be "less stigmatising".) (continues)

"In 25 years, [James] Barrett has seen trans people become "a networked bunch" – more so than other people, he thinks – thanks to the internet. [Paris] Lees, who also works for Trans Media Action, says social media is the "essential catalyst" for the transformation of trans people in society. "Society is in transition and we've woken up from the operation and there's no going back. We can't pretend that trans people don't exist any more," she says. "People have been taking the piss out of trans people for 60 years. The narrative on trans issues has been controlled by people who have no understanding of them. Social media is about us grabbing the narrative back and telling our own stories – this is our reality, this is what we go through and this is what matters to us. We're here, we're in your face, we definitely exist. That's the most important thing – realising we exist." (continues)

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/jan/22/voices-from-trans-community-prejudice

I also think that there is much going on than that TRAs are accorded apparently unfettered power and influence by political parties than just the 'woke points'

Yes, but at the top level I think it's quite possible that the woke points for youth votes and being "inclusive" are the main motivating factors. I'm not saying it's not important or that more powerful people than Madigan/Challenor aren't deliberately pushing a deeper agenda within the party, or that they aren't under pressure from lobbying organisations like Stonewall.

Yes, but at the top level I think it's quite possible that the woke points for youth votes and being "inclusive" are the main motivating factors.

There's a lot of manipulation going on, a massive absence of critical thinking (see Layla Moran and 'seeing souls' rather than sex who had been 'inspired' by Helen Belcher), misogyny, confirmation bias etc etc

And of course political opportunism.

DC was also a helper at a girls' gym club at one stage, as I recall. Social services should have had a good overview of all the different groups he was involved with and alerted them when the children were taken into care.

Significant recent thread which considers the lobbying by transactivists, Press for Change etc and policy/legislation implications over ten years ago:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3463920-Lets-go-back-to-2007

heresyandwitchcraft commented:
That 2007 thread! This has been going on for a long time.... and some prominent transsexuals really seem to have been deliberately strategising to get to where we are today

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3145470-Break-it-down-for-me?pg=15

There's a lot of manipulation going on, a massive absence of critical thinking (see Layla Moran and 'seeing souls' rather than sex who had been 'inspired' by Helen Belcher), misogyny, confirmation bias etc etc

Yes. It's much more complex than goodies vs baddies or conspiracy vs cock-up.

Which is exactly why we need robust safeguarding frameworks that protect everybody who is not dangerous or abusive (including trans people).

Stephen Whittle (influential Women's & Equalities 'expert adviser', law proffessor, Press for Change co-founder, TRA etc) also demonstrated that he didn't understand Safeguarding with his use of suicide.
SW, In hindsight I should not have said that - but the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind.

When challenged he recognised this specific issue and Samaritan's guidance.
I am unconvinced that he has any understanding of Safeguarding though any more than any other TRA who prioritises 'rights' :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=4

This is a systemic failure within transactivism

I also think that there is much going on than that TRAs are accorded apparently unfettered power and influence by political parties than just the 'woke points'

Can you imagine Stonewall now? They've got someone on their advisory panel who has been officially designated as not understanding the first thing about safeguarding, and probably never will. Whose friendships and predilections are very dodgy.

And yet this person is probably privy to all sorts of conversations that Stonewall would rather not be made public.

If they suspend them, AC will claim transphobia and could trash them to kingdom come.

So will they have to keep someone who dropped a bomb on their credibility?

I can safely say I wouldn't ever employ someone like AC, Lily Madigan or Sarah Brown. To me, their credibility is quite obviously zero. Minus numbers in fact. So, to me, it is a bit of a mystery how they manage to gain any kind of power at all.

I also think that there is much going on than that TRAs are accorded apparently unfettered power and influence by political parties than just the 'woke points'

Indeed.

R0wantrees

I know what you mean - it feels like it goes beyond 'woke points' and is part of some attempt to remake society (in whose image I do not know).

Then I reread my own comments and wonder if I'm becoming Grassy Knollington (of Viz fame). Disturbing times.

Can you imagine Stonewall now? They've got someone on their advisory panel who has been officially designated as not understanding the first thing about safeguarding, and probably never will.

Stonewall clearly do not understand Safeguarding.
Its a systemic failure.

December 2018
OP TheLWordNotTheQWord wrote:
"The National Lottery, Stonewall and Gay Conversion Therapy:

The National Lottery have give half a million pounds of funding to Stonewall to fund trans leaders in "influencing" the public. One of these is Morgan Page a transwoman (ie a male who identifies as being a woman) who has run workshops advising other male people who identify as lesbians on "overcoming the cotton ceiling":

www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1063148/national-lottery-funding-stonewall-500k-morgan-page-Aimee-Challenor-david-davis-mermaids

The "cotton ceiling" represents the barrier of lesbians' underwear (because lesbians won't have sex with them due to them being male penis-havers). A number of transactivists campaign against this, calling lesbians bigoted and "vagina fetishists" for not being willing to have sex with them and this individual ran workshops to help other male individuals to "identify the barriers and strategise ways to overcome them":

fairplayforwomen.com/lesbians-erasure-feminism-6/

How is training males on how to overcome women's boundaries and pressure lesbians to have sex with penises not a) rapey as hell and b) gay conversion therapy by another name?

Why the hell are the National Lottery and Stonewall funding this individual?"

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/3462846-The-National-Lottery-Stonewall-and-Gay-Conversion-Therapy

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3458618--494-000-more-funding-for-Stonewall-from-the-Big-Lottery-Fund

It's far beyond "woke points", it's something bigger.

Someone asked me yesterday (they're Australian) whether or not the UK has a centralised regulator for safeguarding. And, of course, it doesn't. It's spread over government departments and split into children (education department), vulnerable adults (social services, QCC), charities (Charity Commission), etc.

I think we need such a regulator with overarching powers. An OfSafe, as it were.

Which is exactly why we need robust safeguarding frameworks that protect everybody who is not dangerous or abusive (including trans people).

YY.

And, of course, it doesn't. It's spread over government departments and split into children (education department), vulnerable adults (social services, QCC), charities (Charity Commission), etc.

I think this has always been a flaw. The ability to pass the buck so that no one is ultimately responsible or accountable.

Interesting that Veritas contacted Coventry Pride, the organisation that got it "right", well almost, but not Prism or Stonewall, the two organisations that AC boasts about having influential positions. The former especially as it involves active involvement with LGBT youth. Does Aimee had an enhanced DBS check or untertaken a safeguarding course. If Veritas have concerns about AC's capacity to understand autism, surely they have some sort of obligation to alert the youth group she is involved in. Even if it is in the form of just sending them a copy of the report.

In terms of older friends, someone once posted a link to ACs profile on a Furry site from several years ago, when she would have still been a minor and possibly before her transition. The one "friend" appeared to be someone who has since emerged as a high profile TRA, again possibly before their own transition. All the evidence (being taken into care, the nature of her father's conviction, autism etc) points to AC havin had a very difficult childhood. The report focusses on processes. However the real question is why was the GP using a young, probably vulnerable, person to achieve woke points, without providing proper mentoring or support.

R0wantrees

Bloody hell. I had missed that express article. They don't hold back, do they? I'm sure most people reading it don't quite realise the extent of it, either.

The Veritas report was specific and limited in its scope as per the instructions of the Green Party.
Coventry Pride was a relevent parallel due to their response to David Challenor following AC advising them in similar time/manner of his arrest to The Green Party.

Bloody hell. I had missed that express article. They don't hold back, do they? I'm sure most people reading it don't quite realise the extent of it, either.

Indeed, I had missed it too.

I would love to know what the investigators covered in their informal notes but concluded that were outside the scope of the investigation (or were removed following discussion with the Green Party). For example, they note (uncritically and in passing) that DC was known by the nickname "Balloo", attributing it to his involvement in the Scouts rather than his furry fetish

When challenged he recognised this specific issue and Samaritan's guidance.
I am unconvinced that he has any understanding of Safeguarding though any more than any other TRA who prioritises 'rights' :
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?pg=4
This is a systemic failure within transactivism

YY - asking for special privileges and countering any concerns with indifference or some bizarre "trans people don't do that sort of thing" argument.
Activists like AC belong in single-issue interest groups. They should not be promoted by political parties when they have such narrow interests.

In terms of older friends, someone once posted a link to ACs profile on a Furry site from several years ago, when she would have still been a minor and possibly before her transition. The one "friend" appeared to be someone who has since emerged as a high profile TRA, again possibly before their own transition. All the evidence (being taken into care, the nature of her father's conviction, autism etc) points to AC havin had a very difficult childhood.The report focusses on processes. However the real question is why was the GP using a young, probably vulnerable, person to achieve woke points, without providing proper mentoring or support.

The more pressing issue (for Safeguarding reasons) is the role that organisations and charities such as Mermaids are having on vulnerable young people they claim to support and represent.

As LangCleg repeatedly points out on FWR, the Safeguarding protections that are being damaged by TRAs put the children and young people who identify as transgender at risk.

previous post on the thread, theOtherPamAyres
Here's Aimee Challenor writing for Liberal Democrat Voice about how Mermaids helped her to circumnavigate medical professionals

www.libdemvoice.org/why-the-national-autistic-society-were-right-to-reverse-their-decision-on-award-winning-charity-mermaids-58805.html

This is about the duty of care to protect children and young people.

Mermaids clearly do not understand Safeguarding
Its a systemic failure.

This is on the Kiwi Farms thread about AC - the Twitter link doesn't seem to work any more but I wonder if this is related to the disciplinary incident that the report mentions (where DC was attending with AC and to act on their behalf if necessary)

These dox have just appeared on Twitter, this being court papers from Aimee Challenor trying to silence Andy Healey, and the statement in support of this from Claire Phipps, Chair of the Green Party Executive till November 2017.

^The dox are dated April 2017 and were released by Andy himself. twitter.com/djandyhealey/status/1083483340685144067^

The question is who funded this injunction?

The first page defines acronyms, including 'TERF' and cites two 'non-binary members' of the Green Party in support.

The third page cites a tweet from Aimee 'Blocked another TERF SWERF twitter user. Goodbye @djandyhealey Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Cunt.'. Claire said she offered sympathy to Aimee but 'could never truly understand what it's like to receive 'tweets that invalidate ones identity as a transwoman'. Claire told Aimee to lock down his social media, stop swearing publicly and apologise.' Aimee's reply was 'I'll only apologise if he asks for an apology, and I can't apologise publicly on Twitter, where I insulted him, because I've blocked him' and 'I may make a complaint about him'

Subsequently Aimee & his LGBTIQ Greens group ganged up to make a complaint against Andy about 'transphobic abuse'

Aimee added 'Andy is being a pain on twitter again'

Claire decided that the solution to Andy triggering Aimee, in order to put forward a 'Transwomen are women' motion at the party conference. When this motion was passed, Andy Tweeted 'Gpconf had a choice of pandering to delusions or seeking truth'.

[Note - I think I've edited out the bits that fall foul of FWR Talk guidelines]

What I understand (from the evidence links posted on KW farms). Is that Aimees older brother may also share both the transexuality AND the fetish stuff. But that child was taken away from Aimees mum when they were little (and has a different dad).
It's not just a house of horrors, it's a network of horror. How they are all interconnected is the stuff of nightmares.

But hey! We'd love to hear your ideas on schools 😍