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

[criticalthinking]

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

But hey! We'd love to hear your ideas on schools
It'd be funny if it wasn't so scarily accurate.

current thread which was started January 2018 and shows how many women could no longer support The Green Party after its 'men and non-men' policy from one of the 'Young Greens' groups:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3152500-Any-gender-critical-Green-Party-members-on-here

recent comment by theOtherPamAyres

"The Green Party has to make some positive noises before I would consider voting for them, let alone joining as a member.

I won't forget that just a few months ago, one of the co-leaders, Sian Berry, tried to get three women removed from outside the GP Conference venue in Bristol. The women were handing out FairPlay for Women GRA leaflets in a public place. The police were called.

This is the party that believes that sex-work (sic) is made safer by the decriminalisation of the buying and selling of sexual services to men.

Unlike other parties, it does not publish a manifesto for Women. Instead it has a Gender Equality manifesto (because transwomen are women and transmen are men).

It has been hi-jacked by groups promoting hobby-horses that have nothing to do with social and environmental justice.

It will take a long, long time for this small party to shake out those members who have jumped on its back. It will take even longer to get rid of those people at the top who subscribe to transgender privileges before women's rights.

Until they do a reverse ferret, they are off my radar as a contender for my vote."

thread re TRAs at last year's Green Party conference:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3386612-Police-called-to-Green-Party-Conference

This is the same Claire that was completely relaxed about a rapist putting forward motions and acting as an agent. You can see where the Green Party stand on child rape: indifferent. Rotten people. Rotten party.

This is the party that believes that sex-work (sic) is made safer by the decriminalisation of the buying and selling of sexual services to men.

There has always been a fringe of feminism, desperate to appear non-judgemental of "choices", which holds that prostitution is no different to any other physical labour, and/or that prostitution is no different to marriage. The agendas this is the consequences of aren't hard to see, and the reality - that most women working in the sex industry are not going to be played by Billie Piper after getting their PhDs, but are socially, economically and emotionally marginalised victims of male violence - is conveniently forgotten. It's hardly surprising that the Green Party - slogan "yes, our policies might make bread more expensive, but we can always eat organic Brioche" - is enthusiastic about fringe, middle-class fantasies based on nothing factual.

You know how when you were 14 you dyed your hair and adopted communist politics to get a rise out of your parents? Every fucking member of the Greens, right there.

"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). "

Not quite.

Aimee has two older half-brothers, who grew up in Scotland away from DC. Neither of them are trans. One of them has I think now moved to the Coventry area.

The 'brother' being referred to is another care leaver, completely unrelated to Aimee, who is now engaged to be married to an entirely unconnected TW. Said 'brother' was only referred to as 'brother' by Aimee as fetish language. The same way you'll see Aimee posting currently on Twitter about being away with 'family'. (a strange word to use to describe going away for the weekend with your polyamorous lovers)

So basically it was an older TW who was once in Aimee's love circle and referrred to as 'brother' or 'pup' or member of the 'pack' (furry language). There are quite a few TW trying to promote polyamory, inter ali I can think of that Lib Dem from Cambridge and that Tory one who lectures the NHS about bdsm.

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.

This is what escapes the woke. Safeguarding is not pro-TRA, anti-trans, pro-GC or anti-GC. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. It's about protection of the vulnerable from the predatory (or even the clueless). That's it.

Safeguarding is sceptical because that is the entire point of it. It doesn't pick out any group or belief system or ideology to be sceptical of: it's sceptical of everything and everyone because that is how we protect the vulnerable.

As R0 points out, orgs and institutions involved in and with transactivism have a systemic problem with safeguarding because they don't understand this and take it as an injury to identity. Conversely, safeguarding frameworks take no account whatsoever of identity.

Thanks to those who answered my earlier post about DBS/CRB checks, because this thread has highlighted that the Green Party didn't have any safeguarding procedures in place, because they are so desperate for members, that they would rather sweep everything under the carpet and hope nothing happens.
At the present time, MP's are NOT required to undergo a DBS check, and on 3rd May 2017 someone started a petition to attempt to change this situation. The petition only managed to get 17 signatures - shocking.

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/179089

Meanwhile, as others on here have pointed out, it looks as though AC has drifted over to the Liberal Democrats, where they will probably be warmly received, and if that doesn't work out then I wouldn't be surprised to see them being welcomed into the Labour Part - now known as "New Woke Labour".

You know how when you were 14 you dyed your hair and adopted communist politics to get a rise out of your parents? Every fucking member of the Greens, right there

Clearly not true.

What is true from the threads on the board is that women especially who have been committed to grassroots, ecological and Green politics have been smeared and excluded by a small group of influential TRAs and young people at the National party level.

Quite an overlap with narcissism there, then.

'Me? Fill in that form and let all and sundry know my private business? Go on that mandatory training with a bunch of nobodies? I know you have to have these bureaucratic rules these days, but come on, this is me we're talking about! I take great exception to the fact that you would even mention this to me. I'm no risk to anyone and it's an insult to suggest I am. I know why you're doing this, it's because I'm [insert characteristic of your choice here] This is blatant discrimination and I won't stand for it. You haven't heard the last of this.'

Etc etc etc.

Mary, that seems to make sense. I had started to think ACs family was even weirder than it is. On other threads I have seen reference to 'Trans-mothers' offering to support TG teens....in place of their own 'unsupportive' families. Not dissimilar to the way a cult might seek to separate young people from their families.

At the present time, MP's are NOT required to undergo a DBS check

There are good reasons for that.

Firstly, MPs do not have regular, unsupervised access to children by virtue of their job. That is the starting point for DBS: that the access be both regular and unsupervised. There are other reasons, but I don't think they are relevant. Cyril Smith, before the example is raised, absolutely would be DBS checked today as someone working as a board member in children's homes. That doesn't mean that MPs qua MPs need DBS.

Secondly, we have historically been very cautious, and rightly so, about erecting shadow barriers to people being MPs. Although there is now some change to this - members of the Intelligence Select Committee I think are DV'd - MPs are not in general security vetted, because many MPs, particularly on the left, would historically fail vetting (you might get DV these days if you were a former member of the SWP or the CP; you certainly wouldn't have done thirty years ago).

Why do you think MPs should be DBS checked?

There are quite a few TW trying to promote polyamory, inter ali I can think of that Lib Dem from Cambridge and that Tory one who lectures the NHS about bdsm.

Sarah Brown & Zoe O'Connell interviewed in The Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/apr/20/greatest-sexual-taboo-polyamorous-transgender

Tara Hewitt
Interview 2016
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/what-its-like-transgender-catholic-10810323

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

Bittermints
There is an argument in that direction though. Developed Vetting clearance is very intrusive, for example. I wouldn't volunteer for anything that required it. It should be for secret service and MoD staff, for government officials etc. If it were extended to race marshal volunteers and first aiders at sports events (for example) that would be overkill (and prohibitively expensive).
There needs to be some form of dbs check but as pp pointed out it doesn't flag up suspicions.
But if it did - how moral would that be? I could raise a suspicion that you were a dangerous paedophile and my unwarranted (or malicious) suspicion could lose you your job.
We have to be careful about relying too much on one thing for safeguarding, and we have to comply with data laws.
On a related note, terrorists often use "clean skins", people who have no prior police contact and no criminal record. It's feasible a paedophile gang could do likewise, maybe going so far as to coercing a vulnerable adult to entice children.
All the background checks in the world won't stop that, so other measures are factored in.

I agree Reflectent. DBS wasn't ever intended as a "is this person a good egg?" check, it was supposed to be a "is there anything in the police records that means that we need to be cautious about allowing this person to have unsupervised access to vulnerable people" check.

AFAIK, a DBS check - even an enhanced one - wouldn't show up that the Challenors repeatedly had their children removed from them (but would have shown the conviction for animal cruelty), which is a bit of a lacuna

DBS wasn't ever intended as a "is this person a good egg?" check, it was supposed to be a "is there anything in the police records that means that we need to be cautious about allowing this person to have unsupervised access to vulnerable people" check.

YY It has a specific and worthwhile purpose to ensure that police intelligence and relevent convictions remain linked to an individual so that they can be known to potential employers. This is of course especially relevent with regards Safeguarding and Child Protection.

It may also be relevent for example with regards financial crimes and frauds etc

Stonewall video from 2014. Youth Volunteering Programme.

Young Challenor in the middle of the crowd scene. At 1.12.

I'm guessing that Challenor senior wasn't far away either.

AC later states "someone recommended I should join a political party, so I joined the Green Party. I got involved with the LGBTIQA+ association in the party, and then the Chair role came up. I was encouraged and supported to go for it. I’d been on the Stonewall Youth Volunteering Programme, so I had the knowledge of how to campaign and get involved."

Stonewall was there. Right at the start. And seems to have selected AC as someone who would be useful to the cause. Groomed you might say.

Exactly, R0

Similarly and as an aside (and I know we know this, but it is worth repeating occasionally), a GRC is not some kind of good character certificate either. It is perfectly possible to meet the criteria for a GRC whilst also having a string of criminal convictions for sexual assault / other crimes

Potential challenges to the DBS function:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370916-influential-criminal-justice-charity-campaigning-for-removal-of-minor-gender-specific-offences-from-dbs-checks

Reflectent

"Why do you think MPs should be DBS checked?"

Because DBS checking goes far beyond matters concerning children, it covers all violent and non violent crime, and I believe that as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

"someone recommended I should join a political party, so I joined the Green Party.

Nothing about identifying with aims and ethos. Entryist.

And it would be interesting to see the number of young people who go to a Stonewall residential as gay or lesbian and come back 2 days later identifying as transgender.

Cos it seems to be a lot of them.

www.stonewall.org.uk/our-work/blog/why-we-need-array-trans-role-models

"In 2013, I got a place on Stonewall’s Young Leaders programme. On the final day of the programme the amazing Ruth Hunt gave us a speech about being authentic, but as she spoke I kept my head down and avoided eye contact with all the new friends I’d made because I was lying to them all and, more importantly, lying to myself.

I was transgender.

I decided to be authentic and “came out” a week or so later (thanks Ruth babes)".

ROwan,

Your link shows precisely why the DBS checks have to be applied and have to be consistent - no expunging details simply because certain groups feel it conflicts with their "human rights" and "feely, feely" emotions.

as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

So if someone has a conviction for, say, criminal conspiracy, they should not be an MP?

Your link shows precisely why the DBS checks have to be applied and have to be consistent - no expunging details simply because certain groups feel it conflicts with their "human rights" and "feely, feely" emotions.

The issue with the case is that it could create precedent.

This then risks loopholes being created, which as we know, will always be exploited by those intent on doing so to cause serious harm or for personal gain.
Exactly the reason why the CRB ststem was created.

Because DBS checking goes far beyond matters concerning children, it covers all violent and non violent crime, and I believe that as MP's are serving in the highest offices of the land, they should be put under more scrutiny than anyone else.

I'm not sure the DBS system is appropriate (as it stands for MPs)
DBS is in place so that employers, who have the duty of care towards children and vulnerable adults, are able to screen their employees (including volunteers) as is neccessary for their role.

Whether MPs should have background checks done which is comparable to the DBS would be a matter (I presume) for their local party at the point of selection.

I would presume there is something in place.