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

[criticalthinking]

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

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.

Its important to recognise that DBS checks are part of safeguarding policies within some organisations, not all.

They are for specific situations.

Understanding Safeguarding, and having Safeguarding policies are different things.

As with any policy it has to be effective.

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

Not without this being public (and publicised) information no.

On other threads I have seen reference to 'Trans-mothers' offering to support TG teens....in place of their own 'unsupportive' families

Yes, LM refers to one.

Its important to recognise that DBS checks are part of safeguarding policies within some organisations, not all.

And that, contrary to popular belief, you can't demand that your staff and volunteers are checked at random, nor can you obtain a certificate at random. Although the crazy vetting and barring project was about this, you can only obtain a disclosure certificate if you are going to work in particular, specified occupations for particular employers or volunteer organisations.

Schools lost a lot of classroom helpers fifteen years ago, because hardworking respectable families didn't want the school to know that twenty years previously they had a conviction for shop lifting or affray. DBS needs to be proportionate to risk, and needs to have some evidence that it reduces that risk. Even in its current form that evidence is more "stands to reason, innit?" than solid. Extending it further would be both intrusive and pointless.

Quite an overlap with narcissism there, then.

Yes. This is the elephant in the room. My personal identity trumps other people's rights to be protected by robust systems.

Not without this being public (and publicised) information no.

Peter Hain: In 1972 a private prosecution resulted in Hain's conviction for criminal conspiracy at the Old Bailey for which he was fined £200. The prosecution was funded largely from apartheid-supporting whites in South Africa due to his campaign against white-only South African sports tours. He was acquitted of three other conspiracy counts after defending himself in the four week trial described in the book edited by Derek Humphry, Cricket Conspiracy (1972).

You think that potentially disqualifies him from being an MP? Seriously?

Schools lost a lot of classroom helpers fifteen years ago, because hardworking respectable families didn't want the school to know that twenty years previously they had a conviction for shop lifting or affray. DBS needs to be proportionate to risk, and needs to have some evidence that it reduces that risk.

Schools do need to DBS check adults who work with children.
The CRB system was formed specifically because of the most serious of crimes against two girls Holly Wells and Jessicca Chapman by the caretaker of Soham Village College, Ian Huntley.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about CRB/DBS (some can be seen on this thread)

The key issue is that there should be better understanding about Safeguarding, why DBS is needed and how the information will be used and held.

Those responsible for organising the DBS as they work with children and vulnerable adults will by definition understand and operate within professional confidentiality.

I've worked in environments where CRB/DBS was required. Yes, some volunteers had concerns and these were able to be dealt with appropriately and professionally.

If someone doesn't want to have a DBS check for whatever reason then no they shouldn't be working in the portential risk situations which require one.

The priority will always be the Safeguarding of the vulnerable.

Thanks Rowantrees (point several pages back!)

What are the parallels with Coventry Pride and not the cub scouts (AC’s role as LGBTQ+ spokesperson or the fact that DC and AC were involved in both? Or something I am missing?)

I need to go back and read the Verita brief, but as far as I recall it related only to the GP so it is not clear why Coventry Pride were singled out as the comparator organisation and not any other organisation where safe guarding should have been an issue. Either focus on the GP only or consider the responses to all DC’s known interactions in assessing the GP’s (in)actions.

A minor point, just seems strange that Verita reference the Cub Scout involvement but do not at least question what happened there.

What are the parallels with Coventry Pride and not the cub scouts (AC’s role as LGBTQ+ spokesperson or the fact that DC and AC were involved in both? Or something I am missing?)

Aimee Challenor had a senior role in both Coventry Pride (Trustee) and The Green Party and David Challenor was also involved with both organisations,

Aimee Challenor notified both organisations about her father's arrest.

The parallel is very clear.

Aimee Challenor did not have a senior role with the Scouts.

The scope of the Veritas enquiry must be recognised.

Schools do need to DBS check adults who work with children.

They don't, and now can't, get them for helpers who only work supervised.

The Soham parallel is instructive. Huntley wasn't the caretaker at the school the victims attended. The victims did not know him. The link was that Huntley's partner, Maxine Carr, was working at the school the victims attended. Carr had no recorded intelligence against her and would have passed any disclosure scheme you care to name.

Unless we are proposing that people who work with children need to have all people who live in the same house as them given enhanced DBS including soft intelligence, which would cause almost all volunteering to stop simply on the grounds of "meh, can't be arsed" as well as the massive increase in workload, DBS schemes would not have made any difference.

Most people appear to think Huntley worked at the school the victims were pupils at. He didn't. They went into the house of someone who worked in the school, and were killed by her boyfriend.

Coventry Pride were highlighted because AC was in a position of authority there as she was in the GP. As soon as she mentioned her fathers charges they took steps to ensure that he was not allowed to be involved in the organisation.

The scouts was an organisation only DC was involved in so the parallel is not the same.

ReflectentMonatomism

You are making all sorts of assetions that are not accurate.
I'm not going to derail the thread about the details around Huntley's crimes and the circumstances in Soham but you are wrong about many aspects here.

There are a lot of myths and misconceptions about CRB/DBS

YY - including amongst politicians and many others who should know better. I still recall a senior (Labour) minister saying when CRBs were brought in that 'parents would be able to be 100% confident their children were now safe at school'. Any fool knows that all one of these things proves is that the person named (if accurately named) within the application has no convictions for offences, not that they are 'safe' for children to be around.

Moreover, I discovered when I recently had to complete a DBS application (having done CRBs in the past) that they've made the search less 'searching' than it was - you now only have to give your address for the past 3 years.

Most people appear to think Huntley worked at the school the victims were pupils at. He didn't. They went into the house of someone who worked in the school, and were killed by her boyfriend.

Huntley lived in a house on the Soham Village College site.

The reasons why CRB evolved were that a predatory offender would not have become employed as a caretaker of a school with onsite accomadation if the police intelligence from a number of forces had been available at the time of his interview.

Has anyone posted up the fact that the Guardian has covered this today?

www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/12/green-party-failed-to-properly-investigate-child-abuser-report?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The fact was Huntley lived in a school caretakers house on the grounds of the school was probably instrumental in why the girls entered the house rather than being told their TA was inside.

Has anyone posted up the fact that the Guardian has covered this today?

Interestingly, when I looked this morning the Guardian coverage didn't actually name or list the offences, while the BBC did. You could read the Guardian coverage and not know, aside from the length of the sentence, that he was guilty of grave offences.

The fact was Huntley lived in a school caretakers house on the grounds of the school was probably instrumental in why the girls entered the house

Perhaps. We'll never know. It wasn't their school, however; he was caretaker at a secondary school while the victims were at primary school. Would primary pupils regard a house on the premises of a school they don't attend as any safer?

Didn't I see the other day there are some new press guidelines about not using other words for "rape"?

Yes absolutely they might. They were 10 years old so presumably they were going to be attending that school soon. They may have had visits there, used the facilities, whatever. They lived close enough to the school to walk past from the homes of one of the girls. He would have been seen as a trusted person.

including amongst politicians and many others who should know better. I still recall a senior (Labour) minister saying when CRBs were brought in that 'parents would be able to be 100% confident their children were now safe at school'.

Exactly. comments such as this by politicians demonstrate their failure to understand Safeguarding and raise unrealistic expectations that any framework can prevent risk 100%.
Professionals who work within Safeguarding understand that this is never possible.
This is why protecting the frameworks is so vital.

Thread which collates some of the potential failings/failures of Safeguarding and Child Protection frameworks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

ReflectentMonatomism
People from Soham know.
Please stop derailing the thread with your theories.

Okay thanks (re Scouts). That is basically what I wanted to clarify.

We can probably assume that DC did not tell any of the organisations he was involved in.

We can probably assume that DC did not tell any of the organisations he was involved in.

Indeed and those organisations which have a duty of care towards children eg scouting, gymnastics etc should now be carrying out internal investigations. If they were also not contacted by the investigating police force, this may become a matter for further reviews.

Wasn't the CSE inquiry going to look into DC and the Greens. Presumably they'll be given the full report.