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

[criticalthinking]

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

But having a "side" that has enough influence to override key safeguarding standards is an issue in itself....

I can't fathom how anyone, knowing of the allegations against DC would not feel it important to investigate further.

He should have been suspended immediately. His home should no longer have been used as a local party office. Aimee should have been suspended and investigated wrt using him as their election agent.

And that is what the report ought to say...

I think there are two issues, one is the general climate in the Party, with people afraid to challenge - this has created a situation where this could happen, but I think this just mirrors what's going on everywhere else.

The other is the specific question about who knew about DC allegations - so far I only know that two people on the TRA "side" knew - but I don't have complete information. This could have happened because of the climate, but to be fair it's something that might have happened anyway because of individual loyalty. However, it does raise issues about safeguarding being higher on the agenda and it being made absolutely clear to everyone what their responsibilities are.

So on the off chance it says something, will this mean that every One who was advised by them will receive notification and the suggestion to look Into polices etc??

Beatrix Campbell's essay had a link to Andy Healey's stuff: good link and that link is available as a pamphlet from eBay for £2.50. It seems to be a good introduction to the subject of TRA overreach.

This isn't happening, is it?

I guess is someone has seen it, and raised a shed load of objections around their own incrimination. Maybe even got a lawyer involved.

But wasn't that what the Maxwellisation process allowed for?

I just spoke to Verita. Their understanding was also that it was due to be published today at 4pm, but publication is by the commissioner not by them. So he said it was in the Green Party's hands.

Interesting.

You can imagine the smug sanctimony if a "corporate" (the folk devils of the Green Party) announced it was going to publish a report on an oil spill in mid-November, but was still cavilling over the details two months later.

Do they have to publish it? I mean is it obligatory?

Meanwhile Centre Parcs hopes their guest has a great time

Sherwood Forest (@CPUKSherwood) Tweeted:
@AimeeChallenor Enjoy! We hope you're having a fantastic stay. twitter.com/CP_UK_Sherwood/status/1083392331477323777?s=17

That, Datun, is a fine question. Calling them now.

Do they have to publish it? I mean is it obligatory?

No. And no.

Ah of course - whilst Verita as a dreadful private sector company answered the phones at 5.30pm, the Green Party is shut.

Do they have to publish it? I mean is it obligatory?

"No. And no."

I was about to say well that's that then. But I suspect not. There will be a leak, accusations, and chaos. They might have to publish it to clear up the rumours.

What does this mean then?

Do they have to publish it? I mean is it obligatory?

As far as I remember it is up to the Greens if they publish. But it will look really bad if they don't - openess and transparency and all that...

But they could publish a redacted version.....

It's possible that there's pressure on them to keep certain sections/conclusions private.

Thank you WorkingItOutAsIGo - which ironically is what the Greens are probably doing right now

But they could publish a redacted version.....

Right now, most decent people realise that the Greens are in the same position, for the same reason, as the SWP, except that instead of having a party official who coerces vulnerable adults into sexual relationships and gets his mates to cover it up, they have a member who sexually molests children and then is appointed to an official public position in the party while on trial. So anyone who stays a member of the Greens today should be treated with the contempt reserved for people who are still members of the SWP.

People who have children and are members of the Greens should think: why am I am member of a party whose safeguarding is a vile joke and which is now concealing a report into it?

Is it worth tweeting the green party and publically asking about it?

Presumably they may decide to publish only the recommendations section of the report.

And thus avoid having to name anybody who may have acted in an improper manner.

I thought it was delayed until today, because it had to be passed around all the interested parties to get their approval?

ie already redacted.