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

[criticalthinking]

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

Sorry that should say that AC made bad decisions for those reasons. The other question is why AC was able to make those bad decisions - and it only briefly says her transition was a factor (although that her role was due to promoting diversity is acknowledged)

Sorry Ro that was point I was trying to make - you did it much better.

Two main points occur to me:

1. the Greens didn't fail their safeguarding policies. They didn't have any. And nobody in the party had the slightest clue that they should have them.

2. Aimee's assertion that Aimee knew no details of the father's charges was given credulity immediately and not investigated at all. The various threads on here show that there is at least some doubt about this, so why was it not part of the investigation?

Why is Aimee commended for Being so stunning and brave to do what she should have done at the beginning of this shit show and actually inform the relevant people the pertinent information that her father was convicted??

That wasn't commendable, it was the base minimum any party member with responsibilities should have done.

Oh, a third point:

3. This is what happens when your ideology is based in the middle class, navel gazing academy and it comes into contact with the real world. Titanic hits iceberg.

THIS IS WHY SAFEGUARDING MATTERS.

No one else is handled with such Kid gloves!

Argh!!! I've had my fill of it today. Between Amy and Nottinghxm's fuxcking racist misogyny.

1) the Greens didn't fail their safeguarding policies. They didn't have any. And nobody in the party had the slightest clue that they should have them

The number of people involved with politics and trans rights who clearly do not understand Safeguarding; what it is, why it is and how it works is astonishing.

That they then are involved in creating policies which impact Safeguarding is very serious.

That some with influence also assert, 'there's no Safeguarding risk' is dangerous.

What a load of old shit.

Imagine if this had been a proper, belt and braces Serious Case Review as per social services. I think we would be reading something very different.

Oh, and another thing: even Veritas can work out that information sharing is key. So why are we allowing lobby groups into schools that recommend confidential disclosures and not sharing information with parents and other professionals?

WHY?

Handily the main person criticised is no longer a member. How convenient.

Yet again reporting restrictions turn out to be the rapists’ friend.

Why is Aimee commended for Being so stunning and brave to do what she should have done at the beginning of this shit show and actually inform the relevant people the pertinent information that her father was convicted??

As the investigation progressed, charges were made, defences prepared and the trial started more information would obviously be available and known by those close to David Challenor.

Coventry Pride's Safeguarding measures which were implemented were known to the Challenors including AC who held a position in the organisation.

To have not recognised what these were for demonstrates either a lack of competence or a reckless disregard.

Aimee is clearly out of Aimee's depth, operating at such a level within an organisation. Aimee was hoping to be elected Deputy Leader, ffs.

Take note, Stonewall.

Interesting to compare paras 3.74 and 3.60-3.62. It is noted that Coventry Pride managed to do a much better job than the GP wrt safeguarding actions, but they let the GP get away with load of flannel about not having many professional staff. It would be interesting to compare the number of professional staff working for Coventry Pride and the GP ...

If you can’t be held responsible you shouldn’t hold a position of responsibility.

Responsibility means ‘the buck stops here’.

Interesting that it begins with 3.1 - am I right in sssuming that sections 1 and 2 are being withheld from the public?

Para 3.29 does actually seem to criticise Aimee C. That's as far as I've got.

The report this far has some strange grammatical errors and ambiguities in it. How was it not repeatedly proof read?

Aimee is clearly out of Aimee's depth, operating at such a level within an organisation. Aimee was hoping to be elected Deputy Leader, ffs

Aimee has been very successful at influencing change for trans-rights.

Take note, Stonewall.

The question for Stonewall is whether this is their sole objective and at what cost.

It makes no difference whether you are a paid staffer or a volunteer. Safeguarding responsibilities apply equally to both.

thread re AC & Stonewall:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3355712-Aimee-Challenor-Stonewall

The only reason you all so desperately wanted Aimee to get slaughtered is because she's trans - just admit it. If she was born female you'd all be 'poor thing, nasty dad but not her fault, shouldn't be blamed etc etc'. You're a bunch of hypocrites.

It's uncomfortable reading for the Green Party.

Fools

The report this far has some strange grammatical errors and ambiguities in it.

It reads like someone has gone through it with the red pen and added/altered bits - several of the ‘but it was a difficult time’ phrases aren’t written in the same way as the sentences they come after.

The track changes version of this would be an eye opener.

And I agree that Aimee ambiguously telling the Comm Exec (Matt) about DC charges repeatedly being described as 'conmendable' was it was the absolute bare minimum of someone in their position to have done so.

The Greens absolute disconcern and ignorance of safeguarding came across as clueless at best, although I suspect the worst.

If Aimee had been born female there is no way she would have reached that kind of position of influence in the Green Party at such a young age, with equivalent lack of judgement, etc etc. The position Aimee got to was purely because of being trans (see also Lily Madigan).

Oh I see a Green member has joined us.