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

[criticalthinking]

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

I also think it is extremely unlikely Aimee would have reached that position of influence without David Challenor pushing and advising (mostly) behind the scenes.

I agree exexpat

September 5th 2018
"BBC Coventry & Warwick interview with Aimee Challenor today:
instaud.io/2DNA

extract of transcript by RedToothBrush:

BBC: What about your role in public life now, your role in the green party, your resigning from the party about this suggests you are going to take a step back from public life. What indeed will you do.

AC: I wouldn't say I was stepping back fully from public life. I am taking a break defnitely, but equally I'm a trans person publically notable and that won't wash away. That doesn't just stop at the drop of a hat. I'm quite lucky, I'm 20. I've contested elections at local and national level. I've been involved in global politics. I've been an expert at the Oxford Union. I've done so much in such a short timeframe. I don't think I'm going to live a boring life. Theres still so much more to be done. I've got so much time. And I'm still going to be speaking out loudly for Coventry, for Coventry's residents, for LGBT equality as a member of Stonewalls Trans Advisory Group and on other matters. I've always enjoyed speaking out for what I believe in. Standing up for what matters. ANd I'm going to continue to do that. Just clearly not under the Green Party banner. "

from thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3351201-Green-Party-thread-3

Appallingly weak report.

And, as someone with autism, I am disappointed that autism was used as an excuse for poor judgement.

It's going to be hard for the Labour Party to miss that they have a similarly vulnerable figure head in LM, also obviously lacking any party management and guidance on bringing the party into disrepute.

This needs to be a starting point for all political organisations to question, urgently, who has been advising schools, NHS and other public bodies on changes to safeguarding, what are their competencies and qualifications in safeguarding to have done so, what has been implemented as a result of their advice and what properly qualified authorities are now going to review it?

Very narrow scope.

No mention of the party's help for the Challenors in their injunction against GP member Andy Healey in order to silence him.

But let's hope the Greens have a think about how they heartily assisted a man who raped and tortured a 10 year old girl to get an injunction against a fellow Green. They also suspended this member from the party for 8 months. A member who did nothing wrong.

Have a think about that, Greens. You dim fools.

The only reason you all so desperately wanted Aimee to get slaughtered is because she's trans - just admit it.

AC decided to put me and thousands more people who believe in biology on a hitlist designed to try and get us sacked from our jobs. I couldn't care if AC is trans or not, they put people at risk repeatedly all for their own gain.

If AC seems themselves adult enough to make decisions about my and other women's welfare, putting people at risk then they should account for it. Why wouldn't people want AC to be held accountable?

I don't have the time tonight to look over this report in full. Though, given earlier posters who have (thanks to you all) there are some serious concerns.

But in other news, I'm interested in Aimee's concurrent need, at the time of a serious report dropping, to flag where Aimee is and who Aimee is with.

Anyone, with any political sense at all, would not be associating with the people Aimee is with right now. It makes me wonder about Aimee's judgement in general.

Last year, many of us learned more about Aimee's current 'family' she's away with, including @Nekosune, and their very direct links to people such as twitter.com/Feefers.

I may get deleted for saying this, but I think it's still very important to be aware that this short-connections network, including Nekosune {who seems to have 'cleaned up' their twitter since last year's shenanigans} are seriously into 'furries' and directly connected to people like 'Feefer's who have no problems tweeting cartoons of 'furry children' wearing nappies and dummies. Anyone thinking this is just a benign love of furry costumes - visit feefers. If your radar wasn't quite engaged, sorry, before you go there.

None of this is benign.

From what I can see, they are waving it in front of us, in plain sight.

I was reluctant to summon Feefers again, as they visited here last year due to a similar thread.

But we need to shed sunlight on this. Aimee is connected to nekosune, and therefore feefers, and their world view is extremely concerning, given the wider context.

Center Parcs was a much-loved Mumsnet metaphor, but it's taken a much more unlovable metaphor for me today. :-(

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.

Slight tangent. Just came across this, and don't think I've seen it before.

Seems AC appeared before a government committee on bullying. Advocating a crack down on social media companies etc.

Bullying is bad
Employing a child abuser as your electoral agent is also bad

Coventry Pride took immediate action.

Aimee remained unaware of safeguarding implications/issues.

Shall we blame autism for her inability to joindots?

Stonewall...anything to learn? Given Aimee remains Chhair of a key policy committee that provides advice to schools, girl guides, NSPCC etc.

"Prioritising the safety of children and vulnerable people is an individual responsibility of every member of society. There could hardly be a bigger ‘red flag’ in this respect than someone being charged with 22 sexual offences."
This bears repeating ad nauseum.

"We have also been shown a draft paper about appointing a party safeguarding officer."

So we can conclude the Green Party still doesn't have anybody despite their claimed 'significant improvements to safeguarding' & commissioning this investigation six months ago?

I've not read the report yet, but I have read all your comments. I am very concerned if autism is used to excuse AC's poor judgement. There are many people with ASD in positions of responsibility, and sowing the idea that autism = poor judgement is an insulting perception if it takes root.

The report mentions several times the fact that West Mids police didn't notify the party of DC's charges. Is it realistic to expect the police to notify a political party about charges against a member who doesn't have a public role in the party (other than as an election agent using his nickname)? I'm not defending the police btw, just wondering if it's a fair point and whether it would be normal procedure.

I can't imagine that it would be normal procedure for the police to inform political parties where one of their members is facing charges.

I'm guessing West Midlands police didn't even know that he was a member of the Green Party. Can't imagine it came up much when they wanted to question him about the rape and torture of a 10 year old girl.

And I did laugh at the repeated "David Challenor should have informed the Green Party". Yeah, right. Perhaps a rapist and torturer of a young girl might not actually follow safeguarding procedures in reporting his rape and torture to others. Just a thought.

Nick Martin CEO Green Party response to members.

source:
twitter.com/APatchOnCinamon/status/1083468975781101568

And I did laugh at the repeated "David Challenor should have informed the Green Party". Yeah, right. Perhaps a rapist and torturer of a young girl might not actually follow safeguarding procedures in reporting his rape and torture to others. Just a thought

David Challenor will have had bail conditions.

The implication of the second page of Nick martin’s statement is that Coventry Pride and Coventry Greens are disjoint, such that one could bar a suspected rapist while the other knew nothing. I find that hard to believe; we are supposed to believe that by a handy coincidence the challenor family were the only
Link.

Coventry Pride took immediate action.

Aimee remained unaware of safeguarding implications/issues.

Aimee Challenor was a Trustee of Coverntry Pride.

Coventry Pride took appropriate steps.
Trustees have safeguarding responsibilities.

The report paints a horrifying picture of how a sexual predator is able to rapidly establish themselves in an organisation of stupid people who are so naive they cannot imagine bad people. The Green Party is clearly welcoming and safe for sexual predators. Do they believe challenor to be the only one?

someone needs to shine light on the wider implications of this. Challenor and others have been allowed to influence policy across government and organisations like the NHS, guides etc, with absolutely no due diligence done on who they are, or what affiliations and agendas they may have. They’ve been actively shielded from questions and procedures that would have been asked/implemented on anyone else.

The scope of the report is so very narrow. It doesn’t address at all the implications of what The Challenors have done to party policy or discourse and the risks of that.

I'm sorry, what? Are we actually supposed to believe that AC is simultaneously a responsible active member of a number of political organizations, so much so that they are considered a rising star, and a poor, fumbling incompetent who vaguely waves 'autism' around as a catch all excuse for being spectacularly obtuse and economical with disclosing that their father was suspected and then convicted of being an appalling child rapist?

Which is it? Glowing admiration or massive pity party? Good grief.

floral the talent pool in parties that have no chance of electoral success is puddle-shallow. Your local model railway club probably has more intellectual heft because they at least wire shit up. Challenor Pere was able to get away with it because he was keen and active. People were willing to go along with him.

The report doesn’t raise the issue of his being a Scout leader, but same problem. Why ask questions of someone keen?

I know the Pride committee in my city are all volunteers - I'd think it's similar in many places outside Manchester and London.

Coventry Pride were on this straight away and acted accordingly. How can the Green Party, with all the money and access to professional services they have behind them ever excuse their utter failure on safeguarding?