Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Andrew Gilligan Times: 'Green high-flyer Aimee Challenor hid father’s rape charges' David Challenor 'A paedophile rapist posed a “major safeguarding risk” for almost two years'

255 replies

R0wantrees · 13/01/2019 01:28

(extract)
"A paedophile rapist posed a “major safeguarding risk” to young Green Party members for almost two years because one of the party’s rising stars did not clearly tell colleagues that the man had been charged with serious sex crimes.

An independent investigation has found that Aimee Challenor, a transgender activist and candidate for the Greens’ deputy leadership, committed a “serious error of judgment” by appointing her father, David, as her agent at two elections even as he faced trial for kidnapping, raping and torturing a 10-year-old girl.

The inquiry, by the investigations consultancy Verita, criticised the Greens for treating the matter “primarily as a communications one” and “failing to see the safeguarding issues that arise”. The party’s “support for diversity” did not remove the need for someone like Aimee Challenor to have proper “training and support” in a leadership role, the investigators said.

A 17-page summary of the report was quietly published last week. However, the full 80-page report, seen by The Sunday Times, is more critical. It says Challenor, the Greens’ equality spokeswoman, had been guilty of a “serious omission” by not telling her local party and most national officials about her father’s charges.

Challenor blamed her autism for not doing so and told the inquiry: “At the end of the day you can’t go about telling every Tom, Dick and Harry.” The investigators said they found it “hard to understand some of Aimee’s actions and explanations”.

The omission allowed David Challenor to run his daughter’s office and mix with young activists and members’ children at events that included a picnic only weeks before his trial.

A jury at Warwick crown court convicted Challenor of holding his victim captive in the attic of the family home. He was jailed for 22 years for the series of offences." (continues)

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/green-high-flyer-hid-father-s-rape-charges-kdhrfhll3

current thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3474311-Veritas-report-due-tomorrow-Thursday-at-midday-re-Aimee-Challenor

OP posts:
Thread gallery
6
MarshmallowSnowDon · 14/01/2019 05:02

“I looked up to the Guardian when I was a teenager in the 80s but being Irish, was baffled at their blind spot when it came to the murderous violence of Irish republicans. There was always a way it could be explained away or excused, but it's not how it appeared to those of us closer to the ground.”

I think that might be because many people on the far left hate this country and such is their hatred for it they can always find an excuse or rationalisation for any opponent of the British state. Look at the support for the Iranian regime within the Labour Party. It’s the same thing. These people might not be willing to share a platform with a so called TERF but I’m sure many of them would be willing to appear on Iranian state TV. They don’t give a shit about women’s rights.

MarshmallowSnowDon · 14/01/2019 05:06

“ReflectentMonatomism

Stonewall are going to find that being cozy with people who are relaxed about paedophile rape has resonances. The “gay men are inherently a risk to children” trope is long standing and dsngerous, and one gay rights organisations have worked hard to counter. Look at how tatchell now squirms about his past.

The German greens are in crisis as their penetration by paedophiles like Cohn Bendit emerges. Now it’s the uk greens, but also stonewall. A bad look.”

Thanks. Very informative. Do you have a link to this story about the German Greens? I thought they were now Germany’s 2nd most popular party? Is this story big news over there?

ReflectentMonatomism · 14/01/2019 08:55

There is a link to Der Speigel’s coverage in the article you quote.

AutumnCrow · 14/01/2019 10:04

I found this Guardian link which discusses the German Greens and their 'unacceptable demands', from 2013.

www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/14/green-party-germany-paedophiles-80s

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 10:32

Its a cross party and cross organisational issue.

Smaller parties and organisations without experience or expertise in Safeguarding will always be more vulnerabe to those who have nefarious intentions.

There will always be people who have nefarious intent.
THose who understand Safeguarding are aware of this.

See Lisa Muggeridge's video:
'Social work training: Ever present risk of predatory behaviour'

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 10:34

Lisa Muggeridge:

'Girlguides: Grooming, Helen Watts and what is in plain sight.'

OP posts:
R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 10:39

LangCleg's comment on a parallel thread is important:

In response to my comment to RM, "You are also demonstrating a failure to understand Safeguarding".

Yes. Please be careful, everyone. ReflectentMonatomism is attempting to politicise safeguarding frameworks, presumably in service of their own political world view.

Safeguarding is neither political nor ideological. It is neither pro-TRA nor GC. It is neither left wing nor right wing.

It is a framework designed to protect the vulnerable and is therefore sceptical of everything: people and ideology alike.

There are other recently arrived posters to the board doing the same.

OP posts:
Needmoresleep · 14/01/2019 10:42

About the only green who seems to come out of this with any credit is Shahrar Ali.

The report provided an opportunity for the Greens to identify needed reforms to enable them to become an organisation with proper processes (recruitment and complaints as well as safeguarding and other things). We need an effective voice on environment issues, to act as a conscience for the major parties. I assume environmental radicals like their control, in the same way that Momentum seem to want to maintain control of the Labour Party regardless of the impact on electability. Its all about them. Not about us as voters. Or about the environment.

ReflectentMonatomism · 14/01/2019 10:44

It is a framework designed to protect the vulnerable and is therefore sceptical of everything: people and ideology alike.

It is a framework operated by people. An organisation consisting of people who are intending to harm children and people who are indifferent to harming children cannot protect children. The best and most rigorous safeguarding framework fails if all the people operating it are unwilling to confront potential risks. I struggle to understand how that makes me “political”. Merely saying that safeguarding has to be sceptical, with which I wholeheartedly agree, does not help when the people operating a safeguarding system are not in any way sceptical.

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 10:46

About the only green who seems to come out of this with any credit is Shahrar Ali

The report provided an opportunity for the Greens to identify needed reforms to enable them to become an organisation with proper processes (recruitment and complaints as well as safeguarding and other things).

Have you read Beatrix Campbell's article, also see Andy Healey?

The inquiry and report has specific and limited known scope.

There are systemic failures which are cross party.

The report is an opportunity but not just for the Greens but all political parties and organisations similarly affected.

It is a very significant step forward.

OP posts:
LangCleg · 14/01/2019 10:50

Its a cross party and cross organisational issue.

Yes, it is. Yes, the current iteration of the left has safeguarding blind spots. But characterising it as a left wing problem is also a blind spot and will lead to further blind spots on the right.

We have long speculated as to the form an inevitable right wing backlash to genderism will look like. We may be seeing a nascent version on this board right now.

Politicising safeguarding will only debilitate it further.

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 10:52

September 2018 article by Beatrix Campbell:IN ENGLAND'S GREEN AND PLEASANT LAND
(extract)
"Conducive context
The party should ask itself whether the party’s hard-line pro-trans policies and associated bullying provided what sexual violence scholar Prof Liz Kelly calls a ‘conducive context’ that shielded the Challenors from scrutiny.

It might also ask itself whether it lost its marbles about gender and sexual politics, so much so that this proudly open and democratic party sometimes behaved like the Inquisition, hunting and harassing trans heretics and feminists.

Lesbian activist Olivia Palmer has been expelled for opposing the mantra ‘trans women are women’. The Green Party has forced luminaries Rupert Read and Jenny Jones to publically recant their scepticism. Aimee Challenor tried take legal action to silence Green Party activist Any Healey, and members are wondering who in the leadership supported Aimee Challenor’s legal action to silence him – he launched Gender Critical Greens, a feminist resource, and insisted on identifying Challenor as a man. The legal action against Healey is still unresolved. Healey was not allowed to address the party conference, whilst David Challenor was given a platform to propose motions despite his impending trial on the most serious child sexual abuse charges.

Aimee and David Challenor mobilised Twitter widgets to block ‘trans exclusionary radical feminists’ - last year Aimee Challenor proclaimed the campaign’s success in blocking 50,000 people deemed ‘terfs’ and bigots, and getting one vocal feminist transsexual, Miranda Yardley, being bannedfrom Twitter for life.

When Miranda Yardley was invited to address North Surrey Green Party, they were forced to disinvite Yardley and then became the subject of a ‘transphobia’ complaint themselves. The Green Party executive didn’t come out against against ‘terfblocking’. The party’s universally-respected leader Caroline Lucas hated it, but described herself as powerless to resist it. I myself complained to a senior Green about terf-blockingand others did, too. Apparently no action was taken. Now, following the Challenor debacle, Lucas herself has been ‘terf-blocked’.

Other organisations – from the Girl Guides to the Lib-dems and the Trades Union Congress - should not be smug about the Greens’ crisis: they’ve tolerated a trans modus operandi and ideology that is bulwarked by claims that to debate its hypotheses – including the mantra ‘a transwoman is a woman…is a woman’ - is to eliminate trans people. Apparently debate is death.

The Working Class Movement Library in Manchester was aghast to find itself targeted by a trans campaign to attack its funding. Gay organisations, too, have been blasted by trans harassment: Manchester’s Queer Up North Festival Organiser, Jonathan Best, chronicles his grim experience.

A closed Facebook group was promoted to name and shame academics deemed transphobic, by Goldsmiths University trans researcher Natacha Kennedy. Kennedy is also Goldsmiths’ Mark Hellen – they are one person, two personas. They appeared as ‘joint’ authors of a paper on ‘transgender children’:

Sussex University philosophy professor Kathleen Stock became a cause celebre when she was pilloried for urging philosophers to engage in the gender debates swirling in social media. She was condemned as transphobic by the students union but in July the university’s vice chancellor Adam Tickell ventured where the Green Party would not tread by affirming both trans people’s human rights and academic freedom, ‘I hold a deep rooted concern,’ he wrote, ‘about the future of our democratic society if we silence the views of people we don’t agree with.’

Girl Guide leaders who opposed the Guides’ imposition of policy declaring that boys transitioning to girlhood can be Girl Guides have been ‘sacked’ and their groups disbanded.

Nothing is real
The Challenor case is an arrow to the heart of Britain’s twisted sexual politics. Already gay activists are joining feminists in saying they are sickof the narcissism and misogyny of some trans activists, and gay people are increasingly alienated by the seemingly endless expansion of categories attached to ‘gay and lesbian’ that have nothing to do with sexual orientation.

The Liberal-Democrats, the Tories and Labour, unions, gay organisations and mass media commentators across the political spectrum should all start asking how they fell for a folly that is not sustained by science, that isn’t inscribed in human rights law and doesn’t enjoy consensus among trans women and trans-sexuals, and certainly not among maybe most women.

The dogma has been promoted as a new civil rights frontier; it is fortified by cultish religiosity, by no-platforming, bullying, what can only be called blacklisting of dissenting voices deemed ‘terfs’ and ‘bigots’ on the wrong side of history, and by the resort to complaints procedures and ‘administrative methods’ to quell debate.

The mantra ‘There is no debate – a transwoman is a woman!’ is recited not only in the Green Party but across the political firmament." (continues)

www.byline.com/column/85/article/2300

OP posts:
ProfessoressWoland · 14/01/2019 11:01

Its a cross party and cross organisational issue.

Smaller parties and organisations without experience or expertise in Safeguarding will always be more vulnerabe to those who have nefarious intentions.

YY. I don't understand why the Green Party/Challenor threads are being derailed by pseudo-analysis of the green movement in Europe. It's like listening to an old relative of mine who somehow manages to turn every conversation to 'the Germans' or the 'loony left'.
FFS, look at the UK: a Conservative government is (was?) hell-bent on pushing through self-ID, a fundamental societal change that will by definition erode safeguarding principles.
The Green Party deserves all the pasting it is getting, but let's not pretend that this is a party-political issue.

Melroses · 14/01/2019 11:08

I think these safeguarding issues and entryism apply to all the parties. It is just more obvious in the Greens because they are smaller; there is less competition, on a national level, for high visibility positions.

Needmoresleep · 14/01/2019 11:09

I am assuming that when Shahrar Ali wanted to widen the scope of the investigation he want more 'what went wrong and how do we learn from it'. Rather than a 'who can we blame'. At least I hope so.

I have no doubt that this is a problem for both right and left. Political parties are all liable to entryism.

If the greens were to take a step back, refocus on their environmental aims, using proper processes to run their organisation and to ensure they were not sidetracked by the AC/DCs of this world, they could become very electable. There are lots of voters looking to vote for a party that would represent them.

This would then hopefully cause others to professionalise their acts.

LangCleg · 14/01/2019 11:12

I don't understand why the Green Party/Challenor threads are being derailed by pseudo-analysis of the green movement in Europe. It's like listening to an old relative of mine who somehow manages to turn every conversation to 'the Germans' or the 'loony left'. FFS, look at the UK: a Conservative government is (was?) hell-bent on pushing through self-ID, a fundamental societal change that will by definition erode safeguarding principles.

I think you understand perfectly well! Wink

AutumnCrow · 14/01/2019 11:15

That's an excellent piece by Beatrix Campbell. It really is worth reading the whole thing.

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 11:16

Melrose absolutely.

In an interview Aimee Challenor described their somewhat arbitrary decision to join The Green Party when realing a desire to become involved with politics.

David Challenor and his wife clearly followed AC into the Green Party.

Aimee Challenor's political focus is for trans-rights activism.
There are others similarly solely focussed on TRA in all parties.

All parties should be seriously considering if AC had chosen their party, would the outcomes really be any different?

OP posts:
ProfessoressWoland · 14/01/2019 11:21

I think you understand perfectly well! Wink

Halo
R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 11:22

I don't understand why the Green Party/Challenor threads are being derailed by pseudo-analysis of the green movement in Europe.

As the threads are about Safeguarding, any derailment of that focus should be seen for the potential risk it represents.

OP posts:
NewYearsNiamh · 14/01/2019 11:24

Yy to Graham Linehan not quite getting the parallels. Toby Young and Brendan O’Neill both said when he was having the libel and police stuff going on - look I find him bloody annoying and I disagree with most of what he says and he can’t see what’s happening is similar to the Count Dankula which he opposed, but we should support him because what is happening is wrong.
never thought I would defend Toby Young on FWR

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 11:27

Graham Linehan is standing up for Safeguarding and Women's rights.

OP posts:
FloralBunting · 14/01/2019 11:29

This is emphatically not a left/right issue. I have variously voted Conservative, Lib Dem and at the last election, Labour. I am not in any way invested in Leftist views that means I have a need to defend that wing of politics. I probably hover very slightly to the right of centre. And I STILL think this is a very broad cross party issue, and transparent attempts to capitalize on this story as a reason to bash the left is not only wrong headed, it's actually playing right into the hands of those with an active unpleasant agenda.

I would everyone reading the tub thumping anti-left posts to be aware that they are, intentionally or not, a distraction from being able to effectively deal with a situation that currently affects every part of our governance and society and is profoundly dangerous to vulnerable people.

Needmoresleep · 14/01/2019 11:31

The threads are about safeguarding and more surely, as the report should have had a wider remit.

How was AC recruited. How was her election agent vetted. I accept that DCs crimes were horrific and child related. But why the blinkers when it comes to trans?
And indeed in other parties, why the blinkers when it comes to other unsuitable candidates/party employees.

First and foremost AC should not have been in the position she was in because she was not qualified, and by her own admission lacked the capacity to understand what the role required.

R0wantrees · 14/01/2019 11:38

First and foremost AC should not have been in the position she was in because she was not qualified, and by her own admission lacked the capacity to understand what the role required.

Absolutely.
This is not just about AC though.
There are many TRAs who have been accorded significant positions of influence and who do not understand Safeguarding.
Moreover, their influence has undermined Safeguarding and Child protection Frameworks at a systemic level.

AC was supported into a position of influence by many individuals and prominant groups such as Stonewall and Mermaids Charity.

Focussing just on AC and DC also creates a very serious risk of not identifying the systemic failures and failings.

The actions of AC and serious crimes of DC are not isolated cases.

OP posts: