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'

[R0wantrees]

(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

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

Blaming the individuals concerned and then moving on is not the right way to go. It is the systems and choosing whether or not to implement them within the Green party that allowed this.

These individuals and the on/off nature of safeguarding systems are everywhere, and organisations need to read the report and understand where it applies to them and act to close breaches.

"Is Aimee Challenor claiming then that they are neurologically incapable of understanding safeguarding?"

No. That's not what she said and not what the report said.

MsVanillaRoseAuntof7

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

But it is not just TRAs, though the backgrounds/potential motivations of some have to raise a few flags. What about the Labour MP who continued to employer her son even after he was convicted of drug offenses?

The assumption seems to be that in order to represent a diverse constituency you need to recruit people from the different elements of that diversity.

I would love to hear Rose of Dawn on whether she felt AC represented her interests.

I would like to see political parties aim to recruit talented, altruistic and well qualified people. It is a surprise for many that David TC Davies is the only MP to speak up for womens interests. But rather him than some woman who is to ambitious or too dim to understand womens concerns.

A good report with a wider scope focusing on 'what can we learn and how do we improve things for the future' would have helped. The only reason the report happened was that DCs crimes were so heinous that they could not be ignored. As we can see from the NUS, a bit of willy wagging, however unprofessional and unacceptable, seemingly can.

From the full report:

"From our conversations with her, it is clear that Aimee Challenor did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to."

For example:

6.62. We asked Aimee whether she considered there were safeguarding issues arising from her father’s involvement with the party. She told us: “There wouldn’t have been safeguarding. He had no personal access to members or members’ data".

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.

YY and to add that this is not specific to the UK, the same has happened/ is happening in other countries eg Canada, US, Ireland etc

UK has a narrow window of opportunity to act.
This was seen by the Government's decision to consult on GRA self-id for England & Wales.

Knowledge from this report has the potential to bolster that opportunity to protect and strengthen Safeguarding frameworks but it can and will be exploited for political gain and risks being misused.

I personally am sceptical of the autism diagnosis, because Amy said they had had the diagnosis confirmed regularly. Which is, apparently, something that doesn't happen.

But either AC lacks the capacity to grasp safeguarding, or they understand safeguarding and are willing to disregard it.

But it is not just TRAs, though the backgrounds/potential motivations of some have to raise a few flags. What about the Labour MP who continued to employer her son even after he was convicted of drug offenses?

The systemic failings can be seen in Professor Kathleen Stock's analysis of the Women's & Equalities TRansgender Inquiry led by Maria Miller MP (Conservative):
'Women’s Place talk: full text House of Lords Oct 10th 2018
(extract)
"I want to talk about how, in attempting to answer that question, public organisations are being misleadingly advised, sometimes with harmful results.

I take it that the selection of advisors on a particular issue should follow four basic and commonsensical principles:

· All groups affected should be represented

· Advisors should have relevant expertise, and should advise only on areas where they have expertise.

· Advisors shouldn’t have backgrounds which undermine their credibility.

· Advisors should, where possible, appeal to independently verified evidence to back up their views.

For an example where these four principles were not put into practice, I’d like to look at the select committee report from the Transgender Equality inquiry, which came out in January 2016.

Just to remind you all: this inquiry recommends removing any substantive constraints on who may legally change sex, for whatever reason. It also recommends a host of other policies: for instance

· Lowering the age at which one can legally change sex, to 16.

· Rescinding current provision in the Equality Act, to allow trans women to work and receive support in occupational settings like rape crisis centres and domestic violence refuges.

So, taking the principles just outlined one by one:

a) Were all affected groups represented, in the choice of witnesses to the Trans Inquiry?

In a word, no.

20 people were called as witnesses to the Inquiry, excluding MPs. 11 of these represented trans advocacy/ lobbying groups. 9 of these were more obviously ‘neutral’. No special advocates for other groups were called as witnesses. For instance:

· female-only groups and services,

· post-operative transsexuals against self-ID, and

· concerned parents of transitioning children

were not properly represented.

In the use of written submissions, there’s also a preponderance of trans advocates listened to, and the ignoring of other groups. To take just one example, 8 points made by transwoman Jane Fae appear in the Final Report. But written submissions such as those of transwoman Miranda Yardley, who is against self-ID; or the well-known academic Professor Sheila Jeffreys, don’t appear anywhere in the Final Report.

Perhaps the general optimistic thought was that trans advocate groups are able to responsibly represent both their own interests and those of competing groups. If so, this was, I suggest, a failure in practice.

We can see this when we look at some examples of what was actually said.

For instance:

· we find Jay Stewart, Director of Gendered Intelligence, arguing for the removal of sex-separated facilities in schools. This clearly has an impact on female schoolchildren, which should have been considered.

· We find James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance, arguing that traumatised female rape victims and domestic abuse victims who feel, as he says ‘uncomfortable’ with transwomen in refuges or rape crisis centres, should be ‘educated’ so that the transwomen can stay. This again discounts the interests of females.

· And we find the conclusion, apparently derived from the submission of Jane Fae, that — quote- ‘It is not unlawful .. to ask a person to produce a Gender Recognition Certificate, but it is in almost all circumstances unnecessary’. Yet there’s no mention in this report of the reasonable objective of getting accurate data about differences between the sexes, in areas where females are disadvantaged: for instance, when recording crime rates; or rates of sexual assault; or the pay gap.

Now, turning to the second principle:

b) Did witnesses to the Trans Inquiry have relevant expertise?

Well, of the 11 trans advocate witnesses that were called, 9 of them were trans people, and the other 2 were parents of trans people.

The perceived expertise of these witnesses seems to come from two things:

· having relevant lived experience; and

· in some cases, also founding or directing a charity or lobbying organisation.

I accept it is important to listen to the lived experience of members of a group of people when deciding on legislation which affects them. However, this is different from straightforwardly accepting recommendations from that group without questioning them. If you compare Patient-Public Involvement guidelines in the NHS: patients and public might be involved in shaping research questions, or in helping clinicians understand the impact of research: but the answers to those questions will still be substantially determined by more appropriately qualified experts.

We can again see the limits of expertise in some of the evidence actually given in the report.

So for instance,

· Take Susie Green, Chair of the charity Mermaids, which supports children in transition and their parents. Green is a former IT manager and parent of a trans child. She is quoted as recommending that puberty-blockers should be made available to older children who are 16 and 17, as well as younger ones. No consideration is given of how this is medically justified.

· James Morton, of the Scottish Trans Alliance, recommends that legal sex changes should be made available to the under-16s.

· Anna Lee, a representative of Lancaster Students Union, with a degree in Mathematics, recommends that national governing bodies for sport should relax their requirements around trans athletes.

In other words, we find frequent confusion between what witnesses are properly equipped to talk about; and matters which they have no expertise to talk knowledgeably about.

This has more general relevance to the way that public organisations rely on advice from trans advocates. If you go to the Mermaids website, you find this quote : ‘Mermaids has trained professionals in the NHS, Police Service, Social Services, Schools, CAHMS and the workplace.’ The Gendered Intelligence website says that they offer ‘a number of different trans training packages for staff in schools, colleges, universities and youth services.’

But with what authority? With what expertise? Members of these organisations do not typically have any professional qualifications, and if they do, that’s not the reason they are with those organisations. They are currently advising public bodies on the law, on medicine, on social policy, on education, and so on; and it is very unclear in some cases what their credentials are to do so.

c) Did any advisors have backgrounds which undermine their credibility?

In my view, the most obvious counter-example here is Jess Bradley, called upon as the very first witness to the Inquiry. Even leaving aside Bradley’s suspension from the NUS since the Inquiry, there is already a strong suggestion of a lack of credibility here, when we consider that Bradley’s associated organisation, Action for Trans Health, publicly calls for, among other things:

· the immediate release and pardon of all trans prisoners;

· an end to all birth certificates; and

· hormones to be prescribed, free and upon request.

All of this suggests Bradley is an extremist who never should have been called to give evidence in the first place. A bit of due diligence could surely have established this.

Finally, I want to ask:

d) Did witnesses appeal to independently verified evidence to back up their views?

In many cases, no. The Trans Inquiry Report is full of emotive-sounding statistics which do not bear up under scrutiny. So, for instance, take the eye-catching claim from the second paragraph of the report: ‘High levels of transphobia are experienced by individuals on a daily basis.’ This is drawn from reports prepared by lobbying organisations, which ask self-selecting participants about what they perceive to be acts of transphobia. Victims of harassment are expected to be able to accurately identify whether the harassment was due to transphobia, or homophobia, for instance. That is often almost impossible for a victim to establish.

(Things aren’t helped here by Stonewall’s influential definition of transphobia: ‘The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including the denial/refusal to accept their gender identity’. That makes anyone who denies that a transwoman is a woman, for whatever reason, transphobic — far outstripping what any reasonable law would prohibit).

Or consider another highly emotive claim made prominently in the Report:

‘ About half of young trans people and a third of trans adults attempt suicide.”

Digging into the footnotes and other sources, there seem to be two sources for this claim:

· the claim about children comes from a Mermaids powerpoint presentation, and

· the claim about adults comes from a report co-authored by James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance.

So in both cases, witnesses to the Inquiry have been instrumental in supplying the data used by the Inquiry. And the studies, when you look at them, are subject to several basic limitations — e.g. self-selecting participants recruited online via support groups; self-report; no comparison class; and some quite odd manipulation of the figures in both cases." (continues)
medium.com/@kathleenstock/womens-place-talk-full-text-house-of-lords-oct-10th-2018-b1f3d70c4559

I don't know if this deserves a new thread and I dont want to derail this one, but, I just realised that safeguarding has stood the test of time pretty well.
When it is in place and used correctly it mostly works.
It seems to have taken a long time for it to be challenged, and the method of the challenge has been the same as the method used to challenge the laws that protect women's rights; which is to just ignore it.

Is it me or is it the same tactic across the board?

I don't know if this deserves a new thread and I dont want to derail this one, but, I just realised that safeguarding has stood the test of time pretty well.

THe current Historic child sexual abuse enquiry should be followed.

There are many challenges to the Child Protection and Safeguarding frameworks. It is already failing but in many situations can be repaired, maintained and strengthened.
What has happened is what might be best described as a 'clusterfuck'.
This thread collates some of the examples of failings and failures and increasing risks:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3301266-Safeguarding-girls-and-protecting-women-post-Jimmy-Saville-metoo

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).”

Nah. UKIP aren’t buying into it. Their mini manifesto is surprisingly clear on it.

Nah. UKIP aren’t buying into it. Their mini manifesto is surprisingly clear on it.

And there it is.

Colour me surprised.

Imagine suddenly developing an interest in women's rights purely to promote a political party.

Once again: safeguarding is not political.

UKIP may well take a view on what a man is and what a woman is. This may be its one point of agreement with radical feminism, aside from the mountain of disagreements.

This has nothing to do with safeguarding. Safeguarding does not take a position on born in the wrong body, the existence of gender identity or otherwise, or anything else ideological.

It is a framework of protocols designed to protect the vulnerable.

Beware of anyone trying to exploit misunderstandings about safeguarding in service of any political agenda at all.

MarshmallowSnowDon If you are diverting a focus on Safeguarding failings for political gain then you are demonstrating both a failure to understand Safeguarding and a potential risk to it.

As this is the FWR board, women acutely aware of and concerned for Child Protection will identify your position.

It would be lovely if this thread could focus on the Green Party and their response to the Challenor situation, and what that means for safeguarding as a whole, rather than on one person's PR campaign for UKIP. Bunbury might suggest that engaging is often seen as positive reinforcement.

The assumption seems to be that in order to represent a diverse constituency you need to recruit people from the different elements of that diversity.

THIS. I'm sick to the back teeth of the notion that any old person (or, as is increasingly the case these days, frighteningly young, inexperienced and lacking specific, relevant knowledge person) with a specific characteristic will "do".

No, they bloody won't 'do'. Find people who know what they're talking about and have the relevant experience to draw upon - and if you cannot find such people from the interest/minority group concerned, just find those with the best possible expertise and experience.

AAK YY

As the full report identifies, the issues identified apply to all political parties and organisations where interactions with children and vulnerable adults are unregulated:

Recommendation R4
The Green Party should urgently review its safeguarding policy and procedures to strengthen its approach to raising awareness and improving processes for reporting safeguarding concerns and risks to people outside the party.

Safeguarding risks are particularly acute in unstructured environments where interactions with vulnerable people are unregulated, unlike environmentssuch as schools where interactions are carefully managed. Political parties and election campaigns are just this sort of unstructured environment.

”Comment As we have noted, prioritising the safety of children and vulnerable people is an individual responsibility of every member of society.

Marshmallow pointed out a fact that the trans dogma is not repeated across the political firmament. There are exceptions. You might not like where those exceptions fall but they exist. People are allowed to mention them.

Applauds ROwantrees minute past midday post. Excellent work from Doc Stock. Incisive, thorough, leaving the reader in no doubt about the minimum standards of what is required of a Select Committee. That the guiding principles were ignored in relation to the Trans Inquiry illustrates only too well the 'strategic vacuum' at the heart of British politics. Not fit for purpose is the sad conclusion. I'd like my money back thanks 😂/😢

1. Safeguarding is not political, it is an evidence-based skillset with clear rules and obligations which are absolutely independent of anyone's political beliefs

1. More broadly, forgive us if we don't consider that a right-wing backlash will be any more likely to promote the rights and protection of children (particularly female and gnc children) than the current shitshow

The Green Party does seem to be particularly incompetent in this regard, but the whole point of safeguarding is that in order to work it needs to apply to everyone. The moment there are exceptions they will be exploited.

BlindYeo

Its a straw man or red herring, I'm not sure which.
UKIP's trans policies are completely irrelevant to this discussion; unless UKIP have safeguarding policies in place they are no better than the Green Party.

The new influx of pro UKIP posters have shown no awareness of safeguarding, no background in feminism, and no interest in listening to the concerns of women.

Mmm, if someone is going to astroturf the board they could at least engage with their fellow posters. They might learn something......