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

And you have to be there to 'catch people when they fall' in terms of having their eyes open. Otherwise they will be 'caught' by people like Ukip.

Absolutely.
Those groups who offer an 'easy' way to locate the problem elsewhere are attractive.
Its an understandable human reaction.
A dangerous one though.

And you have to be there to 'catch people when they fall' in terms of having their eyes open. Otherwise they will be 'caught' by people like Ukip

Yyy

There is such an effort going on atm to sweep us all into ideologically-extreme opposing camps. The more of us speaking up for critical thinking, toleration and empiricism the better

Those groups who offer an 'easy' way to locate the problem elsewhere are attractive

And this

And you have to be there to 'catch people when they fall' in terms of having their eyes open. Otherwise they will be 'caught' by people like Ukip.

Exactly. I also think we're on the same page, Red.

To an extent, everything is political. Everything is also exploitable (the basic principle underlying safeguarding).

In the Challenor case, the important thing to understand is that the safeguarding failures have nothing to with which of the genderist and gender critical political ideologies are "correct". UKIP's definition of a woman is no more relevant than the Green Party's.

The safeguarding failures are about failures of disclosures, information sharing, etc. So apolitical in the sense of party positions, or competing ideologies. Anyone saying different is exploiting what happened and this is a safeguarding risk in and of itself.

But yes - safeguarding in toto is political in the wider sense.

I really didn't like how the mention of UKIP derailed this thread. It was a valid point. For Britain seem to have a similar viewpoint.
There are places which do not have safeguarding or limited safeguarding. Why?
-Black children in care with poor outcomes and financially motivated fosterers
-Small faith schools teaching segregation, religion and bugger all else
-Spoons in knickers - a failure to protect young girls from illegal forced marriage
-A woefully inadequate law against FGM
-The grooming gang scandals
-Zero engagement with homophobic minorities on homophobia - God help you if you're a young gay black or asian person, because the government isn't interested, and the media pretend you don't exist

Safeguarding failed in all of those cases because of an unwillingness to ask difficult questions and to follow the same guidelines as elsewhere. Why did authorities not ask those questions? Fear of being labelled a bigot. Personal fear, political fear, fear of litigation, fear of public opprobrium.
What has caused this? Of course this is a political issue. LGBT orgs aren't being investigated just like madrassas aren't investigated just like overcrowded houses full of foster kids aren't investigated just like families where women aren't allowed to leave the house or learn English aren't investigated, like how overcrowded HMOs full of eastern Europeans aren't investigated, like how Victoria Climbie was failed by incompetents and how physicality in chastisement is just seen as normal if the individuals involved are black, like how schools in the north are teaching girls to put a spoon in their knickers to set off metal detectors in airports - because that crazy idea is easier than challenging the families involved...
Safeguarding has to apply to all colours, all races, all religions, all sexualities. Otherwise it's worthless. What is happening now is the wokest party there is has been found to have been pretty negligent in failing to even consider safeguarding WRT DC. Failed to support AC, who sits in a forest of red flags.
Unwillingness to challenge, patronising celebration of the mundane, different standards for different groups, moral relativism, religious exceptions, and a lack of a strong secular tradition of colour-blind nationalism all contribute.
These are all political considerations. I'm not a UKIP voter but throwing our hands up if someone mentions them, even if they are astroturfing, is not helpful.
There can be a narrow conversation to do with specific safeguarding failures, and this board has plenty of contributors with professional experience. But there can also be a wider conversation about how this has come to pass, and how wokeness and multiculturalism can hide some quite discriminatory practices, where minorities are not afforded the same level of protection, or subject to the same level of scrutiny.

UKIP's definition of a woman is no more relevant than the Green Party's. The safeguarding failures are about failures of disclosures, information sharing, etc. So apolitical in the sense of party positions, or competing ideologies.
Agreed. We just need to ensure everyone is subject to the same rigour.

Safeguarding failed in all of those cases because of an unwillingness to ask difficult questions and to follow the same guidelines as elsewhere. Why did authorities not ask those questions? Fear of being labelled a bigot. Personal fear, political fear, fear of litigation, fear of public opprobrium.

Whilst these aspects undoubtedly may have played a role, they are not the only reasons by any stretch.
It is much more complex and the fact that the narrative persists that this is the source of the failure is also dangerous.

R0wantrees
Why is it dangerous? If I'm concerned about how we are failing to protect black kids, Muslim kids or gay kids (for example, and I think we fail all three groups) then how is insisting on robust challenges dangerous?
I'm not whistling for a dog here.
I want to know why the outcomes are so different and as a lay person I can see that there is less scrutiny. Mermaids is a perfect example. They've been not only left to do what they please but elevated as a kind of expert organisation.

Safeguarding failed in all of those cases because of an unwillingness to ask difficult questions and to follow the same guidelines as elsewhere. Why did authorities not ask those questions?

One of the main causes of failings with regards grooming gangs is that the girls who were and are victims are not believed or understood.

Also that those who should have responsibilty for their welfare have little time and resources. Their situations are complex which makes them vulnerable and open to exploitation.

Girls and women are being trafficked, sexually abused and exploited by many 'gangs' of males. This is ongoing and likely escalating.

Its not contained to groups of men of Pakistani origin.
Which is not in any way to deny the specific issues within that community.

FlyingOink
Any narrative which limits the focus on the sources and complex nature of risk is dangerous.

FT re CB
This woman was given oodles of cash because politicians didn't want to bother themselves with the problems inner city (mainly black) kids had. complaint re KC advert
How do we know the cash that was doled out to kids didn't cause more problems? How do we know there were no safeguarding issues between KC staff and the children they were concerned with? Luck, I guess, because CB had no idea what was going on and none of the figures made any sense! Spectator
I'm not a social worker but that isn't safeguarding. That's kicking the can down the road because nobody wants to ask questions.
It's the same now, throwing cash at trans organisations like Mermaids because nobody wants to deal with those kids.

Its been said many times that there are parallels between Mermaids and Kids Company especially with regards the unquestioning support from politicians, powerful and rich organisations and individuals.

There are also a great many differences.
(I cant open the FT link, sorry)

Any narrative which limits the focus on the sources and complex nature of risk is dangerous.
Agreed. And the girls in the grooming gang cases were ignored, written off by all. (Which is another illustration of my point, we don't look after working class girls if we write them off like that).

Perhaps the time/resources thing is the most important factor.
I feel that if the Green Party had endless financial resources, though, they still wouldn't exercise a healthy scepticism with regards to certain issues because it messes with their worldview.
I think there are some very questionable political positions within the left, for example the cultural relativist stance, which elevates other cultures as noble and denigrates any western culture as imperialist - and in so doing spits in the face of women in other countries who would dearly love for their countries to be as free as the UK. It's the whole talking for people I hate.
So I think it's important to know if UKIP are against TWAW, for example, because that leads to questions such as "why just them?" It's useful dialogue.

Strange, I can't link that FT article but can read it without subscription. Sorry

Girls and women are being trafficked, sexually abused and exploited by many 'gangs' of males. This is ongoing and likely escalating.

This is where the focus needs to be.
The dots to join are with regards male pattern sexual abuse, control and abuse of power.

apologies, I meant to write a focus, not the.

I feel that if the Green Party had endless financial resources, though, they still wouldn't exercise a healthy scepticism with regards to certain issues because it messes with their worldview.
I think there are some very questionable political positions within the left, for example the cultural relativist stance, which elevates other cultures as noble and denigrates any western culture as imperialist - and in so doing spits in the face of women in other countries who would dearly love for their countries to be as free as the UK. It's the whole talking for people I hate.

Its worth being aware of Sue Pascoe who gave a speech at last year's Conservative Conference. Sue Pascoe is also a Diversity Consultant for Channel 4 and Mesmac trustee.

twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1047426297322979329?s=19

Women's PLace UK and Fairplay for Women have been campaigning to protect Safeguarding and Women's rights.
Pascoe appears to support their prosecution for 'terrorism' and 'hate speech' and attempts to silence women.

thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3383926-Sue-Pascoe

R0wantrees
Good point.
How far apart are the three major parties in what the US call "culture wars" terms?
The main difference these days is economic, I think.
Tebbit is the most obvious homophobe, calling churchmen "sodomites" etc but he is less relevant now. BoJo said after Civil Partnership was passed mentioned two men and a dog might as well get hitched BoJo not funny
But since "call me Dave", even the Tories are on board with the alphabet soup.
Pascoe seems like an odious individual, but again there seems to be a failure to challenge, a free pass because Pascoe is trans.
I don't expect the Tories to challenge either, their new worldview on this is similar to that of the Greens.
I would much prefer the idea of a safeguarding ombudsman as mooted earlier, and for that office to be very strictly secular and very strictly politically neutral.

FlyingOink

Its systemic rather than about individuals in this case.

The issues are cross-party, cross organisational and international.
It is complex and nuanced.

Re Norman Tebbit, James Kirkup article May 2018 about the Home Affairs Commitee Hate Crime Enquiry is worth reading:

'Why are some MPs trying to shut down the transgender debate?'
(extract)
"In particular, [Stephen Doughty MP] dwelled on two columns. This one, by Norman Tebbit in the Daily Telegraph (where I used to work) and headlined “We need to investigate the causes of this sudden transgender explosion”. And this one, by Janice Turner in the Times (where I sometimes write) and headlined “Children sacrificed to appease trans lobby”. It’s fair to say he wasn’t impressed. “Do you think it is responsible to be carrying content by individuals who are expressing such extreme views and using those types of headlines?” he asked, later referring to the authors as “petty columnists”. Further discussing this issue on Twitter over the weekend, Doughty talked of journalists who “cross a line” in their coverage of issues including the gender debate, and said he was determined to call out such people. I’m pleased that he believes that people who say stupid and unpleasant things should be held to account for their actions. I think so too.

Let’s start with the Tebbit-Telegraph suggestion that there has been an explosion in the numbers of transgender people and that the causes should be examined. Here’s what Lord Tebbit wrote:

“I am aware of a growing number of those claiming to be transgender, and I am concerned at the pressures being put on young school children to doubt whether they are girls, boys or of some indeterminate sex.

“Evolutionary change seldom comes so suddenly or across such a wide front, so I think it is time we had some research into the extent of the phenomenon both in time and geographical reach.”

I do not know for sure, but it seems very likely that he was referring to the rise in the number of children presenting at the Gender Identity Development Service (GIDS) of the Tavistock and Portman Trust, which is the NHS centre of excellence for helping children and adolescents with gender dsyphoria and other issues of gender-variance.

In 2009/10, the GIDS had 97 children referred, of whom 40 were listed as “assigned female at birth.” In 2016/17, the GIDS had 2016 children referred, of whom 1400 were assigned female at birth. The total caseload for the service rose 2,078 per cent in seven years. The number of assigned females being referred rose 3,500 per cent in seven years. Why have the numbers risen in this way? Is there a clear and undisputed explanation, which would render Lord Tebbit’s suggested research into causation redundant?

This is an issue addressed by Dr Polly Carmichael, who runs the GIDS, in a recent talk to the Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. In her thoughtful hour-long lecture, she said this:

“The rapid rise in the number of assigned females…. exemplifies the importance of keeping discourse open and allowing different voices to be heard.

“You might say the increase in the numbers of assigned females coming forward is [because] that it’s easier for females to talk about their gender-diverse feelings so what we are seeing is an increase in awareness getting towards a better representation of the true prevalence of this among females.

“A converse explanation, a question: are there issues for young women around how they perceive their gender? There has been a worry by some that people who would previously have had an outcome around sexuality are now having an outcome around gender.”

(In other words, these are girls who do not readily identify with the predominant idea of femininity and are sexually attracted to biological females, and who would, a decade or two ago, have grown up to consider themselves lesbians.) Dr Carmichael’s conclusion:

“The truth is we don’t know, but we need discussion in order to be thinking about what this could mean.”

Just in case that’s not clear, let me sum it up: the country’s leading centre for the care of gender-variant children says its caseload has risen more than twentyfold (35 times for girls) in less than a decade. The head of that centre doesn’t know why that’s happened and says the question needs further discussion." (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

I spent Christmas in thd US where we had dinner with a lovely educated couple. He was a retired senior scientist, she a high school science teacher. All three of their (bright) children had been educated at Ivy League colleges. So far so liberal.

I expressed my GC views on culture wars. The mum was amazed. She agreed completely and came out with a story of a neighbouring high school who had come to an amicable agreement over changing facilities for a MtoF teen (seperate) only to have local activists charge in threating lawyers and insisting he/she used the girls facilities.

Interestingly the mum expressed her utter dislike of the democratic establishment especially the Pritzkers but also the Clintons. Trump had emphasised his outsider status and had promised to break the mould. This is why people voted for him.

Echos of Brexit here. I hated the way remainers accused those who had exercised their democratic vote of being 'racist'. (My own concern remains the undemocratic nature of the EU.) Ditto those who voted Trump, who are, if you listen to enthusiastic Democrats, clearly beyond the pale. However the left, in the UK or US are not blameless. They dont hold a monopoly on truth. They have a duty to listen to voters, not accuse them. Yes on some issues ordinary people may be more conservative than opinion formers (which is why Stonewall has plenty more LGB work to do) but most people are good, sensible and kind and they need to be listened to.

David Davies, a good crop of intelligent centre-right journalists, and left wing feminists get it. Plus educated mums on a very mainstream website. What is wrong with those who aspire to be our political leaders?

Its systemic rather than about individuals in this case...It is complex and nuanced.
Agreed, but like the example of prison security on the other thread, perhaps complex and nuanced isn't the right track.
Let me explain in lay terms, and forgive me if my understanding is incorrect. An individual works with vulnerable service users. Might be a school, a youth group, a medical setting, a charity, whatever. That person has some background checks. That person works in an area covered by CCTV. That person is not permitted to be alone with service users of the opposite sex. That person receives training on all this. That training is logged. The background checks are renewed periodically. That person receives anonymous feedback from their peers via their line manager. That person is regularly appraised. Random CCTV footage is appraised. Service users' parents, friends and guardians are encouraged to give feedback on the staff. There is a robust complaints procedure. The institution is subject to spot checks and audits by an outside organisation and is legally bound to comply with recommendations.
That to me is safeguarding, in terms of what might reasonably be expected to be put in place to mitigate against the risk that employee might be malicious.
Now if that was say "safeguarding minimum standards for direct employees" then it should be rolled out in any or all institutions that could feasibly be expected to fall under a similar category
Then we agree a similar "safeguarding minimum standards for agency employees", "contractors", "visitors", etc.
Everyone involved in each organisation/workplace/government department could be reasonably expected to be subject to one of the frameworks.
One size fits all, no exceptions, and if someone moves from one category to another, or falls into more than on category, the more stringent framework shall apply.
It will cost money, obviously. It will mean no exceptions. No cultural sensitivity. Everyone subject to the same. For example if someone had an objection to being recorded on CCTV, they would not be allowed to work there. It's those kind of objections that employers are so scared of, and why so many organisations have pre-empted things like self-id.
A safeguarding ombudsman (with teeth!) would ideally overrule those kinds of insular objections with an eye on the bigger picture.
Am I being unrealistic?

Needmoresleep I recognise what you are talking about. It's part of the binary politics were are stuck with now. Where you pick a side and denigrate the opposition as evil. It doesn't allow any talk about degree, or any weighing up of pros and cons, or for you to ever change your mind without alienating your friends!

Oink exactly. A good froend was really agressive about Brexit. I was pretty much on the fence (and genuinely worried about Junckers ability to listen as well as the growing right wing movements in places like Hungary). I therefore hated the automatic assumption that I was 'racist' and therefore bad.

Noone has a monopoly on 'right' and what is 'correct' now wont be in a generation's time. Free speed, the ability of argue and to think critically, respect, listening etc. Sod #no debate. Its what gives us the Challenors.

“BlindYeo

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.”

Thanks. There are also many on the right of the Conservative Party who do not agree but on the whole the Conservative Party do seem to be buying into the modern trans/gender ideas. They think this is the way the wind is blowing so they go along with it. Which is to be expected from career politicians, especially in the age of trial by twitter. I think many on this form just don’t like the fact that support is coming from the right of the political spectrum. But that support is there regardless. It’s entirely up to them if they want to take it, I suspect most won’t but nevertheless I wish them luck.