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

Flying Oink
My comment about it being systemic rather than about individuals was in reponse to your discussion about named politicians and party positions.

The example you've given above is about how people work with children and young people.
CCTV monitoring will not be the answer, no.

There are policies (some of which you have mentioned above) which would apply re DBS, whether 1:1 working is appropriate etc. It depends on the context of the work.

Policies are part of Safeguarding frameworks but there is more to it.

Professionals do work 1:1 with children and vulnerable adults.
Training, resources, ethos, effective supervison and valuing professionals etc do more to strengthen child protection and Safeguarding.
Empowering children is also a core plank of effective Safeguarding.

Safeguarding is proactive.

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.

Its entirely about the nature of the understanding.
Safeguarding and Women's rights affect everyone in society regardless of their political alliegencies.
For women, so too does misogyny.

R0wantrees
Ok thanks for the clarification. So by putting trust in the professionalism and training of the staff member instead of enforcing CCTV coverage (for example) you open a loophole though, surely?
The idea of blanket policies as per the prison staff being subjected to searches is not feasible, then?
The blanket approach is the most non-discriminatory one, and the more that is covered in that way the fewer things have to be reviewed in the event of an issue.
You can easily review if a person was trained or the CCTV was recorded. It's harder to establish what the "ethos" was.

FlyingOink
Its all about context.
What is neccessary in some situations will not be appropriate in others. In fact in other situations would have a detrimental impact for effective Safeguarding work.

Effective training, sufficient resources, valuing professionals, organisational ethos, reflective practice and robust supervision are key.

Effective training, sufficient resources, valuing professionals, organisational ethos, reflective practice and robust supervision are key.
Last comment on this, I promise.
To me the above sounds a bit "closed shop". It sounds subjective. It sounds like being able to maintain it depends on funding, will and ability, which can all vary.
I'm not trying to suggest professionals are all dodgy, or to strip search child psychologists every ten minutes. But the public look at the Victoria Climbie fiasco (one of the worst, in terms of professional incompetence) and this is now in the public record:
Arthurworrey, a junior worker with only nineteen months of child protection experience when she took on Climbié's case, was found to have made mistakes in the case. She accused her employer of "making her a scapegoat", and criticised her superiors and department for not guiding her properly. The inquiry heard that Arthurworrey was overworked, taking on more cases than guidelines allow. Carole Baptiste, Arthurworrey's first supervisor, initially refused to attend the hearings, but subsequently gave vague responses to the inquiry, and said that she had been suffering from mental illness at the time. Baptiste's own child was taken into care a few months before Climbié's death. Arthurworrey said that, in their meetings, Baptiste spent most of the time discussing "her experiences as a black woman and her relationship with God", rather than child protection cases, and that she was frequently absent. Baptiste admitted she had not read Climbié's file properly. She was removed in November 1999 when she was found to be professionally unfit for her job from wiki
Now my concern is this: what catches this kind of incompetence when it is set in at all levels in one particular area? Hence my preference for an overarching authority.

Oink - the point is that we can never close all loopholes. That is the point, for example, of Serious Case Reviews in social work, where bad things have happened and we investigate to see if current protocols weren't followed or if new ones could have prevented them - and establish what is needed. The death of Victoria Climbie, for example, led to a public enquiry and the institution of Every Child Matters.

You're not quite understanding things.

As I referenced earlier the abuse and murder of Victoria Climbie led to a the Lammings' review which then informed the The Children Act 2004.

I would suggest that (solely) based on the Wiki quote you've used re Arthurworry that my comment "effective training, sufficient resources, valuing professionals, organisational ethos, reflective practice and robust supervision are key" stands.

furthermore as I commented earlier, witch hunts/scapegoating by politicians, media, 'the public' and social media distracts from focussing on the location of the risk which in turn also impacts the Safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults.

apologies, my comment above should read "re both Arthworry and Carole Baptiste... "

You're not quite understanding things.
Bit patronising?
I've already stated I don't work in social care. My issue was around the various layers and how they are not clear enough to the lay person. I don't want a crash course in whatever your jobs are, and I fully appreciate there is a lot of skill, knowledge and training required to do those kinds of roles.
This thread was about safeguarding risks posed by a dangerous sex offender linked with a local political party and that party's national spokesperson.
If safeguarding is too complicated for us plebs to understand, and can't be explained then you will get frustrating questions from people like me in unrelated industries. We want to know more, about how this can happen, what normally gets put in place, what doesn't.
Finally I fully understand that not all loopholes can be closed, but as an interested member of the public I find it concerning that measures can't be explained in a few posts.
You could explain brain surgery, in theory, in a few posts, but not safeguarding.
And that's supposed to be robust.

This thread was about safeguarding risks posed by a dangerous sex offender linked with a local political party and that party's national spokesperson.

Exactly. A political party like other unregulated organisations has different Safeguarding responsibilities than statuatory services.

The report demonstrates identifies that THe Green Party failed to understand and implement these.

There is clearly a systemic Safeguarding failure with regards the consequence of trans-rights activism in politics, public services, organisations and charities.

There are also other fcators which threaten the Safeguarding & Child Protection frameworks.

You asked about Victoria Climbie.

My personal belief is that it is best not to complicate something that is simple nor simplify something that is complex.

So is there a legal minimum in terms of safeguarding efforts for an unregulated organisation?
Because if not, then again it points to having an ombudsman type organisation, with some teeth, to enforce minimum standards. Or beefing up requirements for public liability insurance maybe?
I admit the child protection issues were a derail, and I don't want you to oversimplify anything. It's just hard work sometimes to try to get some basics out there for the lurkers. (and me)
I'm conscious that you and other posters won't want to unwittingly dox yourselves too, so I'm grateful for the information you do share.

If safeguarding is too complicated for us plebs to understand, and can't be explained then you will get frustrating questions from people like me in unrelated industries.

I don't work in safeguarding. It's not too complicated to understand. I'm not trying to be patronising. Safeguarding is a collection of protocols and principles designed to minimise risk to children and vulnerable adults. It has nothing to do with politics or ideology.

I'll give you a simple example I often use, hopefully that will help.

Why are professionals working with children and vulnerable adults going against safeguarding principles if they accept confidential disclosures?

a) because someone with a secret is easy to control and abuse if an organisation has been infiltrated by an abuser (try as we might, we'll never keep them all out)

b) because information sharing can help to prevent harm to self or others but if the left hand doesn't tell the right hand, the right hand doesn't know to pay attention

It doesn't matter what the secret is. In the case of a child, say, with a trans identification, it also doesn't matter whether one is pro- or anti- child transition. It just matters that the child is kept as safe as possible - from infiltrating abusers, from self-harm, from bullying and all the other possible harms.

YSWIM? And risks will be different in every case. The key principles of not allowing confidential disclosures and encouraging information sharing apply regardless.

All organisations and charities are required to take appropriate steps to Safeguard children and vulnerable adults from harm.

The specific requirements will vary depending on the nature of the organisation.

It has a responsibility to establish what they are.

Context is relevent.

By way of an example, these are the Safeguarding responsibilities of Charity Trustees from Gov.UK:

Manage the risks
Protecting people and safeguarding responsibilities should be a governance priority for all charities.

As part of fulfilling your trustee duties, you must take reasonable steps to protect people who come into contact with your charity from harm.

This includes:

people who benefit from your charity’s work
staff
volunteers
It may also include other people who come into contact with your charity through its work.

What you need to do
What you need to do depends on what your charity does and who it works with.

We expect you to:

make sure all trustees, employees, volunteers and beneficiaries know about safeguarding and people protection
have appropriate policies and procedures in place
check that people are suitable to act in their roles
know to spot and refer or report concerns
have a clear system of referring or reporting to relevant organisations as soon as you suspect or identify concerns
set out risks and how you will manage them in a risk register which is regularly reviewed
be quick to respond to concerns and carry out appropriate
investigations
not let one trustee dominate your work - trustees should work together
If you work with children or adults at risk there are more legal requirements.

Risks to be aware of
Risks you must be alert to include:

sexual harassment, abuse and exploitation
negligent treatment
physical or emotional abuse
bullying or harassment
health and safety
commercial exploitation
extremism and radicalisation
forced marriage
child trafficking
female genital mutilation
discrimination on any of the grounds in the Equality Act 2010
people may target your charity
a charity’s culture may allow poor behaviour
people may abuse a position of trust they hold within a charity'

www.gov.uk/guidance/safeguarding-duties-for-charity-trustees

LangCleg thanks for that, appreciated.
So if (for example) a law regarding public liability insurance was passed that stated that any organisation that had access to children or vulnerable people had to have a policy in place whereby secrets were never allowed, would that help, or is it too prescriptive, do you think?
I'm just thinking that there are orgs with none of this in place, like the Green Party by the look of it. So if we had a way to spread the principles further it would be helpful, I think.

Here's an analogy. Fire risk assessment. Most workplaces aren't au fait with fire compartmentalisation and most employees have never dealt with or been in a fire. Thankfully.
But because fire safety is covered by EHS legislation employers have a vague idea about minimum standards, large employers with multiple sites normally have set standards, small consultancy firms exist to carry out training, alarm checks and extinguisher renewal etc.
The general public knows fire exits shouldn't be blocked, and that overloading wall sockets is dangerous. Some even know that propping open fire doors is not allowed.
Presumably at some point in the past, none of this was in place.
Something changed to put it in place. It's not perfect, but it's an improvement from nothing to some awareness/legal responsibility/specialist providers available.
Safeguarding of children and vulnerable people could be similar, to the extent that five years from now, new starters at ASDA have to watch a video on safeguarding and reporting concerns as well as a fire safety one.

Oink - welcome. I tell you what - the next time you have some time to spare, why don't you read the statutory safeguarding guidance for children? It has all the info on the basic principles and the details and it explains the legislation underpinning. I'm not trying to give you homework! It's how I found out about all this stuff in full detail.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/729914/Working_Together_to_Safeguard_Children-2018.pdf

LangCleg brilliant, thank you.

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

Yes, exactly.

There is an example from the Veritas Report:
Coventry Green Party had a picnic and members brought their children along.

Being aware of the need to Safeguard the children who would be present means recognising the potential risk presented by an adult awaiting trial for alleged serious sexual crimes against a child attending.

When a Green Party officer is aware of such potential risks they are obliged to act and to share this information.

When such information is shared, an organisation is required to assess the risk and take action.

Coventry Pride's decision was that David Challenor had to be accompanied by a Trustee.
(See previous link with regards Trustee's responsibilities.)

However it is also required of organisations that their officers and trustees understand what Safeguarding is. The report demonstrates clearly that AC did not.

However it is also required of organisations that their officers and trustees understand what Safeguarding is. The report demonstrates clearly that AC did not

Expecting a young person to supervise their own parent and to manage the risk posed by that parent is absolutely inappropriate. And given the nature of the accusations against DC and the history of social services involvement in his parenting of AC it becomes jaw dropping both that AC was put in that position and that this was considered to be adequate risk management.

Am I being unrealistic?

I want to add a couple of things re the discussion re safeguarding. From my understanding, it's about creating a culture of high trust, user focus, underpinned by interlocking frameworks of due diligence. Thus if someone spots something they think is untoward, they can raise it without sanction and without having the usual reputation first response - because the primary organisation focus is the user (the child for example). Everyone from CEO to cleaner is subject to the same ethos. A kind-of 360-degree perspective such that people with their own agendas, whatever they are, will find it difficult to forward them unchecked.

So one can see that as various bits of that service are outsourced to various disparate organisations, that common user focus and high trust culture and frameworks are sacrificed for the cheapest service delivery with a nod to paper safeguarding "health and safety" type policies. The latter being very different from the former. This is what Lisa M refers to as financialisation. In the latter, the user becomes whatever govt dept. is outsourcing the service, not the vulnerable individual. The cultural ethos is lost in the drive for the misinformed simplistic view that saving money will lead to better outcomes for the user - but which user are we talking about? It may save the dept. some money, but leads to irreparable and long term social damage to the vulnerable and the community. However, this latter KPI isn't tracked, measured nor valued anywhere - except it seems by FWR.;)

I think real care has to be taken that safeguarding isn't viewed as an enhanced DBS check plus a tick in the box, paper exercise - it's much, much more than that. It's understanding that those with their own agendas to exploit are skilled at hiding them, whether unconsciously or not. By being in a culture where user-focus plus openness & transparency are first and foremost, it means that any clash between the personal agenda and the user focus will be outed and dealt with in the open. People unable/unwilling to adapt to operate in that environment will move or be moved on.

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?

Again I find Lisa M's insights helpful as she describes the total (and I mean total) disconnect between those who graduate from the Russell Group of Unis automatically into positions of policy power in various sectors and the reality on the ground. What the former are taught bears no relationship with how the complex systems on the ground actual operate. Thus these policymakers have a simplistic and misinformed view of life, and are unwilling to be challenged because they are "best qualified" cos they are the "elite graduates". Their willful blindness and closed-shop mentality mean they are not in the best position to make and shape policy nor importantly are unable to formulate the questions that would expose any harm being perpetrated by said policies, systems and rogue individuals. They know not what they do but they are being paid to do so because being a naive graduate from a Russell Group Uni trumps the actual real experience of practitioners on the ground, for example, social workers and police. This is the "elite" in operation.

Oink every year there are fires, often resulting in deaths, because people didn't follow the guidelines that you have mentioned. I have seen a lot of blocked fire exits in services for the public and many other fire hazards. Residential homes often have failings with regard to fire safety. Policies and procedures are dependent on those implementing them. As far as I am aware all services where there is contact with children have to have some form of safeguarding training.

bedford.foodbank.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/133/2017/02/Safeguarding-Policy-May-2016.pdf

Here is the safeguarding policy document for Trussel Trust food banks. As you can see, they have it properly covered. (Okay, they say gender not sex but small mercies, eh?) They have the definitions. They have general behaviour policies. They have information sharing pathways and all the rest of it.

This is a Safeguarding Matter.
Female prisoners are vulnerable adults.

"Fair Play For Women is calling for MPs to ensure the relevant prison rules are urgently reviewed, in full consultation with women's organisations. Prison guidance PSI-17/2016 allows male prisoners who identity as female to be moved to a female prison at the discretion of a Transgender Case Board.

No women's organisations were consulted when the prison rules were updated in 2016. The effect on female prisoners has not been adequately assessed. Current rules are not fit for purpose and must be urgently reviewed."

9,793 (at 10 000 government will respond to this petition)
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/228767

Womanformerly...but Aimee Challenor, Jeremy Corbyn and a lot of other players in current politics are not RG graduates. Part of the problem seems to be, as AC appears to admit, they do not seem to have the capacity to understand. (Other than Layla Moran who can conveniently see into people's souls.)

Common sense is, in my experience, not much about education. 'Educated' people can be completely dopey. We need to expect/demand our senior politicians ,and influential policy advisors to have a better understanding of the world ordinary people live in.