Amelia Connolly of the Scottish Greens remanded on CSA charges

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-pro-indy-campaigner-caught-37097962

Amelia Connolly - of the Scottish Greens and previously independence campaigners is being held on remand in a male prison.

He has also asked to take back his earlier guilty plea.

https://www.moderley.com/home

'Suitable for all ages
Our Roblox games are suitable for everyone, references to adult content are disguised to appear innocent to those who are unaware while made as realistic as possible for our more mature players. Our discord is suitable for 13+ and warnings appear on any links to 18+ content.'

Oestrogen from a bush. Ok, then.

From Amelia’s response to the charges on his website he states:

♿ I would also like to clarify I am diagnosed with autism, dyspraxia, dyscalculia, severe depression, anxiety and a rare form of blood cancer (NLPHL). I am also emotionally immature, in the sense that at the age of 17 I was diagnosed with a mental age of 12. I am socially disabled - I may not always say things 100% correct but I am trying my best to get my points across.

Yet he advertises his OnlyFans account?? His website is basically a document of his narcissism and questionable activities that he advertises to the world, and the Greens have never picked up any red flags??!

That's not suitable for all ages. That probably isn't suitable for anyone at all.

He doesn’t sound qualified to be a councillor.

Are politicians supposed to have OnlyFans accounts? I'd think it unwise.

I'm confused - the media says he's been convicted but is also on remand - so there are new charges presumably?

What disability is he claiming to have that requires an electric wheelchair?

Just catching up; what a fucking surprise

That was my thought as well. None of his own descriptors indicate this man was appropriate to be given roles or responsibilities of any kind. Let alone a role to do with young vulnerable teens or adults. Where was the Green leadership on this and why wasn’t basic safeguarding followed? It’s as if trans becomes some sort of invisibility cloak hiding highly questionable behaviour.

Cancer.

He pleaded guilty, and was in court for sentencing and to be tried on a different COC charge, but asked for takesy bacskys on the guilty plea.

Nor a competent Scout leader. But he was.

'I am also emotionally immature, in the sense that at the age of 17 I was diagnosed with a mental age of 12'

Also concerning. Given the context.

Shades of another acolyte of the Greens, who in an inquiry after a safeguarding disaster the report recorded that they had proven incapable of understanding safeguarding. Repeated attempts to explain had been fruitless; the person believed it to be some form of data protection. They had been among other things giving advice to schools on policy, largely about letting gender confused kids use the facilities of choice. They also had a significant history of SEND and a high level of support.

These are not isolated incidents, there is a clear pattern.

I would view almost any safeguarding session run by a Church to be as about as good as a chocolate fireguard. No experience of Scouts so can't comment.

My experience of CoE safeguarding procedures and 'investigation findings' had led me to entirely disregard anything they say and rely solely on the safeguarding arrangements on the organisations I am actually attached to which they have a relationship with. Their policies are so poor that we essentially treat them same as any random unregulated organisation and do our own checks accordingly.

It's what happens when people make a fetish of "inclusivity" and assume it is a good thing regardless of who or what is included where.

Giving jobs requiring adult mental and emotional capacity to people who don't have it, is both irresponsible towards the people they'll be dealing with, and unkind to the individual concerned.

Not "innocent", just "presumed innocent" in law. He may or may not be innocent in reality.
I had this discussion with some ardent SNP supporters. They said that as Peter Murrell hasn't been found guilty in court [yet], we have a legal duty to believe that he is innocent. Yeah right.

The CofE safeguarding training I've done is pretty good. Actual safeguarding within a parish or diocese is as good as the safeguarding officers because it partly depends on their judgement, but the procedures I've seen are vastly improved over ten or twenty years ago. The biggest vulnerability in most organisations is complacency and that is something everyone needs to guard against.

This is worrying:

"This is a statement by Amelia regarding Charlie's awful behaviour. I put off releasing a statement for a very long time because I understand that he is in a difficult living situation and I didn't want to add any additional stress to that. However, as he has chosen to spend all of his free time creating false information about me, contacting people regarding me, etc. and generally just trying to ruin my life, I felt that it has now become necessary."

There follows a long and rambling account. It's not in the slightest professional, from a "Chief Executive Officr" [sic], and reads like a teenager's diary. It doesn't look as if Amelia has any idea how to conduct himself in the workplace.

www.moderley.com/misc/charlie

Totally apart from the danger to te public: There really seem to be a lot of people who should be under some level of supervision who are being really fucked over. Some people are more vulnerable to making massive and socially damaging errors of judgement, and I don't understand how people think that just leaving them to it is "kind".

“I am obviously 22 and a lesbian.”

The training available, and the requirement to do it, is pretty thorough. Individuals can be inadequate, and the nature of churches means there are lots of small groups supervising themselves- churches with 7 members have different situations than those of 200.
I’m not familiar with the next layer up, the diocese, but can see how the National church does in the papers. Infuriating.

Its not even just leaving them to it, the Young Greens appointed this man as their EDI officer, somebody made him a Scout leader, and he was apparently involved in organising Stirling Pride. There was also a smaller organisation that he appears to have been involved in running.

From what I can tell these were positions of some responsibility and authority.

He certainly identifies as a victim, that’s for sure. Imagine listing those qualities to excuse your behaviour in one area, while considering yourself qualified in another.

And what kind of assessment diagnoses you with a mental age of 12? Is he stuck in that annoying teenage boy phase where they know everything already and can’t be told?

I don't understand how people think that just leaving them to it is "kind".

^^ Applies to every gender affirming practice and person.

A mystery I’ll take to my grave is wondering how did so many apparently intelligent people come to believe that encouraging young people to take life changing medication or unnecessary violent surgeries or letting men into female spaces is kind. Just how?

The assessment would likely be an educational psychologist if he was of school age and would look at reasoning, memory, cognitive, all of which can be staged and compared to age norms.

I'd guess his legal team discovered the evidence of assessments and diagnoses and are planning to go for diminished responsibility with the aim of reducing consequences as much as is possible on the strength of them. While I have no doubt he is vulnerable, and that the Greens undoubtedly have a track record of putting vulnerable and unqualified people with significant capability issues in front line positions on the strength of their inclusive credentials, and that this should be fully investigated - he is going to struggle to argue poor bewildered and unwell child who is not responsible for their actions when he has been able to do things such as organise Pride.

Main thought really is who the actual fuck are these appalling, ethics-devoid, ideology-manic, self serving bloody political parties in the process of stuffing into council and MP seats? How many are zealots, there to do nothing but push their own personal agenda and make the world work for them personally and sod everyone else - in this case which would have included several very questionable agenda? So many of these modern days people - of all parties - seem absolutely incapable of any concept of impartiality, duty of care, sense of service, capacity to represent anyone or anything but themselves, or think about anything but their own next big opportunity. And as in this case, demonstrating basic, severe capacity issues. The Reform councils with the inexperienced but wanted to people representing them seem to be achieving very little but a lot of in-person social media style bickering, one upmanship and goal scoring. I suppose this kind of candidate would be good at that, but God help the area and people they were supposed to be serving.

It's becoming a job where a) wanting to do it should immediately disqualify you, and b) significant capacity testing should be a part of the selection process.