woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

Hugh, you doxed a woman on a public forum and you did that knowing how dangerous that might be to her. You did it knowing that people involved with the organisation you are here to represent will be able to put two and two together and work out exactly who you were talking about, therefore putting her and her child in danger.

I couldn't give a toss how much it hurt your feelings to see the truth about your organisation posted on here, you put a woman in danger. you're slime.

< raises hat to tuba >

It was this Annie:

posting a name outright is not so much crossing a line as taking a marching band over it, then digging the line up, then setting fire to the landscape

Just seen this tubas. More

Thanks Annie. I found your posts yesterday really helped me laugh at the situation. One in particular about advancing on enemy lines or something made me roar, so poetic.

Tuba, you've been very measured and reasonable in a pretty volatile situation. I've found your posts here really helpful, and I am sorry that this person has violated your trust.

This is scandalous behaviour. From a Charity

Tuba to you and your DC

Ah, thank you for the clarification Rebecca :)

We see you Hugh, and so do mnhq!

Pinknews have published a supportive piece saying mermaids have been attacked by transphobes for supporting the mother in this case.
Transphobes being the daily mail
www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/29/trans-support-charity-mermaids-attacked-by-transphobes-for-bullying/

Thank you for the apology Hugh. It is a pity you have put Mermaids in such a bad light through your post on here. Your post today has also given me the chance to respond. I do not hold a grudge against Mermaids. It is a wonderful organisation when it gets things right and was an immense support to me and many others. But Mermaids is not a thing, it is the people who run it. Sometimes they get things wrong. If you were/are a committee member you will know that the concerns I raised were valid and that subsequent events proved them so. Your apology above will never make up for the lack of apology from Mermaids when my concerns were proved correct.

When I heard about that I did not feel exonerated from the accusations that I was a liar. I just felt regret that I left instead of fighting for what I knew to be the right thing.

You are correct that I was not thrown out of Mermaids. I never said I was. There was no need to mention anything about my child's medical history or give personal details about me. Yes I know Mumsnet members won't know who I am but you must know that having private information put on here would be upsetting. I suggest that is why you did it, to get back at me for making valid comments.

You are sorry you used my name but not sorry for what you said. I am quite entitled to change my mind about the advisability of my past actions. Bear in mind that I was vulnerable and open to be persuaded by others who seemed to have more experience than I. Which is the crux of the problem and parents need to be aware that they may be being advised by those with no formal training or qualifications in the advice they are giving. I am not a hypocrite for giving opinions about something which appear contrary to my past actions/beliefs. It is called learning more about a subject, reflecting on and possibly changing those beliefs and thereby forming different opinions.

I also left Mermaids at the time my child protection concerns were disregarded becauseSusie Green was looking to convert Mermaids to charity status in order that they could pay staff with no qualifications, taking funding and donations to support that. I disagreed with that and could not be part of it. On reflection I should have stayed long enough to get that across. But with 3 out of 5 people (who I thought were friends) on the committee totally against me it was too much. Hindsight is a wonderful thing but not really much use axcept to learn from.

I do not wish to engage in any further discussion with you or anybody from Mermaids so don't be surprised if I fail to reply to any further posts by you or anyone else from Mermaids who comes on here.

So I wish Mermaids well and hope that the organisation is still able to support families in the future.

Mermaids have completely redeemed themselves with this apology

Chinny reckon, eh elsa.

I can't stand back and see someone with a clear personal grudge
spout information that is derogatory and hypocritical without replying

Why not? I didn't see your post, but if, as it seems, you could only have made it by revealing information you'd gained by friendship which you knew the other person wouldn't want posting on a public forum, then you should have sat on your hands IMO.

You can see why people are deducing that you have something to do with running the charity in question since you have sprung to its defence so vigorously, and in public, You could have PMed Tubas if you wanted to make yourself known to her and take issue with her posts, it didn't have to be done on the forum.

Clearly the hypothetical feelings of trans people in the news is much more important that actual members' confidentiality then, because I was threatened with banning within hours of starting a thread about a transman who was shockingly pregnant after engaging in unprotected PIV sex.

Hermoine

It took weeks for somebody to be banned for posting my full name on here.

And then not actually banned banned, more of an agreed parting of ways.

Hugh, the thread is about a specific issue and mermaids refusal to take any responsibility for allowing an adult to put a child at harm. It's not about tubas and its appalling that you referenced their personal situation. You are representing mermaids as you are quoting personal information gained from a fellow user of the resource.

Also, I see Hugh has not been banned despite appalling behaviour

I'm a long term member and was threatened with banning for calling males "he", but someone who has joined with the express purpose of doxxing a member is allowed to continue posting? WTAF MNHQ?

Tubas: sorry I slipped up and used your first name

Do you also have a nice big bridge you want to sell us ?

Well us... and all the lurking DM journalists.

Nice try Hugh. The information commissioner will decide this one.

We see you.

Nice reply Hugh must have taken mermaids you a while to formulate a response that absolves mermaids of any responsibility at all.

Just to clarify the situation.
Tubas: sorry I slipped up and used your first name. That was wrong of me but I've known you for years and it was a mistake.
Secondly. My opinions are mine alone and I do not represent Mermaids in any way. I speak as a former friend of Tubas and although we did meet through Mermaids we also met many times socially. This is information I was given personally in conversation and indeed was told to many others also and so does not breech any data protection rules (as far as I'm aware personal conversations between friends are not subject to data protection rules). However I can't stand back and see someone with a clear personal grudge spout information that is derogatory and hypocritical without replying.
Thirdly. I do not feel I have not outed anyone. There are many many people with that first name in the country and as such Tuba is not identifiable by that information alone. However I am sorry I used your name.

The sad thing is that as Mermaids have said on Facebook and Twitter they have members who are now scared that their children will be taken from them as a result of the court case reported in the press. Mermaids are worried that their involvement with the family was mentioned in the reports so parents may be deterred from seeking Mermaids' support. But despite all that public concern they attack and name a former parent member who actually gave hours of support and assistance to the running of Mermaids.

No doubt Mermaids are reading this thread. A message for you: do you think naming and shaming a past parent makes parents want to talk to you and trust you?