woman loses residency of son she was raising as daughter

If members were involved in that rant they need to enroll in Personal Relations 101 immediately.

What a shower.

Love

Claimed to be a member.

IMO it conveyed the impression that somebody had an open file at their elbow. Or that a group of people with access to personal/medical information put together their recollections, with their own particular slant shining through.

If at some later date it comes to light that several well known Mermaids' names were involved in its production, I will not fall off my chair with shock.

I read it and it reflected badly on the poster. Menacing and ill conceived, it bore little relation to what tuba actually said.

Maybe it wasn't her they meant as perhaps they're having trouble keeping track of disillusioned ex-members?

To me tubas posts came across as sincere and concerned.

Hugh's post only served to underline it.

MNHQ I assume that poster has been banned now for that behaviour?

Yes, if anyone was in any doubt as to whether to join or support Mermaids they now know that they must be very careful not to upset them as they and their families will suffer.

This is appalling, Tubas. I'm glad people have screenshots to provide evidence of such behaviour by Mermaids. It's outrageous. It is not, however, altogether surprising as the charity's reputation is very poor already among those of us who take an interest.

I remember during the whole Spartacus thing, MNHQ posted that, among other things, they were concerned that parents of trans kids might find MN an unsympathetic environment.

It's ironic that the real danger to such parents appears to be from Mermaids, a charity that supposedly "helps" trans kids and their families, or at least it does so long as they toe the party line.

If they have access to that data as a result of their work for Mermaids then Hugh is in breach and arguably Mermiads are too because they've failed to keep sensitive data secure.

It also shows an exceptionally nasty side to a supposedly supportive charity

I have asked ipost for the screenshot. My main worry is that whoever Hugh is thinks I am someone else as quite a few left Mermaids at that time. I#m not going to be silenced by them though.

I think it was a committee member who posted.

Oh yes! You're right...

True, but if it was not an official posting where did the poster get Tuba's details from ? Did he have ccess to their data ?

Was it an official mermaids post though, or just a member posting without thinking? I'm not sure data protection or the charity commission could really do anything if it was unofficial.

I didn't see it Tuba and I've been faffing around here most of the afternoon.

If you feel up to it you could report this to both the Charity Commission and the Data Protection Commissioner.

I didn't see it either BTW.

What a fucking disgrace! Glad other posters were quick off the mark to both report and screenshot.

The threat of outing for anyone who speaks against them has been made explicit by this though hasn't it? Very frightening

So sorry they did that to you tubas. I didn't see it if that's any consolation, and I spend a LOT of time here, so it must have been deleted quickly

Well Mermaids have just shown what an unethical bunch they are - nothing matters in their bid to recruit youngstwes

It was deleted extremely quickly, Tubas. I don't think many people will have seen it.

tubas

PM me if you want the screenshot. I grabbed it so you wouldn't be left in the dark.

You were tubas the person gave details of your child's medical history and your first name.

Now I'm concerned that I am the "critical former user" of the charity mentioned by ipost

Hoping someone can confirm whether it was me.

There are people from that time who still have the full email history from when committee members were thrown out for raising concerns. So there is proof.

From the excellent Transparency Project article: "Mr Baker tells me that M is also interested in speaking publicly about the issues presented by those experiencing gender dysphoria. She has the inviolable right to do so. Her right to speak about her son however, has to be balanced against J’s own rights. This for me is not a delicate balance, the predominance of J’s right is both pressing and clear. I am accordingly prepared to grant the restrictive order sought by the parties, save the mother and Associated Newspapers Limited, preventing her from speaking about any aspect of ‘gender dysphoria or gender identification’ in so far as these relate to J. For the avoidance of doubt the restriction extends, as seen from the wider terms of the order, to prohibiting the mother from broadcasting or publishing any detail of J’s life which might identify him as the child subject to these proceedings".

The Judge said authorities did not act appropriately upon concerns raised about M. Mermaids also prevented other concerns being taken seriously when a concern about M exposing J to the media were raised by one of their own committee.

hugh

Unlawful disclosure( where it is considered to be a malicious breach) is a criminal offence . Data protection act 1998 section 55 subsection 1.

HTH