Mermaids given £500,000 by National Lottery (Sunday Times)

There are 36 supporters of the early day motion above, most Labour, some SNP, Liberal Democrats and Caroline Lucas, Green Party

Wed 17-Oct-18 14:38:49
Stephen Whittle's response to challenges on this board about his use of predicting suicide in Guardian article:

"I agree. In hindsight I should not have said that - but the Samaritan's guidelines never cross my mind. The problem is the media is always in a rush. If I had insisted upon the time to think, I would have much preferred it if I had said the following:

If the reforms are derailed, past experiences have shown us that many trans people will become depressed. There might be a small public demonstration, but I doubt it, as people will be at a low ebb.
In the end we will pull ourselves together and continue the campaigning – as we have always done. We know we have Labour behind this one, so will simply do our best to get them elected. As I tell the community “we have always lost more battles than we have won, but we only ever need to win the big one”.

I hope that clarifies matters."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3397010-Guardian-article-on-MPs-concern-with-GRA?messages=100&pg=1

Ahh, that explains it...

Holding people to the same standards of protection is the very opposite of discrimination. We are discriminating against trans kids if we DON'T ask questions about safeguarding of the charities that profess to support them as they would have a lower threshold of safeguarding if we failed to.

How can they not understand this?

Some people don't agree with child transition. Some people think child transition is a good thing.

But even if you are in the latter group, you should be against any charity with safeguarding failures because it's bad for the children you're advocating for.

It's not rocket science.

Wes streeting mp ilford north- is he often involved in this kind of thing? He’s getting some love

Stephen Doughty MP's early day motion:

Tabled 10 October 2017
2017-19 Session
That this House agrees that the recommendations of the Women and Equalities Committee report on transgender equality needs to be implemented in full; believes that gender identity includes those who do not identify as either male or female, identify as both, a third gender or are fluid in their identity; notes that long waiting times for gender identity treatment can do harm to patients who should not have to wait longer than the targets for specialist referral; recognises that verbal, physical and sexual assaults towards those with a non-cis gender identity is the highest of all minority hate-crime, with over half of transgender women reporting they have been sexually or physically assaulted; calls on the Government to update the protected characteristic in the Equalities Act 2010 from gender reassignment to gender identity with a statutory code that includes non-binary identities; recommends that specialist GPs should be trained so that they can provide bridging hormones while patients wait to see specialist centres; and further recommends bringing LGBT hate crimes into line with hate crimes based on race and faith by making them aggravated offences.

edm.parliament.uk/early-day-motion/50820

'The first 6 Members who have signed to support the motion are the sponsors. The primary sponsor is generally the person who tabled the motion and has responsibility for it'

‘What is the point of having a proper grant decision-making process if you simply get pushed around by e-mail campaigns? How can we have confidence in the independence and effectiveness of your decisions’

Ah, but how "proper" was the decision-making process is the question, isn't it?

And what we're doing is saying we don't currently have "confidence in the independence and effectiveness" of the BLF's decisions.

‘What is the point of having a proper grant decision-making process if you simply get pushed around by e-mail campaigns? How can we have confidence in the independence and effectiveness of your decisions’

Wes streeting mp ilford north- is he often involved in this kind of thing? He’s getting some love.

Well every cloud has a silver lining, the media will not be reporting on this thread

ErrolTheDragon - don’t get me wrong, the grant should be withdrawn, but the BLF are going to look VERY foolish when it transpires that they coughed up half a million quid without carrying out some very basic checks into Mermaids’ work. Not to mention the outcry from TRAs, handmaids and the terminally woke about bowing to TERFs, wrong side of history, literal violence yadda yadda.

It's gone Apollo! It was definitely there quite recently though. Surely there's an archive somewhere?!

I found this thread earlier: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3164244-AIBU-to-think-this-is-child-abuse-trans-related Webberley via Mermaids prescribing blockers and T to a child she'd never even met. Then the child decided they weren't trans at all but were actually non-binary so stopped the T.

Because it’s a children’s charity it should be immune from any kind of investigation apparently

Yes, and things turned out so well for Kids Company when they decided to go their own sweet way without being accountable to anyone, didn't it?

I do hope this investigation by the BLF represents a turning point. I must admit there have been lots of occasions that I've hoped would represent a turning point, but surely they have the resources to look into Mermaids properly.

It behoves any charity or its supporters not to shout cuss, abuse and foam at the mouth on social media such as twitter. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Especially when looking for funding.

Sorry, very late to this but thanks to all who pointed this out. Important development.

If Mermaids can show that they are not sterilising kids, then surely the review will go well, no?

Anyone asking for funding should be open to due diligence and be open and honest about their safeguarding...if there is not problem then there will be no problem.

Show us your workings Mermaids and open up to honest critique and debate.

Or flounce around shouting how evil MN is for questioning you...

It's your call.

Is the recommendation for Dr Weberley on their website? If so, better screen shot it....

Wow, Twitter is going nuts about the ‘shit house terfs from Mumsnet.’

I always smile wryly at the language the TRAs and MRAs use to describe us women over here.

I suppose 'women who feel safeguarding ought to guide everything done with regard to children and young people' doesn't have quite the same misogynistic ring to it.

Meanwhile, in the non-cult universe, most people recognize that charities or any other organizations that work with children should be subject to higher than average levels of scrutiny precisely because the wellbeing of children is at stake.

Wow, Twitter is going nuts about the ‘shit house terfs from Mumsnet.’

Because it’s a children’s charity it should be immune from any kind of investigation apparently

Sorry for the multiple posts, everyone, the site was acting up for me.

Me too!

That's a good point. If they donate after information such as the connection with Webberly was available to them, and there are lawsuits later, can they be considered liable in some way in that they would have helped to fund what happened?

Won’t they look bad if they withdraw it?

No, they will look principled.
They may be aware they will of course also look extremely bad if they go ahead with the funding when - inevitably - the damage and courtcases arising from inappropriate medical interventions start to emerge.

Of course, they should have assessed Mermaids better in the first place, but it's good they're reviewing now that concerns have been raised. There are doubtless many truly worthy causes they can support instead.

I wonder if the lawyer person who dislikes mumsnet will be along in a minute to threaten suing them again. Wish I could recall her name, her twitter page was enlightening.

I see the Big Lottery Fund have announced they’re “reviewinf“ the donation. No idea what that means in real terms. Won’t they look bad if they withdraw it? Especially in light of all the Twitter comments urging them not to be “on the wrong side of history” (that old chestnut) and saying that Mermaids carry out “life saving work”. Sigh

PROTECTING CHILDREN IS ABOUT HOLDING EVERYONE TO ACCOUNT AND ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW EVERYONE, AND ANYONE OPERATIONS WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Louder and again and again. Safeguarding children is a societal role and no charity or persons should be exempt from public scrutiny if they work with children.

Sorry for the multiple posts, everyone, the site was acting up for me.

I think the greatest weakness of organisations like this is that they simply do not understand the ferocity of a parents love, that they would lay down their lives for their children. Woe betide anyone who threatens the safety, happiness and security of their children.