It's an AIBU but it belongs here - Stonewall

If she wants to carry on using that name, it's a complete pain in the arse to reinstate it as well as costing money. It would have been much cheaper and simpler just to file a confirmation statement which she's going to have to do anyway if she wants to revive it.

Sorry - her company was struck off - not her!

I might be going against the overall approach here, but I think the failure to see what is wrong from a safeguarding perspective is related to the strength with which they believe the idea that kids can reliably identify as lgbtq+ at age 12.

It comes from a place of not understanding child and adolescent development, they think 12 year olds are essentially tiny adults. So they can have the freedoms of adults. They seem to take the fact that some gay adults are quite sure they are gay at 12 to mean that's something that is a reliable and secure fact, when actually lots of people do not have the same understanding of their sexuality at 18 as they did at 12, or even at 25 as they did at 18. Much beyond that it's more stable IMO but teen sexuality can be all over the place.

Anyone trying to collect reliable statistics about homosexuality by asking 12 year olds is likely to find the numbers pretty useless and I think that's widely understood, so I'm not sure why it's considered a no-no to see assertions of belonging to a particular sexual orientation at 12 as being pretty provisional. Some kids that age aren't even very interested in sex yet.

Looking at the dates, no accounts or tax would have been due.

It looks as though she was struck off because she didn’t file a confirmation statement. As there are no penalties for doing this - you just get told that your company will be struck off - it’s likely that she just allowed this to happen.

She didn't ask for the company to be struck off though. That's my point. Companies House are fairly good at communicating with people and telling you what you need to do when.

She needs some professionals around her who can guide and mentor her. Part of getting a successful organisation off the ground is recognising where your weaknesses are and getting people around you to fill the gaps. Not deleting and blocking anyone who asks questions.

It's usually because after a Ltd company is formed there are problems with it ever getting off the ground

Yes - It’s very easy to set up a company, but the paperwork can be a pain, so lots of people will ask for their company to be struck off if they never get round to doing anything with the company.

It was still an irresponsible request to make to 12 year olds and AB is right.

Who is assuming anything about motives?

I expect there are very good motives behind this campaign. But it seems a bit slapdash, to say the least, and that's not fair on children and young people taking part. Good intentions achieve a lot, but they need to be backed up by solid safeguarding awareness and at least a modicum of professionalism (not telling people in public to 'suck their mothers' seems a reasonable ask).

It wasn't just dissolved, it was compulsorily struck off by Companies House for not paying tax and/or failing to submit accounts

Doesn't every other company get struck off and it's usually nothing to do with tax or accounts. It's usually because after a Ltd company is formed there are problems with it ever getting off the ground so paperwork doesn't get submitted. That sounds the most likely explanation for Exist Loudly Ltd. Tanya has then tried again, raised a lot of money and this time is intending to run Exist Loudly as a CIC.

I don't think it's helpful to assume that those with a different point of view always have nebulous or fraudulent motives. In this case I have to take my hat off to Tanya as she does seem genuine and has lots of the qualities that I admire in a woman (although I don't like the swearing if you are reading Tanya). I have no reason to doubt that she passionately believes in what she is doing and recognise that she has achieved a lot for someone so young even if I think her project is misguided.

I also feel extremely sorry for her at the moment, in the same way that I feel for Allison, as I'm sure the Twitter storm has caused them both an awful lot of stress and upset. It's so sad that there never seems to be any proper discussion or middle ground.

Jo Bartosch has written a brilliant piece on the spat. The following extract articulates how I feel about any LGBT club.(not just the T) aimed at children.

"As with other stages of self-awareness, coming out and the process of understanding one’s sexual orientation can be daunting. Children and young people need to learn about who they are free from shame and stigma. But there is a difference between ensuring children and young people know that different types of families and relationships exist and forcing an adult understanding of sexuality and identity on to children."

www.spiked-online.com/2020/09/09/the-new-section-28/

I'm sure Tanya is a perfectly nice woman and she's clearly passionate about supporting vulnerable black LGBT youth which is great. I'm sure her personal experiences will be of great benefit to younger people. But really I think she could do with some professional people in her corner because I think she's probably a bit out of her depth.

But it is frightening how easy it is to set up a children's charity with zero background in education or understanding of safeguarding. I know this because I used to work in a semi-voluntary capacity for one. I don't work there any more because I was concerned about how unprofessional it was and decided that I needed to distance myself for professional reasons.

I was reading the exist loudly page last night and asked a legitimate question in relation to safe guarding, I was actually fairly pleasant and agreed that children's lgbt support is something that is needed especially as mermaids and stonewall dont give a shit anymore
And was instantly blocked, there's definitely something odd with them, lots of people appear to have been blocked too for asking basic non intrusive or abusive questions.

£110,000 raised. To be split between other groups/charities, apparently.

So Exist Loudly was set up in 2018, struck off in 2020. Then the founder has a major fundraising drive in June? Bit odd.

How interesting xanthangum

It wasn't just dissolved, it was compulsorily struck off by Companies House for not paying tax and/or failing to submit accounts.

Shame that there are no actual journalists looking at the background of some of these organisations and asking the tough questions of their founders.

This is weird.

Tanya Compas says Exist Loudly is brand new in an interview with Time Out www.timeout.com/london/news/tanya-compas-is-changing-the-lives-of-black-queer-young-people-in-london-and-beyond-071620

"In December 2019 she launched Queer Black Christmas, [...] Then, during lockdown amid recent Black Lives Matter uprisings, she decided to create an entire programme called Exist Loudly, packed with day activities and retreats."

But Exist Loudly was incorporated in 2018 and dissolved without having published any accounts in February 2020, well before lockdown... beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/11582060

It's also as you have all these new organisations aimed at LGBT youth, and also existing organisations used to dealing with adults broadening their scope to include LGBT youth, who have no actual experience of working with children and no awareness of safeguarding.

Stonewall, for example. Why are the guidelines for schools? What actual expertise do they have with working with children? None as far as I know?

This whole incident just encapsulates a major aspect of the TRA/GC divide: a perfectly reasonable and legitimate concern was raised (children given a financial incentive to divulge personal information online without parental consent, issues around grouping together age range 12-23 when discussing sexual attraction and identity) TRAs completely misinterpret the concerns and spin into 'transphobes don't believe in LGBT children and don't want them to get help'. GC/ other groups explain that's not the case and continue to explain the problems, giving specific reasons why. TRAs simply scream 'transphobic!' with some offering physical threats. TRAs walk away thinking they've shot down the 'transphobes' and the crucial answers to the initial concerns are mysteriously never given. I've not been aware of this stuff for very long but the predictable pattern is already wearing very thin for me.

@OldCrone
re Does this mean that Mermaids is also in breach of GDPR with this form for children to join their 'youth community'? and if the Information Commissioner is the right place

I don't know... but Yes you can ask the information commissioners office ICO for advice here ico.org.uk/global/contact-us/email/

Clymene thanks I’ll have a look.

No irony detected in Stonewall promoting a person of the female sex putting their sexual orientation in scare quotes
Scare quotes? Surely it was in quotes because the person was saying they thought they were lesbian as they didn't have the words, or the knowledge to know they were trans as had never been taught people could be trans, so thought they must be lesbian.
Hence the "quotes" around the word lesbian.
That's how I read it anyway

In her personal tweets she does seem to confirm that she is also tweeting from the EL account Clymene.

The person behind this proposed organization (Exist Loudly) is tweeting that she is

"ready to fight whoever, legally, verbally and physically. I don't care at this point"

Are you sure this person is female? The fighting physically bit, sounds a very male thing to say.