Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 4

The Guardian has reported on it

www.theguardian.com/society/2022/nov/07/lgb-alliance-provides-public-benefit-court-hears-in-case-brought-by-trans-group

I'm identifying as an 18 yr old, tall, leggy, blonde size 4 model.

🤔🤔🙄🤣

(I'm 70, was brunette now silver, short, squat and a size 16)

Bit late to this thread but if I was Mermaids I’d be furious at whoever instructed Mr Gibbon - I’m surprised the panel wasn’t asleep by the end.

Mr Steele was so much more engaging, and of course his points were actually worth listening to.

Looking forward to tuning in tomorrow.

I can relate but think we can identify out of it now and fit into size 10s anyway.

NEVER!!!

Wash out your mouth . . .

Thank you for this thread,I've been at work all day with no internet access.Which is probably a very good thing as the 'Bundlejuice' comments have had me snorting and choking with laughter.😂

+ - even less of an idea. Other than plus-sized, I have no context for this at all

Whaat?? I'm not quite there yet but the threat of finding myself under the umbrella will definitely incentivise dieting!

Absolutely. Things are getting ridiculous: whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/11/07/luana-maroja-on-the-ideological-threat-to-biology/

It was in response to the bench asking how we are defining LGB. IS said it would be helpful if both parties could provide a definition of what they believe LGB means.

Ooh my -plus- went odd

Sure it didn't go queer?

Ooh my -plus- went odd

LGB - we know what this is

T - yeah OK

Q - no idea. Queer? ( Not a pleasant word imho) Questioning? That could be anyone

I - intersex, I think. A medical condition

A - ally. Probably straight but with a weird haircut. Or possibly asexual, which is all of us occasionally

• • even less of an idea. Other than plus-sized, I have no context for this at all

So from my perspective, everything to the right of B could be absolutely anyone.

So to paraphrase LGB Alliance's LGB people could be a different group of people to LGB people Mermaids might refer to.

It makes it very hard to draft any legislation around conversion therapy if leading charities within the area cannot even agree what LGB is.

i couldn't follow the hearing online, so relying on these threads and TT's excellent tweets. Were there any new downloadable documents released as part of today's session?

I really hope LGBA do get costs awarded. I'm more and more convinced this was nothing more than a cynical attempt to bleed them dry with legal costs and destroy them that way. I still don't really understand how it ended up at a tribunal, it seems so flimsy.

Thanks to everyone posting. I wouldn't have a clue otherwise

I’d like to know too!

I found this online, which is exactly what I understand the truth to be

Costs neutral: unlike most cases at court where the starting point is the “winner takes all” – although costs are largely at the court’s discretion the losing party is usually ordered to pay the winning party’s costs (or at least a large chunk of them) – at the Tribunal the starting point is that each side must bear their own legal costs, whether they win or lose.

Note "the starting point".

My understanding is that cost awards can be made in extreme circumstances. My (IANAL) interpretation is that costs can be awarded against a party who have behaved in a wholly unreasonable way.

My view is that homosexuality is same sex attraction under the law, the dicitionary definition, and the ordinary man on the clapham omnibus viewpoint. My view is that seeking to shut down a charity that wishes to fight for gay rights is wholly unreasonable. My view is that Mermaids should have costs awarded against them, and that they might, but it is probably unlikely.

I have said this on here before I think. IANAL but I have appeared at Tribunals (not Charity). I have seen costs awards against parties, but only once and in very extreme circumstances. The losing party did not appear honest or competent (and were criticized for dreadful bundles that resulted in massive amounts of wasted time for all concerned)! They had costs awarded against them not because they lost, but because they should have known that they had no case.

Pretty sure that Mermaids aren't the brains behind anything!

Yes, but surely -

(1) Standing up for same sex attracted people is clearly and undoubtedly a valid aim

and

(2) Standing up for people who claim that sexual orientation is not a thing, and that humans are attracted to "gender" not sex, might be a valid aim.

but

(3) Standing up for people who claim that sexual orientation is not a thing, and that humans are attracted to "gender" not sex, whilst accusing people who believe that homosexuality exists as being anti trans bigots is categorically not a legitimate aim!

I cannot see how the CC and / or the Tribunal can't come out of this saying "all of Stonewalls and Mermaids aims are legitimate, but they are not compatible with supporting LGB rights, the TQ+ and the LGB need to be split."

Ooh, did this happen? What was the response? I've been trying to follow on Twitter but it's not that clear...

Hvaldimir made me cry ffs

I just brought a massive bag of tortilla chips.

Emotional support snacks - much more practical!

What is Mermaids own definition of gender?

Depends on the day of the week, I presume...