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

As a side note, we get the posters here claiming vague things that run from:

• there's no such thing as homosexuality *Well if there is there's only a few of you horrible nuts, most of us are much nicer bi/pan people who don't say no to males
• Well all NORMAL homosexuals don't want exclusive same sex sex
• To say no to a male person wishing access to female lesbian sex is sexual racism/bigotry/hate
• Female homosexuals should learn to cope with unwanted sex they don't enjoy to provide service to unhappy males in need

It's always somewhat shocking when you hear the heart of the gender ideology empire speak and realise..... no this isn't a few confused, incoherent people with a limited grasp, this is all there is. No one even at the top has any clearer grip on the situation or the very, very obvious problems with it. They go into court with this exact same conflicting, muddled and rather jaw dropping stuff.

Madness isn't it? 'Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Alliance' - could refer to anything at all, couldn't it? No-one is quite sure what those words mean, or to whom they could possibly refer.

'Mermaids' on the other hand... 🙄

I don't think law, reality or anyone else outside of this bubble believes that homosexuals no longer exist. But this is demonstrating massively, along with the safeguarding nightmares, that Mermaids lost all contact with ground control a long time ago.

They are in fact trying to end homosexuality. As are stonewall. It's sexual 'racism' that has be stamped out because it permits others to places limit on the expression of (primarily male) choice of identity.

Thanks

The judge was making up a hypothetical scenario that would see LGB Alliance compete with Mermaids for the same people I think. I think he was getting at the standing point. It was a jumbled question and my mind was already blown that we can all merrily say that there is no agree definition of lesbian, gay and bisexual now.

Charity Commission's counsel said he hadn't considered this but that they would read the documentation with the intention of the organisation that had drafted it in mind. So to paraphrase LGB Alliance's LGB people could be a different group of people to LGB people Mermaids might refer to.

It's utterly bonkers and homophobic but here we are.

What was the response to this please?

Just picking up on these comments earlier:

"Why did Stonewall make the umbrella so big that pretty much anyone who isn't either Barbie or GI Joe is trans?"

"MM accepts that a human rights charity is acceptable. On the other hand if they focus on a small group then there is no benefit."

When you put them together, it starts to make sense. The widening of the umbrella means whoever falls under it boosts the numbers of the cohort MM & SW claim to represent & can use to argue they need cash now etc. When they have online 'days of...' being celebrated as though it's a marginalised group that experiences discrimination etc. & then you see it's 'asexual' day or 'demisexual' day etc. you begin to see the wider picture and the manufacturing of perpetual victimhood that underpins the 'need' for such charities.

IMO, it's all about the cash & how much more you income you can generate for the 'most marginalised' group X or Y or Z under the umbrella that has feck all to do with LGB

I just brought a massive bag of tortilla chips.

Anyone brought along their mum, support dog or teddy bear today?

Another example of ‘the punishment is the process’

Also making the cry laugh 😂 face at ‘Bundlejuice’.

Perhaps Mermaids are suggesting that LGBA’s stated aims were a dog whistle?

I'm glad this has been noted. I've donated to the LGBA several times including when they first set up (probably before they got charitable status). It's likely that every penny I have sent has gone on getting charitable status and now on defending it. I would much prefer that my donations went on the work that LGBA would like to do. I'm pretty annoyed about it tbh. Not with them obviously as none of this is their fault.

Another one hoping Mermaids end up with a massive legal bill. But LGBA will still end up with a big bill. "Costs" never translates into "ALL costs".

IS was absolutely brilliant. Loved that he asked for a definition from both Mermaids and LGBA for the words lesbian, gay and bisexual so everyone can understand which members of the public they actually support.

The GLP do have an involvement/interest in this case.

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1589597408865886209

I’ve only scanned very quickly but seems Mermaids barrister is complaining LGBA says gender is construct.

Every definition I can find of gender including WHO describes it as social construct.

What is Mermaids own definition of gender?

Delighted to hear Hvaldimir is getting some love! He could be a wee mascot for this case. I'll fling him a tenner when if LGBA win.

surely its to the LGBA set up to Destry MM it is the other way round

I'm watching a woman clear up the courtroom and 3 people are still in the lobby. This should be the closing credits backdrop.

IS was great. Roll on LGB Alliance submissions tomorrow.

written objects talk of lesbian gay and bisexual. But if there is a difference about what those words mean? Does that raise the necessary doubt of public benefit?

judge’s question as per TT.

I know that’s the Mermaids argument he’s asking about, but how does it make sense? Language has been colonised, but that doesn’t mean same sex attracted people aren’t worthy of a charity that benefits them.

No but I'd be quaking if Mr Steele was giving them legal advice on that.

I've been out in the actual garden and properly crying at bundlejuice.

Thank goodness the CC guy is calm and measured and logical.

Did anyone bring up (or were they even allowed to) the fact that Mermaids themselves are under scrutiny?

Oh god, I hope not.

IS was very good, clear concise and not sopheric.