Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

615 replies

nauticant · 07/11/2022 12:40

UPDATE: a transcript of the proceedings has been published and can be found here: lgballiance.org.uk/tribunal-transcript/

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony was heard from 12 to 15 September, and then, following a break, closing submissions are taking place on 7 and 8 November.

[This paragraph is probaby now redundant] To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

There is also live tweeting from www.twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4633653-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-thread-3?page=31&reply=121335177
Thread 4: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

Submissions:

www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request in order to include the most up to date information.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
FaazoHuyzeoSix · 07/11/2022 14:51

Obviously I wouldn't dream of posting the URL here, but if any Gardeners are watching this thread, there's a tweet on the LGBAlliance's twitter feed dated 9:00am this morning with a link to a page of interest which says they are at 94% of where they need to be, so if anyone has a few daffodil bulbs knocking around that they aren't using that might be a good direction to chuck them

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 07/11/2022 14:50

I was also impressed with his deft repositioning of the microphone to resolve the muffling issue. None of your Mr Hochhauser and his papers on top of his microphone here.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:48

Never. BC was bloody epic. I've been missing him all day.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:48

It does feel like the most enormous overstep. Why on earth would they think they would win? Is this an immediate example of true believers not being able to see the weakness of their own argument?

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:46

Is IS going to cause some of the BC fanclub to defect?

OP posts:
LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:45

I like him too. Even when he turned away from his mic he was significantly more engaging than MG.

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:44

I don't think so FeatherPend. They just want to be left to carry out their role without third parties barging in and trying to make the CC dance to their tune.

OP posts:
IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 07/11/2022 14:44

FeatherPend · 07/11/2022 14:43

Not caught up on all of this generally, but is it generally viewed that the CC are on the side of LGBA?

Their counsel is saying that they don't decide on the merits of the subjective views of the charities. Just whether on the face of it they are eligible for charitable registration.

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 07/11/2022 14:43

I like this guy. Logical and clear arguments and a nice lilt to his accent.

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:43

It's the first of its' kind!

Which is why the CC are horrified at the possible implications of what it might mean for them and their role.

OP posts:
FeatherPend · 07/11/2022 14:43

Not caught up on all of this generally, but is it generally viewed that the CC are on the side of LGBA?

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:42

Bit of a dig at those who trawl Twitter for 'evidence'!

FeatherPend · 07/11/2022 14:42

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:40

Does anyone know if this is a particularly unusual event, one charity challenging the Charity Commission over their decision to award charitable status to another charity?

It's the first of its' kind!

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:41

IS is arguing against Mermaids applying purposive construction of the Articles.

OP posts:
LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:40

Does anyone know if this is a particularly unusual event, one charity challenging the Charity Commission over their decision to award charitable status to another charity?

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:39

Mermaids are actually saying that although it might look like that, they are in fact not saying that at all ArabellaScott. This isn't sarcasm, it's what they argued earlier.

OP posts:
IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 07/11/2022 14:38

Tribunal has to sort the wheat from the chaff. Very gallantly doesn't point out that there is much chaff.

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:38

One interest of the CC is that it doesn't want to see its role being twisted into being a referee between opposing groups, which, to some degree, will be political in nature.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 07/11/2022 14:38

Are Mermaids tryinig to say that LGBA's stated aims etc, which were all carefully examined and approved by the CC, were actually a bunch of pretend stuff, and they are uncovering LGBA's secret ACTUAL aims?

Sounds like a shit episode of Scooby Doo.

IdisagreeMrHochhauser · 07/11/2022 14:35

Nice to finally hear from the Charity Commission.

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:33

threshhold, not level. Couldn't think of the word threshold!

LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:32

Now saying M said they did not say it was a sham (which I assume has to meet a in level in law), but a revelation of evidence to the 'true purposes' of LGBA.

Original poster
nauticant · 07/11/2022 14:31

IS: "shams" is a feature of charity law which MG tried to play down but didn't disavow altogether.

OP posts:
LipbalmOrKnickers · 07/11/2022 14:31

IS - Mermaids would have to prove LGBA stated aims were a sham and hid true purpose of anti-trans activities

RoyalCorgi · 07/11/2022 14:30

nilsmousehammer · 07/11/2022 14:08

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. The question comes down to: what are their true purposes? Does a sufficient number of the public need LGBA?

Mermaids saying the quiet bit loud again - they have absolutely no self awareness.

They believe that LGBT+ is a political statement of TQ+ centric compliance. The argument they would appear to be trying to make is the one we see activists here try, which is yelling 'there's only six actual homosexuals who insist on being homosexual (evilly), and their socks, so not enough of you to matter!'.

The answer to which is, wtaf have you been smoking?

Given the topsy-turvy nature of everything the Mermaids barrister is arguing, has it occurred to anyone else that this whole business would make a fine Gilbert and Sullivan operetta?