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

.

This charity's obviously on a hiding to nowhere:

www.onewhale.org/

So Mermaids are trying to argue that LGB Alliance have been solely set up (or mainly set up) to campaign politically hence they aren't a charity.

Sorry Eton. Only 260 pupils per school year. No more charitable status for you.

Surely their logic would cause most charities to cease to be needed?

A charity is something set up to help those in need.

So by its definition, if more than half the population isn't in need of the thing, then it has to wait until it is? And then become a charity?

So if Big Food Giants wanted to get rid of small food charities for example, they could just set up a charitable arm and get the small food charities to close because their bigger charity meets the larger numbers of people requirements?

Are they quite mad? Don't answer that.

Charities can lobby to an extent, but I think it's quite complex area of law.

www.gov.uk/guidance/political-activity-and-campaigning-by-charities

'Charities can take part in political activity that supports their purpose and is in their best interests.

There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support their charity’s purpose. However, political activity must not become the reason for the charity’s existence.

Charities must remain independent and must not give their support to a political party.'

Lots of charities are based on ideologies that compete with those of other charities.

This doesn't mean that charities who belief that Jesus Christ is everyone's personal Lord and Saviour can try and get charitable status taken off a charity set up to help Muslim women, because the latter has different beliefs about god.

And does it need to be a number or a percentage. Say there were a disease that affected only people called Sheridan but 100% of people called Sheridan would be affected by it. That's a small number of people in total but a large % of the relevant group - woukd they be allowed to set up a charity to research that disease?

Can someone cleverer than me tell me why it's ok for Stonewall to lobby politically?

Completely agree - we're told time and again that trans identifying people are such a tiny persecuted minority that they need all the protection and all the help. So Mermaids exists. How does the argument then stand that only charities working with large groups of people are valid charities? And how many is enough?

Whoops, old thread!!

Surely, if a single individual slips through the net and is left very vulnerable and without any family or state support then it is in the public interest for the public to be reassured that a charity has been set up to help that one individual, and that if they were similarly to slip through the net a charity might be set up to specifically help them?

I don;t agree with the logic.... a charity can be in the public interest whilst advocating for a single specific person, IMHO.

By definition the LGB alliance support everyone who is LGB - if they don;t realise they're being helped, or claim to be LGB when they're not, and are therefore not helped by LGBA, then that's not the fault of LGBA

@IcakethereforeIam 😂

Well that's the WWF down the pipe, can't save tigers until they're so common they don't need saving.

The deeper I get into this the more it feels like a massive conspiracy, but who by and what for? Why did Stonewall make the umbrella so big that pretty much anyone who isn't either Barbie or GI Joe is trans?

Hmm yes @TastefulRainbowUnicorn I'm sure there are many more LGB people than there are trans identifying children, so again are Mermaids shooting themselves in the foot with their strange logic?

I don't know @TastefulRainbowUnicorn what does that mean for charities that are set up to fund treatment for one person eg to get treatment in the states for something. The nhs won't cover?

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?

from Tribunal Tweets. Is that really as absurd an argument as it seems or is something missing from the summary? Charities focusing on people with rare genetic disorders wouldn’t be allowed by this logic.

Hello Bernard.

Hello all

The conflation of sex & gender was at the behest of activists. It was a deliberate ploy to prevent orgs who may wish to utilise SSEs from being able to clearly distinguish between sex & gender reassignment when it came to SSSs. That wasn't done because there's was ambiguity over these 2 distinct PCs. But to create ambiguity & confusion when considering legal implications of excluding males from female spaces/services etc.

All this nonsense over whether sex really means sex or does it mean whatever activists want it to mean? It's an activist ploy. Nowt more.

The judgement in the FWS v Scotgov case in the GRPB bill made it clear that by including men who identify as transwomen in the definition of women conflated 2 distinct & separate PCs and reinforced the fact that the definition of man/woman = male/female of any age = biologically defined terms, will hopefully be quoted in the rebuttal.

As much as activists was us all to believe there's grey areas or overlap, there isn't. There never was.

From the notes on the EQ10 legislation

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/12/notes

Sexual orientation is defined on the basis of sex (unsurprisingly enough!)

Oh you naughty people chatting here before the other thread is full.

Standing. This should be crucial. Whole case could fall on this.

Oh no he is moving next to...

Please can we go to lunch?