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

Sadly, while everything you say it’s true, this lawsuit would have had all the chances to succeed in Canada or dem USA , where reason has left the room a long time ago.

i think mermaids were emboldened by what happens on other countries and are expecting the uk to follow suit. Lucky for truth and reason, it hasn’t.

I cannot believe that this username wasn't already snapped up. Chortle.

The key difference is that Mermaids generates a lot of income from providing workshops, speakers and materials to schools and workplaces.

Unlike Countryside Alliance and League Against Cruel Sports, it's not about opposing viewpoints coexisting, but more about protecting a revenue stream and the reputation that enables MM to sell those services. To do that, especially with public money involved, they need to present their own stance as neutral, or at least the only acceptable one for right-thinking people, and to discredit LGBA for questioning that.

If MM's stance is seen as just one point of view, then, even without all the recent safeguarding questions, there is a huge issue about organisations paying for training on a complex issue from a pressure group with a big axe to grind.

Maybe a closer analogy would be a Catholic school having a speaker from SPUK. In that case the school is acknowledging that they have an ideological stance on abortion, and presumably Catholic parents would support their children being given information from organisations which are not neutral but share the school's beliefs on this issue.

I doubt many parents or employees would feel they've been asked for their views on whether they support otherwise secular schools and businesses adopting a quasi-religious view on gender, but that is effectively what has happened to enable organisations like MM and SW to provide advice and training.

True. Although it's fair to say that each side really does loathe everything the other stands for, and that one side in particular isn't above using dubious, underhand methods and extremely aggressive tactics.

There can be no question of competition for funding, however. As for one trying to abolish the other's charitable status, as far as I'm aware that has never even been attempted before.

Leave it to Mermaids to discover a new low with each passing year of their existence. If you have a conflicting stance to theirs, they will do everything within their now considerable power to silence it.

I'll be interested to read the CC's findings about them when their investigations are concluded.

Absolutely, Nils. They are the bigots around here.

@FaazoHuyzeoSix - that's an excellent example. I shall remember that...

That really is an excellent example of how two conflicting views exist separately without regarding the other as an existential threat.

This ideology really is unique in its apparent inability to tolerate the existence of anything but itself.

I thought the PN case could be read either way - I initially thought that the aim is to say 'see! Look at all the mad stuff LGBA are saying about our beloved TRANS CHILDREN CHARITY, MERMAIDS! Aren't they paranoid!' - highlighting the mentions of 'conspiracy' etc.

Thing is it doesn't read like that to those familiar with the case and what Mermaids actually have claimed, because we know it's true!

Tbf they did get quite a bit of KM's part in which is sensible and they haven't tried to twist it too much.

The Mail has reported it too:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11406993/Mermaids-bid-strip-gay-rights-group-charitable-status-homophobic-tribunal-hears.html

They were very quick to disassociate themselves from pedo-trustee

www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/08/16/comment-my-journey-from-scared-teen-to-gay-activist/

Well that Pink News article just doesn't read like a Pink News article.

I do wonder what is going on that has resulted in such unbiased reporting?

It's almost as if the penny may be beginning to drop, or maybe wishful thinking?

The Countryside Alliance Foundation is a charity which is totally contrary to the League Against Cruel Sports but both are allowed to exist as charities and state what they believe.

Pro Life and Pro Choice charities manage ti exist and accept eachother's existence without taking eachother to court to abolish eachother's charitable status.

There is no obligation for a charity's position or canpaigning to be universally approved of, or for it to not be in opposition to other charities.

Running just a tiny bit scared?

I believe the Cat's Protection are planning a copycat action (pardon the pun) against the dog's trust if this succeeds.

I agree. Perhaps they are not sure that their core readership has more sympathy for a charity supporting trans children over one representing same sex attracted people. Or an acknowledgement that in light of recent revelations, Mermaids has lost a lot of its gloss.

The Pink News report on today's hearing: archive.ph/cmfUk

Surprisingly even-handed for them, I think?!

Phew, just caught up! Thank you to everyone who posted the proceedings on here 🙂

From the telegraph article

"Michael Gibbon KC, representing Mermaids, denied any accusation of homophobia. He told the court that LGB Alliance were seeking to undermine trans charities like Mermaids “by promoting the view that they spread disinformation, and by seeking to deprive them of funding”.

erm....aren't Mermaids doing a mighty fine job of depriving themselves of funding lately. No need for any help on that matter from other charities.

I still can't for the life of me work out why??? Mermaids thought this case was a good idea. I mean are they so so soooooooo removed from reality that they think they are God or something?

rhetorical question by the way. Unless anyone has really funny witty answers as to what they are playing at.

The Telegraph's take on today's proceedings

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/11/08/mermaids-attempt-shut-gay-charity-profoundly-homophobic-tribunal/

I wonder if the tribunal does rule that Mermaids doesn't have standing, it will make an orbiter (unbinding) ruling on the substantive issue of whether LGBA's purposes are charitable. Lots of courts do this where there is public interest in an issue in a case but where technically it does not need to make a ruling on that issue. While not binding it would be highly persuasive and indicate how another court would be likely to rule on that substantive issue.

I've never needed to accuse anyone of being a real jellyfish! Unless it's praise? I'm clearly not meeting enough welshmen!

Well the charity commission approved the incorporation of the LGBA as a charity and they are being challenged that that was the wrong decision. So defending the decision is not (from their point of view) taking the LGBA side. Which is to say the same rules apply to both (all) charities and different points of view are totally ok it isn't their job to decide who is more right or more wrong.

It’s true! One variant.

No way!!

I've been told that a Welshism for jellyfish is pysgod wibli wobli, which can't be right because 'w' isn't pronounced like that, but still

Probably better to use in front of children than one of the alternatives - cont fôr (cunt of the sea).

Smoothio for ironing soothes my soul! Perhaps I should say 'smoothes my soul'!