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

IW really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And seems to really hate straight people supporting LGB people

It will be for the court to decide whether or not they rule on the rest of the case if they decide that Mermaids do not have standing. LGBA and Mermaids submitted they should rule on the whole case even if Mermaids are found not to have standing, because otherwise it will be impossible to appeal the substantive issues if at a later date the standing issue was appealed. The CC submitted that it would cause them difficulties if the court ruled "no" to standing but then went on to rule that LGBA would have lost their charity status if they had ruled that Mermaids did have standing. I still can't understand why standing wasn't decided at a preliminary hearing.

IW really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

😂😂

I didn't know the 'C' in 'KFC' stood for 'charity'. You live and learn.

I think that lack of standing does destroy the MM case, but KM for LGBA wants the tribunal to rule on the substance of the challenge, I would imagine to give LGBA protection from further challenges by different groups in the future. So another group who did have standing couldn't take them to tribunal again on basically the same grounds. IANAL, though.

IW on twitter not happy. Does IW think MM have lost do we think?

'Trans hate group LGB Alliance - who’s supporters are overwhelmingly straight - told a London court today they are a charity, not a political org. Despite having clandestine meets with Kemi, Truss, Baroness Faulkner, Baroness Nicholson and God knows who else. STITCH. UP.'

We all know Marg doesn't understand the case and only drops in to make up BS identifying as "fact", so let's scroll on by, shall we?

Wrt "standing", if it is ruled that MM don't have standing, shouldn't that mean they had no right to bring the case, so there wouldn't be any ongoing question about LGBA's charitable status? Don't quite get the process/ potential outcome there. I'm only following on here and TT.

It is obvious why the focus is on the LGB community, but it is imprtant to remember that sex denial is 100% heterphobic as well as 100% homophobic.

Or chickens who are themselves KKK members...which might muddy the data, somewhat.

Or am I simply making a mockery of Marg's ridiculous attempt at an analogy??

The other 93% must be KKK members or chickens (deduced from MPies contributions)….

I'm not LGB or trans, but I want to support all 4. Contrary to some people's claims, it's possible to be very concerned about the treatment of trans people without believing TWAW or wanting to abolish single sex spaces.

Confused by double standards once again.

According to some everyone involved in an LGB organisation must be LGB. However trans organisations can include non-trans people as supporters and allies.

I am not LGB but it doesn’t mean I don’t want to support LGB people or that I don’t care about homophobia.

I am heterosexual and I support LGBA, because if sex doesn't exist then neither does, L, G, B or heterosexual.

At least LGB alliance supporters are likely to admit they are straight unlike all the straights among the alphabet people.

I identify as an elephant with all the cake I’m getting through these days - does that count?

I'm just wondering if there is any way of accurately quantifying the data about how many times Marge has come up with this incorrect stat and then completely ignored the real figures when presented with them.

😂

I support an Elephant charity.

I wonder how many other people on their user base don't own Elephants. Can't be just me.

@Ameanstreakamilewide
MargaritaPie's numbers are not correct. From the LGBA website (bit in bold - my bold - at the bottom):

Fact: Most LGB Alliance supporters are LGB

One particularly sticky myth is that only 7% of LGB Alliance supporters are lesbians. Here’s how that started:

We were delighted to be able to support Allison Bailey at her tribunal in the form of a witness statement to help prove that gender critical people are likely to be women and lesbians. As part of that we shared some numbers from our newsletter subscriber list.

We used Mailchimp to send our newsletter and when we set up our account in 2019 we added some subscriber questions which, as it turned out, provided us with ambiguous data.

We asked people whether they were lesbian, whether they were lesbian/gay or if they preferred not to say. The flaws being that we couldn’t tell whether those who ticked lesbian/gay were men or women and that none of the fields were compulsory – so many people skipped them altogether.

The result was that we had 4,502 newsletter subscribers and 316 ticked the box describing themselves as lesbian. That’s 7% of the total. A further 949 ticked the box lesbian/gay and 1,427 were unspecified or preferred not to say. Based on that data that means that between 316 (7%) and 2,376 (53%) of our subscribers were lesbian.

The 7% figure was used in court because it’s important that evidence is based on provable fact and it is a fact that, at a minimum, 7% of our subscribers were lesbians. However, common sense told us that that number was really much higher.

In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say. We are satisfied that this data is robust.

Parents that use mermaids are 93 percent hetero and non trans.

I expect the parents that use

And Mermaids is run by whom??