Change of CEO at mermaids…

According to SG's personal Instagram account, she was on holiday from 10-22 November (perhaps even longer). Not sure if that's relevant but it seems odd that in such a turbulent time at Mermaids, she was on annual leave? Unless she was using up AL before leaving Mermaids?

I too think she's off to the USA, unless she goes to jail. There's definitely more news to come, though.

They should buy her one of those Balenciaga bear handbags as a leaving gift. One wearing a blindfold and a gag.

This is the problem with that ghoul of a doctor Gallagher. She’s operating without insurance now, which just means that lawyers won’t take cases against her as there’ll be no big insurance pay out. She’s protecting herself and the insurance companies. What’s worrying is that some of these young people have sufficiently disordered thinking that they’re going ahead with major experimental surgery with uninsured doctors.

I wonder if Green has left with a negotiated settlement? The terse wording of the Mermaids statement makes me think it was not a resignation, and this would protect Mermaids against employment claims from Green and leave her with a lump sum payoff and a gagging clause.

As the Balenziaga case was being discussed before, I see they’re now trying to sue the ad agency involved.

Not entirely sure that such a campaign could have been planned, paid for and released without the client’s approval though 🤔

twitter.com/lailamickelwait/status/1596341372415418369?s=46&t=zapXKyMm5pma9x84u2FDEg

I have a Twitter account I set up years ago and never used, so sometimes I use that, as I'm not blocked by all the usual suspects on that account (as I am on my main one, even though I hardly ever tweet, just follow a few people). Looking at the retweets of the Mermaids announcement, I would say there were at least 15 GC retweets saying 'Good' and similar for every one saying 'Thanks Susie'. There was one retweet saying SG had done some good things but the charity should be led by a trans person now. This of course ignores that it was set up to be a support to parents and their gender questioning children, not just trans people.

I have a tame Twitter for work purposes and follow some people on both sides of the debate. India W saying it's all nasty propaganda and busy tweeting about other things. Nothing to see here.

Others, have less to say.

Like Belinda Bell, chair of Mermaids, who stated in court that she had not read the Cass Review.

For someone with a god complex its going to be one hell of a crash back down to reality for her.

And the fact that according to Fussi's TRA/cat feed there's not a lot of chatter either way about her swift exit...it doesn't bode well. I can imagine her constantly refreshing her Twitter feed and getting more and more angry as the day progresses.

I'm going to be honest when you first posted about TRA/ cat Twitter feed I took that to mean you couldn't be arsed reading TRA tweets and you were going to spend the night watching cat related things.

Duh! Then I read your earlier post today and the lightbulb went on.

That is an amazing way to keep track of what's going on.

Of course I now expect you to start your own thread so that you can do morning and nightly updates for those of us too lazy to do the same. Some of us can't even be arsed to open a Twitter account!

Boiled, who may (or probably more likely may not) have a Twitter account

Just having a chat with DH over this.

I was talking and he went "hang on a second. She was the CEO AND safeguarding lead? That's really bad practice for a start because it concentrates all the power in an organisation in one person and makes it much harder for them to be challenged if there are any issues."

His point is you need to have a culture where challenging authority within an organisation can be done through multiple channels so there is accountability. If the CEO and safeguarding lead are two different people you always have two routes of accountability. Basic checks and balances principles. If you only have one then you get more of a dictator effect. It makes the whole organisation more vulnerable to safeguarding issues.

Remembering this is children's charity too. Its a structural weakness that the trustees should address going forward.

Susie Green played a huge role in stopping safeguarding over sight at GIDS and in being both CEO and safeguarding lead at Mermaids structurally limited it there too.

It’s still cat on Fusilli’s TRA/cat twitter feed. The only person who mentioned it is Emily Bridges’ mum. (hi Sandy 👋🏼)

There’s a lot of talk about a WPATH report into the NHS England trans healthcare guidelines but nothing about SG.
Call me cynical but it’s almost co-ordinated.

Found it:
(Someone put it on Helen Webberley's Twitter)

twitter.com/coccinellanovem/status/1596502004981170176?s=20&t=LfiO3m_OI-mwjiY8GbWx1w

The problem from the outset is that nature of what Mermaids (& other organisations like Gendered Intelligence with their "mentors" for school children) want to do is incompatible with safeguarding. Random strangers with no professional qualifications or competence, just being trans, talking to unknown, children about their developing bodies, their ideas /fears / fantasies about sex / sexuality / sexual identity, techniques to modify their bodies including binding drugs and surgery. Developing a secret relationship with a child, often engaging in actions to help modify a child's body in secret from their parents. That's an adult manipulating & exploiting a child's naivety, emotions, fears and anxieties, aided and abetted by an organisation with no understanding of, or concern for, safeguarding children.

Mic drop @PatientZorro

Yes that would truly be a day to celebrate. She can while away the time chatting to her trans woman cellmate.

I hope you're right, Resister. There are few things that would make me happier than seeing Susie Green taken off to prison.

I've never been able to believe that's what's happened to various children under the auspices of "affirmation" isn't an offence or collection of offences. Perhaps then, this is the starting point, the 1933 Act:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12

Great nd useful summary. Thanks Red

In all the scandal and speculation and rejoicing I think this is my favourite thing. It's like when they used the octopus to predict football scores - the big question moving forward will always be "Ah yes, but what does this news mean? Over to @FusilliFettler for the ultimate verdict: TRA Tantrum or Cats"

Yes. Genspect have created a service specifically for this

I suppose the best way to prosecute her for something from before the law was changed would be that the person that was harmed, Jackie, would have to go to the police and ask for their parents to be investigated for child abuse.

Fingers crossed that when/if JG realises they had an abusive childhood they will do exactly this and go to the police.

Undermining child safeguarding is a feature not a bug with this ideology. Someone linked the WPATH response to the new NHS guidelines - just look at how many of their comments somplainabout safeguarding measures / age appropriate responses. They even challenge the idea that all a child's mental health issues should be acknowledged / treated.

listloop.com/wpath/mail.cgi/archive/adhoc/20221125183220/

It really is a case of "when someone shows you who they are, believe them the fist time".

For Susie Green situation with her child? You can't retrospectively be prosecuted for things before the law has been changed. The time line makes it difficult.

Wouldn't a starting point be the "serious physical harm" element of "causing or allowing" under the 2004 Act, as amended?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/child-abuse-non-sexual-prosecution-guidance

"Causing or allowing death or serious physical harm
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA 2004) created the offence of causing or allowing the death a child or vulnerable adult. The section was amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012. The amendment came into force on 2 July 2012 and extended the offence in section 5 to cover cases of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm.
This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members."