Great article in Telegraph on the Susie Green exit

The telegraph article about 'safe space to read the the report' is funny. I think it's code for - 'how can we let you read it without it being leaked to the telegraph?' Which is probably a fair point.

I also think the fact that amongst all this mermaids chose to commission an edi report, rather than a report into whether they are following the law or good practice in how to run a children's charity, won't go down well. If there are governance issues the fact that the governors were spending money & time on that rather than more nuts ams bolts things will add to the air of poor governance.

This is a big chunk of the cahirity commission's announcement. It's clear that the context is the safeguarding questions, and I have highlighted the bits where I think the safeguarding problems could be addressed in the inquiry.

"The Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into the charity in September 2022 after safeguarding allegations were raised. It has now formalised its engagement by opening a statutory inquiry, due to newly identified issues about the charity’s governance and management.

The Commission will investigate the regulatory issues to determine whether they indicate serious systemic failing in the charity’s governance and management. The trustees have fully cooperated with the regulator’s case, but their response has not provided the necessary reassurance or satisfied the Commission at this stage.

The regulator will seek to determine whether the charity’s governance is appropriate in relation to the activities the charity carries out, which involve vulnerable children and young people, as well as their families.

The inquiry, which opened on 28 November 2022, will examine:

• The administration, governance and management of the charity by the trustees including its leadership and culture.

• Whether the trustees have complied with and fulfilled their duties and responsibilities as trustees under charity law; in particular whether they had sufficient oversight of the charity’s activities and compliance with its policies and procedures and in line with its charitable objects.

• Whether there has been any misconduct and/or mismanagement by the trustees."

The CC are not going to take a view on whether the things mermaids believe about gender are true. They are not going to find that providing breast binders is a safeguarding issue on itself (given the context of gender medicine) but might they look at whether the specific way they did it was safe, and how they dealt with complaints about it, what did the trustees know? Etc ?

I think all the issues will be looked at, but the question will be did the trustees follow the law in how they allowed or managed this thing? Rather than was this thing good or bad in itself?

In the helen webberly tribunal the fact she was working in an area where there are no established standards worked in her favour to some extent. That might be the case here as well. It's a changing scene - mermaids were creating the ways of supporting these children.

This needs it's own thread - it's comedy gold.

the easiest way to take it down is by looking for something dodgy with money, even if it's not the biggest problem

Yes, remember the story that Al Capone eventually went to jail for tax evasion, not for his other alleged misdeeds.

That bit made me laugh WandaWomblesaurus.

It's a case of be careful what you wish for.

Citing media reports and an “unacceptable risk” to the authors, Mat Maddocks, a Mermaids trustee, wrote in the email that “our first priority is the well-being of our staff and given these events it isn’t possible to create the safe spaces for processing the report that are vital”.

More from the Telegraph…

archive.ph/5uNaY

It’s like Catch 22 written by George Orwell

sums it up perfectly

With a charity, doesn't "governance" cover everything - not just financial matters but all ethical and regulatory concerns? so this - "by launching its highest level of statutory investigation “due to newly identified issues about the charity’s governance and management”" - the concerns could actually be about anything, including the safeguarding concerns that have troubled GC people in particular for a long time - not necessarily specifically money stuff?

On the other hand - I have a feeling that if you have concerns about an organisation with charitable remit, it may be that the easiest way to take it down is by looking for something dodgy with money, even if it's not the biggest problem. The regulatory landscape with charities is complex and demanding and Mermaids is an insanely fast-growing organisation of highly emotional people, who are absolutely bound to have made some mistakes. Financial irregularities are provable and matters of fact, not opinion or ideology. it might just be the easiest way to cut off their influence, or even existence

Amazing. You just know the staff will be beautifully hard to manage.

I hope they destroy themselves.

I seem to remember disillusioned trans staff at Gender GP too..... the "cis" oppressors..... etc etc

It’s like Catch 22 written by George Orwell

The NSPCC are totally captured

Will there be properly balanced, ethical, well researched support or is there a Mermaids#2 waiting to step into the gap.

Phoenix version or in the same way as Global Butterflies was ready to step into the BBC training gap left by SW Champion exit. Same way that the organisation would seamlessly take over if the whole of Stonewall fell.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-58917227

Thanks to the interim Cass Review people are starting to realise that actually suicide of gender confused kids is 'vanishingly rare.'

Even in health organisations that should know better, Stonewall material is still uncritically regurgitated in EDI and inequalities training (including those YouGov SW survey results that are almost always presented as suicide attempts rather than "thoughts about/of suicide").

I'm optimistic about this. Even if they appoint a more extreme CEO, it's unlikely that the general public will be as sympathetic to them as they were to a woman who put on a good show of wanting to do anything to save her child's life.

We all know that the oft-quoted suicide stats were based on a self-selecting sample of just 27 kids. But Susie was very savvy to bring up the 'dead son/live trans daughter' myth right at the start of every single interview. It's the entire justification for giving minors extreme surgery and experimental drugs, which normally rational people would find abhorrent.

Thanks to the interim Cass Review people are starting to realise that actually suicide of gender confused kids is 'vanishingly rare.' When the full Review is published there will be lots more media attention on the dangers of puberty blockers and the fact that Mermaids went against the advice of the NHS and the Samaritans. Celebs and businesses won't want to donate to such a controversial charity.

I think it will be very difficult for public funding sources to go back to funding Mermaids now a statutory investigation has been launched. It will also be hard for public sector organisations to signpost to Mermaids. It is a tainted name and I think funding and priorities will move elsewhere.
The real question for me is where will that funding go now. Will there be properly balanced, ethical, well researched support or is there a Mermaids#2 waiting to step into the gap.

On a less serious note this quote from the article;
"The whistleblower claimed: “One of the big issues with Susie was she is incapable of being self-reflective,""

You don't say...

On a positive note, things that can be objectively measured like finances and safeguarding are huge issues. Failures are certainly enough for the CC to make and oversee very robust recommendations.

I can't imagine there'll be a rush of people wanting to be trustees or senior leaders in a charity under that degree of scrutiny.

And lots of people have submitted complaints about Mermaid's practices, mainly parents whose children have been captured. It will be impossible to ignore them.

Very good point and I think you’re right to be concerned. Mermaids cannot be allowed to continue on in a more extreme form.

I am more hopeful @IwantToRetire The CC may not be investigating Mermaids' safeguarding or other policies as such but I do think that from now on Mermaids' behaviour will be more under a more critical spotlight. Mermaids are now publicly "controversial" in a way they weren't six months ago and once a children's organisation becomes "controversial" it loses its free pass.

Alternative narratives about what's good for children are starting to pop up. I guess that's why Mermaids tried to shut down LGBA but even if they succeed against LGBA that still wont be more than a temporary reprieve for keeping their worldview unquestioned.

So sure, they can have a new CEO who is trans and TWAW and pro-transition for children and the whole enchillada. They're still going to be doing more due diligence, and whatever they do as a charity is more likely to be questioned not just swallowed whole. And they are going to be one voice not the only voice. I think - I hope! - they've reached the point where the harder they try to silence other voices the louder the other voices get.

I think any idea that the CC is investigating the ethical concept of the policies promoted by Mermaids re transing children is gong to be disappointed.

I disagree. Mermaids promoted breast binding without informing parents, and also advised kids on so-called 'bottom surgery'.

There are many charities set up specifically to oppose breast ironing and female (or indeed male) genital mutilation.

They will look into this now. No way they can't.

In one way it is such a logical conclusion of what she started, that you cant help but laugh at the idea she was forced out was because she wasn't transgender.

If one wanted to be "charitable" you would have thought all of those who think trans people's rights are not respected, would have given her some slack for having been such a prominent campaigner on their behalf.

But on the other hand this article, and a short piece I read elsewhere only confirms what I have thought that the investigation is about Governance, ie all they did you correctly identify where money come from and where it went, are there conflicts of interest.

And this seems to be what their internal report has suggested, that someone who has started this organisation has continued to treat it as hers, without realising she has created something out of reach of one individual.

I am happy to be proved wrong, but I think any idea that the CC is investigating the ethical concept of the policies promoted by Mermaids re transing children is gong to be disappointed.

The article seems to suggest that SG was forced to resign, and hints that the next suitable contender should be a transgender person.

So inevitably more extremism.

Anyone else getting a Children of the Corn vibe?

The article seems to suggest that SG was forced to resign, and hints that the next suitable contender should be a transgender person.

So inevitably more extremism.

That could surely mean one of two things.

Mermaids will become a much more hard-line and difficult organisation to fight against wrt it's ideology (that children can be transgender). Due to it recruiting someone who pushes more and more extreme gender ideology myths such as "children will kill themselves unless they get puberty blockers!" and "Trans-Women are literally women and female and male born trans girls go through female puberty" etc etc- we've all heard them.

Or, it will be the death of Mermaids altogether because meanwhile back in the real world we can't be having anymore harm done to children, trans children are an adult invention and we all know it.

Thread here for more details and links to submissions from TT and Sex Matters. www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4659625-public-consultation-interim-service-spec-for-specialist-gender-dysphoria-services-for-childrenyoung-people