Mermaids getting eaten from the inside out

I thought that the prioritising lived experience over actual qualifications and skills recommendation is a recipe for further disasters.

Interviewer: Can you tell me about your background in accounts?
Candidate: Well, I have blue hair and I once posted a picture of my willy on the internet.
Interviewer: You're hired!

Well two apparently. They’ve been hit with the race hammer and criticised for not focusing on the trans enough. So there are a bunch of bullshit bingo recommendations.

But screw everyone else. Let’s make sure our EDI report is as hard to read as possible. Watermark. Crap font. Tweet telling people to find it via a news feed linked in their bio (how many steps will that require?).

Anyone would think they weren’t taking it seriously in any meaningful way.

Boiledbeetle · Today 10:52

Happy?

Oh, that's much better, have you considered a career in advertising?

Having read the article in the Telegraph, ughhh it must be like one of those programmes.

This week the children's charity mermaids will be run by a class of 8 and 9 year olds.

Let's see how they get on...

Thanks for spotting that and summarising so neatly, Temp. You’ve hit the nail on the head. That’s not what I dislike most about Mermaids, but it doesn’t surprise that they give credence to this stuff.

It makes things really hard to read. It's like there is only one protected characteristic in mermaid land.

Mermaids will also introduce a staff “rolling learning programme covering; trans and non-binary identities, white fragility, racial equity, power and privilege, microaggressions, intersectional identities, having challenging conversations and EDI [equality, diversity and inclusion] action planning/commitment setting”.

The charity said it would also “set behavioural objectives for senior leaders to role model inclusivity” and “create regular, intentional spaces for brave conversations”.

Fuck me, they get taxpayers money, through a charity-to-charity donation loophole in order to have regular conversations with their staff, characterised as brave, in spaces specifically created for the purpose.

Christ, and this is a charity whose staff is meant to be able to deal competently with traumatised children?

And who also attract people posting pictures of their cock and disembodied breasts from one end of the Internet to the other, and others who talk at pro pedophile conferences.

They appear to be bending over backwards to find reasons to shut themselves down.

The review published yesterday covered none of this because it centred solely on the desires of junior members of staff and had fuck all to do with the needs of service users.

Needs repeating loudly and frequently.

We have Sturgeon's 'robust risk assessment' that isn't actually a risk assessment and does nothing to identify risks or actions to reduce risk - KPSS have tweeted on this today - and Mermaid's 'review' that isn't actually a review of the major safeguarding disasters on their plate.

The incompetence and lack of ability to identify and address major safety issues seems to be a bit of a pattern in all this. In really quite staggeringly serious situations.

Good summary.

Would add dodgy association with struck off and suspended GPs, coaching kids and parents as to how to get through the assessment at GIDS (aka ‘the script’), piling pressure on GIDS to make treatments with low clinical value (according to NICE) available to ever younger patients, providing ‘training’ to schools and other public sector organisations that actively encourages teachers to breach the Children’s Act and breaking the Samaritans suicide guidelines repeatedly on TV and in print media.

Oh, and that big embarrassing data leak.

The review published yesterday covered none of this because it centred solely on the desires of junior members of staff and had fuck all to do with the needs of service users.

The mermaids watercolour running through the background of the PDF makes it less accessible for people with dyslexia

Which is rather ironic on an EDI document....

There was obviously so much more shit going on than we realised. I reckon that all the stuff that happened in the autumn on top of the problems they obviously knew they had with her and the running of the business, once all the binding stuff and map apologists and cock man appeared all over the internet she had to go.

They seem to have been exceptionally quiet since.

Apologies if someone else has already pointed this out, but the EDI consultants and the work leading up to this report seems to have started at least 6 months before things really started falling apart leading to Susie Green's departure in late November 2022. The impression I had from the Mermaids statements in the Autumn was that the problems with lack of boundaries, poor safeguarding and governance had led to consultants being called in, partly to try and show the Charity Commission that the trustees were on the case. This is now looking much more like the pre-existing staff consultation process bringing grievances to the surface that made Green's leadership of the organisation even more problematic and untenable.

So many of the recommendations are likely to make good governance and proper safeguarding more difficult. Fair enough if both aspects were looked at jointly, but some of this is in conflict with best practice. They're meant to be a charity working with children and families, not a therapeutic community for employees who don't have the skills, qualifications or professionalism to deliver services safely.

Not to mention clarification would be very welcome on what may have been safeguarding disaster number 6, which was the very sudden closing of the helplines.

Which was claimed at the time to be because of the inpouring of hateful criticism about safeguarding, but came with much rumours of the lines being staffed by those without dbs checks and/or safeguarding training.

I'd love to see all the staff responses and then the actual report that mermaids got, rather than this sanitised gloop.

Well that was interesting.....

Uhm. Safeguarding disasters (I think)

1. The very interesting MAP interests and support by trustee
2. The employee artistically sharing his anus and genitals in pictures online
3. the sending of children to a discord group in a situation known to be notorious for grooming (somewhere in the tech things there was also the 'have an email that your parents don't have access to')
4. Circulating binders without parental knowledge or permission
5. Wailing on the discovery of all this that everyone's being mean and safeguarding is transphobic. (This one really being the biggest safeguarding disaster of the lot.)

I may have missed a couple, it's been hard to keep count.

In this er, very interesting review, I seem to have missed any robust action to remedy any of the above. The entire thing reads really like mass identifying as the oozelum bird.

Happy?

I notice that Susie Green's Linked In page doesn't mention that she was sacked. I wonder why?

RadicalFern · Today 09:34

Boiledbeetle I have to say I’d like it rather better if the brown chicken was enlarged to as to cover the whole screen!

I think that a better option would be a white square, exactly the same size as the original image!

If you look on the post with the really big chicken you'llsee where I purloined the original from.

In all its glory.

Then you'll be able to come to a much firmer conclusion to your current guess, things definitely seem out of proportion.

🤔

I think what has been done is that the perpetrator has put an adult sized head(his own) onto the body which has been altered to reflect child like proportions.

Hmmm , we can all probably hazard a guess as to why…..

Thank you for explaining. I thought it would be something like this.

👇

Wishful thinking?

😂😂😂

There's always one that just wants a big cock!