Mermaids getting eaten from the inside out

Sorry, you have to click on the image to get the full shot.

Boiledbeetle I have to say I’d like it rather better if the brown chicken was enlarged to as to cover the whole screen! But thank you for putting together this collage of horror; much as I wish none of the pictures existed I don’t think they should be allowed to slip quietly off the internet so Mermaids can forget that that’s who they hired.

His head is very big for his body in those shots. I wonder if that actually is his body, current or ever? I suppose he could just be a wimp…or quite good at collage.

'However I have enlarged the brown chicken for you.'

Not a sentence I ever thought I would read during my lifetime. Kind of sums up the whole farce.

😂😂😂😂

I have, blghhhhhhh, checked the original. It's is belly hair, his thingy goes downwards on that darren. However I have enlarged the brown chicken for you.

It’s non POC clutching a few shreds of self esteem to their naked breast.

Do any workplaces actually get any work done anymore?

Good on the telegraph for not falling for the EDI flagellation theatre and making it clear the extremely serious concerns about safeguarding are a totally separate issue.

I'd say that as Mermaids have form for discrimination and oppression that explains why they took the Lesbian and Gay Alliance to court. Interestingly, no apology to them. But an admittance of institutional discrimination and oppression is good.

I am still chuckling at White Fragility and Reverse Mentoring.

Anyone know where Susie Green has slunk off to? Cant imagine her life is a bed of roses right now.

NicolaSturgeonsSOGIbottom · Today 02:35

It’s truly horrifying. it was all gussied up in academic word salad, hiding in plain sight.

What's possibly worse is that Breslow's paper was passed by a panel of university academics.

Telegraph headline: "Trans charity Mermaids apologises for ‘discriminating against its own staff’"

Article says:

"Mermaids, the youth transgender charity, has been forced to apologise for discrimination and oppression against its own staff."

"Belinda Bell, Mermaids’ chairman of trustees, told staff that “the review has shone a light on representation and discrimination within the organisation” and “no one at Mermaids should ever feel abandoned or confronted by... stereotypes”."

"The report made no mention of safeguardingg, despite scandals over it offering puberty blockers to childrenn as young as 13 or 14 behind their parents’ backs, or the appointment of an ex-trustee who had previously spoken at a conference sympathetic to paedophiles."

"Following complaints from staff about racism and Mermaids not being led by a transgender person, the report added that it would soon “answer the question” over whether it wants to be trans-led."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/31/trans-charity-mermaids-apologises-discriminating-against-staff/

Well I've read that, and I have to assume there is another part that isn't published. The bit that is published contains absolutely nothing that an organisation could actually do - it's just lots of words strung together in the hope that some of it makes sense.

I wonder how much the consultants got paid? Although to be fair I'm not sure you could pay me enough to sit through the whining they must have heard

Despite majority of grooming gangs nationally being white.

This has never been proven one way or the other. And I doubt anyone wants to actually look to find the answer. And you'd have to decide how you compare online grooming where people (men) can know each other and also can't - but be part of the same operation, with grooming in which people do know the other offenders' identities.

NFP Not for Profit
NFW Not for Work - a new concept, bringing transparency to Mermaids

I think it’s also extremely dangerous to import race theory direct from the USA and act like it applies automatically in the UK. It very rarely does.

It’s always somewhat ironic when EDI cultists manage to fixate on one-size-fits-all solutions and ideas and utterly fail to consider the actual contexts and circumstances that might actually make some difference in promoting ‘inclusion’.

Those recommendations sound like off the shelf EDI word salad, rather than any actual consideration of the specific culture and practices within mermaids or it’s wider context.

I think this is just a fragility issue TBH. Some people who belong to a privileged group - say males, including TW, find it hard when discussions about sexual equality come up because it gets in the way of their stomping over other people's rights.

As a member of an oppressed group (women) I do have a right to say that men should stay out of my spaces and children should not be medicalised to support powerful men's ideological beliefs.

I think this poster should probably just reframe their trauma and realise that the world needs to change such that men no longer hold all the power.

Oh I can answer this one.

There’s a whole area of academia called childhood studies, which has been fetishising the whole ‘social
construction of childhood’ things for decades.

There are reasons for this. It is a separation of childhood as a concept (which varies over time and cultures) from actual flesh and blood children. In this sense, childhood is to children what gender is to sex: a load of bullshitty ideas that we reify in various ways.

But it does attract a lot of people who are very keen to ‘problematise’ the concept of childhood innocence in particular. Not all of them sinister, but then you get people like Dr Breslow and his pro-pedophile stance.

Point 5 is very Cultural Revolution, isn't it? I feel the phrase 'brave conversations' may end up being quite sinister if it sticks around.

Also the punctuation is bad.

All that’s going to happen if they implement this is that they will constantly be squabbling about which one of them is the most oppressed. And any plain old white cis (bleurgh) heteronorm-y will be used as a punching bag until they leave. Then Mermaids will collapse under cries of ‘no, I’m the one who is most marginalised!’ If it wasn’t for all the kids they’ll fuck up along the way it would be a great outcome.

@Boiledbeetle I think the brown chicken on the left hand side needs to be moved up so the top of it is level with the top of the bright pink pig to its right. It may just be hair on his belly, going by the one in the similar position on the opposite side, but it does look a bit iffy.

Well I'm sure that report will offer significant reassurance to the Charity Commission, they might not even need to bother completing their inquiry now they can see Mermaids have everything in hand 😂

Again, we all initially thought SG had left because she had made Mermaids too Mermsids-y, turns out she was not Mermaids-y enough for them. I'm sure she was a problematic leader in lots of ways but FML I would not want to deal with that lot. And I'd say that report makes it clear the organisation is actually unmanageable. I don't see how they can come back from this; the expectations (demands) from staff are so far away from realistic in terms of good governance. So on one side significant pressure from within to basically spend all their time on the naval gazing recommendations in this report and on the other side pressure to actually sort out their governance and standards. They will either lose their charitable status or lose all their staff and have their reputation destroyed by them. This was all quite predictable at the point they were recruiting for their interim CEO last year.

This from Mermaids looks like a distracting expensive gloss being applied as a misdirection to distract attention from real scandals.

The extreme focus on staff representation around protected characteristics is notable for sidelining sex and age and sexual orientation but that’s pretty consistent with Mermaids’ contribution to a sexist, ageist and homophobic agenda trashing the rights of children (especially over represented girl and children and young people who may become lesbian and gay adults) by encouraging their invasive social and medicalised transition in pretty irreversible ways over the years.

It’s a slow, complex social reckoning that’s happening in many countries due to the amplifying effect of social media but white people however well meaning need to recognise that a lot of problems (not everything) ARE down to racism . As part of dealing with that we also need to factor in and deal with theUK’s pervasive class-ism, sexism, homophobia, disabled-ism, ageism and the systemic effects of relative and absolute economic disadvantage on people’s lives- if we want to actually combat oppression not just address pockets in piecemeal ways. It’s reductive and wrong to make ‘everything’ about white oppression (but credible organisations don’t do that) or to believe that discrimination of various kinds doesn’t also happen to some white people (but again credible organisations don’t do that).

It’s right that everyone should be thinking about their own contribution to discriminating against others and their own experience of being discriminated against by others and working together to address all that and looking to dismantle the structural factors in society that encourage prejudice. It’s a long slow process that’s been slowly happening for centuries with advances and then push backs. Not looking at any of it would be is wrong. Not looking creates and continues social injustice and no-go areas for public scrutiny like in Rotherham and other towns where the authorities appeared not to want to tackle organised sexual abuse gangs when they were from specific cultural groups, much more likely. They were scared of appearing racist. Despite majority of grooming gangs nationally being white.

Boiledbeetle I'm white ( well most Scots are) and I must admit I do feel defensive when that seems to be weaponized into a fault - everything is the fault of whites. This desire to inculcate a sense of "white guilt" into everyone white I find disturbing and dare I say it, racist.