Judgement in Mermaids v Charity Commission tribunal expected in days

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-responds-to-mermaidslgb-alliance-tribunal-verdict

Not the case, I fear, because the judges have only ruled on standing, and not on the legitimacy of otherwise of LGBA.

Mmmm

"What does this mean for Mermaids?

This decision has no reflection on Mermaids..."

They're permanently located in the Upside Down, it seems

DH asks that if the LGBA charity status is legal and fine, does this mean that you can't call it a hate group anymore and that in doing so you would be being homophobic? And further to that anyone who harasses a member purely for being a member of the LGBA could consistute a hate crime in its own right?

The point being that Mermaids action has the unintended legal effect of legitimising the LGBA.

Also, can we ask if taking the LGBA to court to remove their charitable status is in keeping with Mermaids Charitable status or is it a questionable use of funds. Especially if they end up paying costs...

Pink news via Dennis' Twitter

https://twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1676885370405896192?s=19

If we don’t meet the test for standing in this case, it is hard to imagine that anyone could have done. In effect, that means that the decision to register LGBA as a charity cannot be challenged by a third party, even though the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status.

Do they seriously think that anyone reading wouldn't get the overwhelming impression that they are a bunch of duplicitous, manipulative and deceitful charlatans.

And who, incidentally, are the charity actually being investigated by the charity commission!

What a load of tosh.

Interesting detail in Mermaids' statement about the two judges being split on whether LGB Alliance should have their charity status revoked. If true, I wonder if the tribunal will release more information about this, the key points of why each judge held differing opinions?

Mermaids are salty 😂

Thank you.

Oh, lifeissweet, you cynic! 😉

This is a reach, I know, given Mermaids are scrupulously honest and transparent at all times.

But could they, perhaps, be spinning this like a yo-yo in order to make up look like down?

Just a hunch...

😂😂😂😂

Hard not to find a little schadenfreudic joy in knowing that this shitshow of a legal challenge discredited their CEO and Chair and they are more wounded by it than the LGBA are.

Here is a copy and paste
General Regulatory Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal rules thatMermaids had no legal right to challenge LGB Alliance’s charitable status
Mermaids and the Good Law Project, forced the UK’s only charity that stands exclusively for the rights of LGB people to defend its charitable status in a six-day tribunal hearing. Today’s judgment confirmed, as LGB Alliance had argued from the start, that Mermaids had no legal basis on which to bring this challenge.
Responding to this judgment, Kate Barker, Chief Executive Officer of LGB Alliance, said:
“We are absolutely delighted with this judgment and with the news that we will retain our charitable status.
Two years ago, we were clear that Mermaids had no standing to challenge our registration and today the tribunal has confirmed that we were correct.
Whilst this is a battle we did not seek, neither would we flee from it. But the cost to us and to our supporters has been huge.
Our legal fees amount to more than £250K and that money has come from small supporter donations. So, whilst our win is great news for lesbians, gay men and bisexuals, we can’t help but reflect on the fact that a sum like that would have been better spent on projects such as our Helpline for young people, our LGB Archive and our Friends’ Network.
This case did, however, provide a welcome opportunity to talk about our work in a public forum and we hope that the era of ‘no debate’ is over.”
The Tribunal said, “the fundamental rationale of the democratic process upon which our society is founded is that when competing views, opinions and policies are publicly debated and exposed to public scrutiny, the good will over time drive out the bad and the true will prevail over the false. Only when differing views are expressed, contradicted, answered and debated will the legislature be able to obtain the fullest picture of the views held by those they represent.”
Kate Barker added,
“In a free society we must be free to disagree and we hold fiercely to that view.
We are relieved that this long, and sometimes bruising, process has reached an end and we thank all of our wonderful supporters and our brilliant legal team.
As to our detractors…They tried to run us ragged. They failed. We’re happy that now the work goes on.”

Our legal team
LGB Alliance’s solicitor is Peter Daly, a partner at Doyle Clayton. He said:
“We are pleased that the Tribunal has agreed with our primary case that Mermaids never had standing to bring this Appeal in the first place. Our clients have been put through two years of stressful and unnecessary litigation. We look forward to them now being able to put this behind them and turn their full attentions towards their important charitable work in support of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.”

Didn't maya's ex employers get into trouble for claiming that the judge said something he hadn't? And it cost them a lot of ££ for doing so?

That Mermaids statement is quite something. Reads a bit like "If my car was made of cabbage, it would be a saxophone."

I don't know why Mermaids didn't just identify as winning, isn't that their central dogma?

Here is a screen shot. open in a new page and zoom to read if it is too small.

I will also be very interested to read it - if one if the judges really expressed the view that they would have found in favour of Mermaids on the substantive question, that’s quite significant.

Wow, a whole 39 likes!

"We are glad to have been able to shine a light on the harmful nature of Mermaids' activities and the need for ongoing scrutiny"

Fixed that for them.

Sunlight.

Correct me if I'm wrong, buts it's mermaids not LGBA who are currently being investigated by the charity commission

Wooohoooo 💃🏻💃🏻🥂🥂 in very boring meeting but this is brilliant news

From the Mermaids statement:

Because they found against us on standing, the Tribunal didn’t have to rule on the main issue in the appeal – namely whether or not LGBA should have been registered as a charity to begin with.
But the two judges indicated that they had given that question careful consideration and had been split on the answer. That is, one of the judges agreed with us that LGBA should not have been registered as a charity, and one disagreed.

We will have to await the publication of the judgement (assuming they are published in these cases?). But I would find it surprising for judges to give an opinion on something that they have explicitly said they have not considered for this judgement - whether LGBA should have been registered. I suspect we will find that they have actually said something much more narrow than Mermaids are implying.

The LGBA's website appears to have crashed, but here is a screenshot of their statement:

"We are glad to have been able to shine a light on the harmful nature of LGBA’s activities and the need for ongoing scrutiny"

Ah ha ha ha, ha ha ha [dissolves into helpless laughter].

rest of mermaids

Frequently asked questions

What is “standing”?

In legal terms, “standing” means whether the person (or organisation) bringing a claim has the right to do so. In this case, the question was whether Mermaids had been “directly affected” by the Charity Commission’s decision to register LGBA as a charity. “Directly affected” is not defined in the relevant statute (the Charities Act 2011) so it is open to interpretation in different ways.

In 2021, LGBA asked for a separate preliminary hearing to determine whether or not Mermaids had standing. We argued that the issue of standing was inextricably linked to our broader points about LGBA’s activities, and the Tribunal agreed, which is why the matter of standing was decided as part of a full hearing looking at all the issues together.

Why did the judges find that Mermaids doesn’t have standing?

The Tribunal didn’t consider that LGBA’s attacks on Mermaids, and their attempts to undermine our reputation, amounted to the kind of “direct affect” that is required by the Charities Act 2011. They also concluded that, because many of LGBA’s criticisms of Mermaids had pre-dated LGBA’s registration as a charity, the decision to register LGBA was not in itself the cause of the impact – indeed they thought that it might have reduced the impact, by constraining LGBA’s conduct.

Why haven’t the judges ruled on whether LGBA should have been registered as a charity?

We and LGBA had asked the judges to consider setting out their conclusions on whether or not LGBA is a charity, even if they decided that Mermaids didn’t have standing to bring the case. The judges, however, were unable to reach agreement on whether or not LGBA is a charity. There is a mechanism for resolving “ties”, but it didn’t need to be used because the judges had already agreed that we didn’t have standing. They therefore didn’t think it was necessary or appropriate to set out their respective conclusions on this issue.

What does this mean for Mermaids?

This decision has no reflection on Mermaids, the work we do or the people that we exist for. We will continue to focus on providing the highest quality support to trans, non-binary and gender diverse children and young people, their families and the important people in their lives, and to making the world a better place to grow up trans.

Will you appeal the decision?

We are taking legal advice on a possible appeal.

What happens now?

Mermaids will continue to focus on the critical, urgent challenges which trans young people and their families have told us they’re experiencing. This includes accessing healthcare, being safe and affirmed at school, and living their lives with dignity and respect.

Notes to editors

1. Mermaids is a registered charity in England and Wales (charity number 1160575) supporting transgender, non-binary and gender-diverse children, young people and their families. We aim to create a world where gender-diverse children and young people can be themselves and thrive.

1. Read the appeal grounds in full as filed here.

1. The appeal was supported by a number of organisations, including Good Law Project and LGBT+ Consortium.

1. The appeal was crowdfunded.