NCVO review of mermaids

If the parent wants that forwarded to the Charities Commission to be considered as part of their investigation, let me know. I have a named contact there and have been sending further information to them.

A parent has started a thread looking for advice. She initially contacted mermaids and wasn't impressed with their response given the circumstances of her daughter.

I'm even less impressed knowing the history of safeguarding fails, the court case, the supposed review of internal workings and the never ended charity commission investigation.

She's been warned off them but this conversation has disturbed me so much I do feel questions are relevant over the qualifications, level of service and the agenda of its staff even now.

Poster said it was ok to share this.

It's a thread on MN which is the source. It uses the same image. Which is also blurry. It won't resolve your issue.

It's blurry but it is readable.

Sorry, ignore last post, can see its from Mermaid web chat.

Thanks I tried zooming but it just went all blurry.

As you've read it can you say what it is from, ie is there a page title that gives some hint of the source?!

No. I can't. That's the image someone has used on MN elsewhere in another thread today (poster said fine to share). The original is the same size so won't resolve your issue.

I can't read it well on my laptop but can zoom in enough on my phone.

Can you give the link to this.

Image is so small cant read any of it!

Thanks

https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions-2/#:~:text=Mermaids%20does%20not%20encourage%2C%20influence,does%20not%20give%20healthcare%20advice.

Mermaids does not encourage, influence or direct young people, their families or professionals involved in their care to pursue any one pathway. When people seek advice on healthcare, we signpost to relevant, trusted organisations such as the NHS.

Mermaids does not give healthcare advice. We may provide general information on NHS clinical pathways, but are not involved in the provision of medical care or in advising around whether a medical pathway is appropriate for an individual.

🤔

That is disturbing, Red.

I wonder if the Charity Commission's review will ever come to fruition and publication.

Just awful.

Its the same thing isn't it?

We identify as THIS being our reality.
You are being hostile and mean and upsetting us by mentioning facts that are incompatible with our declared identified reality.
NICE and decent people would unconditionally enable us, you're all haters and everything you say is therefore wrong. (You're probably old and right wing extremists.) <sings large chunks of the Greatest Showman>

I don't know why I keep expecting that there is a capacity there and it's rational to expect it in other areas when I've accepted this is the reality in one area of interaction.

But I know that this must be incompatible with posts of responsibility, particularly with children.

That’s such good advice, I can’t think why they didn’t follow it. 🤔

I realise this will never happen but wouldn't it be great if the various organisation that are trans specific formed an association, and made it clear they didn't need Stonewall encroaching on their work.

Ditto Intersex organisations.

Luckily there is already LGB Alliance, so then all we would need is for all the Queer political theorists to be sidelined into some sort of isolation unit and we could studay them and have a good laugh. With no one to existing parasitically on they would shown up for the political exploiters they are.

Yes it's amazing how one strong personality can warp a whole organisation.

I think Green embodies Helen Joyce's theory about the parents who have actively transed their kids will be the ones fighting to the death in perpetuating the ideology, no matter the science or evidence to the contrary. To admit they could be wrong is just too devastating.

Green didn't start Mermaids, she turned to them for help with her child. Prior to her involvement Mermaids was much closer to Bayswater group in terms of its policies and ideology - ie most kids grow out of it, watchful waiting.

Her rise up the ranks later reflected the path she chose to take for her child, heavily influenced by Dr Norman Spack, the monster who 'salivates' at the thought of sex change procedures on minors.

Thanks for pointing that out.

I was sort of aware but in my mind it is now so associated, and supported, by her very personal take on children questioning their identity, ie growing up.

Trans safeguarding doesn't look like cis safeguarding! Stop judging Mermaids by your narrow old fashioned uncool standards! They are different and special because glitter!! Bigots!!!!!

The #nodebate / sacred caste aspect of all this has been an eye opener and very successful in allowing so many men to make a "land grab" for women's rights. Seeing it applied to a charity with so many safeguarding fails is chilling.
The complicity of so many allegedly ethical / responsible people & organisations in enabling adults to avoid their safeguarding responsibilities is unforgivable.

Green didn't start Mermaids, she turned to them for help with her child. Prior to her involvement Mermaids was much closer to Bayswater group in terms of its policies and ideology - ie most kids grow out of it, watchful waiting.

Her rise up the ranks later reflected the path she chose to take for her child, heavily influenced by Dr Norman Spack, the monster who 'salivates' at the thought of sex change procedures on minors.

It does seem to be news to many TRAs that there are actually rules about how registered charities operate.

A charity working in an area like this should surely welcome scrutiny?

Quite. Scrutiny is part of providing services of this kind and any work with children, and wanting to avoid it or having a problem with this is a red flag in itself as it's about the organisation putting their own needs in front of the children's and of their desire for ethical, proper best practice. It has received a lot of funding, including tax payer funding: accountability and adherence to the law, and to standard ethical policies of safeguarding and accountability were an expectation within this and they failed. Majorly.

'Hostile' - they mean not unconditionally enabling, and people pointing out and having big concerns about five massive safeguarding disasters through really bad practice and failure to follow policies and guidance that a local village playgroup do on a daily basis. This is already an organisation operating on an extremist, biased belief that regards other beliefs or impartiality as an unacceptable threat. This is all about the feels of the staff and apparently no capacity for responsibility beyond this.

The more I read, the more concerned I am about this organisation having access to kids at all, and the angrier I am that the government have not only supported and handed them funding without proper safeguards but are not now demanding accountability.

Belinda Bell: "She said it operated in “a uniquely hostile external environment, where our work is under ever increasing scrutiny”.

... so? You don't think people should be able to scrutinise what a charity for vulnerable children does? These people cannot be for real.

"Increasing" from zero scrutiny too, by the looks of things, when they appointed the extremely dodgy Trustee who had written at length about children and sexual fantasies and attended events for paedophiles. And then to say such scrutiny is uniquely hostile?

You'd think, wouldn't you?!

'This exercise is based on a self-declaration and as such has some limitation'

Limitation? To identifying as being whatever you feel you are? That's not the Mermaids way!

ZombieBeryl · Yesterday 18:32

Sarah Vibert (she/her) joined NCVO in 2020 and became their CEO in 2022. In 2019 she posted these critical tweets about LGB Alliance and recommended Mermaids as a charity.

There has clearly been a gross and obvious conflict of interest here, she should be unbiased, yet she is clearly highly partial on the trans subject. Is there any way for the review to be undertaken again?

Yes, the report considers that leaders should be objective, then abandons that idea because trans.