Where TF is the Charity Commission report into Mermaids?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c154glwppwxo

Green states

One technique used to undermine charities and CICs is to tie them up with regulatory scrutiny and never-ending administrative tasks surrounding investigations and litigation.

Yeah that's what YOU did to LGBA.

I mean, the absolute gall of this woman.

I think her legal route for blocker importing no longer exists with the extension of the PB ban to Northern Ireland.

However, she's definitely a fan of loopholes by the looks of things. Her new organisation isn't a charity or a CIC, so she no longer needs to worry about her advice being regulated.

To put that in perspective, Transgender Trend isn't a charity or a CIC either..... but their advice falls under the "watchful waiting", "let children go through puberty" caution side of things.... not telling parents to take direct action and intervene to stop a child going through puberty and/or irreversibly alter their endocrine system and physical bodies.

About sending out binders to girls:

However, the Commission has issued statutory advice to the charity requiring that, should it ever resume this service, its future policy and controls should reflect the recent Cass Review, or any future NHS guidelines on parental involvement

Should it ever resume the service? How about 'never do that again'?

i still think their days are numbered. People are definitely no longer beguiled by the concept of a 'trans' child.

And however much the CC whitewash it, the place attracted very creepy men indeed.

https://www.anne.health/articles/a-statement-by-susie-green-foll-charity-commissions-findings-on-mermaids

Green claims to have found a legal route to importing blockers.

This woman won't stop by herself.

Here is a Times article about it:
https://www.thetimes.com/article/039a5a34-d863-41bd-ae8c-c531327b9bc3?shareToken=51b150f4019bdc7d50c3fcc1d96d29fb

Indeed.

Those first 3 points are surely a complete contradiction to what they say about Susie Green. The definition of "medical advice" must be very narrow e.g. it doesn't include advising parents to affirm their child's declared gender identity and then circumventing GPs to refer these children to GIDS. It stands to reason that the referrals would be with the parents' permission if they had already helped the parents to understand that this was the right step for their child - including telling parents on their website that puberty blockers “internationally recognised safe, reversible healthcare option”.

Quote is from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/24/trans-childrens-charity-told-to-rewrite-guidance-on-puberty-blockers

An earlier article from the Telegraph makes it clear that Susie Green very much saw herself as a medical professional..... so presumably the advice was... medical:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/27/trans-lobby-group-mermaids-helped-nhs-treatment-children/

Similarly, I wonder how they define a safeguarding policy issue. In the Guardian article it references the previous policy of providing brreastbinders to children without parental knowledge. Given breastbinders can lead to permanent spine damage, surely this is a safeguarding issue. Or perhaps it no longer counts because they stopped doing it - however, it's still evidence of a policy that was inappropriate for safeguarding.

Apparently it is out.

I can't get over this...are they having a laugh?

Cass Review involved transparent methods and processes, had a blog, published an interim report, releases updates on timelines and various other items that I can't recall at present. It feels different.

I would be surprised if Mermaids could survive a six year investigation.

I think 4 years is getting to the end of the line.

Have you seen their finances?

They are in massive trouble.

I am thinking that Cass Review seemed to take a very very long time but when it came it was very well considered and irrefutable (well at least if relying on logic/facts/evidence). So hoping the same is true for this?

If it were anyone but Mermaids I'd been astonished that they'd issued a statement talking about the impact on "services, volunteers and staff" without once mentioning the service USERS, but... It's Mermaids, innit?
I suppose they'll say we are meant to see "services" as a proxy for that, but I think it's telling.

Possible reasons:

1. It's genuinely taking a long time because it's complicated, they're uncovering a lot of stuff they weren't prepared for, or they've only allocated one staff member half a day a week to work on it.
2. They've uncovered some nasty stuff, and are absolutely terrified of the backlash if they find against Mermaids, so they're hoping everyone forgets about it and/or the charity goes under in the meantime.
3. There's a bitter war going on in the CC between hardline trans activists who think Mermaids is wonderful and people who still retain some sense, and so the findings are stalled while they try and resolve this.

There may be other explanations that I haven't thought of.

The police will probably involved as well.

That is a good point. Hopefully it's just weaving its course as expected. But I do share the scepticism and concern of PPs above about activism from self-interested parties.

As an indication of timelines, I had a look at another high profile case (that's in the headlines again now because another former charity staff member has won the right to carry on with a legal battle to try and clear people's names, following the death of the CEO).

Here's an extract from a Guardian article (my bold):

In a statement it said: “After an investigation lasting over six years, the Charity Commission has not found anything that would warrant bringing regulatory action against anyone involved with Kids Company..."

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/feb/10/kids-company-criticised-for-failures-by-watchdog-year-after-exoneration

I've been worrying about this too. If all is well (which I know it is not) then get the report out so it can be scrutinised. If all not well then shut the bloody place down before it does even more damage.

They must not be allowed to cover anything up. There has to be a way of unearthing what they have found.

I wonder if a good journalist could be persuaded to take this up, Julie Bindel? Janice T?

Oh dear, how sad, what a shame.

When they say 'backlash', do they mean 'consequences'?

'Mermaids’ campaign says the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry into the organisation, which began at the end of 2022, is “significantly impacting our services, staff and volunteer wellbeing, our reputation, and our finances”.

“Securing funding is increasingly difficult, and corporate partners are hesitant to work with us due to potential backlash,” it says.the Charity Commission’s statutory inquiry into the organisation, which began at the end of 2022, is “significantly impacting our services, staff and volunteer wellbeing, our reputation, and our finances”.
“Securing funding is increasingly difficult, and corporate partners are hesitant to work with us due to potential backlash,” it says.'

-from the article I posted upthread.

These things just take a really, really, really long time.

There are so many legal stages you wouldn't believe it.

That's what I thought. Just stringing it out in the hope Mermaids solve the problem themselves by folding. Haven't mermaids come out and asked them to hurry up, because their funding is drying up as a result of the uncertainty?

I can't see them doing that if they knew they were under investigation for something even worse.

On the other hand, how bloody cowardly is that? There would have to be questions asked about why it took them so long.

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/mermaids-appeal-raises-thousands-as-probe-is-significantly-impacting-finances.html

I also worry about pressure from the self interested. We know how invested so many are from the legal profession, the charity sector, the civil service and politicians including the current government. Prioritising the safety of children often comes a poor second to defending the interests of this "sacred caste" as we repeatedly see.