JM has complained to the Charity Commission because Sex Matters platformed Richard Dunstan, who said some genuinely very objectionable things about about JM's history of being sexually abused as a child. The CC replied with "the issues you have raised have been passed to the Regulatory Compliance team to consider as part of our ongoing case into the charity". GLP then go on to talk about their defence of Mermaids. By mentioning the investigation into the unrelated charity Mermaids, GLP's statement is crafted in such a way as to make the reader think that SM are facing the same kind of super-serious investigation. They aren't: Mermaids were subject to a Statutory Inquiry, whilst SM face a far less serious Regulatory Compliance case. The GLP statement is cunning, it doesn't actually state what kind of case SM face, steering you into joining the dots in the wrong order yourself.
JM is well within his rights to flag his concern about SM platforming Dunstan, and is within his rights to write about doing so online. That doesn't make it any less seriously underhanded to imply a conflation of the Mermaids Statutory Inquiry with the SM Regulatory Compliance case.
Sex Matters's statement: https://archive.is/Sfs4k
GLP's statement: https://archive.is/GGMz7
I read the two accounts and wondered momentarily if they were actually describing the same thing.
Based on SM's statement, they will not platform Richard Dunstan again. I hope that SM will do better due diligence in future. I know that many on this board hate purity politics, but joking about child sexual abuse crosses a line and, as a matter of principle, we should never work with those who joke about it. GC feminists are here to uphold safeguarding of women and children, and joking about CSA is fundamentally incompatible with that commitment. No child deserves to be abused and no adult survivor deserves to be mocked about it.