Mermaids - new statement

[MsMcWoodle]

I can't find a thread that mentions this. Sorry if this has been covered but didn't want it to get lost:
Times Lucy has tried to question Mermaids again - but as usual, they won't be questioned and just put out a statement:
www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/tavistock-complaints-process.html

Mermaids is a self help/support group in the same way proana sites are for anorexics

^^^
This

Anyone would think they had something to hide....

There have been 2 of these Mermaids statements recently. Each time I was expecting a story in the Sunday times/ other but it hasn't happened. Has anyone else noticed this and if so do you think mermaids have managed to get some kind of embargo in place to stop reporting?

This, to me, feels like the Times going back in for a 3rd try

If you go to the Home page of the Blog section you'll see that those tags are cumulative and not specific to that particular statement [in other words, the author is not editing the tags but letting them build up across each page]

www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/blog/

Just screenshot those tags in case they change them.

They don't respond to the allegation that at least one of the letters of complaint by families to the Tavi was signed by Susie Green herself.

Which is completely at odds with the "we can't help what our forum users do" message.

These long responses always reveal so much about them.

the reasons why they have such strident security measures to join their forum is because they've had men infiltrate a supposed safe space for their own nefarious reasons under various different guises.

WTAF. You couldn’t make this shit up.

These statements do always seem to openly admitting to the behaviour they are accused of, like a long winded version of "Yeah. So?"

It's like they can see that other people are cross about what they are doing, but they think any questioning of them is just persecution.

They are so not interested in child welfare that they cannot even see the harm they are doing, and they are so convinced of their untouchability that any questioning of them is treated as contemptible gadflying.

Wow NotBadConsidering - that's so shocking. I'm astounded. How anyone can support SG and MM is beyond me. I cannot believe this.

Yeah. So?"

This exactly - the whole piece is just saying this

They clearly perceive me as a threat to their organisation. Using my name in a statement that has nothing to do with me, to increase their reach.

Exploiting a mum of 5 school children and participating in cyber-harassment of her for their own publicity. Can’t help but wonder if Susie’s frivolous misgendering police report was nothing but a publicity stunt. Wow.

It’s clear Susie does the PR & Comms, it’s so deliciously amateur. But then no professional would touch this toxicity with a barge pole.

A few months ago it would have been "Posie Parker" they seem to go from one woman to the next.
I hope they leave you alone soon Caro, like a school bully they'll get bored of you soon and move on.
Who will it be next ?

It is my personal experience that, when an organisation is issuing a new statement every other week, it's a pretty reliable sign that all is not well.

Looking forward to Lucy's article.

Yeah flo

Why do they have to keep posting statements.

Why are questions being asked

I thought Helen, fresh from her monumental court case defeat, was tasked with the PR. That would also explain a lot.

Bit like asking Dr Chinnery to take care of your pets for the weekend.

There is no lower age limit...to a restricted forum.

Even Facebook restricts membership to those over 13. Games aimed at younger children are very prone to being infiltrated by dodgy would-be groomers. As a parent I would want to know who my child was talking to on-line. Are Mermaids taking the place of parents or do they require parental permission? One contrast is radical Islam where schools, parents etc are supposed to be alert to any signs to on-line radicalisation. Yes different outcomes but why is parental responsibility allowed to be by-passed in one not the other.

Is the article in the Sunday Times tomorrow?

Why do they have to keep posting statements.

I think they view it as a gotcha against any forthcoming news article - to give reporting less cachet as scoops because Mermaids have already signposted what the content is likely to be.

Unsure that this is actually a successful tactic when you basically admit what you've been accused of, but there we go.

If you go to the Home page of the Blog section you'll see that those tags are cumulative and not specific to that particular statement [in other words, the author is not editing the tags but letting them build up across each page

Ah, gotcha. Thanks, Jacky. So a posting error rather than a deliberate FU to any particular person.

There have been 2 of these Mermaids statements recently. Each time I was expecting a story in the Sunday times/ other but it hasn't happened. Has anyone else noticed this and if so do you think mermaids have managed to get some kind of embargo in place to stop reporting?

I like to imagine that very detailed research is being done for a killer investigative piece that will bring Mermaids down in the same way as Kids Company. Perhaps these are a series of questions all intended for the same explosive article?

I wonder how long it’s going to take Susie Green to sue Rod Liddle for saying ‘"My own view is that she should be in prison for child abuse and assault.‘?

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/this-is-beyond-satire-woke-britain-look-out-or-youll-render-me-obsolete-6xff2xvb2?shareToken=6e08fecec583c66a1441aefaaa3b9266

Playing devil's advocate, I can see that their answers seem reasonable from their point of view.

As a support group they will share information as to how to achieve their objectives. It's just that we think they are completely wrong about what is a good outcome for a gender-non-conforming child.

I don't think their answers are that remarkable either. It's all in PR-speak but that's how they talk - so bland and long winded that most people will give up before the end (or was that just me?). It's the fact that they keep on feeling the need to make a fresh statement that's so very telling. I don't think a confident organisation would do that.

Even if the tag of Caro isn't to do with that particular article, it still seems like playground bullying for a charity to target an individual like that bearing in mind they are fully aware of all the violent threats and abuse that are directed at GC women.

They think that by preempting any article they are softening the blow. They've been found out so may as well go public first and try to manage the message themselves. First.