Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Data breaches by Mermaids exposed in the Times

703 replies

truthisarevolutionaryact · 15/06/2019 18:46

Mermaids has apparently put lots of confidential data online including private emails, personal data and emails demonstrating the pressure they have put on the Tavistock.
Andrew Gilligan article - share token:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/parents-anger-as-child-sex-change-charity-puts-private-emails-online-tl0g5hwcg?shareToken=2f8ddc23419c61360023562a62e74d13

OP posts:
Thread gallery
17
Cwenthryth · 17/06/2019 20:35

That’s good to hear - and it shouldn’t be relevant, but we are apparently in an age when individuals can influence public policy according to their personal beliefs and get away with it (cf Edward Lord & Corporation of London), I do worry that personal opinions can influence decision making.

Although in this case, the issues at the forefront here are GDPR offences and safeguarding of vulnerable children - you’re quite right that opinion on gender ideology itself doesn’t actually come into play when assessing these concerns.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 20:41

www.gov.uk/guidance/trustee-board-people-and-skills?step-by-step-nav=3dd66b86-ce29-4f31-bfa2-a5a18b877f11#check-prospective-trustees-are-eligible

Check prospective trustees are eligible
You must be at least 18 years old to be a charity trustee (16 if your charity is a company or charitable incorporated organisation (CIO)).

Some people are disqualified by law from acting as charity trustees. Subject to waiver provisions, this includes anyone who:

has an unspent conviction for an offence involving dishonesty or deception
is currently declared bankrupt (or is subject to bankruptcy restrictions or an interim order) or has an individual voluntary agreement (IVA) with creditors
is disqualified from being a company director
has previously been removed as a trustee by either the commission or the High Court due to misconduct or mismanagement

Trustee role and responsibilities
As trustees, you must:

always act in the best interests of the charity – you must not let your personal interests, views or prejudices affect your conduct as a trustee
act reasonably and responsibly in all matters relating to your charity – act with as much care as if you were dealing with your own affairs, taking advice if you need it
only use your charity’s income and property for the purposes set out in its governing document
make decisions in line with good practice and the rules set by your charity’s governing document, including excluding any trustee who has a conflict of interest from discussions or decision-making on the matter

Risks and trustee liability
You can be liable to your charity if you act unlawfully or negligently as a trustee.
Although your charity might run up debts or other liabilities as a result of decisions you make, you and the other trustees won’t be liable if you have:

1 acted lawfully, responsibly and reasonably
2 followed the rules in your charity’s governing document
3 taken reasonable steps to manage risks

But if you can’t prove this, you could be ‘in breach of trust’ to your own charity.
Trustees act jointly when running a charity, so the trustees as a group would be liable to repay any loss to the charity

This is where the charities commission comes in.

If the ICO put out a damning report saying trustees have broken the law in a big way, this puts pressure on the charities commission. Since they are now involved after its been raised as a serious incident, then you would expect them to follow the direction of the ICOs findings and ruling. It give the charities commission some weight to do something, and makes it harder for them to ignore other concerns in other areas about the governance of the charity.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 20:45

Note the word negligence in the above. Not just the word unlawful.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 20:52

I also note from that website:

The commission can take trustees to court to recover funds lost to their charity as a result of a breach of trust.

You can also be liable to another person if your charity isn’t a charitable company or CIO. If you enter into contracts to provide services or employ staff, you could be personally liable for any debts your charity can’t pay from its money or assets.

This means your charity’s creditors can sue the trustees personally to recover money they’re owed, even if there hasn’t been a breach of trust. Trustees who have acted properly can be reimbursed from charity funds, providing the charity can afford to repay them.

Oh. If I'm reading that right...

The ICO could slap a massive fine on Mermaids... And the charity could potentially sue a trustee for their lack of governance to recover the money, if they could demonstrate they acted unlawfully or negligently.

Also trustees don't have to be called trustees specifically:
They may be called trustees, the board, the management committee, governors, directors or something else.

Oh.

Who is Mermaids data controller? Are they named?

borntobequiet · 17/06/2019 21:09

I think a data controller can be the incorporated body itself, so not necessarily a named person or persons. But I could be wrong.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 21:17

So all the trustees and management team? Or they could decide to throw one of them under the bus in a big way in theory?

The Lloyds guy looks like his job description might cover that side of things. He could lose his job at Lloyds too I suspect.

www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/mermaids-trustees.html
Trustees

I also just noticed this from that page:

In January 2016 we took on our first member of paid staff when we employed a CEO. This was followed in September 2016 with the addition of 2 part time Helpline posts, having being awarded a grant by Children in Need to develop and strengthen our core services, the helpline and email support provision

The fucking irony in that...

missedith01 · 17/06/2019 21:18

Mr Gilligan is saying the statement has changed again, this time to admit personal details were compromised.

twitter.com/mragilligan/status/1140689310435483649?s=19

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 17/06/2019 21:21

I'd say it's unbelievable but it really isn't.
It's lie and when that doesn't work change the story.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 21:23

Mr Gilligan is saying the statement has changed again, this time to admit personal details were compromised.

And have been shared all over the world on somewhat dodgy websites that really do have a lot of transphobia on. Have they mentioned that bit?

Do you think the penny is dropping at Mermaids yet?

I love the reply to Gilligan's tweet and his quip back about his article.

BuzzShitbagBobbly · 17/06/2019 21:23

One of those tweet replies refers to a new Comms Manager only in post since Feb. They done an exceptional job of staying out of the spotlight!

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/06/2019 21:26

^www.mermaidsuk.org.uk/privacy-policy-and-cookies.html^ (archive.li/ZBQzY)

"if we have no contact with you for two years, we will contact you to confirm whether you wish to remain a member. If you do not wish to remain a member or we do not receive a response from you, we will delete your data."

"After you have terminated your use of Mermaids services, we will store your information in an aggregated and anonymised format"

I wonder if they have been following their own policy...

Popchyk · 17/06/2019 21:39

pom, just to pick up on your furry references. The furry community has a lot of minor attracted persons.

Remember that the Challenor case (in which David Challenor was sentenced to 23 years for torturing and raping a 10 year old girl in his attic) featured the furry community. Challenor was also known as Baloo. And there was also adult baby stuff.

This was the scandal last year in the Green Party for anyone who doesn't know. Challenor got away with a lot (including harassing a green party member through the courts because he wanted to silence him). The Green Party assisted Challenor with this. The transgender shield of his child placed them above scrutiny.

1984in2019 · 17/06/2019 21:43

If I were one of the parents whose correspondence was not adequately protected (and the confidential data is still online - FFS why isn’t Mermaids throwing everything at a clean-up) I would be suing their ass off. It is shocking what is now in the public domain.

CaptainKirksSpookyghost · 17/06/2019 21:47

If I was a parent I'd be sueing them, they have put a lot of families in danger, but that won't happen with their followers.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 22:01

From 2017 (under the less strict DPA):

ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2017/04/ico-fines-eleven-more-charities/

Information Commissioner Elizabeth Denham said:
“Millions of people will have been affected by these charities’ contravention of the law. They will be upset to learn the way their personal information has been analysed and shared by charities they trusted with their details and their donations.

“No charity wants to alienate their donors. And we acknowledge the role charities play in the fabric of British society. But charities must follow the law.”

And

“These fines draw a line under what has been a complex investigation into the way some charities have handled personal information. While we will continue to educate and support charities, we have been clear that what we now want, and expect, is for charities to follow the law.”

The charities in question were:
The International Fund for Animal Welfare,
Cancer Support UK, Cancer Research UK, The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, Macmillan Cancer Support, The Royal British Legion, The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity,
WWF-UK, Battersea Dogs’ and Cats’ Home,
Oxfam.

missedith01 · 17/06/2019 22:02

Are there really only three trustees? Seems like not enough.

TheBullshitGoesOn · 17/06/2019 22:05

And I think someone mentioned upthread that SG is also a trustee.

I'm not familiar with the corporate world, but I'm surprised that someone can be both CEO and a trustee. I thought trustees were there to oversee an organisation and its management. Being CEO and a trustee feels like a conflict of interest.

But I admit I know nothing.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/06/2019 22:06

And I think someone mentioned upthread that SG is also a trustee.

I believe that SG was formerly a trustee, but is no longer.

LordProfFekkoThePenguinPhD · 17/06/2019 22:07

The parents would have to be pushed a hell of a way to sue. They are very invested in this all being hunky dory because of the path they have chosen for their child. To admit that this is in any way wrong is admitting that they have messed up. They just won’t do that - this is exactly why this exists.

RedToothBrush · 17/06/2019 22:12

SG I believe may be on the board of trustees in her capacity as CEO. You don't have to have the title trustee to have the role and responsibilities of a trustee.

Needmoresleep · 17/06/2019 22:13

The Mermaids website is confusing and suggests SG is a trustee. But from memory Charities Commission docs have her standing down when she became CEO.

The mystery is why so many stood down in the last couple of years. Concerns about liability? (I have no idea.)

TheBullshitGoesOn · 17/06/2019 22:22

Thanks. That makes more sense. I looked at the Mermaids website but it wasn't clear.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/06/2019 22:24

It's intriguing isn't.it.

beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1160575&subid=0

2016: 13 trustees (3 anonymous)
2017: 14 trustees (3 anonymous)(4 changes)
2018: 7 trustees (3 changes)

From website:

2019: 3 (1 change)

Also from website:

SG trustee for 10 years, chair for 3, CEO since Jan 2016. SG first paid member of staff.

Kilbranan · 17/06/2019 22:52

Wait, so they’ve gone from 13 trustees to 3 in the space of 3 years? Despite massively increased funding Hmm

FannyCann · 17/06/2019 23:06

Is there a minimum (and maximum) recommended number of trustees for a charity? 3 seems a rather small number?
I would have thought the Lottery fund would take a long look at the number and quality of trustees.