This Times article isn't merely about the data breech, its about pointing out Mermaids previous lying.
Worth reflecting on this thread in which the mermaids forum is mentioned. There was obviously something worth investigating with that.
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3552288-Mermaids-new-statement#prettyPhoto
This is dated the 6th April
It looked like their forum was locked down and not open (which raised safeguarding issues in its own right.)
This would absoluetely be something that a journalist would want to look at. What was on Mermaids forum? It was a question that I know was raised during the course of discussion of this particular Mermaids issue.
The thread links to a previous statement which references this point from a Times Article on the Tavistock:
^2. The clinicians also claim that Mermaids directs young people and their families on what to say to the specialists during assessment, in order to speed up access to medical treatment.
Has Mermaids ever advised young people and their families on what to say, in order to accelerate treatment?^
To which Mermaids responded:
Our parents and teens online forums are peer groups, where literally hundreds of messages are exchanged every day. A wide variety of topics are covered, between parents and young people, and without censure unless our rules of conduct and respect towards one another are broken, or a safeguarding concern is noted. This is not Mermaids, but open discourse between peers.
The aims of bringing families and young people together are to reduce isolation and loneliness and create a sense of community for people who are dealing with very difficult circumstances. Mermaids does not tell people what to say or do, we provide information and resources only.
Many of our service users feel understandably very anxious about access to the NHS GIDS services, exacerbated by the lengthy wait time of over 20 months. The Tavistock are working hard to reduce this waiting list, as they know the distress caused by the long wait for access to treatment is significant.
Then another point from the Times:
3.The clinicians also claim that individual staff members are rated and discussed on online forums, and that Mermaids' supporters advise each other on preferred who are more likely to make referrals quickly, and which clinicians are to be avoided because they favour a more cautious approach.
In response, Mermaids said:
Parents and young people are entitled to share experiences and that includes their clinical experiences. That is what a peer group is for.
Mermaids does not interfere with peer discussions unless our rules of conduct and respect towards one another are broken, or a safeguarding concern is noted.
and finally:
Times point 4
4. Lastly, the clinicians claims that the factors, outlined above, combine to create an "unethical and toxic" clinical environment for both the vulnerable people in need of support, and the NHS specialists trying to help them.
With Mermaids response:
Any responsible clinician would want parents and young people to remain informed about services and what to expect.
Any responsible clinician would also want users to be able to complain if their experience of the service they receive is unsatisfactory and causes distress and potential harm.
Transparency and openness of service, practice and support provided are basic principles of both Mermaids and the NHS.
We will continue to allow open discussions about all aspects of the challenges faced between peers on our forums. This will inevitably include discussions around the Tavistock service, which includes many positive messages about the care received and the excellent outcomes achieved. There will also be discussions around frustration and distress caused by the lengthy waiting list, and dissatisfaction with the care received.
These would be things that, if you were a journalist you'd follow up to see if what was being said by Mermaids was true - you'd want to see what was on that forum. Or in any other place online to produce evidence that Mermaids were hiding stuff and lying.
If I were to take a wild stab in the dark, I bet thats the line of inquiry which led to this data breech being found.
Starting with what information you have about the charity, would be the very first place you'd look. Name and Charity Number.
And if you look at what this Times article mentions as part of that, you'll see that it looks at the exact points that Mermaids put in this statement. The Times looked to see if the Mermaids statement was bullshit. And it looks to me like they found evidence to bring Mermaids statement into question.
If I was to take a wild stab in the dark, I bet The Times found this leak in April and have been taking their time shifting through it all for the evidence they wanted. 1000 pages is a lot to check through. Slow burner of a story indeed.
Mermaids now saying that certain information WASN'T leaked looks very dodgy and incredibly fucking stupid.
This article is about showing that the PREVIOUS Mermaids statement was utter crap. So what do they think The Times are going to do now? Let their concerns drop and just accept what Mermaids are saying??? Hardly!
If Mermaids think that this statement won't be followed up on again, they are utterly deluded. The Times is trying to get them to be caught with their pants around their ankles lying.
Each time they do it, evidence is building up about this charity and how its lying to its users and to the public and should be shut down.
I find it remarkable that Mermaids is continuing to lie in this way. It just gives the opportunity for journalists to record what they are doing and how they can't be trusted. And they appear to be dumb as fuck in the process in not realising that The Times are paying attention and following up on every lie they tell.
To be lying at this stage, to me just demostrates they are either a) so fucking uncompetent at every possible level its toe curling b) in the final stages of complete meltdown where everything is out of control and they don't know their arse from their elbow. Or a combination of a) and b).
Either way, its hard to see that Mermaids have a long and fruitful future ahead of them at this point.
You can bet the follow up to this story is probably already in production.