Mermaids annual accounts

[OneEpisode]

Mermaids published their annual accounts a while ago and I’ve not seen it on here, Maybe because this is a feminist board not an accounts board. The accounts are more interesting because of absences than what’s in them..

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

But as someone has said, annual accounts are usually to the end of March and you have 6(?) months to complete them.

The written part of the audited accounts would not be a complete report of activities. I suspect as they are quite small and basically grew out of family interest that they dont follow normal convention. But at the AGM there should be a full report of activities in the year.

But very telling that they appear to be given much more leaway in terms of how they operate. I have been part of funder organisations where funders have come in and gone through everything down to petty cash, how telephone calls are recorded and any small breach used to infer that funding should be withdrawn. But then these were women's groups so obviously there was an unterior motive.

The charity was too small to need an audit in the year to March 2019. Trustees and funding organisations can of course request an audit.

“One disturbing example was the We Are Still Here transgender conference in September 2018, at which our CEO spoke alongside one of our young teens. Despite working with the organisers to maximise security for the event, an individual with transphobic motivations still manager to infiltrate the conference and share their negative views of it on social media.” The conference, that the CEO tweeted from!!!

This was an event organised by Jane Fae.
Dawn Butler MP (Shadow Minister Women & Equalities was the keynote speaker.
It was covered in the Independent: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dawn-butler-transgender-uk-labour-intersectionality-rights-a8534761.html

Also covered by TheHarpySings a regular poster on FWR
"On 8th September there was a conference held in London a Bloomsbury Baptist Church which was called We’re Still Here, which featured a variety of panels and workshops and was attended by many prominent people in the pro-GRA reform camp.

I decided to attend to find out what was being said as it was clear that they did not want anyone to attend that wasn’t a TRA or an ally.

What follows are my notes from the day. But first a few notes on attendance:

There were probably 80-100 people in attendance. Overwhelmingly white. Mainly older transwomen. A couple of transmen. Some Mermaids delegates. Some fellow travellers/ allies. And me. (continues)
7) MERMAIDS
This was the last thing I attended. I found it very sad as there were a couple of trans kids there who were in their early teens. They were very intelligent and articulate and they felt that the current laws around under 18s not being able to get a GRC or change their birth certificate were discriminatory. They don’t seem to want to be outed as trans and found it very upsetting when they had to present their birth certificate for things like their first job or opening a bank account and have people be ignorant or discriminatory to them.

Christine Burns said that children have “gender awareness” from around the age of 2. The general consensus was that a child who articulates that they want to change their gender should be able to- no matter how young they are.

CB also said that we “baby” children in our culture, whereas in other countries 12 year olds are considered old enough to fight in wars. I DON’T KNOW WHY SHE THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD COMPARISON.

Then they started talking about something very disturbing- the “Grey area” around consent laws with regards to trans people who don’t tell sexual partners they are trans- whether that deception should count as the person not actually having consented to the sex. I believe a trans man recently went to prison for this. From the sounds of things the group in the room didn’t seem to like the idea of sexual partners being able to use the law if their sexual consent was received by deception." (continues)
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3398737-We-re-Still-Here-Conference-8th-September-A-report-from-the-inside

relevent thread:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers

Previous thread discussing Mermaids 2017 Annual Report including change in scope from supporting children/young people & families to a much wider role including lobbying, education etc.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3193748-Susie-Green?pg=4

James Kirkup article The Spectator May 2018
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

(extract)
"[Stephen Doughty MP] said. “Do you think the use of the phrase “trans lobby” is an appropriate one?”

As it happens, Dr Carmichael in her lecture said some things that seem relevant here:

“Gender has become amazingly topical and we have to be really careful not to assume that anyone is exploring or questioning their gender is going to want to change their bodies in line with that. The extremes on either side are not helpful. We need to look at the grey areas in between. To do that we need to be able to talk and discuss these issues. All too often stakeholders become lobby groups.”

She did not name any stakeholder. But her words might be relevant to a charity called Mermaids... (continues)

Despite its influence, it is worth noting what Mermaids is not. It is not a research body. Its activities are support (for families) and advocacy: based on its contacts with those families, it argues for what it sees are better policies and practices by the NHS and others. It does not carry out or commission clinical or academic research. Its most recent annual report lists among its charitable activities “campaigning and advocacy” and says: “Mermaids has also become more active in lobbying”.

There is regular dialogue between Mermaids and the GIDS, but the two sides do not always agree. An example is on the time the GIDS team take to give referred children the hormone-blocking drugs that stop their bodies developing the physical characteristics associated with their birth sex.

In evidence to another Commons inquiry in 2015, Mermaids argued that GIDS should make such drugs available much more quickly. The GIDS team has generally resisted that call, more than once saying that “any decision around hormone treatment needs time and considered thought.”

And in evidence to that earlier committee, Dr Bernadette Wren of the GIDS said this:

“I know that Susie and Mermaids would like a fast track so that young people who are already well into puberty and feel that they know that they want to move forward into physical intervention would bypass our assessment process and move straight into physical intervention. We feel that is not an ethical way to practise.”

Here’s another summary. A transgender charity that says it is engaged in lobbying lobbied politicians and doctors to change the way children are treated by doctors. The doctors declined to make that change because it would be not be ethical to do so." (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/05/why-are-some-mps-trying-to-shut-down-the-transgender-debate/

These are indeed accounts to March 2019. But I would have thought there would be a mention of the email breach in the trustee report.
That email breach was in the press just loads before then. For instance www.hayesconnor.co.uk/have-you-been-affected-by-the-mermaids-data-breach/ was posted on 18th June.

Probably not all that suspicious, it is normal for annual accounts/reports not to mention activity that took place outside of the period.

If it's not referred to in the next annual report, that would be odd.

I don’t mean to say suspicious. These accounts look alright. They are quite pretty. There are some SPAG errors but not many. They just seem very, very personal. Not at all independent iySwim. There is a charities SORP that an auditor would discuss with the charity. That would include asking about something called Post Balance Sheet Events. If they are significant they must be disclosed. The email thing seemed worth mentioning even if post balance sheet.

Charities accounts aren’t my thing. I think there might be others that know more.
The usual rules are to include events up to the date of signing the accounts, and again, these were signed on 8 August 2019. Some things effect the main accounts and others are “non-adjusting post balance sheet events” that must be disclosed in the notes to the accounts with details of the nature of the event and estimate of its financial effect or a statement that the effect cannot be estimated. The Charities SORP list includes things that have happened since the year end that need including. For instance: the announcement or implementation of a major restructuring; a material loss of assets or diminution in the value (impairment) of assets subsequent to the reporting date, for example due to fire or flood; the commencement of major litigation; or the entering into significant commitments or the identification of material contingent liabilities or the giving of material guarantees.’

This is absolutely fascinating and illuminating - thank you, OneEpisode.

I googled the trustees, and one of the new ones, Alex Feis-Bryce, has a byline in the Independent. The sub-head of the first article by him which comes up? "Many sex workers actually find the job enjoyable and liberating."

Welp. If I was a trustee looking to recruit new trustees for my charity whose core mission was to support a very vulnerable group of children and young people, I don't think my first choice would be someone who uses his platform to promote prostitution as "enjoyable and liberating". It really doesn't seem a good fit at all.

What are they thinking? Are they thinking at all?

Claire Graham's look through Mermaid's previous finances:

mrkhvoice.com/index.php/2019/08/10/follow-the-money/