LGB Alliance is now a registered charity

[OhHolyJesus]

It took over a year...

"LGBA applied to register as a charity in March 2020. Its purposes are to promote equality and diversity and human rights.
The test of charity status is set out in law. A charity is an organisation with exclusively charitable purposes for the public benefit, that is subject to the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and Wales. If it meets these legal tests, it will be entered on the charity register.
It is not the Commission’s role to make value judgements about the aims or ideas put forward by any organisation. Instead, its role is to decide whether an organisation’s purposes fall within the legal definition of charity.
The Commission received a number of objections to the registration of LGBA as a charity. It carefully considered these as part of making its decision. In handling this application, the Commission has had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty.
Registered charities fall under the Commission’s regulation, and their trustees must continuously meet the legal duties and responsibilities set down under charity law. A charity can promote the rights of one or more specific groups, but may not do so whilst demeaning or denigrating the rights of others, including on social media – and the Commission will consider taking regulatory action where that occurs.
The full decision, explaining the grounds for registering the organisation and the objections that were considered, can be found on GOV.UKK_"

www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-confirms-registration-of-lgb-alliance

However many times you do that, it's never, not even once, going to be in your favour.

Unless people don't check and take it at face value that it's true. It's the same as when people post links as evidence, which aren't evidence at all. I don't know whether they rely on people not reading it /whether they didn't read it themselves / or whether they did read it, but didn't really grasp it. It happens over and over again. People know the mechanics of providing an argument and then backing it up with evidence, but these days don't actually care as to whether what has been provided as evidence is actually evidence. I noticed a similar thing with my kids when they were little and learning to tell jokes. They understood the structure of how a joke should be, but missed out on the part where the punchline should ideally be funny. Or even relevant.

make wild assertions without evidence to back them up because we know we would be called silly or hysterical or uninformed

Yes to this. I think this nails it. When we're used to people dismissing us all the time, then we damn well make sure our evidence stands up to scrutiny and debate.

Goodness me, Delete, Delete, Delete. It’s like a convention of the Cybermen in ‘ere today.

Yes, completely agree with that. I will not make an assertion unless I am a) 90% plus sure I am correct and b) can back it up.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Yes, completely agree with that. I will not make an assertion unless I am a) 90% plus sure I am correct and b) can back it up.

Same. It always makes me smile when you (general you) ask TRAs for evidence and they tell you to google it or say they are not going to expend emotional labour for you.

I know where the information I base my decisions and opinions on came from, and it usually takes me mere seconds to find it again.

The same principle explains why Mimmybirthingparent's twitter thread of "evidence" that the LGBA are a hate group was largely made up of ridiculous tweets by David Paisley.

Beardy white man with opinion = ultimate authority.

Beardy white man with opinion = ultimate authority.

It's just so progressive!

When we're used to people dismissing us all the time, then we damn well make sure our evidence stands up to scrutiny and debate.

We had a new observer at a recent meeting that was appraising the evidence and value of a multi-million intervention and whether it should be approved. While we were waiting for the final part of the meeting, in general chat, I asked what her impressions were so far. She was taken aback at the level of detail and scrutiny involved in the appraisal. I was left a little that anyone would think we wouldn't routinely do that for these topics and when spending public money.

I wonder, in general, if there are people who are now accustomed to thinking emotions should sway a decision and it's somehow unexpected/wrong to be expected to provide actual evidence to submit to others so that they can scrutinise something appropriately - never mind when there are such far-reaching consequences.

Mumsnet a hate organisation

Pink News published India Willoughby's outrageous false allegations and smears against Mumsnet and the women who post here in April 2018.

'Britain’s rampant transphobia has me worried for my life'
(extract)
"and – wait for it – Mumsnet –are hounding trans women in the same way Hitler went about stigmatising Jewish people."

"Yeah, what is supposed to be a family-friendly parenting site has it’s claws out for the trans community.
And it all feels very orchestrated."

"And now we have groups of hardliners who will never accept trans women on any level, travelling the country, fanning the flames of hate."

"Cabinet minister Lis Truss has now tweeted her support for Mumsnet, despite the site hosting rampant transphobia. She needs hauling in to the PM’s office"

"I defy anyone to visit Mumsnet right now, look up transgender, and tell me that the vicious and mocking threads about trans people would be allowed about any other demographic. It’s the stuff of pitchforks and lanterns. The same rhetoric about race, religion on sexuality would lead to prosecutions and official condemnation.
Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts squeals that trans people highlighting the content – including threads which out trans people – to some of the site’s main advertisers is out of order. She describes it as an attack on free speech."

"There’s even a debate about introducing a new trans Section 28, clamping down on educating the public about what transgender is."

"Trans groups are more than happy to debate any subject Justine or her murky corner of the web wants – but the material on the site isn’t a discussion. It’s vicious, nasty persecution"

"Justine is adamant there’s nothing transphobic on Mumsnet. Only reasoned debate. She wants transgender visitors to Mumsnet to be “happy and supported.” It feels reminiscent of when Cruella de Vil opens a home for stray dogs in 101 Dalmatians."

"Mumsnet’s reputation for transphobia is fully deserved. Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people... It’s all very similar to the way the National Front used to operate."

"Last week was my first ever visit to Mumsnet. Honestly, I thought it was going to be lots of stuff about prams, or family-related matters. A sort of online This Morning minus Phil and Holly. The reality is more like a Nuremberg Rally. It’s very scary."

archive.fo/GB8bv#selection-923.0-927.83

All these progressive authoritarians. Who knew they were so illiberal at heart.

I wonder, in general, if there are people who are now accustomed to thinking emotions should sway a decision and it's somehow unexpected/wrong to be expected to provide actual evidence to submit to others so that they can scrutinise something appropriately - never mind when there are such far-reaching consequences.

It does feel like that these days. But it also feels like only certain types of people can act this way with no requirement for evidence or reason. If I tried that at work, as a woman, who wasn't following a certain narrative, I would get called out on it and my suitability for the job would be called into question.

Charities are not in any way required to be inclusive

A Brain Cancer charity is not required to give two hoots about clean water.

A clean air charity is not required to give any attention to cerebral palsy.

Each Charity stands on its own.
Therefore any challenge to LGBA on anything other than its own activities
(which are pretty limited as it has only just been registered)
will fail.

pedant alert, trying to get charities merged, wound up, altered and started is a set of hoops I wish I knew less about

If that's what you wish to do, feel free. However Stonewall has forever been inclusive and actually provides support for LGBTQ+ groups and communities across the UK.

A few weeks ago, a gay man stated he was same-sex attracted and that heterosexual females are not gay men. For that, he was reported to the police. I don't recall hearing anything from Stonewall on this? I'd have thought the main LGBT charity would be absolutely horrified by that?

The same Stonewall that is being taken to court by a lesbian for alleged discrimination. Judge Stout was 'satisfied there is sufficient evidence to suggest there was discriminatory action', and she also described SW's communication as a threat.

Lesbians are told that they're not same-sex attracted, they're same-gender attracted, should learn to accept penis, that they should get therapy to overcome their ''genital preferences'', that they're not allowed to be vocally proud of their sexual orientation, not even at PRIDE of all places! The same is now happening to gay men. Where have Stonewall condemned this bullying and sexual harassment of lesbians? Have I somehow missed their statement?

Why won't SW listen to the lesbians that are distressed by all of this? You'll probably have heard the term 'lesbian erasure' used by women to sum up how they're feeling...The chief executive of SW tweeted this:

Contrary to rumours of the impending lesbian extinction 😉, younger people are MORE likely to identify as LGBQ, not less than older people. APS data shows the same pattern on much larger and higher quality sample.

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1362051494225313794

''Impending lesbian extinction''. Hilarious. Thanks for listening and understanding

No wonder LGB Alliance formed. There's clearly a need for them. Shame on anyone trying to take this charity away from the LGB people who do appreciate and need them.

@littlbrowndog

Though style and beauty section can be a bit rough. But still

You've gone too far now.

@BrizzleGirl

Just bought myself an LBG Alliance TShirt in celebration!!

Oooh nice

The same principle explains why Mimmybirthingparent's twitter thread of "evidence" that the LGBA are a hate group was largely made up of ridiculous tweets by David Paisley.

Mimmymum is quite able to make up Mimmy's own false allegations and spurious smears in order to attempt to silence people.

As evidenced by Miranda Yardley failed 'transphobic hate crime' allegations linked previously on thread.

@ListeningQuietly

Charities are not in any way required to be inclusive

A Brain Cancer charity is not required to give two hoots about clean water.

A clean air charity is not required to give any attention to cerebral palsy.

Each Charity stands on its own.
Therefore any challenge to LGBA on anything other than its own activities
(which are pretty limited as it has only just been registered)
will fail.

pedant alert, trying to get charities merged, wound up, altered and started is a set of hoops I wish I knew less about

There does seem to be an awful lot of quiet merging of objectives in the charity sector these days.

I blame the way employees train up in one charity then hop to another, bringing their 'expertise' and the 'latest' received wisdom with them. It is one of the reasons people stick with donating to small local charities when they can.

Eton is a charity.
Life (the anti-abortion group) is a charity.

Or, more pertinent to this crowd, Mermaids is a charity.

[quote R0wantrees]Mumsnet a hate organisation

Pink News published India Willoughby's outrageous false allegations and smears against Mumsnet and the women who post here in April 2018.

'Britain’s rampant transphobia has me worried for my life'
(extract)
"and – wait for it – Mumsnet –are hounding trans women in the same way Hitler went about stigmatising Jewish people."

"Yeah, what is supposed to be a family-friendly parenting site has it’s claws out for the trans community.
And it all feels very orchestrated."

"And now we have groups of hardliners who will never accept trans women on any level, travelling the country, fanning the flames of hate."

"Cabinet minister Lis Truss has now tweeted her support for Mumsnet, despite the site hosting rampant transphobia. She needs hauling in to the PM’s office"

"I defy anyone to visit Mumsnet right now, look up transgender, and tell me that the vicious and mocking threads about trans people would be allowed about any other demographic. It’s the stuff of pitchforks and lanterns. The same rhetoric about race, religion on sexuality would lead to prosecutions and official condemnation.
Mumsnet CEO Justine Roberts squeals that trans people highlighting the content – including threads which out trans people – to some of the site’s main advertisers is out of order. She describes it as an attack on free speech."

"There’s even a debate about introducing a new trans Section 28, clamping down on educating the public about what transgender is."

"Trans groups are more than happy to debate any subject Justine or her murky corner of the web wants – but the material on the site isn’t a discussion. It’s vicious, nasty persecution"

"Justine is adamant there’s nothing transphobic on Mumsnet. Only reasoned debate. She wants transgender visitors to Mumsnet to be “happy and supported.” It feels reminiscent of when Cruella de Vil opens a home for stray dogs in 101 Dalmatians."

"Mumsnet’s reputation for transphobia is fully deserved. Hardliners openly strategise ways to make life tougher for trans people... It’s all very similar to the way the National Front used to operate."

"Last week was my first ever visit to Mumsnet. Honestly, I thought it was going to be lots of stuff about prams, or family-related matters. A sort of online This Morning minus Phil and Holly. The reality is more like a Nuremberg Rally. It’s very scary."

archive.fo/GB8bv#selection-923.0-927.83[/quote]
Ahh, that probably accounts for the huge increase in membership via this board.

I mean, after that wonderful bit of theatre, who wouldn't go looking!

I bought a scarf on eBay that's purportedly made from yak hair.

Whether it is or isn't, it's really very comfortable.

And hurrah for the LGB Alliance! I've just made my first donation.

Sorry, but has mimmymum actually changed her name to mimmybirthingparent?

Too funny

Melroses
There are over 100,000 charities
the vast, vast majority of which have no employees
and the vast, vast, vast majority of would never pay out for a piece of "inclusion" advice.
The CC rules cover a huge range and are VERY robust.

The shrieky crowd who think that LGBA will be removed
need to educate themselves

Contrary to rumours of the impending lesbian extinction 😉, younger people are MORE likely to identify as LGBQ, not less than older people.

That is a bit like saying "contrary to rumours that girls are eating less apples, boys are MORE likely to eat oranges."

Why won't SW listen to the lesbians that are distressed by all of this? You'll probably have heard the term 'lesbian erasure' used by women to sum up how they're feeling...The chief executive of SW tweeted this:

Contrary to rumours of the impending lesbian extinction 😉, younger people are MORE likely to identify as LGBQ, not less than older people. APS data shows the same pattern on much larger and higher quality sample.

twitter.com/Nancy_M_K/status/1362051494225313794

''Impending lesbian extinction''. Hilarious. Thanks for listening and understanding hmm

No wonder LGB Alliance formed. There's clearly a need for them. Shame on anyone trying to take this charity away from the LGB people who do appreciate and need them.

In October 2018 lesbian, gay men and bisexual people signed a respectful petition to Stonewall seeking dialogue.
thread: www.mumsnet.com/Talk/petitions_noticeboard/3384252-Stonewall-petition

Jonathan Best and Ruth Hunt (former CEO Stonewall) were interviewed on Radio 4 about the petition request.

Ruth Hunt said 'transwomen are women' is enshrined in law in the 2004 Act. This is untrue. Hunt also refused to engage with the requests and concerns of those who signed the petition and I believe at that point plans were started to set up what became LGB Alliance.

ForgottheBins observed, "What astonished me was how much [Ruth Hunt] felt entitled to talk for the government. In that short time to include phrases such as: "The Ministry of Justice is reviewing this" and "There is an event in parliament next week". Shows where her focus is. And how top-down she is, not connected to her grassroots. She's not saying "I'm hearing from trans members and supporters of Stonewall that they have been affected", she said "my board have decided to stick with this campaign." Stonewall has never been a member organisation, they've leveraged the community to support campaigns they decide on themselves. And now that disconnect between their decisions and their community is leading to them getting unstuck. Having Jonny on R4 today has made it public that they are not trying to work across their whole community, just sticking like glue to their own campaign."
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384779-stonewall-and-trans-activism-to-be-debated-on-radio-4-pm?pg=2

Reported in The Times
(extract)
"Stonewall, the country’s most prominent gay rights charity, has come under fire from well-known supporters for “demonising” anyone who speaks out about transgender issues.

Leading members of the lesbian, gay, transsexual and intersex community have started a petition urging the charity to rethink its transgender policy, saying that they are fed up with its refusal to recognise other viewpoints.

In a letter published in The Times today, they said that Stonewall’s advocacy of extreme transgender politics was threatening women’s rights, undermining gay and lesbian identity and stifling freedom of speech. They accused Stonewall of refusing to recognise LGBT people who oppose the hostile tactics of transgender activists." (continues)
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/stonewall-backing-transgender-bullies-slvn00vng?ni-statuscode=acsaz-307

Jonathan Best and Ruth Hunt (former CEO Stonewall) were interviewed on Radio 4 about the petition request.

Shortly after the interview on Radio 4, Jonny Best received a threatening email which neccesitated a police report.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3384782-PM-radio-four-Stonewall-petition?pg=6#prettyPhoto/0/

Jonathan Best also then endured a campaign of spurious smears and malicious reporting and false allegations at his university (Huddersfield)

twitter.com/JonnyWorst/status/1363063679474950147

Telegraph
6th March 2021
'University forced to apologise and compensate PhD student over 'transphobic' tweets'

(extract)
"Officials at the university launched a formal probe and summoned the music tutor to disciplinary hearings, later alleging he had potentially been “offensive” and not respected others’ “feelings”.

But in the first free speech case of its kind, the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education - which handles student complaints - has now criticised multiple “procedural failings” with the university’s investigation and ordered it to apologise and pay him £800.

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator also told the institution to swiftly review its disciplinary procedures, after Mr Best complained.

He told The Telegraph it illustrates the “chilling effect on free speech in action”, with censorship and a “low grade totalitarianism” sitfling scholarly debate on the distinction between gender identity and biological sex.

“In these free speech cases, the process is the punishment - getting through the process is grindingly difficult and stressful. It wears you down,” he said. “It makes you wonder if speaking and writing honestly is worth it.” (continues)

In Mr Best’s case, a student sent screenshots of his tweets and blog posts to university authorities. One said: “There is no such thing as ‘misgendering’. There is no such thing as ‘deadnaming’.” Another claimed “misogynistic trans ideology” was being pushed in schools.

The formal complaint alleged “repeated transphobic behaviour” and “discrimination”. An investigation was opened in August 2019 and Mr Best defended the posts under freedom of speech laws." (continues)

He was found in breach of the university’s social media and trans equality policies that protect against a “humiliating or offensive environment”. Mr Best successfully appealed, then went to the ombudsman which reviewed the case.

The OIA ruled last month: “We are not satisfied that the University has adequately apologised for the delay and the impact of the procedural failings on Mr Best. We consider that distress and inconvenience was caused to Mr Best, which has not been recognised by the University.” (continues)
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/06/university-forced-apologise-compensate-phd-student-transphobic/