Mermaids, Gendered Intelligence & Fox killer launch appeal against Charity Commission over LGB Alliance charity status

[FindTheTruth]

www.scotsman.com/news/people/lgbt-charities-launch-appeal-against-charity-commission-over-controversial-groups-status-3257923

"In April, the LGB Alliance was made a charity after the commission decided the group benefitted the public through its educational and awareness-raising activities about discrimination based on sexual orientation."

"On Tuesday, transgender children’s charity Mermaids launched an appeal against the decision at the first tier tribunal, supported by other charities and groups including Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the Good Law Project."

Presumably this is why Stonewall is no longer involved?

Indeed. But just because their name has been removed doesn't mean they're not involved.

I hope an FOI, at some point will clarify everything.

Apart from anything else, it makes even less sense if they're not involved, from their point of view. Mermaids and LGBA have got absolutely nothing to do with one another.

[quote Igneococcus]Times is on the ball:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2db3626e-c3b1-11eb-8601-6a2ece3e4634?shareToken=d7d4fc16d949353cafd4cdbef3fa5b8b[/quote]
"In court documents, which do not appear to have been signed by its lawyers"

Lol

It's unfortunate for Stonewall that is is being widely reported in the press (Times, DM) that they are behind this...

It would be useful for Mermaids to be asked in court whether Stonewall are involved in this case. If Stonewall are, and if Mermaids tell the truth, this could be handy to slip into Allison Bailey's case to provide more evidence of Stonewall acting against Bailey in a covert way.

A lot of times claims are made with no evidence whatsoever, they are taken as gospel by some people

I think maybe some of these organisations are so used to making up crap and being believed that they don’t realise that legally claims like these need to be backed up

You can’t say that someone is anti trans without evidence....well, in a normal society that is

I initially read that as "claims by the Times"!

So the argument for the LGB Alliance being anti- trans seems to consist of three things . 1. They exist for a specific of people (LGB). 2. They believe in same sex attraction. 3. They have made some inadvisable social media posts in the past which they have since withdrawn and have since undergone training.

Is that really it? Is that the whole argument? Mermaids et al can exist to serve a specific group of people but LGB Alliance can't?

It hasn't yet occurred to trans right activists that the chanting of mantras, the shouting down of those who don't agree with them and making statements with no evidence base is no longer working.

and what about the inadvisable Suzie Green comment branding us all as anti-Semites

I hope LGBA set up a Crowdfunder. I’m sure they will be very well supported.

Since it's quite possible the Times article will be amended here's an archived version:

archive.fo/wip/TgzlO

I notice that The Times have opened up its article to comments.

Basically it amounts to bullying.

It's unfortunate for Stonewall that is is being widely reported in the press (Times, DM) that they are behind this...

It's an easy mistake to make, when they were named checked in the first draft of the crowdfunder and are named throughout the claim itself

Sorry, it wasn't Suzie Green. It was Nancy Kellie. This is all getting too much for me. It's all kicking off

Presumably this is why Stonewall is no longer involved?

Or Nancy Kelley has run out of feet to shoot herself in?

@highame

Are the unholy alliance trying to bankrupt LGBA before they get off the ground? They believe their own fantastic tales but one hopes they'll take a careful look at what they're doing and the potential, very, negative impacts

I'm not sure that's the full reason though I don't doubt they'd find it a happy outcome.

That said I absolutely do believe it's about money.

When Stonewall add the T they were still perceived (rightly) as a very worthy and successful charity (both financially and its effectiveness in raising the profile/lobbying for its cause) that had attracted a very enviable list of HNW individual and corporate donors.

Mermaids has to a significant degree modelled itself on Stonewall wrt its marketing and both organisations have been supportive of each other in SM and campaigns.

The problem is that all that legacy and funding is on the back of the LGB rights movement. Even Mermaids waves it's LGBTQ+ credentials regularly.

I'd suggest that if Mermaids and Stonewall had positioned/repositioned themselves as purely "T" charities they'd never have respectively garnered/sustained the profile and clout they've until fairly recently enjoyed without question.

So the LGBA is indeed a serious threat.

It's not only exposing this "myth" of a united LGBTQ+ community but worse by doing so it's providing an alternative home for "disenfranchised" members of the LGB movement - members that are significantly more numerous and collectively have potentially much deeper pockets.

The recent developments that have absolutely damaged Stonewalls reputation have also damaged its "LGB donor power" and where is money now going to go?

The LGBA isn't going to work hand in glove with Mermaids (though I'm not suggesting they would attack them directly either) and there is a very real risk (especially with Stonewall on the ropes) that it could break through as "the" LGB charity taking not just significant funding from Stonewall but also its "clout" and influence.

Where does that them leave the "T" charities?

I think they have every reason to be scared tbh....

This section from the Times article was very interesting...
Mermaids states that unless the decision to grant charitable status is quashed, it “is likely to suffer financial loss”, as it “may find itself competing with LGB Alliance for donations from the public and grant-making bodies”.

There's been loads of 'inadvisable' comments made by trans rights activists and their allies. As an example, there's many MSP's who've made really risible, public comments relating to their constituents raising issues around single sex spaces. Kirsty Blackman now seems to be appealing to the 'GC movement' who she appears to think control the Government(!) to please think of the effects on Stonewall and other LGBT+ groups relating to all these recent disclosures and evidence. It would be laughable if she (and many other MSPs) hadn't shown such contempt towards those she is meant to serve and if there weren't such obvious failings finally coming to light.

@Enola41

This section from the Times article was very interesting... Mermaids states that unless the decision to grant charitable status is quashed, it “is likely to suffer financial loss”, as it “may find itself competing with LGB Alliance for donations from the public and grant-making bodies”.

That's the heart of the matter for mermaids, money.

Although I can't imagine a single person who donates to LGBA, would donate a penny to mermaids.

Thanks for the link to excellent lesbian and gay news article that was posted upthread. lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/06/lgb-alliance-have-confidence-in-the-charity-commission-as-trans-childrens-charity-mermaids-leads-legal-attempt-to-overturn-decision-on-charity-status/

The LGB Alliance stand accused by their detractors of: calling for a Parliamentary investigation into Mermaids; requesting that the EHRC open an investigation into Stonewall and seeking to ‘divert’ the funding currently given to existing LGBT charities. It seems calls for transparency and potential competition over funding are a threat to those intent on launching legal action.

Why do they constantly bleat about "GC people".

Many people who have listened to work place training from Mermaids et al are agog at the sheer gobbledygook they are presented with. It's not mysterious "GG people", it is actually a failure of the trainers and the implausible material they have shared with the public in general that's biting them in the bum.

The Times piece is very good.

The argument made by Mermaids against the LGB Alliance that giving LGB Alliance charitable status means that they will suffer financial hardship due to having to compete for grants and funding makes no sense. I just Googled 'heart disease charities' and loads of different charities came up, broadly addressing the same issue. Do they argue against the existence of other similar charities in the same way as Mermaids appears to be? AFAIAW, there's no limit as to how many charities can exist for a specific cause so how can their argument be valid?

It’s not unreasonable to believe that government funding for LGBTQ+ issues should be broadly pro-rata against the numbers of actual L,G,B,T etc people. At least as a starting point.

Yet we know that Stonewall’s campaigning (and therefore funds) for T issues far outweighs that put towards LGB.

Of course this is about money.

And I really hope LGB Alliance do secure government funding that would otherwise have gone to Stonewall, Mermaids etc.

@Waitwhat23

The argument made by Mermaids against the LGB Alliance that giving LGB Alliance charitable status means that they will suffer financial hardship due to having to compete for grants and funding makes no sense. I just Googled 'heart disease charities' and loads of different charities came up, broadly addressing the same issue. Do they argue against the existence of other similar charities in the same way as Mermaids appears to be? AFAIAW, there's no limit as to how many charities can exist for a specific cause so how can their argument be valid?

Indeed.

As a related aside, the two main bowel cancer charities merged a couple of years ago for this reason. I have no reason to believe it hasn’t been a very successful merger.

Generally charities will do what’s best for the people they represent. Given that SW is supposed to represent LGB it’s no surprise it’s not going well for them.

@Waitwhat23

The argument made by Mermaids against the LGB Alliance that giving LGB Alliance charitable status means that they will suffer financial hardship due to having to compete for grants and funding makes no sense. I just Googled 'heart disease charities' and loads of different charities came up, broadly addressing the same issue. Do they argue against the existence of other similar charities in the same way as Mermaids appears to be? AFAIAW, there's no limit as to how many charities can exist for a specific cause so how can their argument be valid?

Exactly.

Guide Dogs for the Blind and Hearing Dogs for the Deaf are perfectly able to coexist by way of example.

mobile.twitter.com/mimmymum/status/1400103950473367552

Mimmyuterusparent is always good for a laugh with the crazy conspiracy theories.