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."

@Floisme

Weren't Microsoft found to be in breach of the law because they were effectively a monopoly? It was probably US law and I'm too tired to Google it, sorry.

Yes, they were. I think it was under US law though I would be surprised if there wasn't an equivalent in the UK. It wouldn't of course apply to the charitable sector.

I have been wondering how this thinking came about. If you look back to the civil rights movement, there were any number of different sorts of organisations, some of them disagreed with each other violently. On the other hand, BLM today seems to want to make a similar claim to SW, that their anti-racism is the only anti-racism.

It's probably best that you hear it directly from the Charity Commission

Thanks for the screenshot, Yeahbutnaw. I don't like anyone (including the LGBA) insulting or denigrating anyone else on social media. Unfortunately, that seems to be everyday commerce on Twitter etc. I'm glad the LGBA had the grace to apologise and post more politely since then.It would be nice to see Stonewall etc cutting back on the abuse in return, but I'm not holding my breath.

But I still can't see where the LGBA are failing to do what they were set up for. I know it offends trans people that they are not included, but they have Stonewall and numerous other well-funded organisations of their own. Surely no one can begrudge LGB people the right to speak up for themselves?

Well this is interesting.

This has reminded me to get the virtual cheque book out and I have donated to sex matters and LGBA (who are actually really hard to find on google).

I never thought I would be thinking the daily mail had better reporting on an issue than the guardian. How things change.

Sunlight sunlight sunlight.

Interesting thread on the rules around charities bringing legal action twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1400098835129643011?s=20

[quote MaudTheInvincible]Interesting thread on the rules around charities bringing legal action twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status/1400098835129643011?s=20[/quote]

Very interesting....

I wonder if certain people have actually understood this....

I wonder if certain people have actually understood this....

And if it underpins the withdrawal of a high-profile party to this case?

Stonewall is now so adrift from its stated charitable aims that even someone as dim as NK must have realised that starting a fight about another charity's charitable status would invite unwelcome scrutiny.

Mermaids talk about how their funding will be affected by lgba arriving on the ecene because they need to establish that they have standing to bring the appeal. The regulations mean that only people who are affected by the charity commission's decision to grant charitable status can appeal, so they need to show they are affected. It's not very convincing but there you go.

Interesting thread on the rules around charities bringing legal action

That is interesting.

Can I ask a very basic question please?

Who are Mermaids etc actually appealing to? That original article in the OP mentions 'court documents' and 'first tier tribunal'.

Which court is this?

Lawyer Barbara Rich also has an interesting thread:

[on the] appeal of Mermaids, supported by other charities and the Good Law Project against the registration of alliancelgb as a charity by the Charity Commission in April 2021. The framework for an appeal against a registration decision is in the Charities Act 2011

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1400013578858549250?s=20

@SpindleWhorl
Tribunals are part of the judicial system that often hear challenges to government/official body decision making eg immigration

These structure charts help show how they fit in
www.judiciary.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-justice-system/court-structure/

Charity decisions are covered by the First Tier General tribunal which why the case is there.

Thank you, that's really helpful. I've finally understood

@Manderleyagain

Mermaids talk about how their funding will be affected by lgba arriving on the ecene because they need to establish that they have standing to bring the appeal. The regulations mean that only people who are affected by the charity commission's decision to grant charitable status can appeal, so they need to show they are affected. It's not very convincing but there you go.

Thanks - just been reading that Barbara Rich twitter thread and this makes it clear too. Makes a bit more sense now.

"Mermaids must also show that it is affected by the decision to register @ALLIANCELGB in order to have standing to appeal"

The one precedent that Barbara Rich found for a two-charity-spat taken to appeal would strongly suggest that this'll be thrown out on the 'Standing' issue.

I am delighted to see it's an actual judge who will decide, not Charity Commission people. The judge will read everything, I presume - and apply the actual law, not the law that Stonewall and Mermaids would prefer to have.

So just musing here ... kimono lawyer must know this appeal is very likely a lost cause.

So what's in it for him? Or is he making bad judgement calls for reasons of stress, hanging out with the wrong crowd, losing his impartiality?

I think how this all plays out will be quite explosive and messy, given the nature of at least two of the appellants.

More crowdfunding?

@Melroses

More crowdfunding?

I have a funny feeling that that money is going to get the appellant charities and orgs into hot water, possibly with the Charity Commission - oh the irony - and all their respective Boards.

Despite not being a charity itself, even the GLP isn't immune from the necessity of governance:

"Good Law Project is a private not for profit company limited by guarantee (Company Registration Number 10556197). You can read our constitution here. Our Code of Conduct is available here. Our assets and funding are used for the benefit of the community and no one in the organisation can be paid more than the annual salary of a backbench UK MP. We maintain a strategic risk register which is reviewed and updated at every board meeting." (Source: GLP website, my emphasis )

for the benefit of the community and no one in the organisation can be paid more than the annual salary of a backbench UK MP

Sounds good doesn't it?

What it doesn't cover is the fact that many people who work under such self imposed "rules" are not restricted from earning additional income from other sources, sometimes on the back of the platform that role provides.

Speaking gigs, referrals, TV/SM events etc.

I find it quite amusing how many people fail to question how many people famous for their "high profile" charitable contributions to society live extraordinarily "comfortable"
lives...

I don't really understand the argument that "funding" gives Mermaids standing in this particular claim. Mermaids has a particular cause, raising money to help trans people and their families and their belief in a gender-based identity, and the ensuing medical "needs" of that group. LGBA's cause relates to the welfare of LGB people, and their right to be attracted to, and engage in. sexual relationships with other people sharing the same biological sex, no medical needs involved. These are 2 very distinct causes.

People minded to donate to LGBA are not going to be donating to Mermaids for the same reasons they would otherwise donate to the LGBA, because they are not both covering the same causes. That is not to say the same people who would donate to LGBA (to protect same sex attraction) wouldn't also donate to Mermaids, but they would donate to Mermaids for a different reason (because they want to assist trans people and their families). It's not necessarily incompatible to support them both, but in supporting them both, you are not doing so for the same reasons.

Therefore, Mermaids claiming that both organisations are competing for the same funding necessarily must include the implied claim that members of the public are too stupid to know what they are donating their money for/to; and/or are incapable of making a considered decision, so one charity must go; and/or that people will chuck their money at anyone without really thinking about why. That's a pretty contemptible way to view your donors, and it's not something I would be shouting about if I was Mermaids.

*contemptuous

@TedImgoingmad

I don't really understand the argument that "funding" gives Mermaids standing in this particular claim. Mermaids has a particular cause, raising money to help trans people and their families and their belief in a gender-based identity, and the ensuing medical "needs" of that group. LGBA's cause relates to the welfare of LGB people, and their right to be attracted to, and engage in. sexual relationships with other people sharing the same biological sex, no medical needs involved. These are 2 very distinct causes.

People minded to donate to LGBA are not going to be donating to Mermaids for the same reasons they would otherwise donate to the LGBA, because they are not both covering the same causes. That is not to say the same people who would donate to LGBA (to protect same sex attraction) wouldn't also donate to Mermaids, but they would donate to Mermaids for a different reason (because they want to assist trans people and their families). It's not necessarily incompatible to support them both, but in supporting them both, you are not doing so for the same reasons.

Therefore, Mermaids claiming that both organisations are competing for the same funding necessarily must include the implied claim that members of the public are too stupid to know what they are donating their money for/to; and/or are incapable of making a considered decision, so one charity must go; and/or that people will chuck their money at anyone without really thinking about why. That's a pretty contemptible way to view your donors, and it's not something I would be shouting about if I was Mermaids.

👏👏👏

Trans people have fought for gay acceptance. We're not going to abandon them now.

And sometimes they didn't, prioritising their own struggles instead. In at least one high profile rights campaign that was to the detriment of gay rights.

Ever heard of ENDA? Legal protections for LGB and T people in the US continue to be woeful. ENDA, the predecessor to the current Equality Act proposal had its best chance of passing in 2007. However, gender identity was added to the bill and thus ENDA failed again. LGB rights advocates begged trans rights campaigners to let them return to having the old ENDA asking only for a law for LGB people and the trans rights campaigners said no, we stand and fall together.

Here is an article from 2007 on the issue:

www.salon.com/2007/10/08/lgbt/

Ever heard of the GRA? Same-sex marriage was prohibited in the UK. The UK's Gender Recognition Act was deliberately written in a way to stop gay and lesbian couples to be able to use it to argue for their right to get married. LGB rights campaigners tried to get the Labour government to allow same-sex marriage, pointing to the GRA proposal specifically designed to allow same-sex marriages for homosexual transsexuals but Labour wasn't having it. Instead they deliberately wrote the law in a way that it could not be used to support the campaign for same-sex marriage for LGB couples.

Did trans rights campaigners hold up their hands and say no, we don't accept that, we stand and fall together?

They did not. They prioritised their own rights. As the LGB should have been allowed to do in 2007 on ENDA. And yet, they had to include the T.

But if it's perfectly legitimate for trans people to prioritise their own rights just why is it wrong for LGB people to prioritise theirs?

Neither here nor there for their claims re financial impact, but Mermaids showed a loss for YE March 2020. They’ve gone on a programme of rapid expansion and I’d speculate that between LGBA, wider press scrutiny and COVID they are getting a tad anxious. Good.

register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1160575&subid=0

Six out of the seven Mermaids trustees were appointed in February 2021. Taking on litigation is quite a big step, isn’t it?