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."

Well said, CharlieParley. The teaming of "LGB" + "T" has been an entirely one-way street. The T relying on increased acceptance of LGB to get T things done, and not being at all concerned if that means the LGB things don't happen.

That pair of examples are telling

"No, you can't have LGB equality unless you include T"

and

"Yes, it's fine, this let's Ts get married - don't worry, it doesn't set a precedent for LGB".

Paralithic Yes, and their collective previous experience in charity trusteeship is, well, shall we say a bit “underwhelming”.

A bold move.

@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.

It happened in the EU and they had to stop coupling their browser with their operating system. Then got a whopping fine for not doing so.

Such excellent points made upthread by charlie, ted, derigeur, rogdmum and others.

This seems like such a reckless act from the trustees of Mermaids (and the others). There are laws and a lot of guidance around how they must behave, and from a layman’s reading of the situation, they are skating really close to the edge of them.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/its-your-decision-charity-trustees-and-decision-making/its-your-decision-charity-trustees-and-decision-making

And

www.gov.uk/government/publications/charities-and-litigation-a-guide-for-trustees-cc38/charities-and-litigation-a-guide-for-trustees

If the trustees were found not to have acted within their duties and in the best interests of the charity, they can be found personally liable for any ensuing damages or costs the charity opened itself up to.

Given the trustees are very recent appointees, I hope they understand this.

a charity’s funds must be spent on carrying out its aims and the trustees have a duty to act in the best interests of their charity – a decision to take or defend legal action must be made exclusively in the best interests of the charity, having considered whether or not another course of action is available

I assume they hope to bypass this by using the Crowdjustice fundraiser to secure the funds rather than directly using their own, but I do wonder if the Charity Commission will see this the same way.

I’m a little unclear over what stage the process is at, but I understand that the first step should have been to apply to the Commission for advice on the prospect and benefits of initiating the action- do we know if this happened, and it was given?

I always come back to this with Mermaids: why do people not demand better from them?

I would speculate that the original main player in this was Stonewall but, because of the press coverage over the last week or so, they changed to Mermaids. It all had to be rushed so they just did a quick substitution. It would make far more sense to argue that Stonewall might lose funding to LGBA. My feeling is that they will live to regret that. Lawyers acting on their feelings without considering the implications of a change like this is never going to end well.

I assume they hope to bypass this by using the Crowdjustice fundraiser to secure the funds rather than directly using their own, but I do wonder if the Charity Commission will see this the same way.

Especially given the, 'any funds left over will go into a kitty to be used for the same sort of similar action' handwave.

I’m a little unclear over what stage the process is at, but I understand that the first step should have been to apply to the Commission for advice on the prospect and benefits of initiating the action- do we know if this happened, and it was given?

I'm likewise baffled unless they're taking their first round of (failed) objections to the Charity Commission to be sufficient for this (the CC might take a different view).

I assume they hope to bypass this by using the Crowdjustice fundraiser to secure the funds rather than directly using their own, but I do wonder if the Charity Commission will see this the same way.

The crowd fund may bring in some money but unless it clearly covers all, including costs if they lose, then it still puts mermaids other funds at risk. Given that they started the case without the crowd fund they wouldn't be able to claim this. The other options I suppose is that GLP is indemnifying mermaids and covering all costs - but they would need to have some formal agreement to prove that and also show GLP has sufficient funds. In that case is it not really mermaids allowing itself to be used by another party? That sounds dodgy too.

I'm likewise baffled unless they're taking their first round of (failed) objections to the Charity Commission to be sufficient for this (the CC might take a different view

Interesting. I wonder if that’s it?

I do hope the legal eagles who were all over Posie’s fundraiser with a fine tooth comb demanding a ten year plan and detailed breakdown of the costs and process will be popping along shortly to help with the analysis here 😊 then we can all understand what the process is, where we are in it, and exactly what the Good Law Project propose to do with the money they’ve raised for a sector they have no experience in.

@Gtfcovid

I would speculate that the original main player in this was Stonewall but, because of the press coverage over the last week or so, they changed to Mermaids. It all had to be rushed so they just did a quick substitution. It would make far more sense to argue that Stonewall might lose funding to LGBA. My feeling is that they will live to regret that. Lawyers acting on their feelings without considering the implications of a change like this is never going to end well.

For an organisation that is supposedly not involved, Stonewall sure is mentioned an awful lot in the Grounds of Appeal 🤔

Thanks for the useful links up thread, here's a link summary
(with a few additions)

LINKS
Mermaids Appeal against LGBAlliance:
Mermaids grounds of appeal
9.6 “LGB Alliance has repeatedly targeted registered LGBT rights charities including Mermaids, as well as Stonewall (registered charity no. 1101255), LGBT Foundation (registered charity no. 1070904), GIRES (registered charity no. 1068137)”

Charity Commission full decision to register LGB Alliance:
Charity Commissions Full Decision to register LGBAlliance as a charity

Register of Charities:
Register of Charities Mermaids
Register of Charities LGBAlliance
Register of Charities LGBT Foundation
Register of Charities Stonewall
Register of Charities GIRES

Charity Commission Guidance:
Charities Act 2011 Charities Act 2011
Charity Commission Legal Underpinnings
Charity Commission Campaigning and political activity guidance
litigation a guide for trustees

Equalities and Human Rights Commission EHRC guidance
EHRC - Equality Act 2010 protected characteristics
EHRC Chair, Baroness Kishwer Falkner response to the LGBT Consortium's open letter “Defending the right to believe that sex is immutable in no way impacts on our commitment to uphold the rights of trans people.”

News and threads on the mermaids appeal
Lesbian and Gay news legal commentary
Thread by Barrister Barbara Rich @BarbaraRich_law
Legal Thread by Andy Lewis Quackometer@lecanardnoir
Thread by Barrister Allison Bailey @BluskyeAllison
Times article - Mermaids against LGB Alliance

LGB Alliance appoints trustees
LGB Alliance appoints trustees
Article re Professor Robert Wintemute 29 guiding LGBT rules “Yogyakarta Principles” changes mind Now a trustee for LGBA. Wintemute, “I would have had to consider the potential for conflict with women’s rights, but I didn’t.” Neither, so far as he knows, did anyone else at the meeting at which the Principles were drafted. “Women’s rights weren’t raised.”

@Gtfcovid

I would speculate that the original main player in this was Stonewall but, because of the press coverage over the last week or so, they changed to Mermaids. It all had to be rushed so they just did a quick substitution. It would make far more sense to argue that Stonewall might lose funding to LGBA. My feeling is that they will live to regret that. Lawyers acting on their feelings without considering the implications of a change like this is never going to end well.

I think you are right. It makes much more sense for it to be Stonewall in that paragraph. Stonewall finally woke up to the fact that as they are already facing a hearing for threatening AB’s job this would go down really badly in public and potentially in the Tribunal.

That’s beautifully laid out, findthetruth, love it

Cut out and keep reference guide, it’s this level of engagement that keeps me coming back here!

I do hope Mermaids supporters are reading along. I want them to be properly equipped with the knowledge they need, because contrary to what they probably believe, I want young people questioning their gender to have good support. From what I understand, Mermaids used to provide that, and they could again. Just not in this current incarnation.

I want young people questioning their gender to have good support. From what I understand, Mermaids used to provide that

Indeed. But that has to be unbiased, unpolitical and evidence based support, that is of a proper quality for the thousands of girls in particular that are coming forward with these needs. As opposed to unilateral political affirmation only models, while calling all other approaches, including any consideration and support as to a young person's possible additional or complex needs.

Frankly I think the time for highly politically involved, parent led and unregulated involvement in this field is over. This has to come through strictly regulated government/NHS controlled models with the political lobbies excluded. And this has to be set up having first dismantled and removed all the policies and guidance and training that involved any political lobbies who have to be regarded as primarily seeking to achieve their own biased agendas rather than impartial duty of best interests. The mess we are is largely through failures in boundaries and due diligence, and people in positions of responsibility falling prey to thinking their personal politics and feelings came above everything else. Cameron said the next big scandal would be lobby groups; he saw this coming.

As a general comment I'd say I'm seeing some movement away from TRA support on Twitter

I'm noticing the same thing too @DeRigueurMortis. The hardcore TRA are still there, but many of their toadies seem to have stepped back.

GLA = Grifting Law Project

Always got their hand out for something...

Cameron said the next big scandal would be lobby groups; he saw this coming.

Case in point: All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs). Crispin Blunt chairs the APPG on 'Global LGBT+ Rights'. Stonewall is forever giving evidence.

I think the illegality of a lot of the grifting is starting to dawn on people.

There aren't enough facepalms in the world for all the TRAs replying to Janice Turner's tweets by telling her she's stupid and spreading misinformation by saying that Mermaids and LGBA compete for funding

@SpindleWhorl

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.

Or could it be...just being a bit thick (well off familys push offspring in to rolls they are intellectually unsuited for) and very arrogant.

I'm a bit confused by Crowdjustice/Good Law Project.

I thought the whole point of Crowdjustice was that all money raised went to the legal team who were running the case. In this case the legal team is from outside of the Good Law Project (I think)?

Or is this how law firms normally work? That the firm takes a cut for finding the work and then passes it on to someone else?

It just seems to me that the GLP are creating funding from themselves by crowdfunding for emotive causes and it doesn't really matter if they win or lose as presumably they get paid (and I presume they don't guarantee to cover costs awarded?)

@Sophoclesthefox I'm the person who asked CAF to include LGBA in their charities list. I too have a CAF account and I wanted to give to them, but they weren't listed yet so I submitted a request!

I'm a bit confused by Crowdjustice/Good Law Project.

You and me both. The lawyers named on crowdjustice is GLP, but they aren't the ones running the case.

So it seems the money goes to GLP, who then pay legal firms to run the case?

mobile.twitter.com/anyabike/status/1389197809686130693
The Good Law Project was set up by Jolyon Maugham. He is both its Executive Director and the only person with significant control

It just seems to me that the GLP are creating funding from themselves by crowdfunding for emotive causes and it doesn't really matter if they win or lose as presumably they get paid (and I presume they don't guarantee to cover costs awarded?)

Yes, it does look this way. Worth leaving one's chambers for?

Grifting Law Project. Deffo.

[quote SciFiScream]@Sophoclesthefox I'm the person who asked CAF to include LGBA in their charities list. I too have a CAF account and I wanted to give to them, but they weren't listed yet so I submitted a request!

[/quote]
Fantastic! Thank you for doing that