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."

[quote FindTheTruth]Helen Staniland brings up several interesting angles (again) including:

• none of the big UK charities are going to want this to win.

• the sexist language on Mermaids funder page; 'whispered sweet nothings into the charity commissions ear'

• If Mermaids won it would be A Pyrrhic victory (a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat.)

Arty Morty points out:

• Stonewall were an LGB charity until 2014. Mermaids are now saying it's so hateful it's not allowed to exist

• What other gay and lesbian groups are going to be banned?

• sixth news cycle in a row for Stonewall, they're just not getting out of the news (this episode was 2nd June and there's been a lot more news coverage since then!)

• straight people completely taking over gay rights and harassing lesbians

Naomi Cunningham legal feminist who started the FOI Don’t submit to Stonewall campaign, says:

• The FOIs came about when she researched how Stonewall had got hold of our legal institutions and her jaw dropped.

• The courts, MOJ, police, CPS were paying SW to lobby them. That caused her to write that caused me to write the legal feminist blog article, called submission and compliance

• she launched the mass freedom of information campaign in a fit of bad temper one afternoon having no idea not the slightest idea about the extent to which it would take off . i just thought damn it they are capturing our institutions, persuading all our public bodies to pay them to be lobbied and then setting them this humiliating tedious open book examination on how well they've digested the lobbying and and internalised it. just get this all out in the open

[/quote] Another Arty Morty observation:

lisa linvin's paper was the most scrutinized medical paper ever you know study because all these trans activists were trying to disprove it. and that just meant it got more scrutiny it means it's more ironclad than ever and we're seeing the same thing with lgb alliance they're being more scrutinized than anyone else but that's just proving how iron-clad their position is

Fox-clubbing QC Jolyon Maugham faces questions on crowdfunding legal cases as ministers target him amid concerns the practice is being abused

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9655369/Fox-clubbing-QC-Jolyon-Maugham-faces-questions-crowdfunding-legal-cases.html

It seems this is where the quote in my earlier post came from.

Gotta love the headline, not to mention the further full explanation of the fox clubbing whilst dressed in a kimono.

It would be ironic and very sad if the actions of GLP led to the sort of controls on crowdfunding/crowdjustice that would deny support for cases such as Keira's.

I have been worried for a while that the 'fox clubbing QC' might put the mockers on crowd funding for lots of other people - mostly people with fewer resources than him to start with.

The Daily Mail really do hate JM!

I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that “it emerged that he has worked to minimise the tax liabilities of millionaires.” He has never hidden his CV.

However it is hypocritical to make lots of money helping people to exploit tax law loop holes and then claim to be a champion of “good law”.

I agree that crowd funding should be better regulated, but am concerned about the attack on the use of judicial review.

Yes, that was my reading between the lines of that DM article: this government doesn’t like being held to account by crowdfunded judicial reviews and challenges, having put access to legal aid and justice beyond the reach of most citizens. They’d like nothing more than to pull the plug on this inconvenient route to justice. Too bad. If they remove crowdfunding platforms, most people will contribute directly to appellants.

I too worry about how far this government will “regulate” crowd funding. If it’s to stipulate that each case has to be crowdfunded separately then that’s fine, but to try to stop judicial reviews is not on.

@LizzieSiddal

I too worry about how far this government will “regulate” crowd funding. If it’s to stipulate that each case has to be crowdfunded separately then that’s fine, but to try to stop judicial reviews is not on.

Yes, that is a concern and we need to keep an eye on it and not allow the removal of crowd funding of individual cases, I can see the point about giving money for one thing and it being used for an entirely different case.

I take back by earlier comment, the Government source did say what was reported whoever that source was getting foxes in there was a nice touch.

Barbara Rich (barrister and advocate for "see through justice") has a very helpful thread on the crowdfunding issue:

Litigation crowdfunding in the news today. The ‘spin’ in this story is focused on the Good Law Project, but there are other cases which illustrate why some regulation could be in the public interest [cont.]

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1401454842460135426

Thank you for the link Embarrassing, she makes very good points.

Naomi Cunningham, of Legal Feminist make some interesting points about the Mermaids appeal:

”no debate doesn't go well in the courts you can't say no debate you can't shout your opponent down and tell them they're bigots you have to engage with the arguments and that's not been going well for for the other side because you know you've got all the best arguments. old gay rights was always argue with us we want debate so we can prove ourselves and has always been no debate so i love that the lgbt alliance is bringing back the classic gay rights mantra of yes debate yes we will prove ourselves we will justify it. you can criticise us all you want and we can take it”

”I really quite welcome that legal action i think it will be very very interesting”

”No debate has been a very very clever well-judged tactic on the other side, it's the best tactic if your arguments are all full of holes. Just don't have the argument. You can't do that in court. In general i'm pretty confident when these things come to court we tend to win them because we've got all the arguments.”

this government doesn’t like being held to account by crowdfunded judicial reviews and challenges

They've probably helped Liz Truss, DfE, EHRC enormously behind the scenes. The MoJ and ONS cases must have been part of the conversations that things have to change, Stonewall is a problem etc etc.

If they’re looking to hire someone with City or West End experience including both running a law firm and managing a startup experience, £60k isn’t enough. Unless they think someone with lots of experience will want to do it for “prestige”

Are they proposing to have a law firm closely associated with a fund raising entity that gathers funds from the public, where the law firm has pseudo-clients being those in control of the law firm and/or the fund raising entity? So that the fund raising entity isn't free to choose which law firm would provide the best value-for-money service? And the law firm has no clients except the pseudo clients, at least for certain classes of actions? I just look at this and see endless problems starting with conflict of interest and just getting worse from there.

If I was sued by such a peculiar hybrid entity one thing I'd do is make an application for the pseudo-client(s) to be identified and made a party to the proceedings.

nauticant its't there at least a risk, or possibly definite, that this is already the case? I notice crowdjustice warns agaibst giving more than £3000 because of this; there a case where funders for a case were held liable for costs. Is there someone who has more than a vague recollection who can help here?

I recall a civil case from a long time ago where the law firm weren't charging their client in the hope that the client would win what might have been a fortune and could settle bills then and the defendant applied, I think successfully, to the court for the law firm to be made jointly liable for its enormous costs. The client lost and the law firm ended up on the hook.

I just look at this and see endless problems starting with conflict of interest and just getting worse from there

I thought that as well, it just seems really dodgy.

I think that too but then I think Maugham is a proper lawyer with decades of deep legal experience and so surely he will have got all it nailed down so it's completely compliant with laws, registrations, etc. Then I think "but it's Maugham on a right side of history crusade".

@nauticant

I think that too but then I think Maugham is a proper lawyer with decades of deep legal experience and so surely he will have got all it nailed down so it's completely compliant with laws, registrations, etc. Then I think "but it's Maugham on a right side of history crusade".

I think it's perfectly possible to remain within the letter of the law and still be dodgy. Pretty sure Jolyon's experience in tax avoidance will be useful in finding and using loopholes.

JM is a nuisance as far as the Gov’t is concerned and so I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a useful stick to beat him with. Having said that he should have clearly segregated funds if pursuing very different causes. Nobody wants to contribute to a whatever you feel like pursuing today fund.

I do think we need to guard against any attempt to block JR and crowdfunding for those JR. We need to protect our right to hold the government and public bodies to account

@nauticant

I think that too but then I think Maugham is a proper lawyer with decades of deep legal experience and so surely he will have got all it nailed down so it's completely compliant with laws, registrations, etc. Then I think "but it's Maugham on a right side of history crusade".

He's a tax barrister. What the fuck does he know about running a private practice? Not much I'll wager.

Todays Maya Forstarter judgement seems relevant to this. Her lawyer says (my bold:

"A significant portion of lesbian, gay or bisexual people are very clear that they are same-sex (and not same-gender) attracted. For many, their sexual orientation is therefore incompatible with a belief in Gender Theory. Being Gender Critical is therefore a fundamental aspect of their sexual orientation, and therefore their identity. An insistence on the primacy of same gender-attraction can lead, for example, to lesbians being accused of transphobia by stating that they are not sexually attracted to males. Proponents of the Cotton Ceiling (for an explanation of this term, google it) might now be less vocal."

"For Gender Critical gays and lesbians, the insistence of homosexuality as same-gender attraction can be seen as unvarnished, base homophobia of the type that even five years ago was thought defeated, except within the most reactionary and bigoted corners of society. It is compounded when done in the name of LGBTQ rights: interpreted as being sold a version of your own sexuality which simultaneously erases your sexuality. A rejection of such an interpretation of Gender Theory is an aspect of Gender Critical belief, and it is established as a protected belief by this judgment".

www.linkedin.com/pulse/forstater-judgment-what-next-peter-daly/

With today's judgement on top of the original investigation by the charity commission in the first place and the EHRC guidance, I doubt this case by Mermaids has a chance. We've got two heterosexuals campaigning against a homosexual charity and it could well backfire spectacularly.

LGBA got a blue tick on Twitter, then got it taken away again after mass complaints.

What does the achieve, exactly? I think it's pretty fucking tragic that this kind of targeted harassment is what it takes to make some people feel good about themselves 🤷‍♀️

I found that argument interesting. Surely it holds for most straight people too? Their sexual orientation is based on someone’s sex, not gender identity. A straight man might well not want to date a transwoman, for instance. I think the point is a bit subtler than Peter Daly makes it out to be: few straight men are being bullied into dating/sex with transwomen; straight dating apps are not full of transwomen trying to get a date with a straight man, while lesbians ARE being bullied and told they’re transphobic if they say they do not want to date or have sex with a transwoman, and lesbian dating apps have become pretty much unusable for any lesbian who only wants to date women.

That said, I think his main argument here is right: if you are a straight man who is not attracted to transwomen that is part of your sexual orientation, which is a protected characteristic, just as much as if you’re a lesbian who is not attracted to transwomen.