Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chameber) Thread 2

[nauticant]

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony started on 12 September.

There is also live tweeting from twitter.com/tribunaltweets.

To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (?? September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (?? September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (?? September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - Not yet available
Dr Belinda Bell: Not yet available
Beverley Jackson: Not yet available
Kate Harris: Not yet available
Eileen Gallagher: Not yet available

Submissions:

lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

We have to thankful that the Cass review was commissioned. Without it, all this would be much more difficult

Yup

Thanks!

The ridiculous irony of BB saying she’s not an expert and MM is not a medical charity when we know how hard they’ve pushed their agenda with GIDS leading to the over medicalisation of kids. Hopefully when new services to replace GIDS are set up their malign influence will be gone because, after all, they’re not medical experts.

And @ImNotAnExpert please can I request advanced warning of imminent strops? DS is currently aiming for a gold medal in stropping for Britain and I come here to escape that (and for the Terfing too of course 😉)

Also it might be worth logging on a bit early if you want to be let into the hearing on time.

it would open the door to gender-critical activists trying to get Mermaids or Stonewall closed down for their political stance.

Yes, that's a thought. And to many other charities trying to shut each other down. Not a good direction.

(The quote's from "Life Before Man", an early Atwood novel that's still one of my favourites.)

It would impact every charity that engages with government to reduce the impact of policy on their niche. So a charity that engages with government to look at for example, one close to my heart, the impact of pesticides/herbicides on health and environment and to encourage more organic gardening would not be allowed to engage with government on that.

The impact of Mermaids being successful could trigger a review of ALL charities.

Including them.

They really didn't think this to the end of the sentence.

I think that there really should be a review of Mermaids after Bell's performance yesterday. I think that they have left themselves open to complaint now of misrepresenting their 'expertise' at the very least.

Indeed. Dr Cass's interim review has resulted in the biggest shake-up of clinical services for trans children ever. And Mermaids themselves potentially came in for criticism in that review, they must be aware of that.

Surely a competent manager of a charity supporting trans children/young peope and their families would have studied that review inside out and backwards! The review is having a massive effect on the people Mermaids support and on the future direction of their own activities.

It's one thing for Mermaids to disagree with some or all of what Dr Cass says. But they have to understand what it says in detail and why it says it. It would be negligent for their management to say it's motivated by transphobia so they don't have to care what it says.

Absolutely. Can share tips with your DS for effective strategy, too, including vocal exercises on achieving the most piercing pitch of Outraged Shriek and Door Slamming for Beginners, just ask.

I sincerely hope Hilary Cass is getting updates on this case.

The fact these witnesses have only “skim read” the interim Cass report, shows a total lack of inquiry or care for the children they profess to represent.

I've been following all this on here as I don't do twitter or have time to watch live, unfortunately. Thank you to everyone for your astute commentary! I'm sure there are many more like me, watching and not saying much, but taking it all in.

I've worked for a large industry organisation that regularly gets reviews written about and for it by government directed experts, and I can tell you now that the directors and managers and most staff read that review from cover to cover, looking for impacts, loopholes, things that they know are likely to hit the fan and to whether the review picked up on it or not. There are meetings pulling it to pieces, other meetings to determine where we go next and what is the official line.

There is no way on earth these people haven't read the Cass review.

But they have to understand what it says in detail and why it says it.

They seem to actively want to not understand anything more than "oh, the address we'll have to write on the forms for referrals is going to be different".

Trying to pretend it's some random bureaucratic shuffle for no reason.

Completely agree, @NecessaryScene

It comes down to freedom of speech - I am not on the side that wants to "cancel", censor or silence anyone.

I finally got in. Embarrassingly I managed it at the exact same time a very helpful man answered the technical support line.

Weirdly, I did exactly the same on the iPad as I did on the phone and this time I connected straight through, no messing about with conference aliases etc.

No idea why it wouldn’t work on my phone but I wanted to say thank you. To all
posters who tried to help.

oooh, just now got a view of the room.

Or they deliberately haven't read it in order to have plausible deniability

Mermaids has constantly promoted the medical affirmation model, including recommending to parents that they make the use of the services of the disgraced GenderGP. In the wake of the Cass Review, what role do they have left? I don't know who else is watching this case (I sometimes wonder if it's just us) but I hope that Mermaids finally comes under the scrutiny it has evaded for so long.

I'm in! AR joining online so has a feel of the old Maya/Allison cases

Is it compulsory for counsel to have cool bird pictures behind them? BC with his support wren, AR with her picture - is it a heron?

Musing... I have been waiting for someone to show Mermaids up. It's a particular irony that they've chosen this fate for themselves. Like a Greek tragedy

I completely agree, this is bloody ironic, it will be especially so if after this MM are then taken through the same system to lose their charity status. After the first witness who was "not an expert" in anything , most people have to wonder who the hell is then and why weren't they put in to answer the questions?

A play could definitely be written for this, if it ends up, as a tragedy, well. ok.

Looking at the many observers and over 60 in the waiting room, clearly word has got out about this case.

64 waiting to get in and a lot of people already in - increasing interest every day

From the "sex is immutable and sexuality is based on sex" perspective, 9% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Therefore, there is something homophobic going on here.

From the "gender identity is the basis of sexuality and the body is irrelevant / can be altered" perspective, 91% of those transitioning are actually gay people, compared to 3% of the population. Not only is there no need to worry about homophobia driving transition, if you're trying to prevent transition you are homophobic.

Because we see homosexuality from completely opposite stand points, each side genuinely sees the other as homophobic. That scientific fact and the law are on our side re "sex matters" is irrelevant to them , because the law used to ban homosexuality and doctors/science genuinely tried to "cure" gay men.

Yes I know what you're saying, but I don't think it's that simple. I don't believe she was sticking to one definition, she was using both to suit her own argument. She acknowledged that most young female transitioners were lesbians, she didn't call them "straight men" which in her ideology they would be. So she's including all the others (who may actually be straight) as "gay/lesbian/bisexual" to get the 91% figure.

Judge saying they have the Genderbread diagram - wonder what they thought of it

Not enough microphones 😱

J suggests that a barrister speaking using "Court of Appeal voice", if I heard right. Interesting slang.