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)

Thanks for the witness statement links, nauticant - that's my evening reading sorted! I know I'm biased, but I felt that the LGB Alliance's skeleton argument was very strong and demolished Mermaids' one. Hopefully the tribunal will agree.

I keep forgetting to like all their tweets...I'll go through this evening and do the lot.

Here: m.youtube.com/watch?v=5g1R41bbZNw

SH starts at 9 minutes.

(and this is the ad that played in other YouTube videos, specifically those targeted at kids who play Minecraft: m.youtube.com/watch?v=8DLsMF4Qoi4 )

Some people are having trouble accessing the thread because it's so long. It's causing problems on devices.

To keep everyone on board, we could agree to leave this thread early and go to a new thread that I'll set up, and then try to get MNHQ to close this thread to new messages.

The risk though is splintering the commentary between posters becoming New Threaders and others remaining Old Threaders.

What the general view on the next thread being started early?

Go for it.

As long as they can close it. Hopefully they will be amenable, given it's a glitch with the system.

Malcolm Clark, one of LGB Alliance’s co-founders, also tweets about me quite often – always in the context of my support for trans rights - and has (for example) called me “frothing at the mouth”, self-obsessed,” a “bloated ego,” a “serial fantasist”, and an “elephantine ego”; he has accused me of “idiocy and ignorance”, has said that “brave feminists are...constantly trolled, bullied and misrepresented by elected mediocrities and narcissists” like me, and so on [JN1/161-165].

from JN’s witness statement. Is it wrong to laugh? 🤣 That was presumably Clark tweeting in a personal capacity, so I don’t see how it can be held against LGBA.

He’s also repeated a lot of Tweets that were officially from LGBA - donors referring to him as a misogynist. I wonder if the judge is going to find it quite as outrageous as he does. She probably knows a misogynist when she sees one. The whole thing is a glaring self-indictment.

And the problem with those expressed opinions is what exactly??? I think we all saw some of that evidenced in court yesterday.

This can't be said enough. Fantastic analysis.

They are pursuing an ideology, which relies on a gendered soul, contrary to every single piece of available evidence, and flies in the teeth of the Cass report (which they haven't even read).

I wish those witnesses would be asked why they haven't read it, given its sole concern is with children who say they are trans.

Can you ask mumsnet to prevent further comments on this thread?

Does anyone else think that MG's chambers drew straws for the Mermaids gig, and MG was simply the poor unfortunate who drew the short one?

It does feel a bit like that doesn't it? I wonder why they didn't get one of the TRA barristers to take it on?

Have been watching this morning, and I don’t really understand the line of questioning.
Is this provocative, could that have been worded more neutrally, did you take x into consideration when posting y.
the reason I’m confused is because everything they are questioning LGBA about, mermaids do the same things too?

So even if they were to prove in court these things are unacceptable, that then will apply to mermaids?

That's brilliant and so apt

I rather like MG’s non confrontational, chatty style

he has on occasion helped Bev out, such as when he clarified for her that LGBA aren’t attacking genderism itself, but rather it’s imposition on everyone

I’m not sure he meant to do that!

Btw i don't have any issue accessing threads on mobile browser or laptop over a certain number of posts. Posting anything often makes my phone keyboard go haywire and unresponsive though.

Thread crashes for me 'aw snap' when I try and load new posts now, so another vote for early new thread if possible.

I'm waiting on @MNHQ coming back on my question about an early closing of this thread to new messages. If they do, great, if they don't and we have two active threads, it could turn into a hearding cats episode.

So even if they were to prove in court these things are unacceptable, that then will apply to mermaids?

Mermaids are not in the dock. But certainly if the Charity Commission were found to have acted wrongly in not removing LGB Alliance's charity status, the Charity Commission would then have to revise their procedures to follow this interpretation of the law.

Which would mean they would have to make sure people like Mermaids would be dropped if they there were well-founded complaints about them acting in a similar way.

Yup, if they won’t close the thread early let’s plough on here rather than split the discussion

I'm not best pleased at having typed "hearding".

I wonder why they didn't get one of the TRA barristers to take it on?

I know the answer to this one....

Splitters, eh? Not another faction.

I keep cringing at my spelling mistakes lately - I swear autocorrect works differently here now - I just try and style it out and hope no one notices!

(‘one’ almost became ‘Ken’ a moment ago 🤯 luckily I noticed that one!)

I went to look up what "hearding" might mean. One definition was rather appropriate. Another ... not so much.