Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 3

[nauticant]

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

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.

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

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

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: 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 (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

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)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request

Didn't MM also receive funding from Children in Need?

The MN app is getting glitchy again

doesn't alter the fact that they are knowingly misleading an impressionable child.

Right, but "mislead" is a different word, and doesn't incorporate "intent to deceive".

My dictionary says "to give false or misleading information". Intent not relevant.

In the House of Commons, to mislead the House is absolutely a thing you should not do. And they use that word to avoid having to figure out intent, as you would for "lie".

I was saying that someone can repeat a lie while believing it to be true. Not a great example, I admit, since everyone knows that that statement about the moon is false. Obviously the original source of the lie would have to intend to deceive.

I don't think you're allowed, as an MP, to used the words lie, liar, etc. Even if that's exactly what's going on. So there's obfuscation, like mn!

Lurker here. Been quietly following this here on MN - its been an eye opening few days, made so much better through the lens of everyone’s knowledge generously shared in the discussion and analysis.

If LGBA wanted to raise funds via tshirts with slogans from this trial, ‘Never knowingly coy’ would definitely find its way into my wardrobe.

Is MG suggesting the Tavi think giving hormones and surgical intervention is a joke/funny?

MC asking for MM funding to be cut is surely no different than MM bringing a case against LGBA and calling them a hate group.

I also think it's telling that MG resorts to discussing MC everyday rather than output of the org. Itself or KH/BJ

Like detransitioners who say homophobia was a cause of them transitioning. Just laughable!

Kate talking compellingly about the physical side effects suffered by female detransitioners to illustrate why she thinks Mermaids shouldn’t get public money

Is MG suggesting the Tavi think giving hormones and surgical intervention is a joke/funny?

He's equivocating between the hyperbolic quip from an anonymous Tavistock staffer that "soon there will be no gay kids left" (from memory) and the general shorthand for the very real phenomenon "transing away the gay" used by David Bell and others.

All this about asking/suggesting the lottery don't fund MM is playing well into their argument that MM have standing, as LGBA are a threat to them. Not good IMO

It's hugely biassed of course but the thrust of Gibbon's argument - that Kate (and therefore LGBA) revile MM and want their funding taken away - is not entirely without foundation. I guess the outcome will depend on how much weight the tribunal give to that. It seems to be the only argument they have.

All this about asking/suggesting the lottery don't fund MM is playing well into their argument that MM have standing, as LGBA are a threat to them. Not good IMO

But that's symmetrical. Mermaids are a threat to LGB Alliance.

Of course they say (MM) they take safeguarding seriously. Where is the evidence.

Having said that, I'm worried about the direction this here.

@sitdownstandupturnaround
I can't understand why MG is insinuating any strategy re. Becoming a registered charity is somehow bad. Of course they're entitled to plan which route is best to achieve their aims.

Is this because he's clutching at straws or is this a solid critique of a charity?

I think he's insinuating that becoming a registered charity makes LGBA more respectable and therefore gives better cover for their their real motives which are purely to attack MM and their funding mwahahaha evil laughter?

It’s parallel to mermaids surely?
If LGBA are simply commenting MM shouldnt get funding, and if that’s bad, why can it be okay for MM to go to court to stop LGB finding?

Agreed, this one is going to come back to haunt LGBA in the summing up.

@sitdownstandupturnaround
Very much so. Smacks of desperation.

That's not the case being heard, though

I think he's insinuating that becoming a registered charity makes LGBA more respectable and therefore gives better cover for their their real motives which are purely to attack MM and their funding mwahahaha evil laughter?

It's more just what is necessary to demonstrate Mermaids' standing. He has to make that argument.

They need it to be both the case that LGB Alliance threatens them specifically, AND that them having charity status enables that.

(Of course, LGB Alliance could make exactly the same argument in reverse, but that's not the current case).

She missed this and MG asked quite a few exchanges later whether she was happy about her wording (not apparently regarding this). I imagine he is going to say she agreed they seek to influence the government against Trans rights and didn’t correct wording when invited to do so. If KM spotted it he will hopefully clarify what is her thinking in re-examination.

Someone on twitter has put together a thread of all John Nicholson's tweets against LGBA. Sorry I'm not going to copy and paste it here as it's loooong.

Also Nicholson's twitter account is currently suspended.

twitter.com/Scottish_Women/status/1570141013435617280?t=8DDX26IqbtJVMiUfzETdRQ&s=19

I hope she has and does

To me the issue is what, setting aside its lobbying activities, has LGBA done, that fits within the broad category of charitable work?

It's not simply that however, a fall-back to help LGBA's case would be, what, in their aims at the time they were incorporated as a charity, would fall within that category?