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

Great explanation from Kate. Again, impassioned, clear and honest. LGB are no longer represented by those groups that used to.

It's clear how hard the LGBA have worked, the reasons for their stance and their genuine desire to help people. This is honest and raw. And truly brave.

If all I can do at the moment is sit in a chair and watch, the very least I can do is donate whatever I can spare to help their cause. I hope many, many more people feel the same (hopefully a new audience will be reached by the coverage of this case) and I hope they can continue to grow.

Great respect for these LGBA witnesses patiently explaining everything they are doing, or trying to do, particularly for women and children.

For CC's contribution, look in the last link of the OP Signalbox, for First Respondent’s Skeleton Argument. They haven't put forward any witnesses. I'll be interested to see whether they present closing arguments.

The CC are also famously underfunded and overworked. There are a lot of genuinely dubious charities that get reported to them, but often they don't have resources to follow up.

Is he really going fit the helpline?

Thanks nauticant

3. In these circumstances, the Commission views its own role in this appeal as a limited one. In particular, it does not envisage being involved in the factual disputes between Mermaids and LGB Alliance. Instead, it intends to focus on assisting the Tribunal with the applicable law on charitable status and on standing to bring an appeal.

I think I remember them saying they would need an hour for closing submissions.

It's so disingenuous because most charities start out small - in someones living room or home office.

I worked for a charity many years ago started by one woman in memory of her mother. I don't suppose she achieved massive amounts in the first few years but difference is she was allowed to grow and get on with things. By the time I joined there was a team and loads of stuff going on plus plenty of money chucked at it in the form of grants etc.

This charity wasn't totally without controversy either. An entire wealthy, corporate industry won't have been thrilled at some of the campaigning they did yet she never ended up in court because of it.

Every question put by Gibbon, and every answer from the LGBA team, reinforces the desperate need for the LGBA to exist, and to be supported.

EG might not be the best witness for LGBA to have put forward because she is, correctly, pointing out that much that she's being asked about were things done by other people, and she can only provide limited information.

I set up a voluntary community organisation in a totally unproblematic area. First couple of years were entirely about building our networks, letting people know we existed, asking what was needed, applying for funding, and having jolly meet-ups with cake. Took forever to actually get a paid P/T member of staff actions agreed and progressed. The fact that LGBA are being held to different criteria is so unfair.

Exactly.

The double standards at play all in the name of MM not liking the criticism they get over poor safeguarding of children (I'd like to word it more strongly than that but y'know)

I've not been able to get in, just finally had a chance to listen but it's just "waiting for the host to join" are they on a break?

What did Stonewall achieve in their first 2 years of operation, for comparison?

(And at what point did they achieve charity status?)

It's ongoing jeaux90 but they've just this moment gone for a break. There are two people waiting so I'd hope you'll get in soon.

KG has clarified that it is not in any way unusual for it to take time to get off the ground and they are very much still in the process of setting things up ready to launch. Think everyone will agree this is normal for a young charity just getting started.

Echoing other PPs, the first two years of any project is all about getting procedures and policies in place, getting funding, employing staff. Not only have LGBA been doing this, they have also been thwarted at every turn. Even now, the clock is being run down so they will need even more crowdfunding to pay for a further three days of court time. It simply is not fair.

*sorry EG not KG

@nauticant thanks! I've been intermittently hiding in the work toilets during this to catch up on the tweets from tribunal tweets , finally WFH today and really wanted to listen.

I think this has been made clear to the court. I wonder if they can take a view that processes have been started and political lobbying has been necessary to counter attempts at blocking funding.

Yes

Hope there will be an opportunity to more robustly state this level of activity is normal in first few years of an organisation.

They are or were working against lockdown, SW and MM/dominant ideology and all the hurdles associated with setting up processes from scratch.

Plus this court case.

I worked for years funding tiny new start-up charities. They take ages to get going, especially without paid staff. The LGBA have had to constantly clear their name at every step, they've had funding sources blocked at every step, any organisation that tries to support them is bombarded with complaints and they have had this court case to pay for and fight back against.

I'm amazed they've managed to get anything done at all. To criticise them for not achieving fast enough is rubbing salt into the wounds.

It's not just that people have harassed and blocked them, it's the people taking them to court and appearing as witnesses that have been ringleading all this.

End of EG's evidence. No re-examination. J wants to know about the structure of the charity.