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

KM is questioning that if the tribunal will adjourn for submissions, whether 3 days really is required.

The CC's position in their skeleton argument is that (numbers are paragraphs):

1. [...] It is apparent from the evidence filed by Mermaids and LGB

Alliance that the Tribunal is being invited to take into account a large volume of evidence which was not available to the Commission and of which the Commission has no direct knowledge. There is evidently a considerable area of disagreement between Mermaids and LGB Alliance on a wide range of factual issues. Further, each of them has indicated an intention to test the other’s evidence by way of cross-examination. This hearing, originally set down for 2 days, has been relisted for 6 days as a result.

1. 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.

The CC goes on to argue that LGB Alliance should be allowed to get on with their charitable purposes and only challenged if they act improperly:

20.4. Insofar as Mermaids may be concerned that LGB Alliance may in the future commit legal wrongs in respect of Mermaids, then Mermaids is likely to have legal remedies available to it at that stage. To take a simple example, if Mermaids in future considers that LGB Alliance has made defamatory statements about Mermaids, it would be open to Mermaids to bring a claim for defamation.

The LGB Alliance skeleton makes a similar point, arguing that since they are already on the CC's register any proceedings should be brought as a deregistration on the basis of an actual breach of the regulations and not, as in this case, an attempt to prevent LGBA being registered in the first place.

The effect of MG's contributions in relation to what happens next is for the next stage to be longer rather than shorter and later rather than sooner.

To take a simple example, if Mermaids in future considers that LGB Alliance has made defamatory statements about Mermaids, it would be open to Mermaids to bring a claim for defamation.

Does this mean that MM should have sued for defamation rather than loss of charitable status?

On the fourth thread on rollonfriday (one more than us), they got more into the law rather than most of the thread dealing with activists/trolls:

www.rollonfriday.com/discussion/mermaids-v-lgb-alliance-day-4

They'll have to demonstrate that anything LGB Alliance has said about them is untrue...

Can you imagine what a can of worms that would open.

The LGB Alliance skeleton makes a similar point, arguing that since they are already on the CC's register any proceedings should be brought as a deregistration on the basis of an actual breach of the regulations and not, as in this case, an attempt to prevent LGBA being registered in the first place.

If you think about it, Mermaids are acting like they're on Twitter or Reddit. They're appealing to the moderators - ie the Charity Commission - to just "ban" LGB Alliance outright for "hate".

I just went over to RoF and on the first page I saw was this, a quote from Kate Harris. Not sure whether she said it in evidence during the hearing or whether it was one of the utterances MM's complaining about:

My good friend Allison Bailey said the word lesbian is taken. The word is taken by us. I'm going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world. We love other women. We will not have that stolen from us. There have always been men who say feel they're a lesbian tee hee hee. Always jocular. Lesbians often a laughing stock. We will not be. We will not be erased and no man with a penis will tell us he's a lesbian because he feels is.

I am applauding and weeping at the same time. 15 or so years ago we obtained the right to civil partnerships and equal rights with everyone else. And now we are having to fend off the men and penises telling us they're lesbians...

I am applauding and weeping at the same time.

That was from Kate Harris's testimony today, just after she was given a break to compose herself, having slightly broken down at finding herself in the situation of being in court for refusing to accept men, with penises, as lesbians.

20.4. Insofar as Mermaids may be concerned that LGB Alliance may in the future commit legal wrongs in respect of Mermaids, then Mermaids is likely to have legal remedies available to it at that stage. To take a simple example, if Mermaids in future considers that LGB Alliance has made defamatory statements about Mermaids, it would be open to Mermaids to bring a claim for defamation.

Hm, that's interesting.

J and AJ are announcing their compromise. Submissions over 2 days, not 3. To be in person. To start tomorrow at half 9.

Oh, so we don't need to wait til November?

To start tomorrow at half 9.

Actually, I wrote that but I'm not sure whether it's tomorrow or on some day in the future when the hearing resumes.

I didn't get in. Waited for ages. Anyone else having the same issue?

7th Nov restart?

"The two days starting the seventh."

J: "See you in November."

Ah, bummer. Thanks, nauticant.

This is going to require even more gardening - and stress and the inability to progress charity's objectives while we all wait. I understand it's necessary but it's not justice.

Will resume at 9.30am on the 7th November and continue on the 8th.

I assume we will need to request new log in details as they will likely be in a different room.

On the new login details, I think on the next thread it should be in big shouty large text so you don't get the how do I watch questions.

<at least read the op people>

So what happens to tomorrow? Is that day just wasted while they wait for 2 consecutive free days in November? Considering the pressure on lgba this seems a dreadful waste of time.

I said lied to and u say they believed. Can't be a lie if they believe

Gibbon says it can't be a lie if someone believes it? Is he from the Tinkerbell school of law, then, or what? I have a few pals in the Fraud Squad who may want a word.

^^

ALL of that.

I feel the same.

If males want a word that means 'identifies as a woman and is sexually attracted to homosexual females' they can make up yet another bunch of newspeak to describe it.

If they want a word that means 'identifies as a woman and is coercive of non consenting homosexual females without regard for their wishes, boundaries or experience' I have the word all ready for them.

'Cotton ceiling'...... repulsive.