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

I give up...i've not heard a word this morning.

I think I've got it now. MG seems to be saying the the LGBA wasn't actually formed for the purposes stated in their articles of association. He's claiming it was formed for reasons other than those stated.

I think MG is saying that Mermaids case isn't that LGBA tried to pull a fast one in becoming registered as a charity, but fundamentally their purposes simply weren't charitable.

The reason to argue this is that proving a "sham" requires a high level of proof. MG wants the court to find in favour of Mermaids at a lower level of proof.

He said thrust with relish there.

Now he's getting on to what he thinks the true purposes are ..,

What are they?

He's now saying it's all or nothing. Every single purpose has to be charitable otherwise none of them can be counted.

If I have understood everything that this man is saying -

Mermaids says LGBA = dodgy

Charity Commission says no, charitable objectives are fine

Mermaids says: no, the objectives may be ok but you need to look at what they do!

Charity Commission says - we have to have a certain level of trust that what a charity says it wants to do, is what it actually wants to do

Mermaids: yeah but they are a bunch of bigots. ("All their dominant purposes aren't properly charitable")

What are the purposes for which LGBA was established. What is the clear and dominant message to what the purposes are. Once you identify one of the principal purposes is not charitable, the whole charity is not charitable.

This is what MG is basing his argument on.

Is that true? That even if a small part of a charity organisation is not charitable then the whole thing is not charitable? I can't think of a counter-argument as my brain has fallen asleep, but it doesn't sound quite right somehow?

MG is arguing that although sex is binary is part of what LGBA are, this should have been included in the Articles. Hmm.

We usually have some experienced lawyers on these threads (not you RMW) so do any of these have thoughts as to the value of these arguments?

Is that true? That even if a small part of a charity organisation is not charitable then the whole thing is not charitable?

A significant part of Stonewall has been political campaigning. Political campaiging isn't a charitable purpose.

Well if they do hold up then surely the same applies to MM and hundreds of other charities!

It doesn't sound quite right. I'm waiting for him to get on to the unstated, uncharitable purpose that he thinks discounts them as a charity.

Me either! Think I might give up & try again after lunch.

But surely sex is binary is the very basis of defining homosexuality. If you can't say this, then you have no foundation for defining and protecting same-sex attracted people.

Exactly surely most charities are involved in some degree of lobbying or political campaigning....I'm struggling to think of any that aren't.

MG said that in a charity, if 7/8 are charitable purposes and 1/8 is not, then the whole is not charitable.

You can engage in political activity, but this must support the delivery of your charity’s purpose.

www.gov.uk/guidance/political-activity-and-campaigning-by-charities

I'm glad it isn't just me, @dworky .

I've also tried using my iPad and dialling in on the phone, but still not a sausage.

There can't be people waiting in the lobby still. 🤷🏻‍♀️ Not after this long.

8 people waiting in lobby

Is it just me or is this case veeeeeeerrry thin?

Is MG really trying to tone police the LGBA because what I'm hearing is it's not what they say but how they say it/go about it

Indeed if mermaids win then I look forward to guide dogs for the blind being taken to a tribunal for their bigotry against cats