Mermaids being investigated by the charity commission

[MajorieEks]

“hoisted by their own petard” never seemed more apt, if true

Can you please confirm a couple of things?

(1) Who are "the team [you] worked with" in the context of this?

(2) Who was responsible for the bundles if not your team?

(3) Why did you do the navigation document? Why didn't the people who put it together do that?

Bundles are huge documents that contain huge amounts of information. Whilst not being an expert on bundles, I believe that the secret to a good bundle is that it is organised logically, has no superfluous rubbish in it, no duplicates etc, and it has a very clear index / contents page / way of navigation. It seems to me that however logical and concise a bundle is, it is still a huge stack of documents and requires proper tools to enable navigation easily. If the bundle is illogical and has duplicates then the negative effects of this can be minimized by a having a great navigation system.

As an aside I was once a witness at a Tribunal Hearing - someone wanted £40,000 from my clients. Aside from only winning £4,000 they ended up paying all of my clients costs (very usual in that kind of Tribunal where the default is each side pays their own costs), and I believe that was partly down to the other side's case being so incredibly poor, and partly down to the bundles being so appalling and the Tribunal feeling that the state of the bundles cost my client and the Tribunal itself a lot of money.

Let's bundle up all this bundle nonsense and bundle it into the back of a cupboard once and for all.

Now we can find out what Robin thinks about how Mermaids handled its trustee appointments:

-no adequate checks jperformed due to laziness/incompetence/stupidity
-no adequate checks needed because Special Rules for trans charities
-they knew this individual's past but saw it as a positive for the charity's remit

Which is it?

I agree with you.

The first piece of legal work I ever did as a pupil was to stay behind in Chambers to help a junior member paginate by hand 6 copies of a 1,500 page bundle for a trial the next day that a solicitor had screwed up.

The team I worked with in the Bailey matter had no responsibility for the bundle but in fact put in place the measures which made the hearing and the tribunal’s consideration practical, as the judgment records.

Happy to keep making the point.

Again, and again, and again.

Re: what I referred to above... sitting in a Tribunal and having the first 30 minutes of the hearing being the Judge (1) trying to get her head around the bundle and (2) lecturing the other side on how poor the bundle, really is a good sign that the case may lean in your favour!

The other thing that I've noticed is that if you say absolutely ludicrous things which are simply factually untrue or that the vast majority simply do not believe, there is a real risk that your case will suffer further. For example, in the case I hinted at up page (property related) the other side's representative was criticizing us for not knowing our stuff, whilst demonstrating unequivically that he did not know his stuff. At the risk of being goady imagine the property equivalent of claiming that someone with a male body can be a lesbian.

-no adequate checks performed due to laziness/incompetence/stupidity
-no adequate checks needed because Special Rules for trans charities
-they knew this individual's past but saw it as a positive for the charity's remit
**
As above.

As a follow on I would like to know from mermaids

• if no adequate checks were performed due to laziness / incompetence/ stupidity, who precisely was lazy/incompetent/stupid, who was their manager who ought to have overseen this, and what is happening now to prevent that ever occuring again?

• if no adequate checks because special glitter rules, what is the precise process they will now be following to ensure they do the proper checks in future, and who is responsible for ensuring that this is carried out?

• if they knew this individual's past and saw it as a positive fit for the charity, who is getting sacked?

RMW as well as being on this thread recently decided it was appropriate to join and comment on Sarah's thread. RMW is on opposing counsel team to Sarah. RMW's appearance on the thread led to a burst of gardening for Sarah...

Fair questions

It’s plain who I represented and worked with in the hearing.

I’m only going to speak about what we did. Others must speak for themselves.

The Employment Judge was eloquent in her views.

Your comments about information organisation are spot on.

Just to be 100% clear... who put together bundle? Your role was to come in last minute to try to salvage it, and though you did your best it was still hard to navigate?

Allison Bailey said: Clarification: the criticism in the judgement about the poor state of the trial bundle is a criticism about Garden Court Chambers. They were responsible for the trial bundle.

That was your client, yes, @RobinMoiraWhite ?

twitter.com/crit_gen/status/1552307302715334656

Well, what you don’t say someone thought it appropriate to have a ‘pop’ about myself and bundles on that thread. Should I have left the misinformation I corrected?

Let me ask another way. Did your team include your client's solicitor, or do you not regard your client's solicitor as part of your team?

I do not have the judgement in front of me, can you just remind me who put the bundle together?

Do you have ANY self awareness?

No. I acted, and continue to act for Stonewall.

Oh me oh my, I don't think I'd seen the actual bundle criticism in the judgement before! Ouch.

Well, whoever is was, they clearly did an absolutely piss poor job of it.

No, evidently hurty feelings must take precedence Robin.

Please for the love of Goddess can we not mention bundles ever again?!

Does no-one understand the concept of staying on topic?

I want to hear from the wise women of FWR on the topic of Mermaids being investigated. I'm sure I'm not alone in this!

Throw a stack of mud and some of it will stick?

Which concern HASN'T stuck?

When it comes to safeguarding, you need to be watertight against ALL mud.

Thats kind of the point.

If anyone is stupid enough to take on JKR in court, I'd be highly entertaining. I don't wish to put her through that, but by god it'd be a masterclass in getting to the point and the heart of the issue.

And would get great viewing figures.

Oooo the sunlight.

@RobinMoiraWhite One last... given the important of good bundles what procedures do you have in place to minimize the chances of you not being able to get the best result for your client as a result of poor bundles? Or is it more the case that it is simply out of your hands, you just have to do the best with what you've been given?

Ah, forgive me @RobinMoiraWhite . Of course Stonewall were never, ever on the same team as Garden Court Chambers, were they. The wouldn't have dropped GCC into the shitter if they had been. Made a nice bundle of cash out of them though, didn't they.

Well, whoever is was, they clearly did an absolutely piss poor job of it.

Don't, you might hurt their feelings!

@RobinMoiraWhite do you have any comment on Mermaids?

One can only hope that in the light of the appalling scandals that are emerging about Mermaids, their defence counsel will be shortly be engaged in preparing more bundles when they're dragged through the courts to explain their fondness for recommending struck off medics, untested medication, myths like "born in the wrong body"and parental alienation to young children along with allowing unsuitable adults access to the management of a charity for vulnerable and often mentally unwell children.

I agree. If people want to discuss bundles, perhaps they could start another thread.

I'd like @RobinMoiraWhite to explain why the safeguarding issues associated with encouraging children to keep secrets from their parents is so confusing.

What aspect of this do you find confusing Robin?

Whilst I agree that we should stay on topic, there's a lesson to be learned in the way that getting into bed with Stonewall forced GCC down a particular path of action, with the former then completely denying any responsibility for the consequences. I can see cases being brought in a similar fashion against Mermaids by organisations similarly led up the garden (court chambers) path.

Robin... I am a bystander who is very, very bored of hearing your bundle whingeing rather than anything on topic, or relevant to women's rights. No, I didn't 'start it' (are you 6?).