Mermaids being investigated by the charity commission

[MajorieEks]

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

Having the right to a view has nothing to do with whether that view is objective bollocks or not. Conflating the two things is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Safeguarding isn't something you have opinions on. Children's safety isn't up for debate. It isn't something you can take or leave depending on whether you like it or not.

If you are saying that we should be able to have differences of opinion on safeguarding, I'm sure you'd get on well with the LSE dude.

It's not even that I have a view on RMW's opinions ( well I do but that's not relevant) it's more that I find RMW's posts to be badly written and lacking in logic which I why I assumed they were responsible for the bundles. I do accept that I was wrong though.

Always good to see an example of how hard it is to identify out of the privilege of merailing and making oneself the centre of conversation at all times

@RobinMoiraWhite so no self awareness or just get a kick out of sticking your two pence worth in where it's not particularly wanted?

Seriously mate, you'd do a lot better if you actually engaged with the other users with regards the topic of the thread rather than just getting your knickers in a bundle. Sorry meant twist over a different matter. Shame that had you engaged with the users in the original AB threads you could have headed off at the pass all future mention of bundles.

But that's not where you derive your pleasure from is it?

Another interesting tweet about trustees. This one is about some kind of dispensation for names not being published:

https://twitter.com/francesbarber13/status/1577700021654491138?s=46&t=V3qMnzL-piS-IqdX70p1Xg

One person in that thread saying it's not the case. However, there is a link to this, where some trustees' names were not given:

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?pppid=ukgovvccewonereggcharitydetailswebbportletCharityDetailsPortlet&ppplifecycle=2&pppstate=maximized&pppmode=view&pppresourceeid=%2Faccounts-resource&pppcacheability=cacheLevelPage&ukkgovccewwoneregcharitydetailsswebportlettCharityDetailsPortletobjectiveId=A11255952&&ukgovvccewonereggcharitydetailswebbportletCharityDetailsPortlettprivrrpmvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&&ukgovvccewonereggcharitydetailswebbportletCharityDetailsPortlettprivrrp_organisationNumber=5054976

Has my previous quote reply posted without the quote? MN has had a couple of quoting glitches recently. It makes no sense without the quote.

And I've just realised I've forgotten to change my user name back to It's normal one.

Fuck it this one is staying.

Always good to see an example of how hard it is to identify out of the privilege of merailing and making oneself the centre of conversation at all times

Isn't it just.

The wonderful thing about sunlight is that those who enable it are often sublimely unaware. The likes of Mermaids, the current incarnation of Stonewall and various esteemed individuals entrenched in the utter rubbish that is gender ideology keep thinking that laying claim to things that don’t belong to them - territorial piss-marking if you will - is their right. But they merely shine a light on themselves and start making unforced errors that wake more and more people up. Eventually all they have is increasingly futile territorial pissing and rather desperate attempts at deflection.

It would be almost amusing if the lives of children and their families weren’t being destroyed by them.

It’s a free country.

Shit. Isn't that really really really bad practice? Like get removed from counsel, misconduct level bad practice?

You just momentarily forgot then?

Like get removed from counsel, misconduct level bad practice?

No, it's just unprofessional. Ideally you'd not want a counsel who is motivated to get into squabbles on the Internet relating to cases they're participating in.

How chivalrous of you Robin...

I thought the point made yesterday that Mermaids having some of their staff/trustees as anonymous/hidden identities was a perfect example of how they are prioritising the staff over the children.

The organisation seems to be all upside-down - it exists ostensibly to help children; that is best served by transparency when it comes to staff, as is clear by this discovery that one trustee who works with paedophiles and writes about the 'queer life of children’s desires'.

This is why, Mermaids, it's not okay to have your staff hidden or anonymous. If they are unable to work openly with children then they are probably not the right staff for your organisation.

Safeguarding isn't something you have opinions on. Children's safety isn't up for debate. It isn't something you can take or leave depending on whether you like it or not.

...and yet trans applicants to the DBS process can hide their previous names. Who signed that one off?

But a woman who has changed her name to avoid an abusive - convicted even - ex partner cannot do this.

so who is this protecting?

Two questions ...

How did the identity of Jacob Breslow come to public attention?

Anyone got any idea who the other hidden trustee is or how that information could be accessed?

Wrong kind of woman kitten. Only very special "women" get the protection of the State and allowed to hide information that might make them a danger to children.

I posted a little upthread Keating. On the trustees and names.

Very likely through this TheKeatingFive:

web.archive.org/web/20221003204224/register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/-/charity-details/5054976/full-print

Note that's an archived version, the current version has already been updated to omit Breslow.

My mistake. I know on criminal cases it would be seriously frowned on, I assumed it would be the same here.

Bah, the archive link I posted gets hung up on cookies preferences, try this:

archive.ph/W5JYq

Just seen JKRs twitter response to a certain TW.

My god she is so bloody good