Mermaids being investigated by the charity commission

[MajorieEks]

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

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

Is anyone else getting the medical negligence ads when opening this thread 😂😂😂

Can someone start a new thread soon, please. We are most definitely going to need a new one.

I think the information came from the documents presented by Mermaids in their attempt to strip the LGB Alliance of their charitable status.

Some of it is online I think?

I agree.

That’s why I didn’t do that.

I see we are off again making things up to ‘have a go’.

We are just emulating Stonewall. That’s their trick isn’t it? Making stuff up to “have a go”

More on the forum. This account seems to be run by a parent:

twitter.com/nurtural_uk/status/1577729237511016479?s=46&t=x05sdkvuT04txjCJdNxbrg

"Parents who were members of Mermaids used to receive daily email digests, of messages posted on the forum. These included all the Metmaids parents’ email addresses. I was sent hundreds of them. Mermaids was itself breaching its own forum’s confidence."

And a reply to that:

"And on the Youth Forum it was not made clear that you had to opt out of having your email address shared. The default was that any forum member could directly email you."

twitter.com/rogdmum/status/1577736008975761430?s=46&t=x05sdkvuT04txjCJdNxbrg

Yet, as I posted earlier (quoted so these link), trustees have possibly been afforded a level of anonymity that children were not?

I can add to my tweet in the post above that my child was very surprised to get an email one day shortly after joining the forum from a random member!

If you are going to make allegations like ‘getting into squabbles related to cases they are involved in’ - which I take to be a reference to the Brighton case - then you really have to have something solid to rely on.

Or is this just like the bundle nonsense again? Based on nothing but prejudice?

So are you saying you didn’t post on the thread about the rape victim? I’m sure I saw you on there? Maybe you’ve been hacked and someone posted on there pretending to be you! Because wouldn’t that be really unprofessional bordering on unethical? And no legal professional worth their salt would act in that way, to potentially cause distress to a participant in a case they were involved in. Would they?

Can you please take this off topic discussion elsewhere?

Your bundles are old news. This thread is about the spectacular fuck ups at Mermaids, not Stonewall.

Would it be possible to take off topic squabbles onto a different thread please rather than derail this one?

It's evident that Mermaids have been playing fast and loose with child safety since inception. Surely all these current revelations must increase the case for them to be struck off? Presumably it's likely that the 'hidden" trustee is someone even more dodgy?

Cross post.

I am only answering the nonsense about me posted here by others. If you don’t want me to do that, then post on the topic of the thread. Don’t expect me to be silent when the thread is used as a medium for abuse.

I wondered if it would be the same person but didn't like to speculate. How awful for you and your child, rogdmum. Surely it means personal data was proactively shared? Unless there's something in the T&Cs. But what? Because at the very least, weren't the discussions about health? That's special category data:

ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/lawful-basis-for-processing/special-category-data/

I wonder who the safeguarding lead was at mermaids. I’m saying was because after this spectacular cock up there’s no way they could still have a job.

The accusation was ‘getting into squabbles’. I corrected a piece of misinformation not about anything to do with the particular case and the poster graciously accepted that correction.

How is that ‘getting into squabbles’, please?

This is beyond boring, please take it to another thread.

have you had any more thoughts re:why it might not be a good thing to change a minors legal name and keep that secret from their parent?

I’m only responding.

I didn’t put it here.

I wonder who the safeguarding lead was at mermaids. I’m saying was because after this spectacular cock up there’s no way they could still have a job.

Yes, it's pretty abysmal, isn't it.

I asked you a question on the topic of the thread, and you ignored it.

Here it is again.

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?

Would you like to answer now? There are people here who may be able to help with explaining safeguarding to you so that you are less confused in future.

Can someone start a new thread soon, please. We are most definitely going to need a new one.

This. This isn't going to die down for a while.