Trustee of Mermaids quits after speech to paedophile aid group Times article

[Xoxoxoxoxoxox]

Sorry I don't have a share token but the article claims that Dr Jacob Breslow has links to an organisation that promotes 'induviduals who are attracted to pedophiles'. Mermaids have removed him now but it does show how lax their safeguarding procedures are (yet again).

Dr Jacob Breslow ... gave a presentation at an event for the US-based B4U-ACT in 2011.
According to its website, B4U-ACT promotes services and resources “for self-identified individuals . . . who are sexually attracted to children and desire such assistance”.Records show that the academic...became a trustee of Mermaids..in July this year.

www.thetimes.co.uk article/990e9e88-434f-11ed-8885-043c27446b97?shareToken=0258f847470f2b5b0bf6d1e933863c30

Yes - see Judith Butler!

Name other examples of where the concept of children's sexuality and sexual desire have been put ahead of children's capacity to consent and their vulnerable status.

The answers you come up with include Telford and Rochdale. Both major institutional level failures of safeguarding. There are numerous other examples too unfortunately.

The pattern always repeats. There aren't exceptions to it.

Social studies academa have a lot to answer for in this.

These concepts are coming from academics who don't have experience with front line safeguarding situations. They are all theory and no practical application. They don't look at the outcomes.

Where research and outcomes are applied by science based academics and those with experience in safeguarding situations we are getting a very different picture.

I do think a hierarchy in academic circles and how much power they have in education institutions shines through here. Academics who sit around pondering ideas will probably tend to have more time to take on roles running those institutions than those who have more set parameters on experiments and research which are time hungry.

Either the people pushing genderism/gender ideology are naive and unthinking of the consequences, Red, or they are a step ahead, and are very aware of the consequences.

Breslow's worked a lot with youth programmes, he pushes genderism strongly, is very much a self identified 'activist' that rails a lot against 'terfs'.

And we also have his verbose philosophical musings on wanking.

Thank you @TheClogLady and @ArabellaScott.

I'd thought it might just be obfuscation (prose this bad is hiding something - that was about Butler I think?). It's all just so far beyond how real people talk about things, even complicated things.

Great posts RTB.
I looked at their safeguarding policy. Unless there's more hidden on the website that I've missed it seems massively inadequate. This organisation:

Speaks to children online and face to face?
Has stalls at adult Pride days offering sweeties to children to encourage them to engage,
Run residentials (is that correct?)
Run mixed age groups (13 - 19 I believe)
Offers children below the age of consent "advice" about body modification / drug use / surgery despite apparently not being "medical experts,
Secretly sends breast binders to children without parental consent
Openly helps children change their names without parental knowledge
Advises children to use other online platforms to avoid scrutiny

As so many of these activities run counter to good safeguarding practice it's presumably impossible for them to have a detailed safeguarding policy as most of these behaviours would breach it!

This behaviour warrants a police investigation as well as the charity commission.

Don’t forget ‘automatically shares forum users’ email addresses with all other forum users’!

Can’t help missing LangCleg in all this - if anyone is in touch with her could you perhaps ask if she’d be willing to write up her opinions and either post it on a blog we can link to or have it copy-pasted by a go-between?

Seems such a shame to not have her professional insights at a time when we are all trying to learn as much as we can re: Mermaids’ safeguarding blackholes (and how to spot similar in other orgs working with children).

Much as I love Mumsnet, they have been co-opted into enabling this by banning a number of FWR members who were desperately trying to sound the alarm about GIDs and Mermaids. Alarms that were entirely necessary, (as is now readily apparent).

Some of the external Eyes are Mermaids affiliated, and the self preservation tactics of The Eyes have been prioritised over the safeguarding concerns of their critics (largely ordinary mums with kids sucked into this nightmareworld).

I am very sympathetic to the fact that these posters have been sacrificed in order to keep the MN lights on and the crazed, wee-soaked protestors off the doorstep, and absolutely acknowledge that Mumsnet helps millions of women in all sorts of ways far, far beyond just our little corner, but, still, it really does illustrate how under a spell society has been the last few years 😢

The words 'repeated institutional level failings' need to be used to describe Mermaids.

India Willoughby unintentionally drew attention to something important here.

India said that if you stick enough mud eventually something will stick.

Except the pattern here is that mud is sticking EVERYWHERE because the lack of safeguarding is so appallingly lacking.

Its from data protection to Internet safety.
Its from interactions between children and adults and children and older young adults.
Its from the involvement / exclusion of parents. And the deliberate advocacy of parental alienation.
Its from understanding the principles in medicine of first do no harm, to understanding the principles of ethical research and bias in studies. The deliberate manipulation of data to get it to show what you want is glaring.
Its from ethical practice in terms of knowing what is going on with other organisations which are extremely relevant to your field (saying you haven't read the Cass review).
Its from on the one hand saying you are experts in the experience of gender and children, to then saying you aren't experts in medicine, psychology and you actually haven't looked this up and how this is misleading to both children and their parents.
Its from saying children have capacity to consent to also saying just how vulnerable they are which is why they must be allowed to consent at earlier ages.
Its from ignoring the historical neglect and abuse of the LGB and autistic communities to it failing to identify disproportionate representation of these two groups and the possible implications of this.
Its from willfully ignoring ignoring the law on equality to deliberately reframing it in a misleading way which disadvantages other named interest groups.
Its about being totally above any level of criticism which could be used in a constructive way to improve practice.
Its from its lack of due diligence in vetting its trustees to ensuring its staff are adequately trained in safeguarding.
Its from driving constantly for money into your organisation without consideration about whether the money is being invested to lobby or protect nefarious groups or individuals.

It is EVERYWHERE. It is the string that holds the entire organisation together - it is build to challenge the normal protocols of safeguarding and to remove them because it gender is more important than everything else.

The arrogance of this organisation is utterly astonishing in believing that it can do what it sets out to achieve in the way it does without putting kids at risk.

Its hard to find a single standard safeguarding protocol or ethical practice that is being employed by mermaids and being used properly. THAT is the problem.

If its a controversial issue you have to be above reproach as a charity. That's lesson one. That's actually the legal role of the trustees too. Yet it's completely the opposite. Everything is at a spectacular level of incompetence. Its constantly firefiring and backtracking as failures arise in a domino effect. The level of a lack of professionalism is astonishing.

Honestly anyone who has been a trustee in the last 10 years should be thrown under the bus in failing in their legal duties.

It is rotten to the core. It's not about superficial mud on the surface.

Great posts RTB.

Yes, Mermaids is institutionally unable to safeguard the vulnerable children it purports to support.

Indeed, the entire premise of medical intervention in trans-identifying children disregards normal practices of informed consent and safeguarding. It is mind boggling that GIDS and similar institutions internationally have got pulled along so far by the trans train that they have completely abandoned normal practice.

Why was Stonewall originally so successful and manage to help bring about such a huge change in social attitudes.

Because it was above reproach. Because it was above reproach it was trusted.

That trust was then used in ways it shouldn't have been for other purposes. It was a breach of the trust in those who needed it most and why it was set up.

That lack of being above reproach and the abuse of trust is what will ultimately bring Mermaids and Stonewall down.

Its also the building of trust that organisations like the LGB Alliance and Transgender Trend have to do in the face of adversity by being above reproach which is why they will ultimately succeed.

Scandals are the manifestation of institutional level failures. If you organisation is constantly attracting them one after another rather than dispelling them adequately beyond doubt and reasonable public consensus then you have a major problem on your hands.

There is a pattern playing out here.

FWIW I see a lot of this structural flaws very much currently present in our major political parties and how they are run.

Its about who talks loudest not who is most diligent.

It is what the public in general are most upset about at the moment. The lack of due diligence. That's what our national crisis of the last few years are all about.

Thats why we are seeing a rise in the far right. It's the only political angle that's not got power. Power that's being often used inappropriately and without due diligence.

Its also why those who are being diligent are being framed as aligned with the far right. Diligence is a threat to the status quo of power. Diligence is accountability.

The public want accountability. Everything follows from that.

The inherit problem with our political parties right now, is due to the lack of diligence in the Tories, people may look to turn to Labour. Which isn't anymore diligent in its own way. The exact same thing has already played out in Scotland...

The whole thing does trouble me. But I do have faith in what will eventually prevail as scandals can not repeatedly happen. Eventually everything hits a breaking point.

In this wonderful episode, Stephen Levine explains really the 'Chain of Trust' - just as @RedToothBrush brilliantly articulates in this chat.

Really well (that should read)

Mermaids have issued a statement;
''All trustees and staff are subject to background checks including enhanced DBS searches, social media reviews and other due diligence. On this occasion we also placed weight on the fact his employer is a globally renowned institution that would have carried out its own checks.''
mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-regarding-trustee-appointment/

The words 'all' and 'also' are doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

meaning:

’we relied on the LSE having done due diligence despite them not being a children’s charity and thus not having the same safeguarding obligations as us’

not very convincing, Suse!

To me, again I could have missed something, it reads like they didn’t do checks and relied on who is employed was as proof he was someone to have as a trustee.
What background checks were done? Independently of saying ‘well is employer employs him so he must be fine’

Saying that you are relying on others to perform due diligence isn't enough. That's not taking responsibility yourself and in the eyes of the law isn't always sufficient defence. Once again we are seeing an abdication of their own responsibilities and trying to pass the blame.

Thats part of the culture that's giving them problems in the first place.

Let's look at the background in Mermaids field of experience (I won't say expertise because they don't claim to have it and boy is it showing).

There was recently the case of when Asda linked to some really dodgy stuff in stuff it was handing out to children on lbgt matters. When it came to light it was a massive embarrassment.

This is where Mermaids not being aware of recent developments and incidents in its field MATTERS. The Asda case firmly highlighted the need for organisations to do their own vetting on this subject because it was vulnerable to infiltration due to the nature of the subject of sexuality.

Mermaids should be leading the field in awareness of stuff like this. This is the 'above reproach' and professional bit. The bit that's not happening.

The lesson every organisation should have noted and made changes about was the need to internally review because you can't guarantee that other organisations are doing their job properly no matter how world leading they are.

Then what happened after the Asda case? And its even more relevant and Mermaids can hardly claim ignorance.

This is where Alison Bailey is daring to tread. The start of that case predated the appointment of Breslow. The mere premise of the case should have led to tightening up on outsourcing due diligence. Especially after Asda's experience.

Let's face it Garden Court learnt that one the hard way.

Honestly to put out a statement saying what it does with a complete abdication of responsibility really isn't reading the room and the direction of travel.

"We are very sorry we failed in our own safeguarding duties and responsibilities but the dog ate our homework that we copied off our mate anyway"

Thats the level we are at.

To me it sounds like an admission that the safeguarding checks weren't done at all. I'm surprised their legal bods signed off on it.

This is shocking.

I think this will come back to bit them. Being employed by LSE is completely different to being a trustee for a children's charity.

I actually can't believe that Mermaids mentioned this. Surely they are getting legal advice?

These concepts are coming from academics who don't have experience with front line safeguarding situations. They are all theory and no practical application. They don't look at the outcomes.

Where research and outcomes are applied by science based academics and those with experience in safeguarding situations we are getting a very different picture.

Arty made this point quite well in the Mess We're In last night. Queer theory is fundamentally a form literary criticism. But people are trying to pretend it's some sort of real science.

If you want academics involved with your children's charity, you want psychologists, childhood development experts and medics. Not literary critics. Even good non-queer-theory ones.

I think we should also remember that concerns were raised back in 2018 when the Lottery funding was announced - the report below relates to these concerns:

Review into the award of a Reaching Communities Grant to Mermaids

www.tnlcommunityfund.org.uk/media/documents/Mermaids-UK-Review-Report_February-2019.pdf?mtime=20190219142027

I think quite a few of those complaints could also be revisited in the light of the Cass Review.

Well the problem is the checks weren't done. So liability exists even if they don't admit the checks weren't done.

The alternative narrative is they did checks and STILL appointed him.

I still think this is an attempt at abdication of responsibility rather than taking it. That says we don't think the liability is ours.

Cos really Mermaids have no where to go and hide on this one.

Appointment of trustees goes right to the top and is one of the most basic fundamentals of running the charity. If you don't even have proper protocols for vetting them and are passing it off as someone else's responsibility, you aren't upholding your responsibility as trustees either though.

All three scenarios put the trustees in situation which isn't good enough to meet their charitable status responsibilities.

Its hard to see how the position of any trustee appointed prior to Breslow is tenable tbh!

The headlines should read 'charity accused of poor safeguarding standards admit poor safeguarding but say it wasn't their responsibility and trusted someone else to do it for them'.

Why the fuck they haven’t just said

‘We are grateful that this has been brought to our attention and will be conducting an internal inquiry with immediate affect, as well as fully complying with any and all relevant external bodies’ is beyond me.

The charity itself might just survive if Susie Green personally took the brunt of everything and resigned and then all the charitable aims and services were rebuilt from the ground up with proper oversight.

Not that I want Mermaids to survive, I’m just pointing out how other, less batshit charities might approach weathering a similar storm and that Mermaids inability to do this shows how fucking bonkers this whole shit show is.

If Green isn’t willing to fall on her sword in an attempt to save the charity itself then it really will expose where her priorities lie and if she truly believes in Mermaids professed cause of helping gender distressed kids and their families or if it’s just a vehicle for her own, what, vanity? God complex? Assuaging her subconscious motherly guilt?