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

Wow!

So is she no longer Transphobe of the year then PN? Does that mean she's getting a rightfully grovelling apology soon?

We are truly in the end days. I’m convinced. I thought PN hated JKR? Why would they use her quote. Unless….. and I’m just putting it out there…. Whoever write the article didn’t know who said it and didn’t research it 😀😀😀

I have read and reread the case referenced by @MrsOvertonsWindow many times. The judgement is dated July 2016.
There was already evidence of institutional capture. However the judge saw through that, to some extent bolstered by certain professionals who were able to keep a clear focus on the child.

I just wonder if such a judgement would be possible in similar circumstances today. Well, OK - A couple of weeks ago.

It really is a very instructive case and should be used as for training purposes in a range of social work/child psychology/safeguarding scenarios. There was evidence of very good practice in so far as as a range of agencies raised concerns, I'm amazed that Housing was one of those for instance. We are taught that safeguarding is everyone's job, and anyone can or should raise concerns. On the other hand there were those - in social services and the local authority - who attracted the judges criticism, who, either through laziness, a lack of curiosity, avoiding conflict with the mother or due to already having supped at the kool aid failed to adequately examine the issues and focus on the child.

I wonder if Justice Hayden still has such a laser focussed view or if he has been sucked into a more affirmative approach these days.

I'm having a self imposed 24 hour break from the internet. As much as I welcome it I don't think I can watch all the reverse fereting that's about to take place. I hope all the work that were banned, deplatformed, abused, spat at, threatened and insulted get apologies. Especially langcleg who deserves a personaly apology from MN.

I suppose we have to wait and see how long it stays up.

I am really interested in the fact that BC hasn’t said a word about the phone line closing. But did speak out on the peadophile supporting trustee. And OJ has done the complete opposite.

Despite BC tweeting a picture of him and OJ as best buds, yesterday

I haven’t had the chance to check if anyone else has flagged this, but as a charity Governance bod, the issue here is the Fit and Proper Persons Regulation, which is what should be of interest to the Charity Commission. The Charity Commission are more focused on the financial side, but they deliberately leave the ‘of good character’ definition quite vague so it can encompass many different scenarios. That a little googling in to this man’s publicised research and ‘activities’ would show that at least there were questionable acts of judgements on his public record, I would think there has been a complete failure of governance here that that the charity commission should look at. It’s not like the views and actions that have come to this have been done in secret!

Holy shitballs.

Satan himself will surely be ice skating to work in the morning?

Maybe they’re jobsharing??

No chance - there’s a proper screenshot of the Tweet as well and the link at the end of the quote at the top of the article links to The Times.

Maybe PenisNews has been hacked?

I’m just wobbling between snarky laughter and sheer open mouthed wonder at the hypocrisy of prick news. They spend years trying to tear JK down, then use her quote on one of the most important pieces they’ll write this month 😂😂😂

Yeah, only a few days ago Cohen was having a pop at JKR for calling PN “a comic” and complaining about reporting in The Times..

It is quite remarkable.

I wonder what Prick News's strategy is here? Are they going to do a U-turn on Mermaids in order to show that they are definitely not into defending paedo apologists?

Different strategy to OJ, who apparently doesn't give a shit if children's charity appoints someone who wrote about ejaculating on kids as a trustee, and is going to defend trans ideology to the bitter end at all costs. I guess he feels he has sunk too much into it now to turn back at all?

Interesting....

Someone on Twitter has found Jacob's old blog.

twitter.com/Scottish_Women/status/1578099272469295104

They used the quote again later on in the article though, in this context:

"The revelations about Breslow come as Mermaids is being targeted with a misinformation campaign, alleging that the charity poses safeguarding risks to children because of its provision of binders to young people."

I agree it's weird that they put it in the intro spot, which is usually reserved for something they agree with. Weird editorial fuck up!

This is from the above Twitter thread from Breslow's blog - I'm going to leave it without comment except to reiterate that this man was a trustee of a children's charity. Specifically, a children's charity that had interests in preventing children from going through puberty.

I feel a bit sick.

I'll try again in a more readable format.

I wish I hadn't read that blog. Vile man - and an appalling organisation to have invited him to work in a children's charity.

Well, we can look forward to more raging at women for finding out more details of the trustee's proclivities. It's obviously our fault.

Blog posts there mention Karl Andersson of recent wanking research scandal, and 'Destroyer' magazine, brainchild of same.

@Smilelesstalkmore Fucking hell.

His page is still up on the LSE website, with the first of his fields of "expertise' listed in both sections as "childhood studies". That's one way of putting it.

How come LSE are completely ignoring this issue?

Unfortunately I think you are all mis-reading that PN article.

Their key message is that Mermaid’s “misstep” is being used as a pretext for criticism of the “wider queer community”. Their use of the word “predictably” in the para just above the screenshot of JKR’s tweet is the clue to their actual position.

Note that they haven’t criticised or condemned Mermaids in that article; what they have done is set out in full the excuse and justification Mermaids used in their public statement. Using the word “misstep” to describe what anyone else would see as an alarming safeguarding failure is intended to minimise Mermaid’s failure.

Note that there is no commentary in the PN article about the potential risks to young people from Mermaids failing to properly check out its adult volunteers; that appears to be of little interest to PN. No, based on this article, PN’s main concern appears to be about potential reputational damage for adults in the “queer community” arising from Mermaid’s “misstep”. Basically they are trying to imply that the commentators concerned about Mermaids safeguarding failures are motivated by homophobia not by concerns for children’s safety.

The article is quite odd. It’s mainly natural with just reporting of fact. A little bit of playing down the safe guarding issues.

But what’s interesting is that they included the tween from JKR, but didn’t attack it directly. Not sure anyone thinks it’s positive about JKR or completely damning to mermaid. But it’s a very different type of article.

I am happy to read that LSE are reporting that the JB isn’t currently working at LSE. Though I think suspension (pending investigation) not sabbatical, is more appropriate. Or is ‘sabbatical’ just a cover?

Not sure PN can be too damning on the JB issue, even if they wanted to, given he was a writer for them. There’s some back and forth on wether he was a staff writer or guest writer. BC is insisting he was listed as a staff writer by mistake after a platform move.

I hadn’t seen Smileless’s screenshot from Breslow’s blog when I posted my previous comment.

I guess Hearth’s observation that he used to write for PN could explain their lack of criticism of him. They employed a man who openly advocates for PN’s “wider queer community” to support his “sexual object choice” preferred age range. Or as us pesky mothers might, oh so “predictably”, frame it - PN employed a man who has been open about his sexual interest in children. So, on this occasion, maybe taking a sideswipe at JKR is merely PN’s cynical way of distracting from their own “misstep”.