Mermaids being investigated by the Charity Commission - thread 2

[ResisterRex]

The first thread, towards the end of which there was a discussion about having a second thread but it wasn't added:

Mermaids being investigated by the charity commission
http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4644323-mermaids-being-investigated-by-the-charity-commissionn_

There's been a new development so maybe a second thread would be useful:

Lottery pauses trans charity cash during investigation

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c959a286-44e4-11ed-8885-043c27446b97?shareToken=6d482edb1a386656502f33453da5c230

Plus, who knows where some of these Mermaids-forum > Discord chats lead eventually? We could be looking at adults encouraging minors to distribute self taken images if not worse.

Indeed, that very scenario was what alerted one mother to what had been going on with Mermaids. Can't remember which recent newspaper report began with it.

It's mentioned in this thread but the linked video is now private. It was called "My Dad is a Woman".

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3374614-John-Ozimek-now-Jane-Fae-on-women-feminists-and-victims-of-pornographers?flipped=1

They are a busted flush.

The issue is now where the usual suspects go. They will. And they will be doing the same model.

Thats why it's important to not only identify the problems at an institutional level at Mermaids but also to identify that these institutional level failings are symptomatic of reduced safeguarding and the stated aim to remove barriers coming from the wider ideology.

Mermaids is a vehicle for the adult ideology for adult transitioners. It isn't serving the interests of kids.

We need to make the point and break the link and automatic grouping of young females or young gay males or young autistic kids and late transitioning males, especially those who do not have surgery.

These groups have very separate needs. The agenda should be separate from each other as a result.

Their interests aren't mutually beneficial.

Adults who are nonconforming but not trans (but probably would have been if 20 or 30 years younger) and detransitioners should not and must not be shut out in favour of 'trans for trans' and the continuation of 'affirmation only' and 'self ID'.

Even if Mermaids goes down the pan that's not the end of it. What the fall out is, matters. We need to identify the issues to ensure it just doesn't get a rebrand and a figurehead who is on a par or worse than Susie Green.

I agree they need to ditch Green and may survive but not sure that’s enough.

Surely they have to ditch affirmation without question, Gender GP, whoever nominated / approved Breslow, their safeguarding lead and much more.

One positive thing that could come out of this would be a well-funded, national charity who genuinely cared about and supported children questioning their gender.

Just checked - it was Lucy Bannerman's article in The Times: "Trans charity’s chatroom for children condemned as irresponsible free-for-all"
twitter.com/TimesLucy/status/1576184161089556480

A kid getting a dick pic wasn't enough for BC. He was still spouting abuse at JKR at this point and calling it a smear.

It was only enough when a bloke who is an academic in queer studies for children and advocates for padeos and writes a blog talking about his desires didn't get vetted at all by Mermaids who went on the 'well other people thought he was a good bloke and they have a good reputation' turned out to be a trustee.

A bloke who it then transpired had written for PN... So there's a reason for self serving damage limitation (not forgetting his own husband's role too) for BC in a way that OJ doesn't have.

The sudden reticence from BC certainly isn't entirely about concerns for children. He effectively called the mum saying her kid had been sent a dick pic on witchhunt against Mermaids implying she was either lying, over reacting or otherwise liable herself.

There's no centring of children going on suddenly in BCs head. It's about PR and limiting reputational damage.

Until there's a fundamental change for BC and people like him, the problem will persist.

archive.ph/e3nDe

For fucks sake.

If anyone out there thinks pro-choking porn, domestic violence fatalities can be attributed to women having ‘eggshell skulls’ Fae is an better option for genderdistressed kids than Susie Green they must have a very low opinion of Green!

Yeah, switching support dem Mermaids to TranAct might be a good thing.
The story of Greene, the mum who had to figure it out for her kid, was certainly more relatable than some figures most parents would probably not let alone with their kids.

Let’s add some of the key topics of concern together.

• Key charity encourages and guides children to seek support by using an online source known to be highly risky for children in safeguarding terms

• Key charity encourages children to interact in secret without parental knowledge, and will send out potentially harmful binder without parental knowledge and in the knowledge of this being against parental consent. Practical upshot is the transfer of trust from legal guardians and adults who know the child and care for them daily to a group who have never met the child in person and have no responsibility to them.

• Key charity has employed a trustee who is open about their sexual attraction to children and has written extensively expressing their desire to make this legal and socially acceptable, while working to reframe adults’ perceptions of this. The dehumanisation of the child in these writings is evidenced.

• Said trustee has other roles which also involve positions of influence in developing child related policy, heavily linked to TQ+ politics and queer theory.

• Said trustee has involvement with a student who talked about terrorising a woman with a knife to their throat and threatening to cut them for not being supportive of personal politics. Sexual aspects of this fantasy were obvious.

• A rep from another key safeguarding charity encourages children to contact them personally for support outside of the organisation

• Key charity encourages parents to follow their lead by sharing fear of child committing suicide if they don’t

In the context of additional key topics of concern:

• Drag queen/strip artist story time for small children

• TW in Brownie uniform taking selfies with guns and sharing pictures of sex life on social media

• TW working for the Green Party and employing father who is awaiting sentencing for the torture and rape of a ten year old while said father wears a costume of a little girl and insists the abused child calls him by the role play name selected

• TW also takes and posts pictures of self online in child outfits and talking about their adult baby sex life

• Family ‘Sex show’

• Several TW in public facing roles supporting TQ+ politics later disappear quietly after accusations of sexual misconduct and pictures they themselves shared on social media

In wider context of:

• Safeguarding rules and equality considerations ignored to enforce male children in toilets, changing rooms and dormitories with female children regardless of the female children’s feelings and wishes

• Vigorous political action to enable male people to enter all female spaces regardless of the impact or exclusion of females, with increasing amounts of evidence regarding sexualised behaviours such as selfies of masturbation in women’s spaces, inserting used tampons into the anus, or violent fantasies such as a selfie with a sword for the punishment of a female who questions or challenges.

• Several known and public incidents of women in prison and mental health wards assaulted or raped by a male who had identified into the space.

• Legal action intended to resist females being able to request an additional accessible space that excludes males even after male access and choice is ensured.

• Supporters and proponents of all the above are virulently against females who will not accept the given narrative trustingly and unquestioningly, and who present safeguarding boundaries.

What links all the above together? Look for the pattern. What is the common theme?

Is every single one of these incidents innocent and justifiable, as we’ve been told? All of them? The whole pattern?

Are all these safeguarding ‘mistakes’ really a case of sequential and quite staggering naivety and ignorance of what is considered the most basic practice across the UK in all child related organisations? Seriously? What you’d expect of a local playgroup never mind a national charity leading practice? ALL of these incidents?

What did we think ‘queering childhood’ and ‘queering the classroom’ actually meant?

And have a read through these threads from 2018:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3318615-Pedophile-Manifesto

and

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3237699-Thread-on-twitter-The-paedophilia-plan?page=1

Four years ago.

And we're still getting the 'you are harming children by asking questions about and sharing evidence of dodgy safeguarding and you're only motivated by bigotry' act.

In particular this Twitter thread mentioned in both above links.

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258039511670784?s=19

And have a safeguarding expert, from outside the organisation, present in the chat rooms. They should be permanently monitored, including the residential camps.

This is a devastating and evidenced analysis of what's been happening - thank you nilsmousehammer

Terrifying for the safety of children and young people.

Brilliant post nilsmousehammer.

And I believe that's only the half of it.

<recollects rubber wanking/urinating man defended by the NSPCC>

Or close the chatroom service down.

Especially with the social contagion aspect to consider - Gender Dysphoria peer to peer support can’t be approached in the same way as say, children with cancer.

it’s likely far more like eating disorders or alcoholism (where group therapy can harm as much as it helps, as one group members bad day can easily become every group members bad day).

@Datun

I would suggest ditching chat rooms and residentials altogether. Help lines, guidance and counselling would be a better way to go but only if they are honest and explore all issues and means of support, not just affirmation.

This tweet:

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258047468244995/photo/1

The importance of changing social boundaries as a step on the way to achieving the goal.

Recognise a lot of this?

twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/991258049976438790/photo/1

The plan is laid out. Described. Intentional tactics.

How do anorexia support charities approach things like chatrooms?

Yes I agree shutting them down would be beneficial in the end.

What I'd like to see, though, is them monitored for now, to see what is being said and done. Because I truly believe it will be another nail in the coffin.

Thread of other unsuitable people that Mermaids had worked with:

twitter.com/ripx4nutmeg/status/1578386104323022849?t=7Xo2XBg8QqnUG8NU6lErXw&s=19

I had a look at BEAT Eating disorders online support services. They have rigorous ground rules for users about confidentiality, removal of all identifying data and strict moderation, including unambiguous safeguarding information reminding users that they will refer to the police / other agencies if they believe a child is at risk. They ban all sorts of discussions about dieting and food, suicide and self harm. There's 4 pages of ground rules.

In other words they put in place boundaries to keep children safe online. Unlike the current dangerous group that we're discussing

I also looked at what BEAT say about the unregulated pro ana, pro mia sites and BEAT openly steer children away saying:

"The terms “pro-anorexia”, or “pro-ana”, and “pro-bulimia”, or “pro-mia”, refer to content, usually online, that promotes the harmful behaviour and mindset that forms part of some eating disorders.The sites and social media where such content is found often say or imply that this behaviour is a lifestyle choice, rather than symptoms of an illness" (now where have we seen this before?)

www.beateatingdisorders.org.uk/

The difference is stark when looking at BEAT's professional boundaried online resource devoted to supporting unwell children - there's a grim contrast when looking at the glittery shambles of an adult ideologically driven site devoted to gaslighting equally vulnerable children.

@nilsmousehammer

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
it’s hard to know what to say except that it’s utterly chilling of course. I hope whoever wrote it is outed..

Will the DM pick THIS thread up I wonder?

Thank you this is just so awful people are bound to think it can't be real.

Charity Commission confirms Mermaids have filed serious incidents on a number of matters.

Suggests the chat and phones were not closed due to abuse of staff and volunteers to me.