Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Mermaids being investigated by the Charity Commission - thread 2

1000 replies

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 05:55

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
117
Shortpoet · 06/10/2022 07:52

I agree the fact that they thought the didn’t have to be thorough because of his connection with the LSE shows how sloppy their thinking is. The was they use that as a defence shows that they still don’t get safeguarding.

But that doesn’t explain why his appointment was kept secret. Why hide it if it is all above board? What reason was given for dispensation for hiding it?

Somebody is not telling the whole truth. Belinda Bell as chair of trustees should be all over this. How did his nomination and acceptance come about? Who was told what, when and why?

Birdsweepsin · 06/10/2022 07:57

At least they aren't defending him, as some corners of Twitter are (it was ten years ago, it's all a mistake, he is all about stopping people from acting on their desires etc)

Datun · 06/10/2022 08:01

If he's on 'sabbatical' because of this issue then yes the LSE didn't get it either.

Or perhaps they're fine with a paedophile apologist teaching their students about 'gender and sexuality'.

Floisme · 06/10/2022 08:03

Goodness I didn't think that statement would be quite so.... contrite. I'd expected them to come out with all guns blazing.

Knittingmonster · 06/10/2022 08:05

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 07:26

Not sure if the statement they did make about the trustee was on the last thread. It appears as though they would have done some kind of search (what is a social media "review"?). Assuming someone else has done a check of some description also appears to be part of their statement:

web.archive.org/web/20221006005844/mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-regarding-trustee-appointment/

"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."

But you have to have a DBS for each organisation. At one point I had 5 as I worked with 5 separate organisations. It is up to each org to do a DBS. Mermaids obviously did nit do basic safeguarding and are desperately trying to blame someone else. An organisation cannot reveal the outcome of a DBS to anyone other than law enforcement so the LSE were under no obligation to tell Mermaids. The safeguarding lead should have known this.

Shortpoet · 06/10/2022 08:10

I saw this statement on twitter earlier from Trans Radio UK.

As I started reading it I honestly thought it was a parody. The childish logos at the top and the wording of the third paragraph. I was genuinely waiting for the punchline.

Then I realised it is serious.

mobile.twitter.com/transradiouk/status/1577635860333428736

Mermaids being investigated by the Charity Commission - thread 2
oldwomanwhoruns · 06/10/2022 08:13

We need a bigger inquiry, not just the charity commission!
As Datun said upthread - the whole premise of this charity is nonsense from beginning to end. 'trans' is not a known medical condition.
How many kids have been damaged?
Just looking at the Tavistock referral numbers, & assuming that not many escaped the 'treatment'
2018-2019. 2590
2019-2020. 2728
Still increasing after the huge jump in 2015.
So, are we talking about roughly 10 thousand? or 20 thousand + kids?
Treated chemically/surgically for a health condition that does not exist. Cheered on/led on by the Pied Piper of mermaids.

We need a gvmt inquiry.

FaazoHuyzeoSix · 06/10/2022 08:14

I thought all charity trustees had to be listed publicly on the charity commission website as a fundamental part of the nature of charities? That's what I was told when I became one for a very minor charity a few years ago.

Interestingly I was also told that as a charity trustee I could be held personally liable for the charity's debts and obligations in the event of a disaster. That's an interesting thought if mermaids end up getting huge legal costs awarded against them as a result of this and other cases brought before the courts.

Handsoffmyrights · 06/10/2022 08:15

'Mermaids could not be reached for comment.'

Yet normally, they protest too much.

Their media statements are often long, defensive, emotive and full of repetitive key words like 'misinformation' and 'anti trans'.

I think their press team think these type of combatitive statements will somehow steamroller over any investigative journalism. It's been a well used tactic over the years. On Twitter, if you have a tantrum and shout loudly enough pointing the "transphobe" finger as more pile on, you can silence critics.

Knittingmonster · 06/10/2022 08:16

Yes, I thought they had to be listed too. Also yes, trustees are responsible for any damage caused by their or the charity’s misconduct or negligence.

Shortpoet · 06/10/2022 08:18

I think their press team think these type of combatitive statements will somehow steamroller over any investigative journalism.

They seemed surprised when this tactic didn’t work in court.

Btw, can any of this new information be included in the last few days of the court case? Or can it only rely on what was known at the time?

FaazoHuyzeoSix · 06/10/2022 08:20

Knittingmonster · 06/10/2022 08:16

Yes, I thought they had to be listed too. Also yes, trustees are responsible for any damage caused by their or the charity’s misconduct or negligence.

So if a charity trustee resigns while a court case is ongoing, and at the conclusion of thar court case costs are awarded that can't be met from the charity's assets, does the resignation rescind that liability or do they remain liable for actions that were initiated during their tenure?

OvaHere · 06/10/2022 08:23

BewaretheIckabog · 06/10/2022 07:51

I’d like to know how JB became a trustee. Did he approach them or was he invited by them? If it’s the latter who suggested him and why did they think him suitable?

So many questions but not holding my breath for answers.

Well yes. They say they assumed LSE had done the appropriate checks but on what credentials did they believe they were hiring him on? Exactly what expertise did they think he had that they wanted?

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 08:30

An absolute thunderer of a piece by Jo Bartosch. Worth reading in full. I like the fact she's included Sheila Jeffreys and traced the fault lines right back:

thecritic.co.uk/It-is-not-reactionary-to-protect-children/

"The attachment of PIE to the loony left forty years ago should’ve served as a warning both that trendy causes are not always progressive, and that those who want to abuse children will use whatever tools they can."

OP posts:
Knittingmonster · 06/10/2022 08:34

FaazoHuyzeoSix · 06/10/2022 08:20

So if a charity trustee resigns while a court case is ongoing, and at the conclusion of thar court case costs are awarded that can't be met from the charity's assets, does the resignation rescind that liability or do they remain liable for actions that were initiated during their tenure?

As far as I’m aware, but it’s been years since I was involved in this subject, all trustees at the time of the misconduct/fraud/negligence or liable, but I may be misremembering. If the resignation gets him off the hook for costs, he knew which way the wind was blowing. I’d expect quite a few more trustee resignations shortly.

Shortpoet · 06/10/2022 08:40

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 08:30

An absolute thunderer of a piece by Jo Bartosch. Worth reading in full. I like the fact she's included Sheila Jeffreys and traced the fault lines right back:

thecritic.co.uk/It-is-not-reactionary-to-protect-children/

"The attachment of PIE to the loony left forty years ago should’ve served as a warning both that trendy causes are not always progressive, and that those who want to abuse children will use whatever tools they can."

That’s a phenomenal article. We need eternal vigilance.

MajorieEks · 06/10/2022 08:46

Mermaids is frightening as an organisation as it so clearly has a closed culture but is still revered as a beloved institution.

It's is explicitly counter to safeguarding to set up a group of people who are being questioned or vetted. It has never ended well regardless of who the sacred caste are, be it priests, pillars of the community, doctors, Scout leaders, celebrities etc

Closed cultures discourage scrutiny or professional curiosity and instead rely on people's sense of obligation to their employers/colleagues to dismiss safeguarding concerns rather than follow it up. Yet in labeling any concerns as transphobic, Mermaids has done just that.

An organisation with good safeguarding procedures would be able to:

  • Identify children who may be at the risk of neglect, abuse, grooming or exploitation and maybe in need of early help.
  • Help the children at risk by providing the support they need, or refer in a timely manner to those who have the expertise to help.
  • Manage safe recruitment and allegations on adults who may pose a risk to children.

They fail at the first point by failing to recognise that vulnerable children often have confusion over gender identity because of past trauma and instead want to prevent holistic approaches which they call "conversion therapy". I won't comment on their effectiveness at identifying children at risk of grooming.

They fail at the second by referring children to professionals who have been struck off, such as Gender GP. The insistence on only considering an affirmation pathway means children are prevented from accessing help and instead are only steered onto a pathway that leads to irreversible changes that often do not address the root cause of the distress.

They fail at the third because they clearly do not have safe recruitment processes and are not transparent about who is involved in the organisation. They don't have a named safeguarding lead and I would not be confident in their procedures to manage allegations as they do not seem to have keeping children safe as a main guiding principle.

Some risk factors of a closed culture on the other hand:

  • Weak/absent management
  • Unstable or inexperienced or close-knit staff team
  • Professional isolation - no evidence of strong partnership workings or links with safeguarding teams
  • A history of dealing with safeguarding referrals poorly

That's leaving aside what Mermaids actually promotes, which is isolation from families, keeping secrets, lowering children's boundaries, failing to keep children safe online and so many other issues.

And all in plain sight. Most of this was cheered on, valued and even championed.

It is shocking that a charity that purports to protect children is set up and operates in a way that utterly prevents it from doing so and instead actively places them in harm's way. The children have been failed.

BettyFilous · 06/10/2022 08:46

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 07:26

Not sure if the statement they did make about the trustee was on the last thread. It appears as though they would have done some kind of search (what is a social media "review"?). Assuming someone else has done a check of some description also appears to be part of their statement:

web.archive.org/web/20221006005844/mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-regarding-trustee-appointment/

"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."

This is such BS. Even if you have a recent enhanced DBS disclosure in one organisation, many organisations working with children or vilnerable asults require a new disclosure for their role. And this despite the introduction of the update service. There are relatively few roles in a university which would require a basic DBS check, let alone an enhanced one, because most students are 18+. That Meemaids statement just shows up their ignorance of safeguarding. Muppets.

BeBraveLittlePenguin · 06/10/2022 08:51

MajorieEks · 06/10/2022 08:46

Mermaids is frightening as an organisation as it so clearly has a closed culture but is still revered as a beloved institution.

It's is explicitly counter to safeguarding to set up a group of people who are being questioned or vetted. It has never ended well regardless of who the sacred caste are, be it priests, pillars of the community, doctors, Scout leaders, celebrities etc

Closed cultures discourage scrutiny or professional curiosity and instead rely on people's sense of obligation to their employers/colleagues to dismiss safeguarding concerns rather than follow it up. Yet in labeling any concerns as transphobic, Mermaids has done just that.

An organisation with good safeguarding procedures would be able to:

  • Identify children who may be at the risk of neglect, abuse, grooming or exploitation and maybe in need of early help.
  • Help the children at risk by providing the support they need, or refer in a timely manner to those who have the expertise to help.
  • Manage safe recruitment and allegations on adults who may pose a risk to children.

They fail at the first point by failing to recognise that vulnerable children often have confusion over gender identity because of past trauma and instead want to prevent holistic approaches which they call "conversion therapy". I won't comment on their effectiveness at identifying children at risk of grooming.

They fail at the second by referring children to professionals who have been struck off, such as Gender GP. The insistence on only considering an affirmation pathway means children are prevented from accessing help and instead are only steered onto a pathway that leads to irreversible changes that often do not address the root cause of the distress.

They fail at the third because they clearly do not have safe recruitment processes and are not transparent about who is involved in the organisation. They don't have a named safeguarding lead and I would not be confident in their procedures to manage allegations as they do not seem to have keeping children safe as a main guiding principle.

Some risk factors of a closed culture on the other hand:

  • Weak/absent management
  • Unstable or inexperienced or close-knit staff team
  • Professional isolation - no evidence of strong partnership workings or links with safeguarding teams
  • A history of dealing with safeguarding referrals poorly

That's leaving aside what Mermaids actually promotes, which is isolation from families, keeping secrets, lowering children's boundaries, failing to keep children safe online and so many other issues.

And all in plain sight. Most of this was cheered on, valued and even championed.

It is shocking that a charity that purports to protect children is set up and operates in a way that utterly prevents it from doing so and instead actively places them in harm's way. The children have been failed.

Phenomenal post.

Handsoffmyrights · 06/10/2022 08:54

ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 08:30

An absolute thunderer of a piece by Jo Bartosch. Worth reading in full. I like the fact she's included Sheila Jeffreys and traced the fault lines right back:

thecritic.co.uk/It-is-not-reactionary-to-protect-children/

"The attachment of PIE to the loony left forty years ago should’ve served as a warning both that trendy causes are not always progressive, and that those who want to abuse children will use whatever tools they can."

Great article.
Julie Bindel posted this during a previous Mermaids scandal (not sure if it was the data breach time?).

Mermaids being investigated by the Charity Commission - thread 2
ResisterRex · 06/10/2022 09:01

The back peddling

twitter.com/stonewalleduk/status/1577723535556022272?s=46&t=wyuWGGU1Sa4RPpGFyu1SZg

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 06/10/2022 09:01

"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."

I suspect the trouble is not that they didn't know that Breslow's work involved support for MAPs, but that they did and thought this was actually a positive.

ArabellaScott · 06/10/2022 09:10

To be clear, the man has written one book, called 'Ambivalent Childhoods', which includes

Chapter 3: Desiring the Child

www.amazon.co.uk/Ambivalent-Childhoods-Speculative-Futures-Psychic-ebook/

It can't really be much clearer than that, surely?

Knittingmonster · 06/10/2022 09:16

ArabellaScott · 06/10/2022 09:01

"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."

I suspect the trouble is not that they didn't know that Breslow's work involved support for MAPs, but that they did and thought this was actually a positive.

Then they broke their own rules. They did not do an enhanced DBS, didn’t look at his social media and did not look at his published and publicly available works. Their safeguarding lead needs to be sacked.

SunshineReady · 06/10/2022 09:25

sashh · 06/10/2022 06:16

I've not been on the other thread but the Lottery have suspended their funding for Mermaids.

Sorry if I am repeating something you all knew.

👏🙌🙏👌💪

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread