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

I enjoyed the comments, will check again later!

Have we covered this tweet and subsequent thread:

James Esses AT jamesesses
Up until 1st September, Mermaids was accredited by the Safeguarding Alliance, with the accreditation mark on their website.

Since then, the accreditation mark has disappeared from the website.

Are Mermaids no longer accredited? Have they been shirking their safeguarding duties?

Now reading the comments below this tweet it gets a bit more complex than it first appears.

It is being suggested that the accreditation doesn't mean a lot in practice as it's not properly checked. You pay a fee, tick some boxes and hey pesto you get a sticker to show off a clean bill of health to your users.

Which would kind of explain how Mermaids managed to get accreditation in the first place - the accreditation is misleading and meaningless.

And at this point Mermaids become too toxic to keep even a dubious accreditation.

Other comments say that they believe two trustees quitting together at the end of September, just ahead of all this stuff starting to break and the announcement of an investigation by the charity commission, might not be a coincidence.

I looked at that, @RedToothBrush. There's a reply below which makes the whole thing look even stranger. Or, it doesn't provide any answers anyway:

twitter.com/thespiralquirk/status/1493617803915669506?s=46&t=KBefS3-tzvesd0oCUngg5g

The tweet queries the name change of the Safeguarding Alliance to the Safeguarding Regulation Authority Ltd, and wonders how that name change could be permitted. It's certainly unusual to be a limited company that seems, on first reading, to be a regulator.

Some more gems that crop up on a twitter search on Mermaids from the last 24hrs.

Some other context:

They were still accredited after this and Mermaids response "incredible, thank you so much heart" on their twitter account.

No one at Mermaids saw a problem with retweeting to draw attention to this or subsequently replying to the account on twitter. Cos £££££.

Whilst they might have been grateful for the money, who was there thinking hmmm we are a children's charity might drawing attention to this be a good idea.

Its this complete void on thinking about what might be inappropriate which is not ignorable.

I really don't want everyone to forget that when Foxy first powered up the anti-LGB Alliance movement - in June 2021 - Stonewall were very happy to support it.

And soon after that they scrubbed themselves from the action.

So I've just tried to look up and see if there are restrictions on names:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-and-names/incorporation-and-names#choosing_name

There are rules here that might apply

7. Sensitive words and expressions
suggests business pre-eminence, a particular status, or a specific function, for example, names that include ‘British’, ‘Institute’ or ‘Tribunal’

8. Objections to company names
You could be required to change your registered name following a complaint if:

the name gives so misleading an indication of the company’s activities, it is likely to cause harm to the public

Now I don't know if its applicable in this case or not, or if it is applicable how much oversight there is on this.

It strikes me that it there is a danger that this wouldn't be difficult to just do with no one challenging and asking too many questions.

Regardless, it appears we have no option but to come to the conclusion that either Companies House have screwed up here or the Safeguarding Regulator have screwed up here. That's yet another opportunity to be asking questions about misleading the public that has potentially been missed when it comes to Mermaids.

I'm wondering if those that defended 'the family sex show ' just think this is all fine?

There will be and are people who think it's legitimate and acceptable.

Im thinking of the Drag queens in bondage (charity fundraising calendar), and how nobody seems to have an issue with that.

I think we need to talk about Institutional Level failings at Mermaids. That in turn goes to organisations like the NHS and way beyond to either organisations like this safeguarding regulatory company or companies House (dunno which one) amongst many others.

That means we aren't just looking at institutional level failures.

Thats systematic failure to identify problems.

Thats where you should start talking about Public Inquiries.

This is deserving of one. We should use the correct language to make the point about multiple institutional level failures being systematic failure which needs proper scrutiny to establish why it has happened. .

Their website is still the SG Alliance - it's still up anyway:

www.thesafeguardingalliance.org.uk

And they did this work on name changes:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/hundreds-sex-offenders-vanish-police-22419559

Yet their own name change would seem to raise questions. I don't understand it really.

I would agree but this is serious and it can't wait. Inquiries take forever. I wonder whatever happened to the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Weren't they meant to be looking at some points related to this?

Steps can be taken prior to an inquiry.

When people start even asking about an inquiry its going to get attention.

No one wants to be found to be caught up in that mess.

It also means that it's harder to any government after this to shut down questions in this area.

I think getting Mermaids closed is the first step, but we absolutely should be starting to ask questions and it things beyond that if/when Mermaids folds.

According to Companies House, the registered address of the Safeguarding Alliance has 25 businesses registered there. So it's just an accountant/business formation company/accommodation address.

Miriam Cates MP totally gets it: this is a safeguarding issue.

The Mermaids and NSPCC links remain:

twitter.com/cforwomenuk/status/1579739884008640512?s=46&t=z2sd1a_Kj3MpNVDSbk850Q

Bergdorf, eventually dropped by Childline and the NSPCC, is still a patron of Mermaids.

So a potential deliberate name change to obscure any real safeguarding activity?

That should be to obscure any attention to lack of real safeguarding activity…

Thanks for sharing. She's fantastic on this issue - so clear, reasoned, focused and compassionate.

If only she was minister for schools!

Strangely DH is an Internet security expert. Things change constantly in his field. It's kinda a serious field cos if things go wrong there can be serious consequences. Part of his job is to keep abreast of how things are evolving and, where possible, preempt threats before incidents happen. It doesn't stop everything but nothing can and there is an acceptance of this. There is a margin where basic due diligence has to be shown in the event of there having been an issue.

Therefore, I don't really get why this reluctance to go near the word.

I have to say that I grow increasingly suspicious of when people make money / sell their services off the back of their training and knowledge and then on the other hand beg to make the point that, nope despite this, they aren't experts.

It strikes me there is a legal reason they are doing this that sits uneasily with me.

Wow she has all the disparate information at her fingertips. It's like she's a mumsnetter.

I really really don't understand that Alliance group's name change, Red. Further searching brought up these deleted tweets:

twitter.com/deletedbymps/status/1213065753882234882?s=46&t=vJlXcN78UDSe5FoqKSC1wg

twitter.com/deletedbymps/status/1181182278707421184?s=46&t=NETkuMq9ObaNTpzWfe4Fjg

And this of the CEO, recognised by their university:

aru.ac.uk/news/inspirational-former-students-recognised-by-aru

This would be strange by itself, but is especially difficult to understand or figure out in the context that Mermaids were using their accreditation and now they've removed it.

Does anyone happen to know how long the CC is likely to take to come to a decision? Is there a time limit?

Yes. I can see the rationale in somewhere on your site explaining the philosophy about safeguarding requiring constant checks, tests and self-questioning. But to put that as your kind of first and main point is worrying.

'Hey, we don't know what we're doing! Don't ask us! Just pay the money and take the certificate'.

She is great. So clear

The Safeguarding Alliance hasn't changed its name, hence the website.

But two new entities were registered at Companies House on 31st March 2021, i.e. The Safeguarding Regulation Authority Limited find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13307200 and the Safeguarding Conduct Authority Limited find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13307199 . Both have the same (multi-company) address and the same two directors, i.e. the remaining directors of The Safeguarding Alliance Limited. And the Confirmation Statements for both the newer companies are overdue, they were supposed to be filed by 12th April 2022. The filing history for both is interesting.