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

Thanks for linking. I didn’t read this thread at the time. But what a bizarre thing to say about security. How do they imagine they could identify and keep out a “transphobe”. It’s not like we have it tattooed on our foreheads.

Surrey County Council have removed a link signposting to mermaids within the last few days.

With so many now removing links maybe we need a thread listing them all so we can keep up!

There won't be any need for those phone lines soon so they won't need to reinstate them.

Hey ho. A double whammy. LGBT Labour doubling down on their support for Mermaids and Munroe Bergdorf confirming that despite the safeguarding concerns at the NSPCC Mermaids have restrained her as a patron for the last three years.

does anyone, other than “middle-aged cis-gender women”

mobile.twitter.com/LGBTLabour/status/1579794353119449089

Actually triple whammy as Munroe brings up the suicide argument. Probably not recommended by safeguarding experts.

So today is the day to pressure Starmer then! After the negative attention he got re: Saville, I’m sure he’ll want to issue an appropriate party line in response to that rogue one!

and Munroe Bergdorf confirming that despite the safeguarding concerns at the NSPCC Mermaids have restrained her as a patron for the last three years.

MB needs restraining as a patron.

But really what's the point of retaining someone as a patron if it's not done openly? Isn't the whole point of having someone as a patron that they are visible?

A secret patron? Yes indeed, what’s the point of that?

archive.ph/HAtOi

Archive of LGBT Labour twitter

'The attack on Mermaids is as unsubstantive as the attack on Stonewall'

Attack? By whom, the paedophile apologist who was made a trustee? Are LGBT Labour suggesting that he shouldn't have been removed? That it's all tickety boo?

Bloody hell. Mermaids are just making it worse for themselves. Accused of a paedophile apologist being a trustee, they defend themselves using someone who thinks 11-year-old drag queens are fine and invited minors to privately message them?

It's worrying that they can be quite this clueless, to be honest

It's mad, Datun. Given they're navigating a safeguarding disaster, I cannot understand how they'd think going to someone who was dropped by NSPCC because of safeguarding concerns would in any way help the situation.

archive for the LGBT Labour Twitter main page:

archive.ph/cdk4c

archive for LGBT Labour’s transphobia petition:

archive.ph/pLWdd

They don't get it that's the issue.

They still probably think Dazza was hard done by and Jakey was misinterpreted.

They are paying lipservice with no statement of intent on cultural change.

Thats why they need shutting down because they are going to attempt to ride the storm.

having watched Belinda Bell, their chair of trustees, give evidence at the hearing to attempt to remove LGBA's charitable status, I was left with the impression of a very 'naice' and very naive person.

Naice people don't ask questions about why that man is quite so interested in talking about children and sex do they? it just isn't naice.

All these consequences seem to me to be down to the Dunning Kruger effect

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

You can't (and indeed shouldn't) stop interested amateurs to set themselves up as experts. The problem starts with professionals who take them seriously and hold them to a low standard.

any education professional who endorsed Mermaids in any way should hang their head in fucking shame

Yes, it seems to be more and more clear that they just are not capable of understanding the problem, which means they won't ever be able to fix it.

Someone has created a situation where safeguarding and/or whistleblowing is seen as 'transphobic' and something to be censured. It's insupportable.

I'm sorry about the typo. I was on an iPad and was too keen to get it up there quickly. Worth remembering what sank Munroe at NSPCC, namely earlier dodgy invitations for children to contact her directly. She was also some sort of Labour ambassador but got dropped quickly. I can't remember if it was her interesting views on race, or something LGBT.

The other typo was a failure to complete the sentence:
does anyone, other than “middle-aged cis-gender women”

Does anyone, other than “middle-aged cis-gender women” get it? And even if we are the only ones, why should Munroe assume our views, as are more likely than any other group to be mothers to minor children, don't count. Is Munroe guilty of misogyny?

Miriam Cates is going to be interviewed about this on Woman's Hour shortly. As a bonus today the presenter is Emma Barnett.

Yes, middle-aged is such a giveaway. They might as well say hysterical.

They don't get it that's the issue. They still probably think Dazza was hard done by and Jakey was misinterpreted.

So basically Aimee Challenor in organisational form?

it is clear that Aimee Challenor Mermaids did not demonstrate a clear understanding of safeguarding and still does not see the safeguarding issues that this case gave rise to.

They aren't capable of seeing and understanding safeguarding.

An example: if you believe that children of age two or three can consent and understand what it is to be trans and that the parents will never have nefarious / deluded reasons for suggesting a child of this age is trans you can't possibly understand safeguarding.

Anyone who has an affirmative only approach is dangerous.

So yes, an institutionalised inability to safeguard because of ideological belief exists.

No idea why my message was deleted? I said that Reading council have removed their link to Mermaids, which is good news!

Despite Mimmymum being a marketing person, in the same way that Susie G has an IT background, they seem to have virtually no idea how to present themselves.

It's as if to date they have relied on some sort of #nodebate, you can't question us as it is transphobic.

Munroe...the optics. Did no one get it.

Or to put it another way, Mermaids in its current form exists to prevent questions being asked about Susie Green.

Everything else flows from that.

The Labour LGBTQ+ tweet is shocking and outrageous. So, the Labour Party seems to support a charity that has breached an array of safeguarding principles and that in fact considers these breaches as necessary to deliver their 'services' to vulnerable tweens and teens. Does their statement "you cannot stop someone from feeling something, you cannot stop someone from being who they are" include those who seek to harm other people, e.g. children, I mean they couldn't be stopped from feeling something and being who they are. Such dodgy comment. Also Labour is actively encouraging people to donate to this highly questionable charity. Unbelievable, what silly muppets.

Ooookay.

Women are transphobic - at this point more or less for daring to exist.
Safeguarding children is now transphobic.
Daring to question or having any standard expectations of practice of anyone who politically identifies as TQ+ afiliated is apparently transphobic
And being older than... what? 20? 22? Where does saggy titted middle aged scum start these days? Is also transphobic.

Labour are going to be laughed off my fucking doorstep if they try for my vote.