Mermaids vs LGB Alliance and Charity Commissioner - First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Thread 4

[nauticant]

UPDATE: a transcript of the proceedings has been published and can be found here: lgballiance.org.uk/tribunal-transcript/

The Tribunal started on 9 September, witness testimony was heard from 12 to 15 September, and then, following a break, closing submissions are taking place on 7 and 8 November.

[This paragraph is probaby now redundant] To obtain access to view the proceedings, send a request email to [email protected] about case CA/2021/0013 - Mermaids vs Charity Commissioner and LGB Alliance and ask for permission to join. You then have to provide certain information and agree to a judge's direction in order to be able to join.

There is also live tweeting from www.twitter.com/tribunaltweets

Abbreviations:

J or judge: Presiding Judge, Judge Lynn Griffin
AJ or Judge: Assisted by Judge Joe Neville
MG: Mermaids counsel is Michael Gibbon KC
KM: LGB Alliance counsel is Karon Monaghan KC
AR: Karon is assisted by Akua Reindorf
IS: Charity Commission counsel is Iain Steele

(Also the witnesses, PR: Paul Roberts, JN: John Nicolson. BB: Belinda Bell, BJ: Beverley Jackson, KH: Kate Harris, and EG: Eileen Gallagher.)

Thread 1: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4629679-mermaids-versus-lgb-alliance-in-court-today
Thread 2: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4632780-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chameber-thread-2
Thread 3: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4633653-mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-charity-commissioner-first-tier-tribunal-general-regulatory-chamber-thread-3?page=31&reply=121335177
Thread 4: ongoing

Witnesses for the applicant (Mermaids):

Paul Roberts - CEO of LGBT Consortium (12 September)
John Nicolson MP - Deputy Chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global LGBT+ Rights (13 September)
Dr Belinda Bell - Chair of trustees of Mermaids (13 September)

Witnesses for the respondent (LGB Alliance):

Beverley Jackson - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (13-14 September)
Kate Harris - Co-founder and trustee of LGB Alliance (14-15 September)
Eileen Gallagher OBE - Chair of trustees of LGB Alliance (15 September)

Witness Statements:

Paul Roberts: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Paul-Roberts-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
John Nicolson MP - www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/John-Nicolson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Dr Belinda Bell: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Belinda-Bell-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Beverley Jackson: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Bev-Jackson-Witness-Statement-Exhibits-1.pdf
Kate Harris: www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Kate-Harris-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf
Eileen Gallagher (two statements): www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Eileen-Gallagher-Second-Witness-Statement-Exhibits.pdf

Submissions:

www.lgballiance.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Volume-4-Submissions-CA.2021.0013.pdf

(Header format follows the gold standard established by @ickky)

post updated by MNHQ at OP's request in order to include the most up to date information.

Confused by double standards once again.

According to some everyone involved in an LGB organisation must be LGB. However trans organisations can include non-trans people as supporters and allies.

I am not LGB but it doesn’t mean I don’t want to support LGB people or that I don’t care about homophobia.

I'm not LGB or trans, but I want to support all 4. Contrary to some people's claims, it's possible to be very concerned about the treatment of trans people without believing TWAW or wanting to abolish single sex spaces.

The other 93% must be KKK members or chickens (deduced from MPies contributions)….

Or chickens who are themselves KKK members...which might muddy the data, somewhat.

Or am I simply making a mockery of Marg's ridiculous attempt at an analogy??

It is obvious why the focus is on the LGB community, but it is imprtant to remember that sex denial is 100% heterphobic as well as 100% homophobic.

We all know Marg doesn't understand the case and only drops in to make up BS identifying as "fact", so let's scroll on by, shall we?

Wrt "standing", if it is ruled that MM don't have standing, shouldn't that mean they had no right to bring the case, so there wouldn't be any ongoing question about LGBA's charitable status? Don't quite get the process/ potential outcome there. I'm only following on here and TT.

IW on twitter not happy. Does IW think MM have lost do we think?

'Trans hate group LGB Alliance - who’s supporters are overwhelmingly straight - told a London court today they are a charity, not a political org. Despite having clandestine meets with Kemi, Truss, Baroness Faulkner, Baroness Nicholson and God knows who else. STITCH. UP.'

I think that lack of standing does destroy the MM case, but KM for LGBA wants the tribunal to rule on the substance of the challenge, I would imagine to give LGBA protection from further challenges by different groups in the future. So another group who did have standing couldn't take them to tribunal again on basically the same grounds. IANAL, though.

I didn't know the 'C' in 'KFC' stood for 'charity'. You live and learn.

The question about standing is that if the tribunal find Mermaids do not have standing, and so don't engage with deciding on the rest of the case, then if Mermaids were to win at appeal, the case would then go back down to the tribunal level leaving things in a bit of a muddle. Would the entire case be reheard? This would be very inefficient and wasteful. Or would a decision be made on a case and evidence that was presented maybe a couple of years before? Which would open questions about fairness.

😂😂

IW really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

It will be for the court to decide whether or not they rule on the rest of the case if they decide that Mermaids do not have standing. LGBA and Mermaids submitted they should rule on the whole case even if Mermaids are found not to have standing, because otherwise it will be impossible to appeal the substantive issues if at a later date the standing issue was appealed. The CC submitted that it would cause them difficulties if the court ruled "no" to standing but then went on to rule that LGBA would have lost their charity status if they had ruled that Mermaids did have standing. I still can't understand why standing wasn't decided at a preliminary hearing.

I still can't understand why standing wasn't decided at a preliminary hearing.

As the case has progressed it's become clearer that this would have been a better way for things to have been handled.

IW really isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer.

And seems to really hate straight people supporting LGB people

Thanks to all who took time out of your lives to attend this tribunal, and for the running commentary on these threads. I've been following sporadically as situations allow, but was reliant on people here (and on the Twitter thread) to follow what's going on. @nauticant, thanks to you especially for all the background info.

Was this actually an argument: MM claim they might suffer financial loss by sharing donations?

Might this be at the crux of these proceedings; i.e. MM have lost credibility and standing after recent revelations and contextual issues like the closure of the Tavistock GIDS, for example, seen their donations dry up, and are going after LGBA as a scapegoat (and because they don't happen to like them)?

They are crowdfunding at present on the proviso that they are 'under attack', and that they've had to close their phone lines or greatly restrict their operating hours because of abusive callers. Are they being disingenuous about the reasons, and could this be down to issues with funding, especially since the million-dollar 'safeguarding' claim came up?

In the meantime everyone: LGBA, Charities Commission, anyone with even basic pretensions to understanding the distinction between sex and gender, are attacking them and trying to airbrush them out of existence.

They've currently made about £30K of a £50K target. The reasons as to why they need this cash injection are not made clear on the crowdfunding page.

Was this actually an argument: MM claim they might suffer financial loss by sharing donations?

Unbelievably, yes it was.

MM donations are drying up because, among other things, they are under investigation by the CC for sending breast binders to children against their parents' wishes. They do not state who is attacking them.

Maybe I'm being extremely optimistic here - the legal profession is at least semi-captured as far as I can make out - but surely MM's actions in bringing this tribunal were ill-advised and could come back to bite them well and truly on the arse. They're already under investigation by the CC for safeguarding issues, which is one outcome I'll bet they didn't anticipate.

And surely if finance is in any way the motivator here, this is as bent as they come and a misuse of the legal system?

C’mon now PiE!

You’ve been corrected on this multiple times now - I’m genuinely starting to think you need to see a doctor for memory issues.

lgballiance.org.uk/facts/

Screenshot of the relevant bit:

Thanks all, as ever, for the commentary.

So that's why chickens say "KKKluck"!

Am I remembering right? LGBA previously asked for a separate hearing to decide standing, Mermaids were opposed because their poorly concealed goal was to drive LGBA to bankruptcy, and I seem to remember the CC were on the Mermaids side of that argument
and wanted the whole thing lumped together. Am I remembering that right?

Now the CC asking for it to be decided separately? That seems ill thought out and a bit cheeky. It’s not like they couldn’t have anticipated the potential difficulty.

Also, does it seem likely that assuming Mermaids lose, they will appeal just to generate further legal costs?

'KKKluck'

Apparently, yesterday was Transparent Day of visibility did anyone see anything?

Sorry if this has already been asked, any clue when the judgement is expected?

There's a parallel though

'Trans activist All Party Parliamentary Group on global LBGTQA+ - whose supporters are overwhelmingly TRA ideologues - told the House of Commons via its Chairman Crispin Blunt MP that self-ID was supposed to have been STITCHED UP in private in meetings with Ministers like Penny Mordaunt. TOYS OUT PRAM'