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.

The Pink News report on today's hearing: archive.ph/cmfUk

Surprisingly even-handed for them, I think?!

I agree. Perhaps they are not sure that their core readership has more sympathy for a charity supporting trans children over one representing same sex attracted people. Or an acknowledgement that in light of recent revelations, Mermaids has lost a lot of its gloss.

I believe the Cat's Protection are planning a copycat action (pardon the pun) against the dog's trust if this succeeds.

Running just a tiny bit scared?

The Countryside Alliance Foundation is a charity which is totally contrary to the League Against Cruel Sports but both are allowed to exist as charities and state what they believe.

Pro Life and Pro Choice charities manage ti exist and accept eachother's existence without taking eachother to court to abolish eachother's charitable status.

There is no obligation for a charity's position or canpaigning to be universally approved of, or for it to not be in opposition to other charities.

Well that Pink News article just doesn't read like a Pink News article.

I do wonder what is going on that has resulted in such unbiased reporting?

It's almost as if the penny may be beginning to drop, or maybe wishful thinking?

They were very quick to disassociate themselves from pedo-trustee

www.pinknews.co.uk/2007/08/16/comment-my-journey-from-scared-teen-to-gay-activist/

The Mail has reported it too:

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11406993/Mermaids-bid-strip-gay-rights-group-charitable-status-homophobic-tribunal-hears.html

I thought the PN case could be read either way - I initially thought that the aim is to say 'see! Look at all the mad stuff LGBA are saying about our beloved TRANS CHILDREN CHARITY, MERMAIDS! Aren't they paranoid!' - highlighting the mentions of 'conspiracy' etc.

Thing is it doesn't read like that to those familiar with the case and what Mermaids actually have claimed, because we know it's true!

Tbf they did get quite a bit of KM's part in which is sensible and they haven't tried to twist it too much.

That really is an excellent example of how two conflicting views exist separately without regarding the other as an existential threat.

This ideology really is unique in its apparent inability to tolerate the existence of anything but itself.

Absolutely, Nils. They are the bigots around here.

@FaazoHuyzeoSix - that's an excellent example. I shall remember that...

True. Although it's fair to say that each side really does loathe everything the other stands for, and that one side in particular isn't above using dubious, underhand methods and extremely aggressive tactics.

There can be no question of competition for funding, however. As for one trying to abolish the other's charitable status, as far as I'm aware that has never even been attempted before.

Leave it to Mermaids to discover a new low with each passing year of their existence. If you have a conflicting stance to theirs, they will do everything within their now considerable power to silence it.

I'll be interested to read the CC's findings about them when their investigations are concluded.

The key difference is that Mermaids generates a lot of income from providing workshops, speakers and materials to schools and workplaces.

Unlike Countryside Alliance and League Against Cruel Sports, it's not about opposing viewpoints coexisting, but more about protecting a revenue stream and the reputation that enables MM to sell those services. To do that, especially with public money involved, they need to present their own stance as neutral, or at least the only acceptable one for right-thinking people, and to discredit LGBA for questioning that.

If MM's stance is seen as just one point of view, then, even without all the recent safeguarding questions, there is a huge issue about organisations paying for training on a complex issue from a pressure group with a big axe to grind.

Maybe a closer analogy would be a Catholic school having a speaker from SPUK. In that case the school is acknowledging that they have an ideological stance on abortion, and presumably Catholic parents would support their children being given information from organisations which are not neutral but share the school's beliefs on this issue.

I doubt many parents or employees would feel they've been asked for their views on whether they support otherwise secular schools and businesses adopting a quasi-religious view on gender, but that is effectively what has happened to enable organisations like MM and SW to provide advice and training.

I cannot believe that this username wasn't already snapped up. Chortle.

Sadly, while everything you say it’s true, this lawsuit would have had all the chances to succeed in Canada or dem USA , where reason has left the room a long time ago.

i think mermaids were emboldened by what happens on other countries and are expecting the uk to follow suit. Lucky for truth and reason, it hasn’t.

Bundlejuice 🤣

The comments on the Daily Mail article were quite depressing. Apart from the homophobic responses, a fair few blame LGBA as much as MM for the matter being before a tribunal. And they see it as a sordid squabble over money. Which is entirely down to MM so it seems doubly unfair on LGBA who have been dragged into this.

Just don't post a comment three times in quick succession because you know what will appear.

🤐

People link anything gay to Pride rainbow flags and they are linked to Stonewall who have introduced an ideology that everyone is sick of now. It's bossy, it's demanding, it's Orwellian and they've had enough.

Stonewall have caused a backlash against gay people even though it's nothing to do with the gay community. Unfortunately, they are all lumped together under this umbrella and people are beginning to resist being told what to do all the time.

I understand why they are also angry at donations being used for pointless court cases and most comments do recognise that this is MM's doing and LGBA are being forced to spend to defend themselves.

Unfortunately, they are all lumped together under this umbrella and people are beginning to resist being told what to do all the time.

It's an important point in this. Homosexual people have been dragged into that umbrella and are being held on to with teeth and claws because as Mermaids openly says: to permit them to escape divides Mermaid's funding stream.

We haven't yet got to unpacking the second reason openly enough in a court room although this case picks at many parts of it: That to Mermaids 'LGB' is NOT a descriptor of a wide diversity of people with the one single characteristic in common of homosexuality. To Mermaids, it is part of a large acronym stating a political position of gender ideology belief: hence their belief that they are not homophobic while wishing homosexuality to be eradicated and homosexual people forced to accept hetero sex with special people with no higher concern for them but an expectation they 'learn to cope' with it.

Mermaid's aim is to refocus all legal protections, public support and funding for LGB to their own field of TQ politics, and to force homosexual people who are non compliant with them out of services, resources, Pride, groups, law and essentially force them back into the closet.

This is why they are so totally pissed off with the LGBA existing, this is why it is an existential threat to them. The LGBA are proof that the TQ political lobby does not speak for or represent LGB people, and divides policy, practice, beliefs AND funding in a way that removes monopoly and control from TQ politics. The LGBA lobbying is not compliant with or helpful to the TQ political wishes for the use of LGB people and their resources.

nilsmousehammer

Great post, really clear setting out of the second issue. Thank you.

Brilliantly put.

Lets put it this way.

The CEO's husband didn't want a gay son and so they transitioned him.

That they think they are the arbiter of what gay, lesbian and bisexual people should think and do, when they are led by someone who reacted to homophobia by actually removing her son's penis, is deluded.

@AlisonDonut from the CEOs own Tedtalk that child was put through hell. I hope the child is happy now, if they have thoughts of what might have been I hope they are few and fleeting.
Transing kids is evil.