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 GLP do have an involvement/interest in this case.

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1589597408865886209

IS was absolutely brilliant. Loved that he asked for a definition from both Mermaids and LGBA for the words lesbian, gay and bisexual so everyone can understand which members of the public they actually support.

I'm glad this has been noted. I've donated to the LGBA several times including when they first set up (probably before they got charitable status). It's likely that every penny I have sent has gone on getting charitable status and now on defending it. I would much prefer that my donations went on the work that LGBA would like to do. I'm pretty annoyed about it tbh. Not with them obviously as none of this is their fault.

Another one hoping Mermaids end up with a massive legal bill. But LGBA will still end up with a big bill. "Costs" never translates into "ALL costs".

Perhaps Mermaids are suggesting that LGBA’s stated aims were a dog whistle?

Another example of ‘the punishment is the process’

Also making the cry laugh 😂 face at ‘Bundlejuice’.

Anyone brought along their mum, support dog or teddy bear today?

I just brought a massive bag of tortilla chips.

Just picking up on these comments earlier:

"Why did Stonewall make the umbrella so big that pretty much anyone who isn't either Barbie or GI Joe is trans?"

"MM accepts that a human rights charity is acceptable. On the other hand if they focus on a small group then there is no benefit."

When you put them together, it starts to make sense. The widening of the umbrella means whoever falls under it boosts the numbers of the cohort MM & SW claim to represent & can use to argue they need cash now etc. When they have online 'days of...' being celebrated as though it's a marginalised group that experiences discrimination etc. & then you see it's 'asexual' day or 'demisexual' day etc. you begin to see the wider picture and the manufacturing of perpetual victimhood that underpins the 'need' for such charities.

IMO, it's all about the cash & how much more you income you can generate for the 'most marginalised' group X or Y or Z under the umbrella that has feck all to do with LGB

What was the response to this please?

Charity Commission's counsel said he hadn't considered this but that they would read the documentation with the intention of the organisation that had drafted it in mind. So to paraphrase LGB Alliance's LGB people could be a different group of people to LGB people Mermaids might refer to.

It's utterly bonkers and homophobic but here we are.

The judge was making up a hypothetical scenario that would see LGB Alliance compete with Mermaids for the same people I think. I think he was getting at the standing point. It was a jumbled question and my mind was already blown that we can all merrily say that there is no agree definition of lesbian, gay and bisexual now.

Thanks

I don't think law, reality or anyone else outside of this bubble believes that homosexuals no longer exist. But this is demonstrating massively, along with the safeguarding nightmares, that Mermaids lost all contact with ground control a long time ago.

They are in fact trying to end homosexuality. As are stonewall. It's sexual 'racism' that has be stamped out because it permits others to places limit on the expression of (primarily male) choice of identity.

Madness isn't it? 'Lesbian, Gay & Bisexual Alliance' - could refer to anything at all, couldn't it? No-one is quite sure what those words mean, or to whom they could possibly refer.

'Mermaids' on the other hand... 🙄

As a side note, we get the posters here claiming vague things that run from:

• there's no such thing as homosexuality *Well if there is there's only a few of you horrible nuts, most of us are much nicer bi/pan people who don't say no to males
• Well all NORMAL homosexuals don't want exclusive same sex sex
• To say no to a male person wishing access to female lesbian sex is sexual racism/bigotry/hate
• Female homosexuals should learn to cope with unwanted sex they don't enjoy to provide service to unhappy males in need

It's always somewhat shocking when you hear the heart of the gender ideology empire speak and realise..... no this isn't a few confused, incoherent people with a limited grasp, this is all there is. No one even at the top has any clearer grip on the situation or the very, very obvious problems with it. They go into court with this exact same conflicting, muddled and rather jaw dropping stuff.

What is Mermaids own definition of gender?

Depends on the day of the week, I presume...

I just brought a massive bag of tortilla chips.

Emotional support snacks - much more practical!

Hvaldimir made me cry ffs

Ooh, did this happen? What was the response? I've been trying to follow on Twitter but it's not that clear...

Yes, but surely -

(1) Standing up for same sex attracted people is clearly and undoubtedly a valid aim

and

(2) Standing up for people who claim that sexual orientation is not a thing, and that humans are attracted to "gender" not sex, might be a valid aim.

but

(3) Standing up for people who claim that sexual orientation is not a thing, and that humans are attracted to "gender" not sex, whilst accusing people who believe that homosexuality exists as being anti trans bigots is categorically not a legitimate aim!

I cannot see how the CC and / or the Tribunal can't come out of this saying "all of Stonewalls and Mermaids aims are legitimate, but they are not compatible with supporting LGB rights, the TQ+ and the LGB need to be split."

Pretty sure that Mermaids aren't the brains behind anything!

I found this online, which is exactly what I understand the truth to be

Costs neutral: unlike most cases at court where the starting point is the “winner takes all” – although costs are largely at the court’s discretion the losing party is usually ordered to pay the winning party’s costs (or at least a large chunk of them) – at the Tribunal the starting point is that each side must bear their own legal costs, whether they win or lose.

Note "the starting point".

My understanding is that cost awards can be made in extreme circumstances. My (IANAL) interpretation is that costs can be awarded against a party who have behaved in a wholly unreasonable way.

My view is that homosexuality is same sex attraction under the law, the dicitionary definition, and the ordinary man on the clapham omnibus viewpoint. My view is that seeking to shut down a charity that wishes to fight for gay rights is wholly unreasonable. My view is that Mermaids should have costs awarded against them, and that they might, but it is probably unlikely.

I have said this on here before I think. IANAL but I have appeared at Tribunals (not Charity). I have seen costs awards against parties, but only once and in very extreme circumstances. The losing party did not appear honest or competent (and were criticized for dreadful bundles that resulted in massive amounts of wasted time for all concerned)! They had costs awarded against them not because they lost, but because they should have known that they had no case.

I’d like to know too!

Thanks to everyone posting. I wouldn't have a clue otherwise

I really hope LGBA do get costs awarded. I'm more and more convinced this was nothing more than a cynical attempt to bleed them dry with legal costs and destroy them that way. I still don't really understand how it ended up at a tribunal, it seems so flimsy.