Change of CEO at mermaids…

[backaftera2yearbreak]

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/susie-green-leaves-mermaids/

I very much doubt she left of her own accord. The usual thing is to say "I've decided to retire/found another job, here's three months notice to give you time to find an interim CEO." It seems much more likely that the trustees told her she had to go because of some looming scandal.

Yes, the tide turning is making people panic. And mermaids is the ideal platform to try and strengthen their position.

Except I think it's too late to stop the public's dawning suspicion of extreme transgenderism.

In a way I do hope mermaids go all in, as it will hasten their demise.

Hi RedToothBrush. Been through similar. DS 10 has ADHD and is also incredibly academically able. The council was trying to say that he didn't need an EHCP because his processing speed was at 50% which was normal. It took lots of fighting to point out that the rest of his brain was running at 98% - as assessed by their EDpsych- and it was that disparity that disadvantaged him.

Ultimately it was his lack of impulse control that pushed school into asking for an assessment and the council for finally giving in and granting the EHCP. It doesn't matter what he's achieving if he's a threat to hi self and others. For a long time, though, his academic ability masked his issues.

So many myths about what needs to be going on for an EHCP to be granted but you will get there if you persevere. It is a full time job, though. I'm now considering whether I have the strength/she has the need for me to go through it all again for DD 7...

What's that about?

In the middle of the Court Case Mermaids brought against LGBA and The Charity Commission Susie Green produced and released a video about the case and the evidence therein.

It was a monumentally stupid and arrogant thing to do but clearly SG didn't think rules around ongoing court cases, evidence therein and witnesses applied to her, or in her position as CEO of the party that brought the case.

I wonder if any of their Patrons would be in the running if the organisation isn't shut down? Munroe B of 'Protect Trans Kids' come-talk-to-me direct, fame; Jake Graf - who only yesterday on their Insta story was advocating for the complete safety of Puberty Blockers and also champions surrogacy (useful if you're advocating PBs at the onset of puberty); Hannah Graf MBE, Jake's wife who is ex-army logistics and has the gravitas associated with all that. Or maybe a Husband and Wife joint CEO-ship?!

It will be interesting to see if the organisation can reinvent itself. Maybe they'll create a Stonewall Juniors division as Nancy was such a cheerleader for them?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mermaids_(charity)

Just read the Wikipedia entry on Mermaids.

Its stark and doesn't cover everything - certainly no mention of the plethora of penis incident.

One of the things that stands out for me is Green's direct involvement with a couple of things this year which are crucially important to write here for context. The timings are of note.

Firstly in March Green forced Trans Gender Trend out of a conference at Great Ormond Street in March. The conference was then cancelled.

Then in July you had the Cass Review which closed GIDS.

This sits with the following quote in the wiki:
After taking her child to Boston in 2007 to receive puberty blockers, Susie Green worked to make them available in Britain from GIDS. In response, GIDS began prescribing blockers from 2011 onwards, making them widely available in response to demand from families. Clinical psychologist Kirsty Entwistle, on the GIDS staff from 2017, said: "Those who'd connected with Mermaids were terrified, because they'd been told that their child was going to kill themselves if they didn't get blockers." GIDS describes suicide as "extremely rare".

The implication being that there was a difference between families who come via Mermaids and those who had not. That's striking.

Then you have in September Green co-authoring the 8th edition of the standards of care issued by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health which goes contrary to the CASS Review in numerous places.

You cannot simultaneously claim to be pleased "cautiously optimistic" (quote from Susie Green) over the CASS Review and then have two witnesses in the LGB Alliance case for your side freely admit they hadn't read the case review and then co-author guidance that goes completely against the Cass Review and claim you have robust safeguarding.

It is an impossible position to hold.

All someone has to do is identify these points on the same thing which identify a lack of consistency and over sight that the organisation was fully aware of the contents of the Cass Review and ensured all staff and representatives knew and understood this and its safeguarding implications. Susie Green just cracked on with her own agenda anyway.

I would argue that Mermaids not making sure all staff and representatives were fully versed in the Cass Review is deeply negligent in its own right alone. The review was into safeguarding, yet Mermaids understanding of it can be described as 'fuzzy' at best.

There are also rumours about organisations trying to block the publication of the Cass Review in the first place. If Mermaids or Susie Green's name or any key Mermaids personal pop up in this context, they'd be a real problem. This hasn't happened yet but I don't think its beyond the realms of possibility by any means.

Certainly all this business about not being medical experts but then co-authoring medical pathway recommendations and giving out binders post Cass Review are deeply problematic and centre - at least in part - around Susie Green again.

This doesn't take a lot to see. This is without scratching below the surface.

@RedToothBrush if a private diagnosis meets the DSM 5 criteria your school/council/LEA have to accept it. I hope you are able to get a diagnosis soon.

Other thoughts.
The get rich law project will lose interest in an organisation with no revenue.

I am aware of an upcoming celeb led campaign for ND children. I predict other celebs jumping on board this timely bandwagon.

From one of the links up thread one newspaper article states she spent 18 months prior to his 16th birthday finding the surgeon. So after putting him on puberty blockers at 12, oestrogen at 13, from when he was 14.5 years old she was searching for someone to remove his meat and two veg.

Apart from the fact the only other group of people I know who spend so much energy counting down to a child's16th birthday are usually men who don't want to be accused of sleeping with a child. They'd really like to do it earlier but the law won't let them.

The fact that it happened on exactly his 16th birthday is what I find So awful. She obviously would have got them removed at an earlier age if she could have found someone to do it to him.

She also used the house to raise the money for the surgery. Can you imagine how that kid felt, knowing what his family had sacrificed to do this.

It's obvious from everything she herself had put out there her child never had a choice in any of this. Even if it was the right course of action for this child, it would still have been wise to wait until he was an adult, like proper fully formed brain adult, before he As an adult did the work himself to find someone to remove his bits.

I had a very strongly opinionated mother, it was always her way of doing things. I'm a strong character and I found it hard to go against her wishes.

Susies child never stood a chance of discovering exactly what was right for them. They will never know if this was the right choice of action for them or for their mother as Susie took that decision away from him.

She conspired for years to have her son medicated and then surgically modified. For no good reason.

I truly hope at some point they find some way of prosecuting her, and her husband, for the abuse they arranged to be inflicted on their child.

Touch pitch and be defiled..

One of the reasons the middle aged men who self ID as women so relentlessly pursue the transitioning of children is because it's so hard to challenge without centring a vulnerable, often mentally unwell child.

And the other reason is that focusing on children removes sex from the equation.

Susie's understanding of gillick competence needs to be seen through this lens at all times.

Its relevant to ability to safeguard other people's children.

If Green hasn't the capacity to ask certain questions about the influence of parents (a key finding in the Cass Review) how can she lead safeguarding herself?

The Cass Review said about homophobic parents being a problem and there's Susie Green with her own personal history. It is incompatible.

I think a short chat with Green on this subject would be very revealing.

How do Mermaids intend to work in the best interests of children to ensure gay and lesbians teens are not pressured unduly by their parents into thinking they need hormones and surgery to transition?

Boom. One question. Everything falls apart in one single question with Susie Green in charge.

A single question.

I'm shocked too. I mean we have always been told that Mermaids are wonderful.

Come on defenders, step up.

I would like to state my personal support for Susie Green without whom Mermaids would not begin to exist. Mermaids must keep focussed on the needs of those they state they support, and keep the safety and rights of trans youth at the forefront
Helen Webberley, late this morning on Twitter. Robust responses so far.

Always protect the income stream.

Wouldn't a starting point be the "serious physical harm" element of "causing or allowing" under the 2004 Act, as amended?

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/child-abuse-non-sexual-prosecution-guidance

"Causing or allowing death or serious physical harm
Section 5 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (DVCVA 2004) created the offence of causing or allowing the death a child or vulnerable adult. The section was amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims (Amendment) Act 2012. The amendment came into force on 2 July 2012 and extended the offence in section 5 to cover cases of causing or allowing a child or vulnerable adult to suffer serious physical harm.
This stand-alone offence imposes a duty upon members of a household to take reasonable steps to protect children or vulnerable adults within that household from the foreseeable risk of serious physical harm from other household members."

For Susie Green situation with her child? You can't retrospectively be prosecuted for things before the law has been changed. The time line makes it difficult.

Undermining child safeguarding is a feature not a bug with this ideology. Someone linked the WPATH response to the new NHS guidelines - just look at how many of their comments somplainabout safeguarding measures / age appropriate responses. They even challenge the idea that all a child's mental health issues should be acknowledged / treated.

listloop.com/wpath/mail.cgi/archive/adhoc/20221125183220/

It really is a case of "when someone shows you who they are, believe them the fist time".

I suppose the best way to prosecute her for something from before the law was changed would be that the person that was harmed, Jackie, would have to go to the police and ask for their parents to be investigated for child abuse.

Fingers crossed that when/if JG realises they had an abusive childhood they will do exactly this and go to the police.

Yes. Genspect have created a service specifically for this

In all the scandal and speculation and rejoicing I think this is my favourite thing. It's like when they used the octopus to predict football scores - the big question moving forward will always be "Ah yes, but what does this news mean? Over to @FusilliFettler for the ultimate verdict: TRA Tantrum or Cats"

Great nd useful summary. Thanks Red

I've never been able to believe that's what's happened to various children under the auspices of "affirmation" isn't an offence or collection of offences. Perhaps then, this is the starting point, the 1933 Act:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/23-24/12

I hope you're right, Resister. There are few things that would make me happier than seeing Susie Green taken off to prison.

Yes that would truly be a day to celebrate. She can while away the time chatting to her trans woman cellmate.

Mic drop @PatientZorro