Change of CEO at mermaids…

[backaftera2yearbreak]

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

Yes, jazz's pathway is pretty public.

Was there any indication that Jackie Green had a job, or degree, or anything of that nature? Or was it just travelling?

The real question is how such an amateur self invested organisation managed to get the influence and donations it did.

Answer's pretty easy - it was telling people (from all sorts of groups) what they wanted to hear.

"Yes, we know why you don't fit it"
"Yes, there's a simple explanation for your child's suffering"
"Yes, you were definitely always a girl, it's not a fetish"
"Yes, you're a super progressive person"
"Yes, you can work with vulnerable children"

Grr - "we know why you don't fit in". Was quite pleased with that otherwise...

It is strange that the job advert gives no indication of the target group of the charity. I am currently looking for a new job and my search is targeted to the specialist area within the field.

Now for the CEO job I might apply for "The wonderful cat" charity, not so much the "Doggies Rule" charity. I'd like to know at the outset.

SG is being lauded on Twitter by Helen Webberley - which is a bit like the police asking you to help with their enquiries and Charles Manson popping up to say what a good egg you are.

😂

I get that would work with parents, I still don't understand how they got such buy in from MPs, donations from children in need, the national lottery.

Maybe I expect too much from those in power 😁

A 'Badcharacter' reference

Someone has an income stream to protect.

Oh my life. If I was SG I’d be begging people like HW not to say stuff like that. It’s not exactly a glowing endorsement to a career and will show upon social media searches. Why would anyone think the support of a disgraced doctor would be useful. No sane charity will touch SG with a barge pole I think.

Nothing in the Sundays then?

If it's in the judgement and Mermaids have seen it ahead of time then that would mean it'll be published in the next couple of days.

I'm a bit disappointed that there isn't something coming out in the Sunday papers. Felt sure there would be.

It could be something that the charities commission investigation has unearthed. But it's also possibly something more mundane. I saw someone saying that at the court case hearing it looked like the chair of trustees and SG weren't speaking to each other. It could just be that working relationships have just failed to the point of it no longer being viable to continue in post.

I watched a House of Commons debate live (on the Parliament channel) a while ago and I don't know if anyone else remembers if, but Wera Hobhouse was absolutely beside herself when another MP mentioned something to do with transitioning or transgender. From her seat Hobshouse shouted, 'the most vulnerable!' and physically twisted herself around in an absolute froth. The speaker wasn't even saying anything contentious.

It was like watching someone caught up momentarily in a religious ecstasy. I guess that's passes for passionate politics these days in the political parties like the Lib Dems that have sold out on just about all their principles on environment, education, Europe and economy. What's left to get worked up about?

The Conservatives meanwhile have made massive safeguarding errors at governmental level because they lazily wanted to look like they were keeping up with the progressives. The absolute cynical bastards.

Exactly this! I’ve got my eye on a Charity job that will be becoming available in the next year or so (current incumbent approaching retirement age). It’s in my industry which I know like the back of my hand, though I’ve not worked for a Charity before. I’ve been researching working in Charities to make sure I’m fully up to speed on what might be required of the role, and the key thing that keeps coming up is that you have to be passionate about and/or have in depth knowledge of the given Charity’s raison d’etre.

How on earth is anyone meant to know from that advert if it’s a topic they are passionate/informed about?!

It was like watching someone caught up momentarily in a religious ecstasy.

This decade is really proving that many humans really need religion and gangs to belong to, and others to be better than, and excuses to bully and oppress, and ways to signal superiority and status. New religion and zealotry is having to be invented to permit it, but nothing whatsoever has changed about the basic human behaviours and psychology beneath it.

Witchfinders and Salem hysteria meet Dickins' Murdstones and Mr Brocklehurst''s cold and zealotic God Is Love cruelty (all for your own good), along with Margot Leadbetter and Hyacinth Bucket in their 'so much better than those nasty oiks', and desperate seeking of status and recognition.

FannyCann without going into detail, as I agree JG deserves privacy, 'quite happy' sadly doesn't seem to be the case at all from things I saw on social media a couple of years back (that was swiftly removed). Serious trauma. I hope it can be resolved, somehow.

Ah, well you can't tell much from occasional twitter posts and none recent, JG seems to prefer privacy and that is for the best. I hope there is the possibility of resolution and peace.

Yes, me too.

More mundane could merely be something along the lines of the charity commission asking what safeguarding reviews Mermaids had done based on the publication of the Cass Review and what measures they employ to try to identify and protect children under pressure from homophobic parents rather than assuming a blanket affirmative approach.

Susie Green if asked a question directly about this, as part of an investigation is liable to either answer particularly badly or start going on about transphobia which then doesn't address the safeguarding issue that's been asked.

Because she is one of the best examples of the exact problem the Cass Review highlighted and the LGB Alliance are concerned about.

And she also cannot legitimately say that she's made efforts to ensure knowledge of the contents of the Cass Review within the organisation and its representatives. Cos she had two under oath admit they knew nothing of it. And she's co-authored a document which doesn't acknowledge this problem.

Thats mundane because we know it's nothing new and just joining the dots of what's out there already. And stating that's not OK.

Those lines of thought would be exactly where an objective view would go in seeking to limit damage.

However I'm not sure I believe at this point that anyone is left in any of the big organisations that is able to have that kind of objectivity. They believe implicitly that what SG has said and done is right. I'm sure none of them have read the Cass report as was said at the court case, and would all dismiss it as nothing to do with them, and just transphobic ignorance anyway.

I will be very interested to see what caused the fall out between the org as a whole and SG. I don't think it was differences in values and beliefs. I'm not convinced they see any more than SG does that anything has happened that is wrong or would be prepared to compromise on in the face of difficult questions - as we've seen in several court cases.

I wonder whether they were advised to do as SW did and abandon the case, and SG pushed it through, and they are angry with her at having focused a lot of inconvenient scrutiny that's led to stupid people talking about stupid things like safeguarding and messing up their work.

The LDs are not a professional organisation in the way you'd believe. It has very few paid staff and is largely run from sheds and spare bedrooms. Only constituencies with a LD MP actually have a formal LD office.

The small number who run the organisation on a day to day basis on a voluntary basis via sub committees and federalised organisations are people who generally do not have many other commitments (like a family) or being able to delegate responsibilities to others.

Its extremely cliquey and inward looking and also extremely narrow in terms of socio-economic representation. The LDs for all the progressive talk are actually more white, male, middle class than any of the other parties which is perhaps surprising.

It had a report which found it had a problem with bullying and it said it had / was taking steps to rectify it. Then shortly after too the semi official position to tell gender critical women it wasn't the party for them. The irony of it was astonishing.

So yeah, don't expect professionalism from the LDs because that's not how they are set up or operate.

So true Nils

I watched Lucy Worsley Investigates (iPlayer, bbc2 I think) and couldn't help noting the parallels between the witch finder hysteria and the persecution of women in modern times. It was a very interesting episode.

www.nationaltheatre.org.uk/shows/the-crucible

The Crucible, 26th January next year. We should have a live watch-a-long on the Mumsnet boards.

There's a book coming out next year called Hags on this topic. I forget who by, it popped up on my algorithms, which says something (flattering) about me!

I think it's by Victoria Smith @glosswitch