Change of CEO at mermaids…

[backaftera2yearbreak]

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

I read as change of culture within the organisation itself rather than cultural perceptions of society. Which could be a fantastic move if they mean what I think they do, but do they have enough self awareness to realise that's what they desperately need?

I am not at all surprised if it turns out that under SG no care at all was taken to safeguard that procedures, processes, sytems, management… conformed to any standards.

The essence of SG was always to ‚know better‘ and therefore ignore and circumvent any controls and regulations. That was her whole message.

I suspect that, in the wake of the Breslow and Mew revelations, MM was forced to review the background checks that had been conducted on staff and volunteers, especially given that their headcount had increased considerably around a year ago.

Who knows what else was uncovered? Might explain the very swift shutdown of MM helplines as well as the sudden departure of SG.

Anna SheHer doesn't mention trans at all. Or children/ young people.

Ah yes that makes a lot more sense.

It’ll still be an uphill battle I should think. They can’t change too significantly or they will just be written off as TERFs. I foresee a mass exodus of tantruming non-binary staff.

'Piece' implies PR/image.
Mention of people management is interesting and suggestive
And anyone actually hot on EDI as in all nine characteristics and actual law, would go down like a bucket of cold sick with the staff.

They don't just need someone 'fantastic', they need Mary Flipping Poppins.

Re: bucket of sick - maybe that's the point.

A realisation that they need to clear the decks of all the people SG attracted to the charity.

If they choose to go then that's a win.

This absolutely smells ferrety to me....

Rather like the Tavistock, I suspect it will not be possible to adapt and repair, and the answer is to begin again, however with strong boundaries to prevent those with views and beliefs incompatible with safeguarding, regulation and law from simply recreating the problem.

I really that is what is going to happen in the centres that replace the Tavistock.

Yes, that jumped out for me, too. Where was the tweet seen?

D'oh - late catching up with the thread and all my comments have ended up together at the bottom.

That should be: "I really hope that is what is going to happen in the centres that replace the Tavistock".

twitter.com/RedMags60/status/1597979190313115648?s=20&t=jqGQbmxO_mdcp2X3namMSg

That's interesting cos my deletion was swift. All I had done, was quoted text from the Telegraph which was about WPATH and the e-word (won't say it in case that's not allowed either) Maybe watchers were quick on the draw?

But the article was a proper one and the word was used in the right context.

Looks like desperate window dressing, particularly as it's spiced up with the "culture change piece" management speak BS

80k, eh? Wonder what's the reason for the increase?

If they have lost a load of funding, there may have to be an organisational change (redundancy) piece. I genuinely don't say this with any satisfaction, because losing your job through no fault of your own is miserable.

But the advert doesn't read as any endorsement of Green, they are essentially looking for someone to mop up her mistakes.

Whoever it is, I really want to be a fly on the wall at the first equality and diversity discussion that happens once they're appointed.

I think this is what's happened.

Green bullshitted her way out of previous stuff as she was held in esteem as being an authority on what to do.

So she got away with the data breach. The stuff with their forum was explained away as just being the charity growing.

But the Cass Review highlighting the medical and ethical bullshit brings that into question. And thats coupled with major safeguarding fails which highlight problems are ongoing and Green wasnt properly doing things. The court case with the LGB Alliance is yet another example of poor judgment and decision making. Basically she was so far out of depth and unprofessional and could no longer be excused or justified. Especially with the charity commission breathing down their neck.

I suspect the 'Mermaids is under attack' campaign was the straw that broke the camels back and a row behind the trustees and Green over the safeguarding issue broke out. The Trustees wanted safeguarding matters resolving but Green responded by doubling down and saying there is no problem its just Mermaids being unfairly targeted. Because that's the only way she could cover for her lack of ability to do the job at that point. Susie was essentially getting paid a lot to fail to do the job required for a charity of Mermaids size.

It sounds like they are now looking for someone with plenty of experience in the charity sector willing to clean house - which will potentially include at least a partial reverse ferret. They want someone who knows what responsibilities come with the job and an income of that size.

But there are still plenty of fuck wits out their in the charity sector for whom this is still beyond but will fancy making a name for themselves with this one. Not realising the cash cow has been killed in the charity famine of the incoming winter of 2022/23.

Green got as far as she did by creating the fantasy of 'better a daughter than a dead son' and talking up suicide based on the issues within her own family which to any sane outsider look like a homophobic attitude used to convert a child who touched the wrong toys. Green was a fabulous saleswoman. She probably could sell ice to the inniut. And as such everything is explained on being trans with no consideration of another explanation. Hence Mermaids success. Its sales and marketing of an idea. Not duty of care and safeguarding of children.

That is until the Cass Review explicitly said it was an observation of a pattern that was happening - dubious parent child relationships which were trying to medicalise children because they didn't live up to parental expectations and desires or were otherwise victims of other trauma often sexual.

Whilst Green never made any secret of what she did, people excused it because to believe differently was to realise that someone was so open about her questionable actions to the point of pride and telling anyone who would listen. That's kinda incomprehensible to take in.

People tend to see the good in others and are trusting as a default. Especially the naive young of the left who have lived middle class lives untroubled by abuse or relative hardship.

It will be interesting to see how this pans out and what the background of the new CEO is...

The Trustees shit a brick as the penny dropped over everything...

Sounds very plausible @RedToothBrush

Does India Willoughby need employment at the moment? 😈

Before they hid their staff list, I had a look at it. Pretty much every single employee is trans identified or is the parent of a trans identifying child.

No charity should be entirely run by people who have a vested interest in a particular outcome. There must be scrutiny and governance within - particularly when you are in receipt of large amounts of public money.

I think this is a wider issue than just mermaids but it bears repeating. The cult of the charismatic leader is a disaster in a charity context.

I think RedToothbrush has nailed it.

*I am not at all surprised if it turns out that under SG no care at all was taken to safeguard that procedures, processes, sytems, management… conformed to any standards.

The essence of SG was always to ‚know better‘ and therefore ignore and circumvent any controls and regulations. That was her whole message.*

This is interesting because I confess to having wandered over to that farming site in search of gossip. And what struck me is how very little information those miners have been able to dig up. Suzie Green the IT consultant has done a great job of teaching her family to protect their privacy and limit their social media output.
Yet Suzie Green, CEO of Mermaids has seen a massive data breach of confidential information relating to many children/families, a shockingly cavalier attitude to safeguarding the forums and chat rooms and the wider culture of the organisation.

It's a mystery.

+1

But why would you take another charity and, indeed, the Charity Commision itself, to court, thus putting your own under scrutiny, if you knew you had not been compliant?

Was it just pure arrogance? Or vexatious litigation perhaps?

Even so, such a risk to take and the board must have agreed to it.

Don't forget that Stonewall was in there in the early days, then ran off and left Mermaids on its own.

A mixture of arrogance and stupidity and a big dollop of Susie Greens God complex