Judgement in Mermaids v Charity Commission tribunal expected in days

[RoyalCorgi]

This is the case where Mermaids challenged the Charity Commission's decision to give charitable status to the LGBA.

Don't have any more detail at the moment, but thought you'd all be interested. It's been a four month wait already.

I don't see how anyone can cause such huge expenses for a charity on a baseless accusation. This could bring down any small charity that couldn't source money for lawyers. Mermaids should pay costs.

I believe there's only one word to use to describe that..."spite".

How appropriate for an organisation with the track record Mermaids has.

It's all the politicised end of this movement has. They certainly don't have science, common sense or safeguarding duty as part of their approach.

Judgement is up:

I really think they cocked up the management of this case. There should have been a preliminary hearing on standing and then everything else followed on (or not) from there. Would have saved a lot of time and money.

I read their statement and was amazed, as ever, by these people's capacity for denial.

Then again, they're well-practiced.

This is a bit 'conspiracy theory' but there are some very big backers around who ensure cash sloshes around organisations such as Mermaids. Is it possible that they are trying to drain cash from GC supporters as a way of ending up with TRA's winning by default. I know, a bit of a daft idea but look what's happening in the US and lots of their big bucks are trying to influence UK politics

There are hints that it could have been about the degree of political activity. CC guidance is that "Charities can take part in political activity that supports their purpose and is in their best interests. There may be situations where carrying out political activity is the best way for trustees to support their charity’s purpose. However, political activity must not become the reason for the charity’s existence."

The decision notes that "Throughout their existence as an organisation, both before and after registration as a charity, LGBA has been politically active."

It's possible - based solely on my reading of the decision - that the panel members disagreed about whether political activity is the main reason for LGBA to exist.

Like: " If you hadn't overtaken me, I'd have won that race"

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/mermaids-v-the-charity-commission-for-england-wales/

Good Law Project statement:

goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/

Apologies I can't format

"Are you disappointed with the outcome?
The LGB Alliance has a free speech right to attack trans people. But its activities should never have been subsidised with public funds – or recognised as in the public interest – by the Charity Commission. This felt to the sector – and to Good Law Project – like a very important line in the sand to defend.
Obviously we regret that, having tried, we failed. But given the line the Charity Commission crossed we believe it was important to try.
We signalled that “the case is not straightforward” when we began the challenge. And this fact is reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision: the hearing began ten months ago.
Why did you support the case?
We supported the case because someone needed to and we are very successful in the space. We funded the successful intervention against the Keira Belll decision and we funded the successful ABB case which established that parents could consent to puberty blockers for their children. Later this month the Court of Appeal will hear our appeal against NHS England’s failure to address the trans community’s healthcare needs.
And because the sector wanted us to bring it. It was supported by the LGBT Consortium, of 525 LGBT+ organisations, who were deeply concerned that an organisation whose actions are about excluding trans people would be able to obtain charity status, with all the benefits this brings.
Good Law Project has also actively scrutinised the Charity Commission, successfully challengingg the appointment of Martin Thomas, a friend of Boris Johnson and implicated in sexual misconduct, as its Chair. And, working with a cross-party group of MPs, we referredd the global warming enthusiast charity, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, to the Charity Commission. The GWPF is, like the LGBA, based at 55 Tufton Street.
The Charity Mermaids was the Claimant because it had been repeatedly and explicitly targeted by LGBA."

Less than an hour.

Along with the DARVO - they are the 'victims' who came under attack from the LGBA.

The Tribunal didn’t consider that LGBA’s attacks on Mermaids, and their attempts to undermine our reputation, amounted to the kind of “direct affect” that is required by the Charities Act 2011. They also concluded that, because many of LGBA’s criticisms of Mermaids had pre-dated LGBA’s registration as a charity, the decision to register LGBA was not in itself the cause of the impact – indeed they thought that it might have reduced the impact, by constraining LGBA’s conduct.

BINGO!

Obviously we regret that, having tried, we failed.

From the decision:
"Mermaids profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s Decision emotionally, politically and intellectually. We acknowledge that this disagreement is sincere, as are the concerns that have been voiced before us. Furthermore, it is apparent to us that many of those that support the work of Mermaids or those it supports also strongly disagree with the Decision. As noted by the Commission, they may well have had valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA and its activists have said in the past. However, applying the facts to the actual legal issue before us, the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement."

Meantime, Mermaids are themselves under investigation.

It's unfortunate that Stonewall ran away, as they might have had standing, and we might have got a proper judgement.

But given the line the Charity Commission crossed we believe it was important to try.

That looks as though it could be actionable, given the findings.

The Good Law project, is essentially crowd-funding going to Jolyon Maugham to pay for himself to represent whatever cause.

Someone should archive the page in case they change the wording.

"Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism, or from having it said that it is undeserving of public money in comparison to another charity. Public scrutiny, together with prompt and effective regulation by the Commission, will, we find, deter LGBA from crossing the line into what is inconsistent with the law or the regulatory regime in which all charities must operate. There is no legal right to funding, to donations or access to grant holding bodies. If LGBA’s activities operate to deprive Mermaids of those opportunities then this is either a legitimate and protected function of their freedom of speech or, if a consequence of behaviour that is unlawful or unacceptable for a charity, will give Mermaids a cause of action or grounds for complaint to the Commission."

Ha ha!

Because as we all know when it comes to matters of law it is feelingz and emotions that should be the guiding principles that determine outcomes. Not statute , legal precedent or considered judgement.

Reads a bit like "If my car was made of cabbage, it would be a saxophone."

That's basically the entire logic of gender identity ideology in a nutshell.

it never made sense Mermaids bringing it? LGBA are a Stonewall equivalent in terms of category.

True but LGBA's emphasis on safeguarding for their proposed young people's phoneline project is a bigger threat to Mermaids who also focus on children and young people and run a children's phoneline that doesn't always seem to believe in safeguarding, than it is to Stonewall who have many other strings to their bow.

The key part of the judgment seems to be this: “Nonetheless, and notwithstanding significant time being spent on deliberation in trying to do so, the two members of the panel hearing this appeal have been unable to reach agreement on whether, if Mermaids does have standing, LGBA is a charity within the meaning of the 2011 Act.”

so it appears to be true that one of the two judges considered LGBA should not have been accepted as a charity.