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.

Hypothesising wildly here, but if they had granted standing to Mermaids and then had to debate whether the work of LGBA is more political than charitable, it would have shot Mermaids in the foot (how much of their work is political? I'd argue most) and would have been an absolute cheek given that the LGBA is such a new charity and any charitable work they have tried to get off the ground has been thwarted by the likes of Mermaids shouting 'hate group! Remove funding!' from them.

For most of their existence, they have been fighting for money due to the 'hate group' accusations. Who knows what they'd have achieved by now without this sort of vexatious litigation tying their hands behind their backs.

Leave them alone now to do the charitable work that have always wanted to do!

Hypothesising wildly here, but if they had granted standing to Mermaids and then had to debate whether the work of LGBA is more political than charitable, it would have shot Mermaids in the foot (how much of their work is political?

I keep wondering this. Surely if Mermaids have standing to challenge the CC over LGBA then every other charity would have standing to challenge the CC over mermaids “charitable” status. Or do they think they have a magic invisibility shield that would protect them against such litigation?

Ok have been trying to pick this apart and find the interesting/important bits. I'm not a lawyer, so may have got my reading on some of this very wrong, so feel free to correct / challenge.

1. We have dismissed this appeal because we have decided that the law does not permit Mermaids to challenge the decision made by the Charity Commission to register LGB Alliance as a charity. We considered the extent of Mermaids’ legal rights and whether Case Reference: CA/2021/0013 2 they were affected by that decision. Mermaids is a “legal person”, and it is that charity’s legal rights with which we are concerned and not those of the people they support.

So Mermaids are a 'person'

2. The topics on which we have heard evidence, and the broader implications both for individuals and society, are important matters of public interest on which strong views are held and publicly expressed. We are conscious that this case was regarded by some as being about the rights of gender diverse people or about the rights of gay, lesbian and bisexual people, but it is not; the focus of this decision is upon a small part of the Charities Act 2011 and what it means, applied in the circumstances of this case.

It is not about the T v the LGB. This is about the legalities of a Charity.

15. At the hearing before us, all parties expressed their wish that the Tribunal would set out its hypothetical conclusion on the second issue even if it ruled against Mermaids on the first. We recognise the significant benefits of avoiding a re-hearing of the second issue should our decision on the first be subsequently re-opened. 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. While a mechanism does exist to resolve a situation where a panel is not unanimous, it concerns the actual decision to be made by the Tribunal. We are unanimous that this appeal should be dismissed on the issue of standing in any event. In those circumstances we consider it inappropriate to set out our individual reasons on a hypothetical issue.

You can't separate whether Mermaids have a legal right to challenge from whether the LGBA has a right to be a Charity in this case. If either point fails the whole case fails.

24. On the issue of whether the claimant would be able to apply to the Tribunal in the circumstances of that case, Lord Carlile commented that were he required to finally determine the point he would adopt the submission of the Commission and find that: “A person who is or may be affected, in my judgment, means someone who has an interest that is materially greater than, or different from, the interests of an ordinary member of the public.”

This is in reference to case law and a previous rulings. There are several more points in the rules on the same theme. The premise is basically is that the question must be asked is it Public Interest question must be sufficiently asked in order to give the power to an individual to challenge a charitiable status. In order to do so you have to demonstrate that an individual has a significantly greater interest that is substantially different to the rest of the population and are well, incredibly special and vulnerable.

31. In Colman, Judge McKenna held that the question of whether a person is or may be affected by a decision of the Commission is highly fact sensitive, dependent on the nature of the decision made and the person’s relationship to the decision. She went on to indicate that “perceived risks” of financial loss and damage to reputation were “in principle” matters which could give a person an interest in a decision that was greater than that of an ordinary member of the public. Judge McKenna concluded that: “in order for a person to be affected by a decision of the Charity Commission in the sense identified by Lord Carlile, there must be an identifiable impact upon that person’s legal rights at the time the order is made so as to merit a right of redress in the Tribunal. In order to be a person who “may” be affected by a decision of the Charity Commission, it seems to me that there would have to be an identifiable impact on that person’s legal rights which is sufficiently likely to occur to make it fair to allow them a right of appeal. In the particular circumstances of this case, I do not consider that the Appellant falls into either category.”

32. It is in this decision of Judge McKenna that the need for an identifiable impact on a person’s ‘legal rights’ is first identified as necessary for a person to be “affected”.

So this sets out the bar for impact to measure the 'special and vulnerable' idea and the ruling sets this out:

34. From the judgment of Asplin J we therefore extract the following principles to be applied in relation to decisions whether a person is within the category of persons who have standing pursuant to paragraph (c) of the entry in column 2 of Schedule 6, or in other words, a “person who is or may be affected by the decision”:

a. The category of persons in question in each case is not prone to a “definitive definition” and should be construed to connote circumstances in which the decision in question has a direct, or the potential for a direct, effect upon a person’s legal rights.

b. The question is fact sensitive and must be considered in each case in the light of all the relevant circumstances.

c. In order to be a person affected by the decision, the Commission’s decision itself must relate to the person in some way.

d. To be a person who has been affected the person’s legal rights must have been impinged, altered or affected by the Commission’s decision.

e. To be a person who “may” be affected, there must be an identifiable impact on the person’s legal rights which is likely to occur.

f. It is insufficient that a person disagrees with the decision emotionally, politically or intellectually and as a result is affected emotionally and/or socially, however sincere their concerns.

g. The Attorney General has standing and is in a position to bring an appeal in the public interest but there is no public interest test encompassed with the statutory phrase, no matter what the public importance of determining whether a charity is in fact charitable.

h. The extent of a person’s engagement in the Commission’s decision-making process is not relevant to the question of whether they are or may be affected by the decision.

i. The fact that neither the Attorney General nor any other person with standing has challenged a decision is not relevant to the question of whether another

person has standing, whether or not they challenge the decision solely on their own behalf or as a “representative” of a broader section of the public

37. We are bound to consider whether Mermaids’ legal rights have been or may be impinged, altered or affected by the decision. Although the subject of some discussion, we were not directed to any definition of “legal right” in this context. All parties agreed that it would not be necessary to demonstrate an existing or potential cause of action, which would be the clearest indication that a person had or may have a legal right that had been impinged, altered or affected by the decision.

So Mermaids are a legal person. They do not have the right to challenge the status because it was determined that they are not affected enough - more than a normal person - just having different views isn't sufficient. It reads like they are effectively saying that they aren't special enough and there are other interests which also need representing (basically freedom of speech)

Interestingly in the fact section it says:

46. Mermaids submits that the evidence demonstrates that LGBA:
a. In public, for example on social media, mischaracterises Mermaids’ activities;
b. Encourages organisations not to support or work with Mermaids, including challenging their sources of funding;
c. Makes media attacks on individuals and organisations who support or work with Mermaids.
d. Has used, or intends to use, its charitable status not only to obtain: i. Funding to further its above activities, whether by grants, donations or gift aid; ii. Greater support and publicity for its programmes; iii. Enhanced credibility for views with which Mermaids profoundly disagrees; but also by doing so to increase the effectiveness of its activities that primarily seek to stop Mermaids’ work and destroy its reputation and sources of funding

47. There was no dispute that LGBA has a social media presence and cultivates its public profile. This activity is described by Mermaids as a campaign against them; LGBA disputes that characterisation and describes their activities in terms of facilitating the public debate in this area, by putting another point of view.

48. In our judgement, it is important to distinguish between the activities of LGBA the organisation and the activities of those who simply support its cause. A charity cannot be held responsible for the actions of a supporter, and it will not reflect on the charity unless they have in some way organised, endorsed or actively encouraged any such behaviour. Mermaids drew our attention to the actions of certain supporters, as we set out below

49. It is also important to distinguish between activities by the pre-existing organisation that occurred before the organisation was registered and those after the registration Decision. That is not to say that the former is not capable of illuminating the rationale or motivation for later activities, and whether Mermaids “may be affected”, but any alteration in the nature or volume of activities of the newly registered charity as compared to the non-registered organisation may itself demonstrate the effect or potential effect of the Commission’s Decision. Indeed, the Commission itself can be seen as concerned that LGBA should alter its social media activities following registration, stating within the Decision itself:

37. During the course of the registration case, the Commission noted some evidence of social media activity (information that was posted or re-posted on social media) by LGB Alliance and considered that some of the language used may be regarded as inflammatory and offensive. In addition, it was not immediately obvious how some of these postings furthered any of the LGB Alliance’s purposes. The Commission was concerned that, although it promoted the rights of some groups, the activity appeared to involve, at times, demeaning or denigrating the rights (recognised by law) of others

38. The Commission raised these concerns with LGB Alliance and in response LGB Alliance reviewed and revised its social media policy. LGB Alliance stated that it intended to adopt a less defensive and confrontational approach to social media engagement. The revised social media policy places a focus on the language and tone of the social media posts and states that staff must never: unlawfully discriminate; make offensive, abusive or threatening comments or harass or bully other people in any way or breach any laws or ethical standards.

So there is a point here about how it may not be legitimate for the LGBA as a Charity to openly and deliberately keep saying specific things about the conduct of Mermaids. (which would also explain the Charity Commission's Statement). But this is a separate matter to whether they should have been given Charitable Status in the first place.

On principle acting as a charity which uses its status to target another status is not ok.

This doesn't mean that its not legitimate to question the conduct of a Charity. Its just not necessarily appropriate for another Charity to do it and for it to be a focus of its agenda - this may be too political (BIG CAVET ON THIS THOUGH: SEE LATER POSTS). And there is an open question about what constitutes 'civilised debate':

Then we have this:
70. All the above applies equally to charities as it does individuals. Mermaids submits that LGBA has gone beyond the boundaries of civilised debate. In the registration Decision as extracted above, the Commission can be seen to have had similar concerns. In light of the evidence, we consider that these were well-founded. However, it is important to recognise:
a. Where those actions were taken by LGBA, rather than by those who support or concur with their beliefs but do not speak on its behalf; and
b. Where those actions were taken before the decision was taken, and have since ceased

71. LGBA’s activities prior to the application for registration, throughout the period awaiting registration and post registration, taken together with the evidence we heard, demonstrate clearly to us that LGBA is determined to present its view to the public and to challenge those it disagrees with, regardless of registration. Mermaids has therefore failed to establish the causal relationship claimed between the registration Decision and the effect of LGBA’s activities on Mermaids.

72. It is unlikely that in any sphere of public debate all the stakeholders will hold the same opinions. Where a debate concerns fundamental aspects of what it means to be a human we may all have an opinion, we may decide to align ourselves with others of similar views, and we may choose to dispute the position taken by those we disagree with. One charity may, in principle, publicly object to the way in which another charity chooses to achieve its charitable objects. Mr Nicolson described in his statement how he felt the debate had gone beyond civilised boundaries. In her statement Ms Harris described a similar sentiment, describing the situation as vitriolic. Such debate is circumscribed by the law in the way views are expressed and, in recognition of the specific position of charities, regulation by the Commission. However, there is no legal right to be free from criticism by those who disagree with you or to prevent those who hold beliefs that the law recognises as protected from expressing themselves or seeking to persuade others to their point of view

73. To be a person who “may” be affected, there must be an identifiable impact on Mermaids’ legal rights which is likely to occur. Mermaids’ arguments can be divided into two. First, it argues that the decision gives LGBA access to funds that will make its activities more effective, in particular as regards interference with Mermaids’ endeavours. We have found that 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.

So judgement says, if you've got a problem Mermaids, take it up with the Charity Commission and stick in a legal complaint about the LGBA activities post charitable status - don't question the fact the fact the grounds on which they were given status.

74. The second way in which Mermaids put its case on the effect of LGBA’s activities was to simply point to greater competition for funds in relation to the subject matter of its objects. In deciding whether to register a charity the Commission has no quota or restriction upon the number of charities that may be registered for any particular charitable purpose. The aims of many charities overlap, such as those researching treatments for cancer in all its forms, and thus there is inevitable competition between them for funds to pursue their work.

Charities are not monopolies. Yay!

75. Moreover, in order for Mermaids to be a person affected by the decision, the Commission’s decision itself must relate to Mermaids in some way. The decision under appeal in this case does not relate to Mermaids, it is not about Mermaids nor its work. The decision is about LGBA and although Mermaids was interested in the outcome of the registration process, like Mr Nicholson in the cases he brought, such an interest or even engagement in the process does not vest Mermaids with a right to challenge the decision. The extent of Mermaids’ engagement in the Commission’s decision-making process is not relevant to the question of whether they are or may be affected by the decision.

Basically says Mermaids, you don't get to go 'wah wah wah' because you don't like the fact that the Charity Commission gave the LGBA charitiable status because you don't like what they stand for and their stated legitimate aims.

76. It is very clear to us that 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

Again saying that Mermaids may have cause to take up a complaint with the Charity Commission for the LBGA's behaviour.

Again hence, why the Charity Commission is saying 'oh come on now belt up' because it already has a court case on Mermaid's charitable conduct to deal with. They are probably fed up.

I think there is a strong message to the LGBA to wind its neck in as a charity v Mermaids going on here if that is the sole interest of its work

HOWEVER I also don't think means that there isn't an issue. And actually if there is real concerns about Mermaids the LGBA is arguably duty bound to protect its members and talk about that. Afterall their legitimate aims are to protect the interests of gay, bisexual and lesbian people. If they see something which is causing actual harm they may well have a legitimate point to act to protect. And thats where it gets difficult in terms of what may constitute political activity and a legitimate charitable aim to protect the interests of a vulnerable groups.

The Charity Commission really doesn't want to play piggie in the middle though. Nor get in the middle of a political storm.

What we could well see is a complaint about the LGBA being put in. But that doesn't mean the LGBA would be ruled against by the Charity Commission for acting beyond their remit or being too political. ESPECIALLY if complaints against Mermaids in the meantime were found to be fair and potentially causing harm to the very groups that the LGBA seeks to represent. In that scenario it would put the Charity Commission in a really awkward position - by being seen to favour one over the other. But this wouldn't be based on beliefs but on conduct.

All that the Commission have said at this point is that they have 'concerns' over what the LGBA have been saying (as this may not be a legitimate thing to do on principle as a charity) but if complaints against about the conduct of Mermaids are found to be fair, then they really can't argue the case to necessarily be political (the point being that the Charity Commission have to remain neutral at all times so if there is a point that the LGBA may be felt to be harassing another charity thats the line the Commission effectively have to take - that it may constitute behaviour that is problematic - to remain neutral. HOWEVER if there then is a ruling against Mermaids then you can't constitute it harassment legally as you've got a public interest defence against that as there is a demonstratable point that harm has / may have been caused to a vulnerable group that the LGBA represent the interests of so it all gets really rather messy and political).

Ideally the Charity Commission want an end to this conflict. And I actually think they are trying to deescalate the situation (and to try and deter Mermaids from going down this route too and want the LBGA to calm it down and leave it for them to now deal with rather than further fan flames onto a volitile situation).

It will be now VERY interesting how the investigation into Mermaids now goes given this ruling and given the statement of the Charity Commission and more so the reasons that are given in the conclusion of the investigation into Mermaid's conduct.

Messy. Very Messy.

I think there's a rather massive problem for Mermaids try to make a complaint that the LGBA are too political...

...if they did go down that route and win and got a ruling on that basis, what defense do they, Stonewall and other charities have against the same complaint being levelled at them?

They would be inviting yet another (costly) legal battle on top of this one thats just gone and taking a complaint to the Charity Commission.

Of COURSE the Charity Commission doesn't want that ruling. Can you imagine what would start happening to various charities in the sector? The degree to which political agendas have become intwinned with charities isn't small.

It would be a MASSIVE thing for the whole sector and the Commision itself which would rather try and be impartial rather than rule that x, y or z behaviour is too political / the wrong type of political.

I think.

Yeah. I think its messy.

And any appeal / complaint Mermaids try and make from this one is liable either to end up wiping them out financially or risk their own charitable status for acting too politically.

Mermaids were dumb enough to bring this case though. So I don't rule out them being dumb enough to not see that doing so would most likely be shooting themselves not in the foot but the head.

Maugham will be throwing his heterosexual toys out of the pram, I'm sure - like this has got anything to do with him.

I mean, didn't he once write on Twitter that a selfie of Paris Lees made him want to slide into Paris's DM's? And he has deliberately indicated in a otherwise unlinked matter that he likes wearing his wife's kimono. Far be it from me to out anyone but I do think sometimes people (in general) involve themselves in certain campaigns due to trying to alleviate their own (unwarranted, of course) shame.

So delighted for the LGBA. What a waste of their time and money though.

John McManus AT JohnMcM1
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status". In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.

Indeed.

John Nicolson MP AT MrJohnNicolson
I was called as a witness in the case brought by #Mermaids against the so called ‘LGB Alliance.’ Judges have ruled Mermaids don’t have the right to challenge LGBA’s charitable status. But judges were damning about the sinister Alliance and its activities including online abuse.

Thats not the case at all. They said there may be a case to answer, but thats not for us to say and its not for us to determine either way whether this concern is legitimate or not. If Mermaids are found to have been run as a charity in a way that is or could be causing harm to minors, then the 'abuse' on Mermaids instantly become 'public interest' arguments which have foundation. The fact there is an open case against Mermaids on this which the ruling / commission can not yet comment on precisely because its still 'live' is relevant there.

Suzanne Moore AT Suzanne_Moore
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”

This is more what the LGBA are going to have to stick to where they can and be wary of more direct accusations - unless they have significant evidence they think they can use in a court defense if necessary to PROVE the point of harm.

Barbara Rich AT BarbaraRich_law
Keeping in mind that the legal test of standing required Mermaids to argue that it was “affected” by the decision to register LGBA as a charity, and its evidence that LGBA was affecting Mermaids by impeding its work, I find this assertion by Mermaids a little surprising

Bahahahahaha!

Mermaids LOSES bid to strip gay LGB Alliance of its charitable status https://mol.im/a/12270317

It’s actually very frustrating and undermining for them to mention it, and especially without clarification. Very unprofessional, in my opinion.

As has already been demonstrated, their statement has handed Mermaids a weapon with which to continue to beat the LGBA.

They should have decided on the standing issue first. Then, and only then, if standing was upheld, should they have tackled the other issue as they would have had to come to a conclusion. As they came to no conclusion, they should have said nothing.

I do like this paragraph from the judgement (point 66):

Charitable status does not come with any guarantees of funding nor any freedom from criticism or debate. It is no part of the Commission’s function (nor of this Tribunal) to tell people what to think, or to regulate public debate in a context where there are deeply held, sincere, beliefs on all sides of the discussion.

The judges sound annoyed.

First interview with the victors

https://twitter.com/andrewdoyle_com/status/1676902684643794945?s=19

Oh Jesus - i had forgotten about the DM sliding. 🤮

Was he ever a man of integrity before he got this bee in his bonnet, or has he always been an insufferable arsehole??

He must have emotional ties to this, someone in his family, i'll be bound.

This post is just to stop the app from crashing every time I open this thread.

Cor! Andrew Doyle didn’t need to do much ‘interviewing’ did he? 😂 two amazingly articulate and passionate women there!

I noticed that AD looked pretty darn delighted in his intro tho!

What is the official and non official reason that Stonewall pulled out early?

Not necessarily.

If one judge made the point was 'both organisations are inherently acting in a political way and Mermaids are using the courts vexatiously to try and win what should actually be a political argument' then that would undermine Mermaids too. This case focused on the LGBA and as such you can't necessarily say that anyway; but indeed saying it even for the LGBA outright would be liable to have massive ramifications for the entire charity sector.

The judges are wise to avoid that topic if they can find a way to do so.

There is already the 2014 Lobbying Act which Charities have to comply with around election time. And I think this is REALLY worth considering coming into the next GE. This is your massive heads up for the political radar for the next 18months. Its where the narrative is going to head in a BIG BIG way.

Mermaids are doing a hell of a lot to help raise the subject up the agenda somewhat unwittingly.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/nov/20/charities-call-for-end-gagging-law-lobbying-act-run-up-elections

Leading charities are calling on the next government to lift the legal gag that prevents them from campaigning for the poor and marginalised in society.
Heads of non-governmental organisations, including Friends of the Earth, Shelter, Liberty, End Violence Against Women, the Quakers and the Howard League, have written to all of the main political parties calling for greater freedom to speak out.

The charities say they are being prevented from representing the most vulnerable in society through the restrictive requirements of the Lobbying Act. They are pushing for it to be significantly revised and for the next government to uphold the right to protest and speak out.

The act has been labelled a gagging law for charities; it controls what they can say and do publicly in the 12-month run-up to elections. It aims to ensure that individuals or organisations cannot have an undue influence over the vote.

Keep in mind that the next United Kingdom general election is scheduled to be held no later than 28 January 2025.

The whole trans rights thing looks set to be part of the election cycle. So HOW exactly is that going to square with Stonewall for example? Can it even operate any training course on diversity during that period?

Labour have previously said they want to repeal the act. So I DO think we are going to see A LOT MORE about the politicisation and use of charities as lobbying groups which are overstepping their charitable remits and straying into politics BEFORE the end of the year and likely into the next election cycle.

My suspicion is this will start to be ONE OF the bigger political narratives over the next 18 months. And not entirely without merit tbh.

The Charity Commission absoluetely DO NOT want to open this can of worms. For good reason.

However bad we think on SW, there's still some adults in the room.

MM are purely staffed by the youngest angriest TRAs you could scarcely imagine.

Didn't they drive Green out, claiming she was homophobic? Well, they got that one thing right, at least. Just for different reasons than us.

That's why it's so instructive to see the findings mention emotions and feelings of MM.

That represents them, and the whole TRA provisional wing of the trans liberation movement.

It's purely built on feelings, emotions, nothing concrete.

Kids start growing up to be more mature from 7 years on. Not this lot, they're eternally waiting on their 7th birthday, jelly, parties, face painting.

It's quite striking how much of the judgment is taking to talking about free speech principes, the right to debate, and the right to criticise. It's quite sad that it even needed to be set out that charities have a right to criticise other charities, so long as it is within the bounds of the law. Mermaids may have hurt feelings, but this is no basis to strip another charity of its status.

On the hint that the LGB alliance is too 'political' to be a charity, if the LGB alliance is not a legitimate charity as it is too political then surely the same follows for Stonewall as well (and possibly Mermaids).

I'm also highly amused by the cherry picked selection of quotes that Jo Maugham has presented to make it seem like Mermaids really 'won'. Yes, the judgment highlighted the unpleasant things that LGB alliance supporters said online. But it also emphasised charities aren't accountable for the words of their supporters, and essentially told Mermaids to grow a spine because charities aren't immune from criticism.

I wonder if it would be more acceptable for LGBA to act like Bunbury - instead of "Mermaids think it is better to change your body if you think you might be gay" or whatever they could say "some organisations are vocal about recommending some gay children change their bodies. Here is why that is wrong..."

See my previous point that the judges and the commission are duty bound to say the conduct of the LGBA COULD be problematic for a charity and MAY give legitimate grounds for complaint.

They CAN NOT say they think the LGBA pointing out inherent safeguarding problems is legitimately in the public interest and in line with their charitable aims at this point pending the outcome of the Charity Commission investigation.

They may be aware and feel the LGBA point is fair and reasonable but this must first be demonstrated one way or the other.

There may be more of an annoyance that this has even gone to court because of the ramifications it may have in time.

Pretty much this.

Many thanks for that RedToothBrush, really helpful.

We're no further forward really. It's like the banks issue. We're now at the stage of:

"Yes, all right, you have the RIGHT to say you don't agree, but it upsets us to hear you say it and we find it offensive to hear your reality shared because it can't co exist with ours, so you should be punished and silenced anyway."

And that's got to be sorted out.

We have the mad situation of a group complaining "they're stamping deliberately all over my feet!"

With mediators apologetically saying "Well yes and I've told them they legally can't but it makes them really angry and sad to not stamp on your feet and we mustn't upset them must we?"

Women, LGB, those defending children, at this point we HAVE to be able to state the uncomfortable truths and realities and tear holes in the pink glittery gauze curtain to have equity of law and justice. Expecting us not to seek for that because Mermaids et al will cry? (As they destroy your legal access/bank account/ with no fucks to give about your feelings?) No. Fuck that. This way madness lies.

Great news. Turns out Mermaids don't actually get to decide who else becomes a charity. Who knew?!

Interesting. Yes I'd love to know more about the point of disagreement. I think that it is slightly worrying, tbh.