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.

Does anybody know if lgba will be able to recover their costs?

Ps. I am so enjoying this.

So relieved and delighted with the news today, thank god common sense prevailed!

Agree with @Signalbox upthread, this should never have got so far and cost A CHARITY such an enormous amount of money if the issue of standing could have been determined earlier. I think it has been mentioned on Twitter if not here that costs are unlikely to be awarded to LGB Alliance, but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed til we know for sure.

It's occurred to me that Mermaids were allowed to go ahead in order to make an example of the batshittery of trying to close down another charity.

Post of the thread 😄

Sorry, only just seen this. For your viewing pleasure

Reminds me of the Monty Python "upper class twit of the year sketch" where a Jacob Rees Mogg type runs himself over in his EType.

I think it has been mentioned on Twitter if not here that costs are unlikely to be awarded to LGB Alliance, but I'm still keeping my fingers crossed til we know for sure.

Thank you 🤞

I heard that. Ms Montague managed to conjure up a convincing display of irritable, affronted and indignant disbelief, as outlined in the Radio 4 Presenters’ Handbook (News).

From Jeremy Brier KC on Twitter:

The Good Law Project website explains Mermaids lost on the "technical ground" of standing. The GLP says they "signalled the case is not straightforward" when they began which is "reflected in the time taken by the Tribunal to make its decision".

Let's unpack three key errors:

(1) The word "technical" does not diminish anything as almost all legal arguments may be so described. Standing is a critical prerequisite to being heard, to being relevant. So Mermaids "technically" should never have brought the case. So Mermaids "technically" lost.

(2) On analysis, the case was straightforward. Mermaids didn't have standing to bring it. There is literally no more straightforward point I think of on which to lose a case.

(3) There is no necessary connection at all between the complexity of a case and the time taken to produce judgment. There might just be a lot to say about how obviously wrong you are. Or the judge might have had a big caseload. Or went on holiday for a bit.

She’s gotta be a Mumsnetter, right?

I heard that. Ms Montague managed to conjure up a convincing display of irritable, affronted and indignant disbelief, as outlined in the Radio 4 Presenters’ Handbook (News).

She really did. Her questioning just revolved around 'but aren't trans people treated harshly'?

This case emphasised that facts and law are not based on feelings. So sorry, Sarah, this is a really crap question.

But here's my big question about Montague: are there no independent standards the BBC is supposed to meet? To my mind, it's just editorialising and clearly using a position as the presenter to prejudice one side of a debate. Does nobody ever take them aside and say, "this isn't a show about what you reckon. Stick to being impartial, let guests speak, provide equal time and equally difficult questions and that's as far as you go".

Well we all know the judges were 'Stonewalled' too e.g. That Equal Rights Bench Book which Stonewall helped produce. Luckily some of the Judges don't seem to have believed what they were told to believe. They are old enough to think for themselves.

Watching Jolson flush a previously lucrative and successful career down the toilet is strangely enjoyable

this makes me a bad person probably

I'm getting so tired of the 'but Trans people are sad and it's difficult for them (so other people's rights should be trampled and law/justice abandoned' batshit. And of the imaginary 'harshness' of being treated like other mere mortals (and not the woman ones either.)

LGBA bloody well should be able to seek costs, this was a malicious case brought without standing with the open intent of destroying argument and competition.

This is my issue with him, too, @BernardBlacksMolluscs

For him to have become the Born Again rabid TRA, that he now is, surely can only mean that he's put 'everything on red' - for a young family member.

Surely he was a well respected KC for a long time??

2021 thread with wayback machine links to when Stonewall was part of this case. I think they should have to answer as to why they pulled out. Preferably to a Select Committee:

twitter.com/tlitb/status/1400061876604637187?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Anyone else idly wondering how PM will discuss this? And is ally Euan presenting today?

That'd be an interesting line of questioning for a barrister should stonewall decide to try their luck.

He was a tax lawyer. The cases he has been bringing are totally outside of his area.

It takes staggering arrogance to do this. My sister is a human rights lawyer and finds it bloody offensive. She wouldn't go around giving tax law advice!

Leave the poor bloody dogs out of it. They know ALL about binary sexes.

Perhaps Mermaids should have emotional support clownfish.

So I now have a mash-up of The Little Mermaid and Finding Nemo in my head.

Lets not forget that a Director of the Good Law Project is still a Director of Mumsnet.

Can we give him or her a big group wave?

The more I think about it the more I am unsurprised that the judges didn’t reach a settled conclusion on the hypothetical question. Why would you. There is no value in doing so and in all likelihood would open a huge can of worms / grounds of appeal. If you could dispose of the case at the first hurdle of standing why throw yourself to the wolves.