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.

It’s well over 12 months surely they must be due to report soon.

I think they only properly started looking into it in August. That’s when they asked the complainants if their complaints could be shared with Mermaids.

Once they started they probably found it's a bit Augean stables. Every layer you work on reveals a bigger layer of mess beneath.

@rogdmum so they sat on it for 10 months!

What they said under oath I trust a lot more - which was 7% lesbians.

@DadJoke that post is from April 2023. Since then LGB Alliance have clarified as follows:
Fact: Most LGB Alliance supporters are LGB
One particularly sticky myth is that only 7% of LGB Alliance supporters are lesbians. Here’s how that started:
We were delighted to be able to support Allison Bailey at her tribunal in the form of a witness statement to help prove that gender critical people are likely to be women and lesbians. As part of that we shared some numbers from our newsletter subscriber list.
We used Mailchimp to send our newsletter and when we set up our account in 2019 we added some subscriber questions which, as it turned out, provided us with ambiguous data.
We asked people whether they were lesbian, whether they were lesbian/gay or if they preferred not to say. The flaws being that we couldn’t tell whether those who ticked lesbian/gay were men or women and that none of the fields were compulsory – so many people skipped them altogether.
The result was that we had 4,502 newsletter subscribers and 316 ticked the box describing themselves as lesbian. That’s 7% of the total. A further 949 ticked the box lesbian/gay and 1,427 were unspecified or preferred not to say. Based on that data that means that between 316 (7%) and 2,376 (53%) of our subscribers were lesbian.
The 7% figure was used in court because it’s important that evidence is based on provable fact and it is a fact that, at a minimum, 7% of our subscribers were lesbians. However, common sense told us that that number was really much higher.
In August 2022 we commissioned a survey of our subscribers to help us plan to deliver services and support to LGB people. One of the questions we asked was about sexual orientation. That data showed that 34% are lesbian, 33% are gay men, 12% are bisexual, 20% are heterosexual and 1% preferred not to say. We are satisfied that this data is robust.

LGB Alliance answered honestly in court based on very limited data. Remember the ONS fucked up the question on the 2021 Census and they are a world leading statistics authority.

I am pretty sure that you have been on the threads where this has been clarified.

Please stop spreading misinformation.

Even looking at transcript from Tribunal Tweets that was a false representation. I remember watching that case and fully understanding that they were talking about a collection device for a mail out where the declaration was optional.

I feel @DadJoke performs a useful service, though, as every single time these basic points have to be trotted out again to correct what Dad has posted, another lurker learns something that makes them stop in their tracks and start thinking differently about things.

Oh, it's quite possible that DadJoke is one of us, and his (her?) entire function is to provoke us into making clarifying statements that are helpful to new members.

It popped it up to the top of my watched list and reminded me of the investigation so he is indeed performing a valuable service

I read an interview with the interim CEO, Lauren Stoner, the other day - she’s still in post, presumably they are hoping to recruit someone permanent around the time the investigation concludes so they can spin it as a fresh start?

I deffo get the impression that Stoner will be running out of the door with nary a backward backward glance!

https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/lauren-stoner-this-organisation-needs-stability.html

Well, tied to a big anchor and dropped overboard...

Same here.

What would we do without they?

Interesting that the LGB Alliance are attracting all types of LGB people, that must really annoy Mermaids.

Is there somewhere I can read a synopsis of the Mermaids/Charity Commission case please?
I was following but have completely forgotten what this one was about. Was it largely issues about safeguarding?

Tribunal Tweets' substack has lots of info @Curtainscoper

https://tribunaltweets.substack.com/p/mermaids-vs-lgb-alliance-and-the

1. Having nonce apologists on the Board of a charity dealing with v vulnerable children
2. Having a staff member publicly posting v explicit porno photoshoots of themselves (sooooo many arseholes)
3. Giving vulnerable children advice on how to obtain harmful binders without parents knowing
4. Advising vulnerable children to go to cesspits like reddit for advice
5. Being run by a loon who put lots of very private information in a folder that was openly accessible to any tom, dick and harry

There must be more.

Thank you both. Terrifying.

Oh sorry, you mean the Charity Commission investigation into Mermaids?

Haha name change fail there! Been here for years on and off changing my name every few weeks and my email every so often.
Feel another one coming on now 😳

'Stoner says: “Our EDI recommendations were harder to share, because they felt far more personal and it was at a very different time for us as an organisation. We’ve been so reactive to so many things that we couldn’t not react to this. And we desperately wanted to react. And I think it took us a long time to work out how to react particularly when you have leaks coming from here, there and everywhere.”'

Leaks, eh?

Their chatroom and the Discord server

Trans charity’s chatroom for children condemned as irresponsible free-for-all

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bb4574c0-40e5-11ed-a7af-c587dcb7526e?shareToken=0d72d75cc76d9f014f2c1913cdcea508

Plus another safeguarding disaster in itself: an inability to recognise any of those things as safeguarding disasters (just one would have been awful enough) and to insist that anyone minding about such things was just being hateful to the poor staff.

That’s the thing that is most frightening about this movement to me and it comes back to “no debate”. Questions about what is safe and in the best interests of children should never be unaskable.