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.

See the start of this clip for pronunciation:

He should share this widely so people get it right.

I'm bi and a regular LGBA donor.

I'm going to keep a score card of how often that 'its full of straight people' lie is trotted out.

Debunked every time, but then truth and reality aren't something many followers of this ideology let stand in their way.

By the same people everytime thought nils. Better make them a double points score.

By the same people everytime thought nils.

It's kind of cute that they still try to give themselves a figleaf of "I'm not being dishonest" by doing the disingenuous "isn't the...?" question framing, knowing that the answer is no.

They're not technically lying, so they're not really being dishonest.

Obviously this is not a distinction we care about, but somewhere in a dark little heart, there's clearly a desire to really not feel like a bad person, in some dimly-remembered code of ethics, and this is a teeny little talisman being clutched onto.

"I'm not telling any direct lies. Just trying to mislead people is morally acceptable. They are Nazis. I am a good person."

Just relax. Lying about Nazis is good. Go ahead - just lie. You can do it. "The LGB Alliance is mostly straight". See? Easy. They're very Bad People. You're Good People. Lie. Punch. Whatever it takes. They're Nazis. Anything you do is justified. Good People can do anything to Bad People.

Those ethics you dimly remember are so 20th-century. There is no "right" or "wrong", only "Good People" and "Bad People". To truly become a Good Person you must understand this deep in your heart. Once you do, all this doubt and turmoil will be gone, and you'll be at peace with yourself. Join them.

Benefits me/my mates/gets what I want - morally good.
Does not benefit me/my mates/gets in the way of what I want - morally bad.

This is what FUBAR morality looks like. It's developmentally very young, most children successfully get past this by about the age of 4. Lundy Bancroft has written entire books about this kind of dysfunctional thinking/lack of empathy unless personal benefit involved. Issendai's blogs are also illuminating.

I've often wondered if the reason is to distract from Stonewall's own membership.

Exactly this.

Stonewall is now mostly for and about everything to the right of the LGB, i.e. straight people, and largely financed by the taxpayer, i.e. mostly straight people.

Mermaids, too. What’s their membership breakdown these days?

Would be slightly less of a stupid lie if they could even define "straight". Attracted to someone with opposite inner feelings?

This is why defending human rights invariably means defending the basic dignity and rights of the most appalling and unpopular people, like defending the right of the Moors Murderers to dignified treatment in jail, or defending the right of the Nazi top brass to a fair trial at Nuremberg. Because if we decide that it's OK to take away the rights of people we don't like, all we have to do to take away your rights is to decide that we don't like you.

Once you see that, the inherent authoritarianism of the "decapitate terfs" brigade becomes glaringly obvious.

There is a more fundamental reason for treating terrible people fairly and with dignity - to protect ourselves. If we allow ourselves to condone the poor treatment of others we undermine our own humanity.

DARVO at its finest. It takes very little effort to find out what LGBAlliance UK is about, and even less to notice the branches in so many countries. So many of who are same-sex attracted are sick to death of being told who to sleep with... AGAIN. If their cause is so righteous, it costs them nothing to let us speak for ourselves.

Justice delayed is justice denied.

Any news?

"There is a more fundamental reason for treating terrible people fairly and with dignity - to protect ourselves. If we allow ourselves to condone the poor treatment of others we undermine our own humanity." I agree. It is really about freedom for people to have different views - not to shut people down, not to censor, not to force everyone into the same view, it is about tolerance of difference.

Sure, but note that we killed them, or some of them. So we can be firm but fair.

Updates to this thread catch me out every time. (And now I've just done the same to someone else...)

Maybe this time next year we'll be waiting for the judgement in NSPCC / Childline v Charity Commission...

This.

If you can justify to yourself dehumanising and harming anyone for any reason no matter how much you dislike them?

You are no better than slave owners or Nazis, you just happen to have chosen a different characteristic to identify your victims. Which is why I get to exasperated with the naivety and ignorance of parts of this political lobby shouting about how evil colonialism and slavery and Naziism is. It's as shallow and value free as the 'be kind' stuff is. Five minutes on twitter demonstrates that many would be all for it, so long as they got to be the oppressors and the masters, and they got to identify who the victims were. There's not a grown up thought anywhere inside it, despite the vast amounts of word salad.

It's interesting that it was brought up by a member of the ET panel yesterday in Denise Fahmy's tribunal against Arts Council England. They wanted to know if the judgment was expected soon, as the dispute concerns Denise's support for LGBA and their funding by ACE so this person obviously saw it as relevant. Anya Palmer basically said it would come when it was ready.

I bet you anything the tribunal judge is TWAW and is sitting on the judgment out of spite, @Ereshkigalangcleg.

But if that's the case then it would be good news for LGBA, I guess.

I bet you anything the tribunal judge is TWAW and is sitting on the judgment out of spite

Maybe :-) But I expect the judge is trying hard to write a rock-solid judgment with no loopholes to: (a) stop a free-for-all of charities copying Mermaids and attacking the charitable status of other charities whose aims they don't like; and (b) avoid a drawn-out appeals process.

Yes if Mermaids wins that would have big implications for everyone. Certainly it would likely make it easier to challenge the Charity Commission over charities like Stonewall and Mermaids.

Just imagining the potential tribalistic charity v charity wars is making my head hurt!

RSPCA v RSPB: only one way to settle it - FIGHT!