The legal basis on which Mermaids was said not to have status to challenge the registration of LGB Alliance as a charity

[IwantToRetire]

I was astonished that in fact the ruling was about whether Mermaids could challege LGBA from registering, and on reading the judgement it implies others might have grounds to do this.

... 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, ... , 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.

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.

For these reasons we conclude that Mermaids is not a person who is or may be affected by the Decision and accordingly we dismiss the appeal

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf

Statement from LGB Alliance https://lgballiance.org.uk/historic-win-for-lgb-alliance/

Statement from Charity Commissioner https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-responds-to-mermaidslgb-alliance-tribunal-verdict (which has its own thread https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4843004-charity-commission-statement-re-tribunal-judgement-on-lgb-alliance)

A bit of a tangent to the actual ruling but if anyone happened to listen to the World at One today on Radio 4, talk about BBC bias.

Presuming to ask LGB Alliance cant they see how what they say impacts on trans people, but never mentions the impact that trans ideology has on same sex attracted people.

It's like the impact on women. But it doesn't matter because Trans People.

There's no reciprocation, no equality of thinking, no sanity anywhere in it.

There is good thread on Twitter by Dr Foran on the legal issues. Standing (locus standii as it used to be) is a gateway issue in legal cases. If you don’t meet the legal requirement for standing then the case falls.
The broad point is the decision whether or not a charity should be registered sits with the statutory decision maker which is the Charity Commission. The right to challenge exercise of those statutory powers is limited otherwise the official decision maker would spend half their time defending their decisions.
In order to demonstrate you are affected you have to show your legal rights may be impacted by the registration- that is quite a high bar.

In order to demonstrate you are affected you have to show your legal rights may be impacted by the registration- that is quite a high bar.

Yes - but in effect it could be that people who never thought I can challenge the registration of a charity now think I can.

Or that Stonewall through its networks get together a "concerned group" who attempt to say they do have a legitimate right to challenge.

Even if this is done just to keep LGB Alliance bound up in legal cases for ever.

And if fact what is strange why was the case between Mermaids and LGB Alliance. Surely it should have been Mermaids vs. the Charity Commission.

I see Mermaids are spinning this as a partial win as apparenlty one Judge said / implied that LGB Alliance should NOT have been registered. Not sure where that came from:

Because they found against us on standing, the Tribunal didn’t have to rule on the main issue in the appeal – namely whether or not LGBA should have been registered as a charity to begin with.

But the two judges indicated that they had given that question careful consideration and had been split on the answer. That is, one of the judges agreed with us that LGBA should not have been registered as a charity, and one disagreed.

We don’t know the details of their reasoning, but we think that is a really significant outcome. Had we been found to have standing, there is a chance that the tie would have been resolved in our favour and we would have won the case.

That puts a huge question mark over LGBA’s status. In addition, key points of our evidence about LGBA were accepted by both judges. They agreed with us that some of LGBA’s output on social media went beyond the boundaries of civilised debate, and they accepted our evidence that LGBA had progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. They suggested that a combination of public scrutiny and oversight by the Charity Commission would “deter LGBA from crossing the line” in future.

https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

It was a case against the CC.

It will be quite hard to demonstrate legal rights being impacted given opposed purpose and competition for funding don’t meet that test. https://twitter.com/michaelpforan/status/1676977835448172544?s=46&t=4ig9oxXX7RdmDKwsMsuh1Q

implied that LGB Alliance should NOT have been registered. Not sure where that came from

It comes from paragraphs 13 to 15 of the decision:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf

I’m not sure they were saying the LGBA should not have been registered.

I think they were saying that IF Mermaids’ legal rights had been impacted by the registration, then the Charity Commission would have wrongly registered the LGBA.

But they weren’t impacted, so it doesn’t arise.

Did anyone else get a rather strong flavour of ‘and f-ck you and the horse you rode in on’ from the Charity Commission’s statement? In a completely neutral way, of course.

I hope the opposite @IwantToRetire ie that it is clear the Charity Commission aren't just going to rollover when challenged on this kind of thing and it should be clearer to legal professionals that you can't just take this kind of case because you don't like the Charity Commission's decision. That was already clear to most people who gave it any amount of thought but hopefully now will be even clearer.

I am somewhat concerned that the judges in the case were split on (the hypothetical question of) whether or not LGBA should have been registered as a charity. I think it is clear they meet the requirements on paper. Whether or not in practice they are then overstepping the mark / have the right balance in terms of political activity vs. service provision could be a potential question for the Charity Commission to look into, following any complaint, but even then it would be highly unlikely to lead to them being removed from the register; far more likely that they would be advised to reign it in a bit. They would then have a choice to make about whether charitable status or continuing to campaign in the same way mattered more. It sounds like this message has really been given as part of this case, ie some potentially less than ideal behaviours have been highlighted (eg mentioned in the Mermaids statement above, social media activity being described as 'beyond the boundaries of civilised debate'). This just ensures LGBA can reflect on everything they are doing and make sure they do stay on the right track in terms of their charitable status.

If Mermaids had a problem with the way LGBA were operating, they should have first taken it up directly with the Trustees and then with the Charity Commission if they got nowhere with their initial complaint. The idea that an organisation that exists to provide support, information and advice to same sex attracted men and women wouldn't meet the requirements to be a charity is as laughable as the idea that Mermaids would be in a position to challenge that decision. I cannot believe anyone took their case in the first place.

Re - who would take the case?

Yes, imagine how hard it must have been to convince people who believe that you can change sex that you could win their case, if they could afford it.

far more likely that they would be advised to reign it in a bit.

Indeed, that's what already happened. That was the Charity Commission's response to the original complaints about them, and LGB Alliance did tone it down noticeably.

Which is why Mermaids took the Charity Commission to court, because it's not the response they wanted. They don't want the LGB Alliance to tone it down, they want the LGB Alliance to not exist.

Yeah, true. Just seems like a total lack of understanding of the law in this area.

Sorry, that was @ZeldaFighter

Agreed @NecessaryScene and happily it's not up to them 😁

Ah, I think my drily sarcastic and witty quip may have missed the mark 😥

Ha ha, no I was agreeing with your witty observation. I think 😂

I love that they used all those words just to say ‘no one cares about your feelings, go away’

Quick question, so anyone who would be effected, like parents or people who have been referred for sterilisation by Mermaids and have had their whole lives affected, might be in a position to do the same to Mermaids? Some sort of class action?

Thanks, for comments. I do struggle with the legalise.

And I think I was having / am having, a glass half empty response.

Also, because I think even if this particular attack isn't continued Mermaids and supporters will continue their war of words and will use the bits that suit them.

And because they are so persistent, and powerful supporters, that to the general public it will still seem that poor little Mermaids who really cares about young people, are having the work questioned by re-actionary binary sex believers!

Some sort of class action?

Would have thought that being able to show the harmful consequences of advice from Mermaids would have a strong case. But presumably not a dispute between 2 charities, but directly with the Charity Commission to ask them to de-register Mermaids.

(I assume it wouldn't be about competing advice as I dont think LGB Alliance attempts or pretends to offer advice re medical actions.)

Re - who would take the case?

Yes, imagine how hard it must have been to convince people who believe that you can change sex that you could win their case, if they could afford it.

That's why it took so bloody long. Trying to find a wordy but polite way of sticking two fingers up and saying ner ner

This is what you get from highly intelligent, well educated, articulate judges. A certain family member would have said 'if you are looking for sympathy, it's between shit and syphalis'.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/07/06/lgb-alliance-charity-status-ruling-anti-trans-history/

https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/statement-on-the-ruling-in-mermaids-v-charity-commission-and-lgb-alliance/

So in summary, the so-called LGB-Alliance didn't actually "win" despite what they are most tabloids are claiming, and this certainly shouldn't be taken as "proof" that they aren't transphobic at all.

Mermaids were found not to have "standing" to make the appeal, this is what the decision was based on. Therefore everything that was said in court didn't have any effect on the decision.

From Mermaids statement:

"the two judges indicated that they had given that question careful consideration and had been split on the answer. That is, one of the judges agreed with us that LGBA should not have been registered as a charity, and one disagreed.

We don’t know the details of their reasoning, but we think that is a really significant outcome. Had we been found to have standing, there is a chance that the tie would have been resolved in our favour and we would have won the case.

That puts a huge question mark over LGBA’s status. In addition, key points of our evidence about LGBA were accepted by both judges. They agreed with us that some of LGBA’s output on social media went beyond the boundaries of civilised debate, and they accepted our evidence that LGBA had progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. They suggested that a combination of public scrutiny and oversight by the Charity Commission would “deter LGBA from crossing the line” in future."

To paraphrase:

"Okay, you knocked me out in the first round, but that doesn't count"

Eh? There really isn’t “a huge question mark” over LGBAs status. They are a charity and the Charities Commission response makes it clear they feel their decision to register LGBA as a charity was correct.

I mean there’s spin… and then there’s Mermaids…