Crowdjustice and Mumsnet 😁

[lcakethereforeIam]

This is the 3rd time I've tried to create this thread. So apologies if it's a glitch and they suddenly all show up.

www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/08/05/jk-rowling-bankrolls-legal-fight-workplace-gender-police/

https://archive.ph/1Y0Ll help you over the garden wall

The headline imo is a bit clickbaity misleading but, hopefully, it'll help some non-gardeners find the allotments.

That reminds me, what the fuck IS happening with the Charities Commission investigation?

Didn't someone say an update was imminent recently, or did I imagine that? Anything come of it?

It's unlikely that any FWR remains ignorant of it. Not least as it's regularly mentioned by a cadre of posters.

I'm sure that you or somebody like you will post as soon as the case is listed for a hearing and progresses.

What's your overall point?

Nah. Stonewall said ‘do it to Julia’ and ran off. It’s not a good look.

This seems to be the most recent report on the ongoing statutory enquiry:

www.thirdsector.co.uk/mermaids-launches-fundraising-appeal-regulators-inquiry-deterring-corporate-partners/governance/article/1880333

Just popping this here 😊

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4991660-sara-morrison-vs-belfast-film-festival

Thank you.

A Charity Commission spokesperson said its inquiry into Mermaids remained ongoing and it could not comment further.
The spokesperson said: “Our inquiries conclude only when we are satisfied that all regulatory concerns have been sufficiently investigated and resolved.”

There's such a choice of gardens! Too many to plant all of them regularly but @iamsarah is my regular window box and then I choose among the rest and hope for a nice crop between us all.

That statement by the Commission is quite something in terms of being vague.

• It could mean there are regulatory issues that are requiring a deep dive to be sufficiently investigated;
• it could mean there are a lot of regulatory issues and it is taking time to sufficiently investigate them all;
• it could mean the regulatory issues involved are very complex;
• it could mean that regulatory issues have been sufficiently investigated but can't be resolved.

The Commission are really taking their time which is both frustrating (because we need answers and course corrections if possible) and it's reassuring (because it could mean that the Commission are taking this investigation very seriously which is want we want them to do). I don't know what to think.

“People’s generosity isn’t pure altruism,” she says. “It’s a result of collective pent-up resentment that a large number of people have around these issues.

That's certainly part of it, but it perhaps underestimates the number of us paying for the artistic as well as the social value. Some people buy tickets to Glyndebourne. Others spend money to see the exquisite sword work of people like Naomi Campbell and Ben Cooper - slicing a witness into pieces so cleanly that they keep waffling for another 10 minutes before realising they're dead.

It was more of a "win by default" since the Judges said it wasn't Mermaids' place to challenge the anti-trans, I mean the "LGB", Alliance's charity status. Not because of anything that was actually said or proven during the trial.

If I recall correctly, 1 out of the 2 judges did think the LGB-Alliance should not be holding charity status. Would be interesting to see how it would proceed if permitted.

The trial did draw attention to the Alliance's complete lack of activity on anything that would actually benefit LGB people and that their main focus was on trans people, and the toxicity of their members' postings online.

It drew attention to the intolerance of Mermaids and other TA groups and the way they fact that they had been obstructing LGBA's attempts to get anything done by various means, including pointless legal challenges.

Also to said groups' homophobia.

And also to the fact that LGBA were the only charity working for the benefit of homosexual and bisexual people, especially lesbians.

I’ll bite - this is so deliberately misleading. What’s been made clear, is that following stonewall advice to bully and ostracise people who express views they don’t like will leave you legally exposed while stonewall get to walk away. Thats very useful for employers to see clearly play out in real life!

Cor @Christinapple , women using their own money to fund getting the law clarified really gets under your skin doesn’t it?

sad times (for you)

There used to be another poster that was just like that, not seen them in a while, wonder what happened to them?

LadynameFoodname?

Yes, definitely something like that.

I had presumed it was a simple name change. Well following this thread I had.

I'm just being facetious really.

Yeah,most upsetting.

❤️

So who's garden is next? How about Posie Parker who according to her own tweets has been suspended from her GP surgery? The lawsuit of the century according to her followers.

x.com/ThePosieParker/status/1820773555606343826

I haven't seen a thread about Graham's case yet, don't make his legal-defence garden feel left out?

Others spend money to see the exquisite sword work of people like Naomi Campbell and Ben Cooper - slicing a witness into pieces so cleanly that they keep waffling for another 10 minutes before realising they're dead.

Beautifully put, NoBinturongsHereMate

Shows the power of Mumsnet FWR and GC women in general that she was able to raise so much.

I’m very happy with the results of my small donation in that £1 Million

women spending their own money on the things they chose to spend it on eh? shouldn't be allowed really

Unconfirmed but I have a sneaking suspicion a certain children's author who is a friend of hers may have donated too.

"shows the power" not really, if anything just shows Mumsnet is made up of many middle-class people with money to give. (not meaning this in a bad way, just stating as fact)