Mermaids - Charity Commission finally finished...I think

[lcakethereforeIam]

Just read it very quickly in the Times

https://archive.ph/1983h bypass the paywall

https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/trans-charity-mermaids-chest-binders-children-5rfkj35qp

It seems Mermaids feels completely vindicated!

Eta link and comment

Underwhelming. It is like the planning system where they just coach you to be better at it, and fill the forms in correctly.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charity-inquiry-mermaids/charity-inquiry-mermaids

Assume this is related.

The Charity Commission instructs Mermaids to apply the recommendations of the Cass Review
https://lgballiance.org.uk/the-charity-commission-and-mermaids/

The report is incredibly nonchalant about the fact that Mermaids appointed a trustee who had spoken at a pro-paedophile event and who, as the report says, would not have been appointed if the most basic internet checks had been carried out.

They seem to think it helps that he spoke at the event before he was appointed. And that he resigned quickly when complaints were raised.

Also the LSE should have been named. It’s no longer a prestigious educational institution after it provided a platform for a man whose research anyone could see was deeply worryingly sexual in nature.

What would a children’s charity have to do wrong, if appointing a trustee who openly had those interests is barely a blip on the commission’s radar?

Be thankful for small things such as the CC has supported the Cass review.

Well Mermaids get to claim everything is ok but at least they’ve been told to implement Cass. Oh to be a fly on the wall 😂

We need to change the law on breast ironing to include breast binders if handing them out to 13 year olds isn't a crime because it bloody well should be

It still makes me chuckle that Susie Green was brought down by an EDI report written by a bunch of enbies.

Unlike most Times articles on this subject, this one does come across rather uncritically. Over-cautious language: It found that Mermaids gave 24 chest binders to young people without their parents’ involvement — including 15 to children aged 13 to 16. 'Children', 'young people'? Implies mixed-sex groups. I wonder what proportion of these children and young people were females.

What is 'misconduct'? Systemic failures, lack of checks resulting in paedophilia-promoters overseeing a child-focused charity, poor governance, lying about medical risks (while simultaneously claiming not to give medical advice) - are none of those misconduct?

It was a very mild report and obviously centred on governance and whether the organisation complied with their own processes and procedures.

Not sure how Mermaids could feel vindicated as such. The report found they had significant issues, but were now fixing them. One of those ‘issues’ was Susie Green! Their figurehead for years and years.

And they have been told to follow the Cass findings which is a departure to their ideologically driven approach in the past. Sure they survived the CC investigation but they cannot simply continue as they were. And with the loss of confidence in mermaids and stonewall, they both look to have to do something significant regrouping.

JK Rowling is reporting it as 'This is big', having read through it now it feels very small.

Nothing substantial has been called out.

https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1849240600052105403?t=IxndyOtgCGPwyBSIWz1rBA&s=19

I agree, not 'big' at all. I know we should welcome progress, however small, but this 'charity' has been investigated for 2 years and the report is a damp squib. Should have been shut down.

I don't think it is too bad. A number of specific, serious failings have been pointed out, esp related to info about puberty blockers, unsafe practices re chest binders, and poor governance practices in relation to trustee appointment.

The commission has a specific remit, and it was never likely to make one side or another feel 'vindicated' in the context of the polarised social media debates. In fact, if it had done that, it may have been less useful. We need a way forward that involves uniting around fact-sensitive, details-oriented analysis. That was why the Cass report was so important: its caution made it possible for all but the most bigoted to reach out of their bubbles and absorb reality.

JKR has such a big Twitter following that her take on the result will be widely disseminated so that's one piece of good news.

The bit that I didn't understand is that they weren't found to have offered medical advice (which would have been outside their remit) but also that when they were handing out breast binders but it was OK because they were including advice on how to use them "safely". Surely this is exactly the sort of "advice" they shouldn't have been giving at all?

Well Mermaids don't come out of it too well do they?

We ALL know what has been going on so to us it doesn't seem big BUT to those who have had their heads in the sand or has been otherwise unaware of the actions of the charity, the fact that they employed a pro - paedophile event goer (apologist) in a children's charity with no due diligence and handed out breast binders to children without parental consent etc etc. may be somewhat shocking!

Good that they have been told they must implement Cass. I do think that Mermaids 'glory' days are over, no right minded business would want to be aligned with them now, surely?

Implement Cass by...referring to the gender clinics to go on this 'trial'?

This is not good news.

This is a good point. We know how bad Mermaids is so we know what's not been said.

Most people will be thinking of that nice charity that helps the sad children and had special cookies in Starbucks.

Be interesting to track the corporate support now.

This isn;t vindication for mermaids, not at all - being forced to implement all the Cass report puts them unequivocally on the back foot

Exactly, "unlimited" trial at that.

This section of The Times piece is interesting.
"Orlando Fraser KC, the Charity Commission chairman, said the findings were “lessons” for charities working in the area of gender identity and that they should pay attention to the Cass review."

Well they have been 'paying attention ' but I think this means working with Cass as a guide rather than denigrating her review as unworthy and biased.

Feeling hopeful..

Talk in the big room where people will notice
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5194440-to-be-unsurprised-at-todayss-charity-watchdog-finding-trans-charity-mermaids-was-mismanaged-and-gave-dangerous-advice-to-desperate-children-who-deserved-better

Edit: sorry I've just linked to the same thread as PP 😱

It is a damp squib. But having said that, it means Mermaids can't continue operating as it has been. It can't tell parents to put their kids on puberty blockers and it can't give advice on using chest binders.

And when you think about it, Mermaids's whole raison d'etre was to forcefeed parents a load of guff about how they had to put their children on puberty blockers or they would kill themselves. Without the ability to do that, it will either have to give parents something resembling impartial advice on dealing with gender dysphoria or give up operating altogether.

One small thing to come out of the report was that Green didn't leave by choice - she was forced out after she lost the confidence of the trustees.

https://x.com/LevinsLaw/status/1849352333215342836

It's rattled the Fox Slayer!