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

Is there is a rather big difference between :

"failed to have appropriate safeguarding policies in place."

and failing to:

"carry out sufficient due diligence checks when recruiting trustees, which resulted in the recruitment of someone the charity said should “never have been appointed” "

mmmm..... I wonder. Why would someone try to twist this finding to exclude the safeguarding requirements that come with not hiring paedophile supporting trustees and pornography published communications officers....?

I'll take the Charity Commission's word for it over JK Rowling and the LGBAlliance.

I'm not basing it on what JK Rowling and LGBA say. I could provide them with evidence myself of all 4 of these points, as could many of us.

The Charity Commission is a toothless, gutless quango.

The Charity Commission has a very narrow remit and limited funds.

Remember that there are many registered charities whose aims opponents find offensive.
The CC had to measure Mermaids against its own objectives and the law.

For a CC report its pretty brutal.
Most are very very magnolia. That one has flecks of colour.

What 'attacks' and 'accusations' haven't been addressed though?

Oh... wait... that requires the dismissal of this...

"The inquiry also found the purpose of the information about puberty blockers published on the charity’s website was unclear. Charities are by law required to ensure that information provided on an education basis is accurate, evidence-based and balanced. The inquiry provided statutory advice on this matter, which the trustees have since acted on."

Well.... so the Charities Commission found that a support service had unclear information on one of the treatments that they as an organisation was very enthusiastically promoting as a viable treatment. I believe they have worded this very carefully here, but effectively you can then also add to this 'does not follow Dr Cass' findings and likely misleading' (my paraphrasing).

This report highlights that Mermaid already acknowledged that they needed to make significant changes and the CC have been monitoring these changes. Imagine trying dismiss the mess an organisation is in, when they had to terminate the employment of someone who was considered the figurehead for their organisation, acknowledge that they hired a paedophile supporter AS A TRUSTEE (no mention of the penis collage from the Comms officer) and had been fully promoting a treatment on their website when the commission has just declared that they should be closely working with the findings of the Cass Report?

It is amazing to see this dismissal in action. Yes... MM has already made changes... can anyone remember WHY those changes had to be made?

For a CC report it's pretty brutal.
Most are very very magnolia. That one has flecks of colour.

Fair enough, I defer to your greater knowledge!

I think the full report is worth a read:

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

On 13 June 2024, the inquiry issued regulatory advice and guidance to the charity which included:

• giving further consideration to the findings and conclusions of the Cass Review Final Report

The key point is that the requirement for them to adhere to Cass is in black and white in 2024.

CC know that we will watch every single page of the Mermaids website and check every line of their accounts from this day till they close down
and Mermaids WILL have been told that repeat failings will be fatal.

The bit about the trustee is a zinger - and will have wider repurcussions in many other charities.

And the requirement to adhere to Cass is in addition to the binders and puberty blockers issues

That EDI report (the one that seems to have been a very important factor in precipitating and shaping the Charity Commission inquiry) has an intense focus on the wellbeing of the staff of the charity as opposed to the intended beneficiaries of the charity.
It reminds me an awful lot of the situation at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis organisation, which gave the impression that the organisation almost seemed to exist to validate staff rather than end users.

I don't know enough about the internal tensions at Mermaids before the 'former CEO' was dismissed. Can others comment on the question of whether the tensions indicated in the EDI report amounted to a rather narcissistic requirement of self-validation on the part of employees?

MalagaNights · Today 10:18

I cannot see them doing this. Especially the social transition. It'll be dressed up as child voice/ diversity type support.
They'll need careful monitoring to see what they do advise parents and children.

I suspect that they will temper the "advice" on their website, but carry on as before, in emails and messaging etc. I think receipts will be needed.

What is important to remember is we’ve all been very worried about other “charities” springing up in the future. Well there is now no doubting they will have to adhere to Cass or they will be in trouble. That is a massive win really.

This is the slow retreat of the ideology i am sure of it.

Well Munroe Bergdorf reposted the Mermaids statement on their Instagram and thinks this is ‘fantastic news’ and is so proud to have been a Mermaids patron for 4 years 🙄

And obviously this will all be covered in the Munroe Bergdorf feature length documentary ‘Love and Rage’ set for release by Universal in 2025. Apparently they’ve been filming MB for the past 3 years. Can’t wait!

Lock her up!

@PronounssheRa i think it is as Helen Joyce believes it will be, it is the start of the absolute denial and pathetic pushback from those who transitioned their own children, and others. They cannot face the reality of what they have done.

Green will take her rightful place in history, along with Judith Butler, Money, Reimer et al.

@Sheshethey Monroe can do what he likes - the playboy photos of him are in the public record.

@PronounssheRa Susie will continue to grift, but public sector funders will all run away as that CC report pretty much precludes grant funding

We are disappointed with the review. Particularly this

However, the investigation found that the charity, Mermaids, had appropriate safeguarding policies in place and there was no evidence that it provided medical advice to children, which would have been outside its remit.”

They had two years to find the evidence that has been in the public domain for years. Not to mention the complaints the CC have had from parents and professionals.

It's a total cop out and highlights the need for a public inquiry into the deliberate and systematic dismantling of safeguarding.

https://x.com/safeschoolsuk/status/1849506565851693443?s=46&t=wKQqSS_HYEY78hJQTlX9tJw

Public Enquiries cost £££££££££££ and achieve zilch.

The report was done within the permitted remit of the Charity Commission.

The rest will take a bit more time but it will happen.

🎯

If their remit isn't safeguarding they had no business commenting on it. Their statement said they found no evidence of safeguarding failures which is clearly ludicrous. If not within their remit then they should have stated they were not there to asses it. Therefore I don't accept anyone telling me "it's not their remit" as they clearly thought it was.

And we keep hearing that public inquiries are pointless. But we are not hearing any better solutions for unearthing the deliberate and systematic dismantling of safeguarding.

Given a couple of months ago there was a parent on here who posted a chat with one of their people that didn't reflect the Cass Review at all (and looked alarmingly like they were trying to groom the parent), I think they are going to have issues with that.

If the volunteers don't want to do it, they are either going to break that implementation and be outside safeguarding as laid down by the charity commission itself. Or they are going to lose a lot of volunteers.

The finances of the charity make for interesting reading. They expanded very fast and took on loads of paid staff. But donations plummeted.

It's a pattern you see with many small businesses which over expand, saturated the market and then the bubble bursts leading to them ultimately collapsing once the fashion has passed.

If they try to continue operating at the level they were two or three years ago, they will likely run out of money in two years.

They have to make massive cuts to the services they provide and lay off a bunch of paid staff. Just to stay afloat and break even.

Cass is the least of their troubles.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence...

Just as trans activists are calling for transparency over the Cass review; I would like some transparency about how the CC came to their conclusions about safeguarding. Who advised them, what advice were they given, and where did they look?

I agree with this. How could they not see that what everyone saw even in the public domain didn't need expert advice? And/or passing to another agency?

It's a whitewash and everyone celebrating it as a win looks foolish at best.

CC know that we will watch every single page of the Mermaids website and check every line of their accounts from this day till they close down and Mermaids WILL have been told that repeat failings will be fatal.

I ageee. The CC have wriggled out of the outright condemnation of mermaids, probably for all sorts of reasons. But they will absolutely know what they are ignoring.

I wouldn't call them primed, exactly, but they will be aware.

Mermaids is now under the scrutiny of thousands of women. And journalists, of course.

Whistleblowers, people acting undercover, etc. The spotlight is fully on, permanently.