Good Laugh Project insinuate that Sex Matters are in trouble with the Charity Commission

[selffellatingouroborosofhate]

JM has complained to the Charity Commission because Sex Matters platformed Richard Dunstan, who said some genuinely very objectionable things about about JM's history of being sexually abused as a child. The CC replied with "the issues you have raised have been passed to the Regulatory Compliance team to consider as part of our ongoing case into the charity". GLP then go on to talk about their defence of Mermaids. By mentioning the investigation into the unrelated charity Mermaids, GLP's statement is crafted in such a way as to make the reader think that SM are facing the same kind of super-serious investigation. They aren't: Mermaids were subject to a Statutory Inquiry, whilst SM face a far less serious Regulatory Compliance case. The GLP statement is cunning, it doesn't actually state what kind of case SM face, steering you into joining the dots in the wrong order yourself.

JM is well within his rights to flag his concern about SM platforming Dunstan, and is within his rights to write about doing so online. That doesn't make it any less seriously underhanded to imply a conflation of the Mermaids Statutory Inquiry with the SM Regulatory Compliance case.

Sex Matters's statement: https://archive.is/Sfs4k

GLP's statement: https://archive.is/GGMz7

I read the two accounts and wondered momentarily if they were actually describing the same thing.

Based on SM's statement, they will not platform Richard Dunstan again. I hope that SM will do better due diligence in future. I know that many on this board hate purity politics, but joking about child sexual abuse crosses a line and, as a matter of principle, we should never work with those who joke about it. GC feminists are here to uphold safeguarding of women and children, and joking about CSA is fundamentally incompatible with that commitment. No child deserves to be abused and no adult survivor deserves to be mocked about it.

A bit confused. It is late at night so that might be it.

But the links you give for the Sex Matters statement is about whether they broke data protections rules when carrying out a a survey.
https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/statement-on-the-charity-commission/

I cant find anything on their web site about the GLP statement re platforming a speaker who a complaint was made about.

Is it in a recent newsletter or something.

First paragraph: The Good Law Project has said that the Charity Commission has opened an “investigation” into Sex Matters.

Further down: GLP has also linked us to remarks made by Richard Dunstan. We are not in any way linked to those remarks, and we did not know about them until GLP brought them to public attention.

Yes, but all they are saying is they have been told by GLP they have been complained about, and then go to talk about whether their survey breached guidelines.

And then as a footnote say

GLP has also linked us to remarks made by Richard Dunstan. We are not in any way linked to those remarks, and we did not know about them until GLP brought them to public attention.

So in other words Sex Matters haven't made a comment about RD, just that GLP has made a complaint about something they know nothing about.

IMO!

I wonder if the fox botherer takes spin lessons from Alistair Campbell

as far as I can tell the only reason the CC are investigating SM is that the GLP keep complaining about them and that are then duty bound to follow the complaints process.

whereas the GLP would have you believe that the CC have taken it upon themselves to investigate because they have decided without endless complaints from the GLP and its adherents that SM are doing something wrong

Jolyon has made it public that he's made vexatious complaints to the Charity Commission. This doesn't mean more than this.

Given that the threshold for shitty behaviour and getting blacklisted by the CC is pretty damn high (see Mermaids), I am not particularly worried by yet another attempt to smear and use vexatious complaints.

Jolyon is in danger of starting to be regarded as behaving like a certain Watson.

I lean towards the idea that JM has lost perspective on this issue and rather than engaging in spin, he fails to process information properly. I would describe this as him having limited grasp on reality.

I describe this as him having limited grasp on reality.

Anyone who believes that his children can change sex or have no sex at all has completely lost his grasp on reality.

Fails to process information properly as so many TRA advocates apparently do when they claim - on repeat - that GC women are trying to deny their existence.

GLPs statement implies that Dunstan made the dodgy comments while being platformed by Sex Matters, whereas from Sex Matters’ statement I assume his comments were made entirely separately. I am interested to know the context in which he made the comment(a) and whether Sex Matters reasonably should have known.

This seems somewhat misleading as this isn't the reason JM has complained to the Charity Commission about Sex Matters. Was this deliberately aimed to mislead or a genuine mistake in which case, I would suggest edditing your writing.

The GLP statement says that JM complained for that reason:

“The news follows a complaint made to the Charity Commission by Good Law Project’s founder Jolyon Maugham KC about Sex Matters. Maugham complained of its decision to platform the activist Richard Dunstan, who speculated that, as a child, Maugham had “secretly enjoyed” being “buggered by some dirty old men,” endorsing a profoundly harmful myth that child victims of rape enjoy it.”

When did sex matters platform this bloke? Ive never heard of him.

Richard Dunstan insulted JM on X in December, and JM complained to the CC about it on the basis that SM 'platform' RD. The evidence being a tweet of Maya Forstater and RD together outside the High Court during the JR hearing in November, and a tweet from 2022 in which SM describe him as a 'good friend'. I can't find any other links between them.

RD's X account seems to have been taken down.

The CC was already investigating SM because JM complained about a year ago about possible breaches of data law by the men in women's sports survey. So they said 'sure, we'll add this nonsense to that investigation'.

Mermaids irrelevant, and of course GLP has reported it as exciting 'new' investigation into the evil CSA- loving transphobes. It's what they do.

JM has reported Richard Dunstan to the police with a swipe at Sex Matters.
Statement from Jolyon Maugham KC: Police report | Good Law Project https://share.google/FPcOXa2Bf8jwddcqktps://share.google/FPcOXa2Bf8jwddcqk
Mr Dunstan is not an anonymous troll. He has close relations with the leading anti-trans charity Sex Matters. The Times recently came to me for comment in relation to one of his allegations. And he is periodically quoted in the far-right blogosphere.For these reasons, I have referred Mr Dunstan’s tweet to the police. I believe his conduct amounts to an offence under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003. I will also take legal advice on other criminal and civil law remedies for his broader campaign against me and my family.

close relations with the leading anti-trans charity Sex Matters

When is the court case that proves believing in sex and stopping sexism is 'anti-trans' please?

As for 'close relations'... Is this like trying to say he's sleeping with JKR or some other fucking ludicrous idea where you can't be in 200miles of someone GC otherwise you somehow hold exactly the same views and agenda?

Steady now Jolyon, the Ayatollah is speaking about child 'marriage' and making homophobic remarks.

https://goodlawproject.org/statement-from-jolyon-maugham-kc-police-report/

What RD said about JM was outrageously offensive, and it goes against everything SM stands for to suggest that they would in any way condone making fun of the sexual abuse of a child.
I'm sure if SM had known that three years later RD was going to say something so gross in 2025, they would not have described him as a friend in 2022.
Hindsight is 20/20.

This will be like the reporting of the LGBA won't it? Just endless vexatious reporting over nothing much - while other charities I won't name but all have gender identity in common behave appallingly, one with a whole bunch of safeguarding disasters and just brazen it out - mostly to be able to throw shade by announcing they're under investigation.

I hear the bumph from this lot now and just mentally scroll by.

Exactly. The whole thing is scraping the barrel to try to smear SM.

Anti-woman activists accused JKR of weaponising her trauma when she wrote about her experiences of DV to defend women-only services. JM is arguably weaponising his trauma to try to make SM look bad.

Is RD the one who keeps a spreadsheet on the GLP wins/losses/crowdfunders? 🤔

Of course it will because they keep helping in court cases and with public awareness. Therefore they must be punished and shut down by any means possible. Even if its through harassing people to financial oblivion with vexatious claims.

Thank you for clarifying that. Apologies - I stand corrected.

Yes.

IIRC Richard Dunstan did a bit of work for SM a couple of years ago as their parliamentary lead or similar. I enjoy his analysis of GLP's barnstorming court losses but had no idea he had posted these horrible comments. V disappointing.

For what it's worth, JM was above the relevant age of consent and doesn't claim that the sex was anything other than consensual.