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.

I read about this earlier. Isn't it essentially:

GLP: Reports SM
CC: Follows duty to investigate a report
GLP: OMGGGGG SM ARE BEING INVESTIGATED!!!

It's a deliberate merging of 2 totally different things.

I think OP's intro falls for it.

Sex Matters had no information about a complaint about a speaker from years ago.

They only now know because GLP added it in as a side comment about something else.

There is no need to help them amplify their falsehoods.

I suspect any number of rational and genuine organisations have had speakers who years later make offenisve or inappropriate remarks.

What are they supposed to do? Consult a clairvoyant before booking anyone?

Given the circumstances, which were that JM had been ejected from the family home and was homeless when staying with these men, any consent is at best questionable. One of the ugly parts of being poor is that rent can look like yielding to demands for sex.

I'm pretty sure that my intro made it clear that GLP are being completely unreasonable here, but hey. 🙄

He's leaving X

I turn to our regular consultant, Sgt. Major Williams. Take it away SM.

I appear to have missed Jolyon's resounding condemnation of the tweets of sexualised abuse up to and including rape threats that GC women have faced from trans activists for years.

Well GLP have got what they want by their sly inferring.

Start of the misleading headlines

Charity Commision investigating transphobic Sex Matters
https://www.thecanary.co/opinion/2026/01/07/sex-matters-charity/

If The Canary told me it was raining, I'd look out of the window to check. They're a propaganda machine.

Ongoing compliance case into gender-critical charity revealed
https://www.civilsociety.co.uk/news/ongoing-compliance-case-into-gender-critical-charity-revealed.html

That sounds like the sort of thing Peter Tatchell has said.

I think he was just commenting on Twitter on his own account. It has zero to do with SM as far as I know. I agree those comments about JM were awful but the reason JM is using him to get at SM is more to do with the fact that he created a spreadsheet demonstrating how ineffective the GLP are, IMO.

And quite.

The kind of people who read the Canary will already be hardwired to call women's rights campaigners transphobic bigots. They're the kind who are joining the disaster area known as Your Party.

The Canary presented the hacking of the Free Speech Union as some sort of exciting freedom fighting.

I follow the Canary on twitter for the lols, not quite believing that the dimwits who believe this shite have the nerve to criticise the DM without a massive dose of irony.

I thought they had just published a Bash Back press release. 🤔

Yes. They don't like the spreadsheets. It is straightforward available information that they could publish themselves, in the name of transparency.