Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
“If we hadn’t lost we might have won”
Desperate stuff.
Mermaids thinks that "the judgment confirms that there are serious doubts over whether LGBA should have charitable status".
In fact, the judgement says exactly the opposite, which shows they have about as much grasp of the Law as they have over children's welfare.
It being thrown out on standing is a pretty technical issue - it just means that the judges agreed that Mermaids were not effected enough by the LGBA to be the ones to bring this court case. Again, on the actual merits, the judges were in disagreement - with one judge agreeing that the LGBA should lose their charitable status.
My conclusion is that if Mermaids appeal and are found to have standing, or if other complainants with standing bring a similar case, it could go either way. I feel that's a fair assessment based on the facts of the case.
Maybe I'm not as well trained as you anti transgender activists in spinning technical judgements into definitive statements.
I’m a lawyer, not an anti-transgender activist. Have you read the judgment? I’ve had a very quick scan and that does not accord with anything I’ve read. Can you, specifically, point me to the part where one of the panel said that LGBA should lose their charitable status?
Perhaps it would help if some kind person could post the actual ruling instead of various tweets/blogs/whatever from interested parties, then we could read it and be enlightened
If Bairstow was any further back to Wood, he would be sitting back in the pavillion with Kwawjha....
I watched Waqar Younis at Trowbridge for Surrey against Wilts in about 1990 and Alec Stewart was confortably 30 yards back. Fastest I've seen with my own eyes.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
That is because you have no clue about the distinct differences between the English crown and the Scottish crown and what you need to do to be King of Scots.
There is no such thing as the English crown Charles certainly wasn’t crowned as king of England.
If people aren't fans of monarchy that's fine. Pretending someone isn't your monarch is as deluded as claiming an elected leader isn't your PM or president because you don't like them.
It's rainy - "Not my sky!" It's too hot - "Not my winter!" You're dead - "Not my inevitable demise!"
You halfwit he is not monarch in Scotland, He was crowned English king , he has never taken the Scottish oath so can never be called King of Scots, a fecking parasitic imposter. No amount of pretending by establishment and fools can change that fact.
Crowned English king? I must have missed that part of the ascension or coronation.
That is because you have no clue about the distinct differences between the English crown and the Scottish crown and what you need to do to be King of Scots.
There is no such thing as the English crown Charles certainly wasn’t crowned as king of England.
Must be of rUK, if he had to be brought up to Edinburgh and shown to the crown of the King of Scots?
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
If Bairstow was any further back to Wood, he would be sitting back in the pavillion with Kwawjha....
I watched Waqar Younis at Trowbridge for Surrey against Wilts in about 1990 and Alec Stewart was confortably 30 yards back. Fastest I've seen with my own eyes.
I saw Waqar live and he was rapid. But Alan Donald to Atherton when he didn't walk, never seen anything like that, the keeper was being pushed back and back. He made Kallis & Pollock look like they were bowling medium pacers.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
If Bairstow was any further back to Wood, he would be sitting back in the pavillion with Kwawjha....
I watched Waqar Younis at Trowbridge for Surrey against Wilts in about 1990 and Alec Stewart was confortably 30 yards back. Fastest I've seen with my own eyes.
Once saw Shoaib Aktar play for Berkswell, though I can't remember him bowling - much to the opposition's relief I expect ! (Think he was coming back from injury)
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
I would use a Waitrose bag for that amount of cash.
I was thinking a tesco bag might be more discreet. Don't want to draw attention to myself in Loughborough.
The Tesco in Loughborough was a branch of William Low when I first shopped there, although I did not queue overnight:
"Expansion into the north and midlands of England was a priority, with the £12 million, 30,000 sq ft (2,800 m2) Loughborough store opening in 1993. Amid huge publicity for price cuts on over 500 items, customers took their sleeping bags to await the opening of the store and claim their hamper, champagne and flowers."
Wow I never knew Wullie Lows has branches down south.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
If you happen to be a member, following would be appreciated.
Of course, if you want to read something more intelligent (but with a depressing lack of AI-generated tieflings) then you might want to consider following this chap too: https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/
"It is very clear to us that Mermaids profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s Decision emotionally, politically and intellectually. We acknowledge that this disagreement is sincere, as are the concerns that have been voiced before us. Furthermore, it is apparent to us that many of those that support the work of Mermaids or those it supports also strongly disagree with the Decision. As noted by the Commission, they may well have had valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA and its activists have said in the past. However, applying the facts to the actual legal issue before us, the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement"
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
"Nonetheless, and notwithstanding significant time being spent on deliberation in trying to do so, the two members of the panel hearing this appeal have been unable to reach agreement on whether, if Mermaids does have standing, LGBA is a charity within the meaning of the 2011 Act"
Right, straight off topic. I've got a serious question about cash. We've sold a plot of land we own to a neighbouring land owner. He's an old school gentleman, doesn't trust banks and wants to pay us in actual cash. I'm fine with that, it'll all be done legally. My issue is, can I just stroll into the bank with a tesco bag with 150 grand in it without alarms ringing and being surrounded by armed rozzers and income tax inspectors?
I would use a Waitrose bag for that amount of cash.
I was thinking a tesco bag might be more discreet. Don't want to draw attention to myself in Loughborough.
The Tesco in Loughborough was a branch of William Low when I first shopped there, although I did not queue overnight:
"Expansion into the north and midlands of England was a priority, with the £12 million, 30,000 sq ft (2,800 m2) Loughborough store opening in 1993. Amid huge publicity for price cuts on over 500 items, customers took their sleeping bags to await the opening of the store and claim their hamper, champagne and flowers."
Wow I never knew Wullie Lows has branches down south.
Never mind having romantic evenings for singles (or triples for all I know).
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
Wood looks like he's cementing his place for the rest of the series here. Definitely missing a proper quick in the first two tests.
How many times in his career do you think Wood has managed three tests in three weeks?
How often does the schedule include three tests in three weeks ?
Well another way of looking at it, only twice has he played more than 2 tests in a series. Admittedly both Ashes (1st, 2nd, 4th and 5th) and (1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th).
I suspect if he does play the next two tests as well he will breakdown in the 5th test.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
I don't think Mermaids' gloss on that paragraph is accurate.
"Nonetheless, and notwithstanding significant time being spent on deliberation in trying to do so, the two members of the panel hearing this appeal have been unable to reach agreement on whether, if Mermaids does have standing, LGBA is a charity within the meaning of the 2011 Act"
So the judges disagreed if the LGBA is a charity within law. That seems like one said the LGBA might not be a charity within law, and one saying it is a charity within law. Which is why my original position was, should standing be found, this suggests it could go either way.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
"It is very clear to us that Mermaids profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s Decision emotionally, politically and intellectually. We acknowledge that this disagreement is sincere, as are the concerns that have been voiced before us. Furthermore, it is apparent to us that many of those that support the work of Mermaids or those it supports also strongly disagree with the Decision. As noted by the Commission, they may well have had valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA and its activists have said in the past. However, applying the facts to the actual legal issue before us, the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement"
It's insufficient for them to bring standing, not insufficient to the merits of the case. Again, if someone with standing could be found, this could still be significant. If the judgment said "no third party can possibly have standing in such a case" again, I would agree the case would be closed.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
I don't think Mermaids' gloss on that paragraph is accurate.
IANAL, but if they couldn’t reach agreement, that seems to imply that one of them thought that Mermaids were right on the second issue, or at least might be right…?
"It is very clear to us that Mermaids profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s Decision emotionally, politically and intellectually. We acknowledge that this disagreement is sincere, as are the concerns that have been voiced before us. Furthermore, it is apparent to us that many of those that support the work of Mermaids or those it supports also strongly disagree with the Decision. As noted by the Commission, they may well have had valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA and its activists have said in the past. However, applying the facts to the actual legal issue before us, the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the strength of their disagreement"
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
Is that long for “yes, I do think some lesbians like girl dick”?
How's this for a twist - remember we were chattin' about slavery earlier?
The Prep School building hit by the car in Wimbledon is called... Wilberforce House.
The most bizarre comment (admittedly out of context) is from the local MP who described the school as: situated roughly a mile from Wimbledon village and on the way to several nearby golf clubs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66120958
Is it right to say ‘this is the first time a charity has tried to remove another charity’? We don’t understand the point of this question – something being done for the first time doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it wrong. But we don’t know – we don’t think anyone knows – whether it’s happened before.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
Is that long for “yes, I do think some lesbians like girl dick”?
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
I don't think Mermaids' gloss on that paragraph is accurate.
IANAL, but if they couldn’t reach agreement, that seems to imply that one of them thought that Mermaids were right on the second issue, or at least might be right…?
It was the best possible spin on an obiter comment.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
If that is a medical incident, the chances of the Land Rover ending up all the way over by the corner of the modern building, either from the road, or from within the school, through buildings, school entrance barriers and fences looks massively worst case.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
How's this for a twist - remember we were chattin' about slavery earlier?
The Prep School building hit by the car in Wimbledon is called... Wilberforce House.
The most bizarre comment (admittedly out of context) is from the local MP who described the school as: situated roughly a mile from Wimbledon village and on the way to several nearby golf clubs. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66120958
It's actrually a fair enough description - it's in the middle of the open area, on the village side of the golf club scatter, though bang next door to ?2-3 of them.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
Is that long for “yes, I do think some lesbians like girl dick”?
? “some lesbians like girl dick”
Does this mean that some lesbians might be sexually attracted to a female who identifies as a man and has had phalloplasty?
Or does it mean that some lesbians might be sexually attracted to a male who identifies as a woman but hasn’t had vaginoplasty and so retains a penis?
The Lab-Con contest I haven't done last LEc results for:
UXBRIDGE & SOUTH RUISLIP LE 2022 results based on full/near full wards and Eastcote weighted to 50% (excludes about 1000 voters)
Con 51.5 Lab 34.4 Grn 7.9 Var others 4.1 LD 2.0
In terms of local results you'd say this was safer than Selby (where LE 2022 had Lab 10% behind without competing in 2/15 wards) and indeed safer than Tamworth (Con lead there a smidge higher at 17.9% but includes a couple of wards from 2021).
Pushing those London local issue buttons, as in 2022, looks to be good politics from the Tories, especially as London local by elections continue to typically show small Lab to Con swing from 2022 (typically these have been very Labour wards where their vote share is nibbled by the Greens and Conservatives show a small rise but remain below 10%).
OK, Uxbridge Greens are probably red Greens and the larger cohort in Selby could well be blue Greens, but with Boris, who underperformed his local councillors, gone, I concur with the slight PB feeling that this isn't necessarily the easiest of the Labour gains.
Yes and the one region of the UK where Rishi polls clearly better than Boris did in 2022 is London
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
Is that long for “yes, I do think some lesbians like girl dick”?
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world, because cis lesbians are the group most likely to accept trans women and accept trans lesbian women. I don't think the existence of trans women, or trans lesbians, erases lesbians, and neither do most cis lesbians. Whether it is hateful, maybe, but it is certainly wrong.
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
Can you point me to the para in the judgment that supports your contention that one of the judges agreed with Mermaids on the substantive merits of their case? Link below -
I don't think Mermaids' gloss on that paragraph is accurate.
IANAL, but if they couldn’t reach agreement, that seems to imply that one of them thought that Mermaids were right on the second issue, or at least might be right…?
It was the best possible spin on an obiter comment.
OK, sure. A loss is a loss. A non-decision on the second issue is not a decision for you, merely not a decision against you. But they haven’t made this up: there is something there.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
Is it right to say ‘this is the first time a charity has tried to remove another charity’? We don’t understand the point of this question – something being done for the first time doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it wrong. But we don’t know – we don’t think anyone knows – whether it’s happened before.
It's not unknown for an English charity registered only in England or E&W and with activities only there to fundraise in Scotland, where it isn't registered. But I don't think the Scottish charities have tried to erase the competitor - only ask nicely for the legalities to be respected.
The Cruelties to Animals are a particularly good example because of their statutory powers/responsiblities.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
The Good Law Project had so many obtuse takes I was spoiled for choice - I chose the funniest.
You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.
To each their own.
I have no views on whether either of these outfits are a good things or ought to be charities.
The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
What is the “sector” and why should Mermaids represent it?
“We welcome this judgment. As the judges confirm, it is not the Charity Commission’s role to regulate public debate on sensitive issues on which there are deeply held, sincere beliefs on all sides. Our role is to apply the law, and we consider that we did so in registering LGB Alliance as a charity.
“All charities, ultimately, must deliver on their purposes for the public benefit. We understand both charities hold opposing views, but when engaging in public debate and campaigning, they should do so with respect and tolerance. Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register.”
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
Two things i) PB people have an extraordinarily wide circle of friends and relatives. ii) It might be worth you coming back to PB in two and five years to tell us what happens to them. Small sample I know, but what the heck.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
Can’t copy from the judgement on my phone for some reason - but agree this was also key:
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
Lol, love how below you quoted the Good Law Project on one thing, and then ignored the point they made before that about whether "this is actually about free speech":
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
What is the “sector” and why should Mermaids represent it?
I would assume the LGBTQ+ charity sector. I don't actually know why Mermaids should represent it, and neither did the judges if they didn't accept standing.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
Nice touch that the trumpeter is playing 'Blaydon Races' for Mark Wood. Though I don't know how appropriate that is. Is Ashington close enough to Blaydon for it to work, or is this like calling someone from Durham a Geordie? @Gallowgate@SandyRentool ?
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.
*For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.
*For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
Girls who want boys Who like boys to be girls Who do boys like they're girls Who do girls like they're boys Always should be someone you really love
This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos
ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes
Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.
*For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
Very true you only need to view the increasing use of teledildonics to see that
This will come as a shock to PB-ers, but I was actually THERE for that iconic final day at Lord’s last Sunday, when Stokes hit the greatest Test century on English soil and there was an iconic cheating allegation that embroiled two prime ministers and was headline news across the cosmos
ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes
Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa
The batsman was… Ben Stokes
I know hyperbole is your thing, but the BIB is not correct. I can think of many others as good, or better. It was a great knock, but no more than that.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
Purpose generally charitable. Tick. Public benefit. Tick. Possible disagreement with aims. No problem, see above. Conflicts with the charity whose aims are to exile all people called Viewcode to North Korea. No problem. See above.
Apart from your DONATE button, obviously home and dry.
Before resident anti trans individuals try to post this with their spin; Mermaids failed on standing to get LGB Alliance's charity status revoked, on the merits, the judges seemed to be split - with one agreeing that LGBA shouldn't have charity status, and one disagreeing.
So, whilst many will crow that this is a good thing for LGBA, I would suggest that what it really means is in the case someone who has standing can bring this to trial again, or if on an appeal Mermaids are found to have standing, there seems to be enough of an argument for it to go either way.
It's interesting that Mermaids are arguing that LGBA's charitable status should be revoked because it has progressed the “pro-LGB” activities it claims to be focused on “only to a limited extent”. If progressing a cause "only to a limited extent" is grounds for revocation, where does it leave a charity like Mermaids that has actually set back its cause?
As an LGB person, I'd personally argue the LGBA actively is against LGB activities, having had spokespeople and significant members of the organisation, as well as the organisation itself, previously argue that the UK doesn't need conversion therapy bans for LGB people, and arguing against same sex marriage and adoption rights for same sex couples at various time. I don't know the ins and outs of Mermaids legal argument, but that would be mine.
Worth reading the judgement which goes into 1) what LGBA said before it was a charity, 2) what LGBA has said since it was a charity and 3) what supporters of LGBA have said.
For example, do you find this hateful?
During tribunal Kate Harris co founder of LGBA reduced to tears“I’m going to speak for millions of lesbians around the world who are lesbians because we love other women We will not be erased and we will not have any man with a penis tell us he’s a lesbian because he feels he is”
And then there’s what one of Mermaids former Trustees wrote.
Reminder that Mermaids’ trustee Jacob Breslow wrote the following -
‘… the queering that ‘queer’ does to the child, is one of resisting the child’s alleged asexuality and heterosexuality; allowing for the child’s pleasures, desires, and perversities; refusing the sexual narrative of growing up and becoming a proper sexual subject; and thwarting the normative frames of sexuality and identity that have constrained the child and the queer.’
Mermaids is currently under investigation by the Charity Commission over safeguarding concerns.
I would say, of the first, that she isn't speaking for millions of lesbians around the world
You think lesbians like “girl dick”?
I mean, I am friends and know many cis lesbians who do. Do I think ALL cis lesbians do? Obviously not as some cis lesbians are very loudly anti trans. Do I think ALL cis lesbians who believe trans women are women and can be lesbians do? Probably not, I'm sure even some of them have preferences that don't include that, but some also have other preferences, like for femme or masc lesbians only. But clearly many do.
That was a very long winded way of saying “Many do” or even just “Yes”
Maybe I am just long winded. But, like a good product of the English education system, I like to explain my reasoning for things.
tbh, I appreciated the long-windedness. But the mind boggles. I don't know many lesbians well, but the idea that they'd see a transwoman as an appealing sexual partner seems preposterous. I mean, how is a (pre-op) naked transwoman distinguishable from a man?
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
I mean, people say the same thing about same sex attraction - "I'm a man, and I just don't understand why a man would find another man attractive".
Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.
I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
So if I founded a charity with the explicit aim of firing all people called "algarkirk" into the sun, that would be valid?
No, because criminal.
There would be a strong public good factor however, the technology that would be involved in firing an algakirk into the sun could be repurposed for disposal of nuclear waste etc. Obviously there would be a downside to this for all algakirks
But the algarkirk is not specific to the tech. A pagan or a strong binliner full of rubbish would do just as well, so that test fails.
It would hardly be the first time that tech has been developed for one purpose. In this case if there are enough supporters of firing algakirks into the sun to fund the development then it comes to fruition. Perhaps without the lure of firing algakirks into the sun the funding would not be forthcoming.
*For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
If you want to get the technology for firing objects into the sun developed, then history shows there's one clear way to get that achieved: Find a pornographic use for projectiles being fired into the sun.
FPT: The US and the UK banned the international slave trade at almost the same time.
1806 "In a message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights ... which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe." 1807 International slave trade made a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted under the Constitution." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
Comments
For the second, I don't really understand the context of that quote, but if the idea is that we shouldn't always assume that kids don't have sexual attraction and that kids know they might be gay - I don't understand the issue? I think the first time I was interested in the male form, for example, was wandering through the adult underwear section with my mum when I was like 7 - 8 and seeing the pictures of men in tight pants and liking that. And, anecdotally, that seems like a pretty common experience for mlm people. I remember having physical attraction to other children my age from around 12 ish, pre puberty, and know that some kids have sexual relationships with other children from quite young ages - I don't see that as inherently an issue. I remember being a 14 yo boy and finding male adults in their 20s and even 30s attractive, but I don't believe it would be acceptable for the adult to have a relationship with a 14 yo. What is it that you find such an issue with that statement? Is it the assumption that child must mean like, 6 or something?
I know from a safeguarding pov that hypersexualised acts in children can be indicative of abuse, but that isn't always the case - the same with bruising and other things; it can be indicative, sure, but it's also typically if it is a sudden onset of that behaviour being new, or if it coincides with other indicative signs.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf
(what are we booing exactly?)
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Mermaids-v-Charity-Commission-judgment-060723.pdf
I probably missed it
Started writing articles (or blogging...) on Medium a few days ago. Latest wibble is on politics and Sunak's prospects of surviving a GE: https://medium.com/@rkilner/is-rishi-sunaks-premiership-doomed-9f10124372
If you happen to be a member, following would be appreciated.
Of course, if you want to read something more intelligent (but with a depressing lack of AI-generated tieflings) then you might want to consider following this chap too: https://alastair-meeks.medium.com/
Para. 76.
"It is very clear to us that Mermaids profoundly disagrees with the Commission’s
Decision emotionally, politically and intellectually. We acknowledge that this
disagreement is sincere, as are the concerns that have been voiced before us.
Furthermore, it is apparent to us that many of those that support the work of
Mermaids or those it supports also strongly disagree with the Decision. As noted by
the Commission, they may well have had valid cause for complaint as to what LGBA
and its activists have said in the past. However, applying the facts to the actual legal
issue before us, the fact that Mermaids and those they support have been affected
emotionally and/or socially is insufficient to provide them with standing to bring
this appeal, no matter the depth of the feelings resulting from the Decision or the
strength of their disagreement"
The Prep School building hit by the car in Wimbledon is called... Wilberforce House.
I suspect if he does play the next two tests as well he will breakdown in the 5th test.
So the judges disagreed if the LGBA is a charity within law. That seems like one said the LGBA might not be a charity within law, and one saying it is a charity within law. Which is why my original position was, should standing be found, this suggests it could go either way.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/wimbledon-merton-police-car-camp-road-school-b1092601.html
@Sean_F, thank you for the para.
https://www.wimbledonguardian.co.uk/news/10904529.wimbledons-octagonal-school-254-years-old-and-still-counting/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66120958
https://goo.gl/maps/kq2UWk5PEnTyiAc76
Is it right to say ‘this is the first time a charity has tried to remove another charity’?
We don’t understand the point of this question – something being done for the first time doesn’t make it right and it doesn’t make it wrong. But we don’t know – we don’t think anyone knows – whether it’s happened before.
https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/?
Worth reading the Mermaids judgment - here are key bits. Note “we found Mermaids has no legal right to operate free of criticism.” A victory for free speech & pluralism.
Imagine being a charity that wastes this much money on vexatious litigation instead of charitable activity.
https://twitter.com/soniasodha/status/1676902878714142720?s=20
RIP “No Debate” - which I think was at the root of this.
29 Camp Rd
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ddGmh3gqPtuDqcRM8
https://goodlawproject.org/update/mermaids-challenge-lgb-alliance/
Is the case about free speech?
The case has nothing to do with free speech – LGBA’s staff and trustees can share their views about trans people whatever their charitable status. The point is that charities are supported – through charitable tax relief – with public money. To be registered as a charity, an organisation must be established, broadly, for the public good. By granting charitable status to LGBA, the Charity Commission decided that its activities were entitled to that public subsidy and satisfied the test of being for the public good. The sector believed that judgment needed to be tested.
You chose the one contradicted in the judgement.
To each their own.
Does this mean that some lesbians might be sexually attracted to a female who identifies as a man and has had phalloplasty?
Or does it mean that some lesbians might be sexually attracted to a male who identifies as a woman but hasn’t had vaginoplasty and so retains a penis?
Or could it be either?
Who represents 'the sector'?
Not Mermaids.
My friend's 19yo stepdaughter now identifies as male and is in a relationship with a 19yo male who identifies as female. But both of them look like the sex they were born as. Basically they are a heterosexual couple in denial.
The Cruelties to Animals are a particularly good example because of their statutory powers/responsiblities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Society_for_Prevention_of_Cruelty_to_Animals#Relationship_with_RSPCA
EDIT: Yeah, Ultra-edge shows he hit it.
The one thing which is obvious from the nature of charities, (especially clear the charitable purpose of 'advancement of religion' but universal), is that the aims of charity X may rightly be in complete and irreconcilable conflict with the aims of charity Y. X and Y may each believe the other's members all to be hellbound by virtue of their false beliefs, both both may be charitable purposes.
Disagreement with aims cannot possibly properly found an attack on the validity of a charity.
“We welcome this judgment. As the judges confirm, it is not the Charity Commission’s role to regulate public debate on sensitive issues on which there are deeply held, sincere beliefs on all sides. Our role is to apply the law, and we consider that we did so in registering LGB Alliance as a charity.
“All charities, ultimately, must deliver on their purposes for the public benefit. We understand both charities hold opposing views, but when engaging in public debate and campaigning, they should do so with respect and tolerance. Demonising and undermining those who think differently is not acceptable behaviour from any charity on our register.”
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/charity-commission-responds-to-mermaidslgb-alliance-tribunal-verdict
Take that.
@turbotubbs Not sure how we get to Trent Bridge 89 from here
Anyway my lay of Australia looking good.
It’s not quite the “60” day, but it’s a good day.
i) PB people have an extraordinarily wide circle of friends and relatives.
ii) It might be worth you coming back to PB in two and five years to tell us what happens to them. Small sample I know, but what the heck.
Though I don't know how appropriate that is. Is Ashington close enough to Blaydon for it to work, or is this like calling someone from Durham a Geordie?
@Gallowgate @SandyRentool ?
*For reference I have absolutely nothing against algakirk nor any desire to fire him into the sun
Who like boys to be girls
Who do boys like they're girls
Who do girls like they're boys
Always should be someone you really love
Hard to argue with Damon Albarn on this one.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/charitable-purposes/charitable-purposes
ANYWAY at the time I wondered if any other cricketer had ever attained a Test century - hit or passed the 100 - by hitting three consecutive sixes
Some noble stattonerd is also interested in this. And he’s found - he says - at least one prior example. In South Africa
The batsman was… Ben Stokes
I so hope he is, tho
Public benefit. Tick.
Possible disagreement with aims. No problem, see above.
Conflicts with the charity whose aims are to exile all people called Viewcode to North Korea. No problem. See above.
Apart from your DONATE button, obviously home and dry.
Typically attraction, even sexual attraction, doesn't start and end with how the person looks naked. Getting to know someone, finding them attractive when you first meet them, their personality, your interpersonal interactions - all go towards attraction.
I also have it on good authority that there is a significant difference between cis men and pre operative trans women who are on hormones. Hormones do a lot to change the texture of skin, hair, even the way individuals smell, and the way that different body parts operate. Again, these will be impactful.
1806 "In a message to Congress, Thomas Jefferson calls for criminalizing the international slave trade, asking Congress to "withdraw the citizens of the United States from all further participation in those violations of human rights ... which the morality, the reputation, and the best of our country have long been eager to proscribe."
1807 International slave trade made a felony in Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves; this act takes effect on 1 January 1808, the earliest date permitted under the Constitution."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_abolition_of_slavery_and_serfdom
(Congress passed that act on March 2nd, 1807. The similar bill passed by your parliament "received Royal Assent on 25 March 1807". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Trade_Act_1807 )
Yes, Jefferson can be charged with hypocrisy. But he can also be seen as a man trying to end slavery, gradually.
I think, were he alive today, he would oppose the Gulag, the Laogai, and all the other modern forms of slavery.