Susie Green & Mermaids UK - "Trans Kid Support Charity", Susie had her underage kid get GRS

Big Sooz is still defiant about her PB-ban evasion. Really, really, really hoping hard that she gets her comeuppance for this.
archive (paywalled original).

Former trans charity boss to defy ban on puberty blockers​

Anne Trans Healthcare, which was set up by Susie Green, former head of Mermaids, says it will continue to offer ‘legal’ ways to access the drugs
An organisation led by the former chief executive of the transgender support charity Mermaids has vowed to keep on helping children get access to puberty blockers, despite a permanent UK ban.
Anne Trans Healthcare, co-founded by the former Mermaids leader Susie Green, hit out at Labour after it was announced that the government would keep a ban on the drugs for under-18s.
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, told MPs last week that he was making the temporary ban, introduced in May, indefinite across the UK. He said the way puberty blockers had been used was a “scandal”.
The ban was backed by Baroness Cass, a former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, whose report this year concluded that the field of gender medicine was “built on shaky foundations”.
In a post on Instagram aimed at trans youth and their families, Anne Trans Healthcare said that it would still be facilitating the use of puberty-blockers.
It said: “We offer a legal, compassionate, and supportive routes [sic] to accessing puberty blockers with medical oversight from experienced endocrinologists.
“Our team will guide you through every step of the process, ensuring you feel reassured and supported.⁠”
Green, 56, was dismissed as Mermaids’ chief executive in 2022 over a loss of trust in her leadership, a Charity Commission report into the organisation revealed.
The following year she set up Anne Trans Healthcare, which offers access to puberty blockers for under-18s and boasts of having secured a “legal route” to get them to Britons. Anne, of which Green is a director, says on its website that patients can get them prescribed from doctors outside the UK and sent to an “EU destination” for pick-up.
It says it has “secured a legal route” for young people to access puberty blockers “through a network of contacts outside of the UK”. It uses endocrinologists and doctors, based abroad, to issue prescriptions, getting around the ban on providing the drugs in the UK.
The puberty-blockers must be collected from the EU by the patient, and the person named on the prescription must bring it back to the UK.
Anne Trans Healthcare estimates that under-18s can get access to puberty blockers within about four months after signing up.
The organisation was founded last year by Green and the entrepreneur Lizzie Jordan, a HIV advocate who also set up the LGBT youth support organisation Think2Speak. It is named after Jordan’s aunt and, on its website, it says it offers “evidence-based” and “gender-affirming” care for transgender people of all ages.
Patients aged under 18 need the support of a parent, carer or guardian to access Anne’s services, with a “standard youth membership” costing £150 a month, plus a one-off £200 fee.
When Streeting extended the ban on December 11, he said that allowing access to puberty blockers was an “unacceptable safety risk”. The announcement followed a consultation and advice from the Commission on Human Medicines.
Several backbench Labour and Green Party MPs criticised the ban, claiming it was an attack on transgender children that amounted to a “breach of young people’s human rights”.
But speaking to The Times afterwards, Cass, who produced a report this year on the treatment of children with gender dysphoria, said a lot of “misinformation” was being spread, including a claim that denying access to puberty blockers could lead to suicides, when evidence has suggested that the drugs do not improve mental health.
Cass said: “What is worrying is when people say that if children don’t get these drugs, they will die, because clearly that’s not true.”
Puberty blockers are drugs which suppress the release of sex hormones to halt the physical changes of puberty, such as the growth of facial hair, which typically occur between eight and 14. They had been used “off-label” since 2011 to treat children at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust’s gender identity clinic in London.
Green confirmed to The Times that Anne Trans Healthcare was still “supporting people to access legal routes to gender-affirming healthcare”.
She said: “We will continue to do so despite a UK-wide ban. We do it because to do otherwise would be morally and ethically wrong. The ban is cruel, prejudicial and frankly inhumane.”
Green said she had “seen the positive impact that access to puberty blockers has on young people’s lives”.
She added: “I truly believed that the Labour government would not take this ban forward following the consultation process. Parents reported that they had told him of the anguish caused by the ban and Wes Streeting stood there and told those young people and their families that he heard them.
“Yet he walked away and chose to ignore them, as he has also ignored the 59 per cent of consultation responses, from respondents of his choosing, that said a ban should not go ahead.”
 
We offer a legal, compassionate, and supportive routes
One of these two underlined letters needs to go to make the wording correct. I'd certainly trust an organisation unable to get its assurances right that also;
The puberty-blockers must be collected from the EU by the patient, and the person named on the prescription must bring it back to the UK.
Says you need to pick them up from another country and smuggle them back into the UK. Screams certainty in the legality of their actions.
 
The Charities Commission need to strike Mermaids off.

Having a "charity" status in no way gives license to break the law.

Companies "give" to charity for kudos and taxation reasons - remove the status and that income stream dries up.
 
Última edición:
Having a "charity" status in no way gives license to break the law
While correct remember that Susie's no longer part of it and "officially" they will not be telling people to break the law.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together knows they will be doling out such advice and sending people the way of Susie and those like her any chance they get but nothing will happen without cast-iron proof.
 
While correct remember that Susie's no longer part of it and "officially" they will not be telling people to break the law.

Anyone with two braincells to rub together knows they will be doling out such advice and sending people the way of Susie and those like her any chance they get but nothing will happen without cast-iron proof.
I'd forgotten that Green has left.
Mermaids appear to be supporting a "harm reduction position" regarding PBs...

merm.jpg

Still clinging onto the WPATH Pervert Charter I see...
 
Still clinging onto the WPATH Pervert Charter I see...
Naturally, that's not changing anytime soon.

With that said for those who enjoy that sort of thing I can recommend WPATH's Talk tab on Wikipedia for hilarity. Had a glance at it just now and it looks like at least one of the pro-trans editors is currently having a seethe after repeatedly losing arguments.


No doubt they're behind a sock account somewhere.
 
Naturally, that's not changing anytime soon.

With that said for those who enjoy that sort of thing I can recommend WPATH's Talk tab on Wikipedia for hilarity. Had a glance at it just now and it looks like at least one of the pro-trans editors is currently having a seethe after repeatedly losing arguments.


No doubt they're behind a sock account somewhere.
That talk page is incredible because they use every trick in their book for "policy based arguments".
"Wikipedia is not news! WP:NOTNEWS"
"You're giving this article undue weight! WP:UNDUE"
"This is an opinion! WP:RSOPINION"
"This article fails WP:INDEPENDENT"
"This article cites something that breaches WP:FRINGE"
"This is investigative journalism so you can't use it as per WP: PRIMARY"
"The wording is wrong because it breaches WP:WEASEL"
"Don't cite multiple sources because it breaches WP:SYNTH"
"The citation is misleading and breaches WP:INTEXT"
"This article makes claims that it doesn't immediately prove in the article WP:BURDEN"
"The wording is biased and breaks WP:SAID"
"The argument in the peer reviewed article is actually anti-trans propaganda! WP:NOTADVOCACY"
"STOP REVERTING ME REMOVING REFERENCES TO THIS ARTICLE WP:HOUNDING"
It's very reminiscent of Talmudic Pilpul. They'll try anything to get their preferred version of reality out there - editors repeatedly state they're not interested in reporting the truth but in displaying consensus from reliable sources (which is why the KiwiFarms article is such a state - any source used is discredited if it doesn't fit the narrative)... until their reliable sources suddenly reveal something they dislike. I think they're starting to run into the brick wall that when even The Economist, the Guardian and the British Medical Journal are being characterised at having an "anti-trans bias", then the list of papers that are seen as acceptable becomes so short that in effect it's just a list of sources with a "pro-trans bias".
The user is now claiming that Wikipedia has a systemic bias against transgender people because they didn't get their way on censoring criticism of WPATH.
 
I think they're starting to run into the brick wall that when even The Economist, the Guardian and the British Medical Journal are being characterised at having an "anti-trans bias",
My sides did suffer a minor collapse at that point.

I know what they're talking about with the Guardian because Private Eye covers bits of it. There are still some old school feminist types at the Guardian who get characterised as TERFs and occasionally they publish articles. At which point the trans activist sorts there go completely nuts. It's hideous infighting that occasionally spills out in public which is also where the claim about the Guardian being anti-trans comes from. The specific articles they are complaining about though are neutral at worst, the problem is when it comes to WPATH only supportive sources are useful at this point and, as you say, those are running out.
 
I don't think [GenderGP] need to be licensed as a healthcare provider as they are registered as a software developer/publisher of videogames (I assume an attempt by Webberley to evade the scrutiny and extra regulation that tends to come with the medical/pharmaceutical services sector in any developed country).
Saw this earlier today after not paying attention to this cabal for a while.

It seems likely that GenderGP ended up in Singapore through a process of jurisdiction-shopping. My recollection is that they went from the UK (after Helen Webberley's 2018 conviction) to Spain, to Hong Kong, to Singapore. (Though we don't have, as far as I know, documents showing that GGP was ever formally registered in Spain or HK.)

They're registered as "software developers" because the claim is that the website is the company's main product, rather than the services they provide through the website. (You may recall Uber's similar argument in, I believe, a tax evasion case that it was a software company and not a cab company.)

Still, it's very funny that GenderGP's chosen hideaway has said "Christ don't do that shit here!"

I'm going to try to get up to speed on the current situation over the next few days (I haven't even read the Charity Commission report!) so apologies in advance for any necro-posting.
 
The Mermaids annual report and financial statement for the past year has been released. I've attached it to this post.

Their income was down massively (by over £1M) and they made a loss of over £770,000, leaving them with around £226,000 in the bank - and that's after streamlining and cutting staff.

Calls to their helpline were also down considerably, with 6,521 calls answered, which is down by ~4,000 on the previous year, and down by over 7,500 on the year before that.
 

Archivos adjuntos

Mermaids' accounts for 2023-24 are available (link). The link is to a summary on the Charities Commission website; I've attached the actual report as a PDF.
This is what jumped out at me on the summary page:
Mermaids01.png
Mermaids02.png
Big hit in income. However, if memory serves, they've got healthy reserves, so they should be okay for awhile, unfortunately.
I haven't got time to look over the whole report, but a few things that jumped out from a quick glance:
Mermaids03.png

(page 3)
Mermaids04page4.png

(page 4. I fucking knew they'd blame the inquiry for some of those figures).
Mermaids05p5.png

(page 5. As always, blaming "factors beyond our control." Always someone else's fault with Mermaids).
Despite the inquiry finding no significant safeguarding failures (as far as I remember), the Commission still insisted on reviewing and approving their new safeguarding policies (well, either that or Mermaids were being very, very careful and requested the review):
Mermaids06p5.png

(page 5).
Good to see that they've had a reduction in training sessions provided (again, all the fault of that dastardly, twansphobic inquiry):
Mermaids07p8.png

page 8
Mermaids08p12.png

(page 12). Speaking of those healthy reserves I mentioned above, they used them for expenses issuing from the inquiry (I was wondering where costs connected to the inquiry were in the expenses graph on the website). So depending on the extent of that expenditure, they may be worse off than I thought.
(I see I got ninja'd but will leave as is).
 

Archivos adjuntos

Controversial trans charity given £400,000 by taxpayer-funded foundations (archive)
A controversial charity supporting transgender children has been handed almost £400,000 by foundations that are part-funded by the taxpayer, The Telegraph can reveal.

The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which received £1.4 million from the Government between 2020 and 2023, gave Mermaids £283,000 in three donations between 2017 and 2023.

The Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, which has received £300,000 from the taxpayer, gave £120,000 to Mermaids in 2021.

Mermaids was also given a direct payment of £15,000 by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in 2020.

One Tory MP said taxpayers would be “shocked” to find out that their money had been either directly or indirectly used to fund a charity that wants to embed “damaging ideology” in society.
In October last year, the Charity Commission published the findings of a two-year inquiry into Mermaids, which detailed “systemic failings” and mismanagement at the charity.

The investigation found that Mermaids had wrongly claimed that puberty blockers were reversible and given chest binders to children as young as 13 against their parents’ wishes and despite potential health risks.

The Commission also found a “failure” in the application of Mermaids’ trustee recruitment policy, which followed several complaints around Dr Jacob Breslow, a trustee at the charity from July-Sep 2022, who had previously spoken at a conference organised by what the commission described as a paedophile support group.

Current patrons of Mermaids include Munroe Bergdorf, a transgender model and former LGBT adviser to the Labour MP Dawn Butler, who was sacked by L’Oreal in 2017 for saying that “all white people” are racist. She was also dropped by the NSPCC because of comments she made on social media.

Bergdorf has previously described the Suffragettes as “white supremacists” and said that “gay male Tories are a special kind of dickhead”.

The Telegraph reported last month that the Hamlyn and Fairbairn foundations had given money to Left-wing activists who want to shut down the social media platform X.

John Hayes, the Conservative MP, said: “Taxpayers will rightly be shocked that their money has been used to support a charity that has failed in its duty of care to both children and parents.

Kill Musk’s Twitter
“These latest revelations demonstrate a complex network – supported by taxpayer’s money – that is backing Left-wing groups seeking to embed their damaging ideology.”

Last month, The Telegraph reported that the Paul Hamlyn Foundation had given £100,000 to the Centre for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which aims to “kill Musk’s Twitter” and another £100,000 to Stop Funding Hate, which aims to “defund” Right-leaning media outlets.

The Esmee Fairbairn Foundation has given £200,000 to the CCDH.

Stop Funding Hate and Mermaids previously co-produced a video which called on brands to “think about who they are advertising with”. Stop Funding Hate describes Mermaids as a “key partner”.

The Paul Hamlyn Foundation and the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation were approached for comment.

Old-ish news in that the payments were made up until 2023 at the latest, but it's just come out. Wild that Tory MPs are complaining when this happened on their watch though, and that the Telegraph are still calling lads like Bergdorf "she".
 
The Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which received £1.4 million from the Government between 2020 and 2023
Off topic I suppose, but why on earth are the government giving The Paul Hamlyn Foundation money? I thought they just existed to spend what Hamlyn left them. Is it the UK's equivalent of USAID?
 
Off topic I suppose, but why on earth are the government giving The Paul Hamlyn Foundation money? I thought they just existed to spend what Hamlyn left them. Is it the UK's equivalent of USAID?
Never heard of it before, but it seems to be.
Usual SJW nonsense including the "Tackling LGBTQ+ Youth Homelessness" fund which excludes anyone who isn't LGBTQ+.

Imagine trying to set up a homelessness fund and specifically excluding the LGBTQ+ crowd - there'd be absolute fucking uproar.
 
Webberley still stating WPATH as the "global international experts" on transgender health and openly admitting to giving puberty blockers to 10 and 11 year olds.
Puberty blockers are completely reversible without any impact, we now use "gender affirming hormones" because it sounds a lot better. and kids commit suicide of they don't get them.

Her husband has already been struck off and this evil old crone needs the same treatment.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo