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

[selffellatingouroborosofhate]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder why the owner of the child mutilation promoting, anti woman hate group GLP would spin this in such a way?

GLP were always going to spin this hard, but there are others reason for it not mentioned so far.

Sarah Phillimore's defamation case is proceeding.

The Fox Basher's attempt to prove what he said was justified about Sarah Phillimore depends on a long discussion in court on a bunch of dubious claims including proving the reliability of notorious aggressive women hating fantasist Mr Molly/Mr Sparkles who was pushed out of the Scottish Greens and the SNP for being too awful.

At least some of lawyers in the GLP must have enough of a grip to know that it Sarah could win and if she does they are going to have a PR nightmare. It is going to expose the shoddy practices of the GLP and the Fox Basher's level of misogyny. Panic at this prospect is setting in.

Thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5511121-glp-are-going-after-sarah-phillimore-and-are-going-to-lose-part-two?page=21

On top of that their scam is gradually being exposed as despite raising huge sums of money because they were "suggesting" they could fightback and reverse the Supreme Court judgement and stop the EHRC guidance in some way in reality they never had any legal chance of doing so. They were being paid to create cases which were always going to go nowhere and only helped reinforce the biology knowing side by failing in court.

In the real world women are winning bit by bit more cases are reasserting reality.

The donations are way down. People on the TA side are seeing through the grift. So they are desperately trying to spin anything as a victory harder than ever.

They are trying to create a scenario in which GLP somehow are the victims rather exploitative incompetents.

Tells you who has the integrity, doesn't it?

I'd never heard of Richard Dunstan until this post. Just Googling his name immediately flagged up the history of the disgusting comments he made about JM. I'm surprised at Sex Matter's lack of diligence tbh. A lesson learned I'm sure. But they'll never hear the end of this from the GLP and TRA's in general.

Yes, a lack of due diligence by SM, but insignificant compared to the due diligence failures of numerous Green councillors who had to resign immediately after election because they worked for LEA schools, and of Reform who had to fire candidates for being overt racists.

SM cost no taxpayers' money with their failure. GLP are reacting disproportionately.

I’m not sure if you’d googled his name before this blew up you’d have found that, though. You’d have to have used quite specific search terms.

Of course they're reacting disproportionately. And they'll continue to do so. That's why it's so unfortunate that SM dropped the ball on this one. ☹️