Talk

Advanced search

Jolyon Maugham, GLP and scary stuff re parental consent

(255 Posts)
RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:02:03

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/

I know that there is another thread on JM but thought I would start a new one as this has just been released. First of all he has named the people on his advisory committee. They include Alex Sharpe, whom we know all about and about whom no more needs to be said.
Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them. That is chilling and dangerous and puts an awful lot of power in the hands of adults with nobody to protect the child’s interests. JM has lost the plot.

OP’s posts: |
OldCrone Wed 23-Dec-20 18:09:17

Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them.

Some of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock were concerned that homophobic parents were pushing their children into transition because they didn't want a gay child.

There was also a case where one father's motivation for his child to have puberty blockers appeared to be because he was a paedophile.

SunsetBeetch Wed 23-Dec-20 18:11:23

This is frightening stuff.

OldCrone Wed 23-Dec-20 18:12:11

And for the benefit of people who are probably already reporting my post, it's all in this article in the Times:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

SunsetBeetch Wed 23-Dec-20 18:14:45

Mridul Wadhwa is on there too shock

yourhairiswinterfire Wed 23-Dec-20 18:16:22

OldCrone

*Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them.*

Some of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock were concerned that homophobic parents were pushing their children into transition because they didn't want a gay child.

There was also a case where one father's motivation for his child to have puberty blockers appeared to be because he was a paedophile.

I hope to God that this can be brought to the judge's attention if the appeal goes ahead.

I said on the other thread that you'd think the court of protection making the decision would put doctors and parents minds at ease, knowing that the treatment is absolutely in the child's best interest. The fact people are referring to safeguarding as a ''barrier'' speaks volumes.

WarOnWomen Wed 23-Dec-20 18:18:58

There was also a case where one father's motivation for his child to have puberty blockers appeared to be because he was a paedophile.

I can't access that article oldcrone. Was that in this country? (I feel sick hearing this.)

RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:20:46

OldCrone

*Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them.*

Some of the whistleblowers at the Tavistock were concerned that homophobic parents were pushing their children into transition because they didn't want a gay child.

There was also a case where one father's motivation for his child to have puberty blockers appeared to be because he was a paedophile.

Definitely. There are also parents who get a kick out of their kid being ‘special’. It is well known that some parents do not know what is in their children’s best interests at all which is why the law exists as a backstop to protect them. JM wants to remove that so that an adult can cause their child to undergo permanent physical changes without the child being able to understand the implications.

It’s seriously scary. Children aren’t possessions.

It’s also been pointed out that the name of the GLP funders has switched from being about kids to being called ‘transgender lives’. Make no mistake, this is about adults. Kids are just the pawns.

OP’s posts: |
MichelleofzeResistance Wed 23-Dec-20 18:21:09

So a political lobby group are seeking to take control of and 'compel' in their own words, the NHS experts providing medical care to their patients.

Well that ought to help MPs and judiciary get an even clearer view of what the judgement and whistleblowers are talking about. Plain sight.

RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:22:25

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

OP’s posts: |
yourhairiswinterfire Wed 23-Dec-20 18:24:33

They say they're seeking to intervene in the appeal to make points that weren't addressed in the case. Parental consent wasn't relevant to the case because of Tavistock's own policy, so won't it be irrelevant in an appeal too?

OldCrone Wed 23-Dec-20 18:25:58

WarOnWomen

*There was also a case where one father's motivation for his child to have puberty blockers appeared to be because he was a paedophile.*

I can't access that article oldcrone. Was that in this country? (I feel sick hearing this.)

It was at the Tavistock. This is a quote from the article:

One case has haunted her. “All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.”

It was in the Times article I posted a link to. I can't do a share token, sorry.

RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:28:23

yourhairiswinterfire

They say they're seeking to intervene in the appeal to make points that weren't addressed in the case. Parental consent wasn't relevant to the case because of Tavistock's own policy, so won't it be irrelevant in an appeal too?

I don’t know if the parental consent is a separate thing they are pursuing directly with the Tavistock. But yeah I don’t think the appeal court will let them raise that as a novel point. I really hope they won’t be allowed to intervene.

OP’s posts: |
WarOnWomen Wed 23-Dec-20 18:28:47

You really have to ask the question why? Why are adults so hellbent on medicalising children when it's so blatantly obvious that it's experimental? Why has the focus switched from adults to children as the new battleground? Why are they ignoring safeguarding issues? Why?

RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:29:31

Look at someone like David Challenor. That’s the sort of parents you could be dealing with

OP’s posts: |
RealityNotEssentialism Wed 23-Dec-20 18:29:47

WarOnWomen

You really have to ask the question why? Why are adults so hellbent on medicalising children when it's so blatantly obvious that it's experimental? Why has the focus switched from adults to children as the new battleground? Why are they ignoring safeguarding issues? Why?

Exactly

OP’s posts: |
OldCrone Wed 23-Dec-20 18:29:48

Archive link of Times article:
archive.vn/zy6PA

SophocIestheFox Wed 23-Dec-20 18:30:00

Here the sharetoken for that article, oldcrone

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2?shareToken=3b6dbd331236f57b08d345b82fcc1dfb

WarOnWomen Wed 23-Dec-20 18:31:23

SunsetBeetch

Mridul Wadhwa is on there too shock



That is not a surprise as MW does what MW wants and safeguarding vulnerable groups of people is the least of that person's priorities. It's all about MW and own agenda.

Mollyollydolly Wed 23-Dec-20 18:32:14

twitter.com/SCynic1/status/1341803595361103874

Simon Myerson QC thinks it's deranged.

WarOnWomen Wed 23-Dec-20 18:33:15

Thanks for the share token and archive link.

yourhairiswinterfire Wed 23-Dec-20 18:36:36

Mollyollydolly

twitter.com/SCynic1/status/1341803595361103874

Simon Myerson QC thinks it's deranged.

Is this about protecting kids, or achieving a political result, regardless?

Exactly. This is being treated like it's a game to win.

MichelleofzeResistance Wed 23-Dec-20 18:37:53

There has been from the start an appearance of confusion on the part of some lobby groups and charities that the Tavistock is in their ownership and acts under their direction. Hence the confusion of not being allowed to intervene in the case, a confusion that this was between the Tavistock and court and not them, and a belief now that as the 'wrong' answer has been provided, then they can simply compel the expert medics to act against policy, practice and their own judgement. Despite the judgement being an objective one, and there being many adults involved in this who undeniably have skin in the game.

Perfect example really of what happens when you allow regulatory capture to happen to this extent, and a long misguided confusion between kindness and professional failure to maintain firm boundaries and impartiality around policy, law, practice and standards.

However things go this is useful; bring it on. Do in full sunlight. I will look forward to seeing the appeal request response.

NecessaryScene1 Wed 23-Dec-20 18:40:39

Parental consent wasn't relevant to the case because of Tavistock's own policy, so won't it be irrelevant in an appeal too?

That sounds correct to me. They'd have to bring a new case to try to get the Tavistock to carry out the treatment based on parental consent - assuming the Tavistock continued to refuse.

If the Tavistock agreed to do this without being compelled (or anyone else), I can imagine that we'd be looking at bringing a new case.

It's all a whole set of stuff beyond what Bell addressed.

(Kind of awesome Keira's name is now part of legal history, like Gillick...)

But as a PP said, this discussion cannot be escaping the ears of any judges that might be involved in the appeal, or anyone with responsibility in the medical profession or government. It is another unmasking, and shows the things at stake here.

If the Tavistock were agree to go ahead based on parental consent only, it brings them further into disrepute - they said they "could not conceive" of doing that in court as part of their defence. To go back on that might mean judges say things like "surprising" to them again. I'm sure they wouldn't like that.

SophocIestheFox Wed 23-Dec-20 18:42:56

Am I being thick here, or is saying that parental consent can override a lack of capacity to consent not undermining gillick competence and so endangering young people’s access to abortion and contraception? confused

They’re in very real danger of opening up a path to the very opposite thing they want to achieve. Aren’t they? I feel like I must be getting this wrong somehow, even despite how inured I am to expecting logical coherence on this topic.

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in