Keira Bell and Mrs A vs. Tavistock - Court of Appeal hearing 23 & 24 June 2021

[FindTheTruth]

The appeal hearing will be live streamed this Wednesday 23 & Thursday 24 June, 10:30am

Background

1. The High Court decided in Mrs A and Keira Bell’s favour on 1st December 2020 that puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones are experimental treatments which cannot be given to children in most cases without application to the court. Full details of the original case:

www.transgendertrend.com/keira-bell-high-court-historic-judgment-protect-vulnerable-children/

1. The High Court decided in the case of AB on 26 March 2021 thatPARENTScan consent to their children receiving puberty blocking treatment when their children lack the capacity to consent.

1. Court of Appeal 23 & 24 June 2021 Keira Bell and Mrs A’s legal team is dealing with legal submissions from 7 intervenors who want to see the judgement of the Divisional Court overturned. “A significant task in defending the judgement of the Divisional Court. We are facing very well resourced opponents – the Tavistock being funded by the State and the other intervenors”.

Thanks.

I gave a bit o money because this one is pretty important - but surely the Sonia Appleby case is going to hugely inform the outcome too?

I must be missing something here, the evidence looks shocking, surely this is fairly clear cut..... If Bell looses this, there is surely something rotten in the state of Denmark....

Previous MN threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4226876-Keira-Bell-and-Tavistock-Appeal-29th-June
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4095611-Susie-Green-and-Keira-Bell-on-Newsnight
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3881347-Keira-Bell-from-Tavi-case-here-AMA?pg=32
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4045603-A-MASSIVE-round-of-applause-for-Keira-Bell
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4099069-Observer-today-re-Keira-Bell
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4097176-Amnesty-disappointed-by-Keira-Bell-verdict

No, this is the actual appeal.

2. The High Court decided in the case of AB on 26 March 2021 thatPARENTScan consent to their children receiving puberty blocking treatment when their children lack the capacity to consent.

How did I miss that? Isn't this what foxy was demanding?

@rogdmum

No, this is the actual appeal.

Thanks Rogdmum

Isn't this what foxy was demanding?

Yes, he was part of that appeal.

And it's what the original JR didn't consider. From its judgment:

Parental consent
47. If a child cannot give consent for treatment because they are not Gillick competent then the normal position in law would be that someone with parental responsibility could consent on their behalf. Mr Hyam sought at one point to argue that a decision as to giving PBs would fall outside the scope of parental responsibility because of the nature of the treatment concerned. However, the GIDS practice in relation to acting on parental consent alone is quite clear. In the response to the pre-action protocol letter the defendant said:

“36. There is a fundamental misunderstanding in your letter, which states that parents can consent to pubertal suspension on behalf of a child who is not capable of doing so. This is not the case for this service, as is clear from the above. Although the general law would permit parent(s) to consent on behalf of their child, GIDS has never administered, nor can it conceive of any situation where it would be appropriate to administer blockers on a patient without their consent. The Service Specification confirms that this is the case.”

It follows that is not necessary for us to consider whether parents could consent to the treatment if the child cannot lawfully do so because this is not the policy or practice of the defendant and such a case could not currently arise on the facts.

After the judgment, the Tavistock suddently decided that they would administer blockers on a patient without their consent, despite saying they couldn't conceive of it.

Here's the thread about the March decision:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4202823-Good-Law-project-have-succeeded

Correction to my above - I don't think the Tavistock has said that they would administer blockers on a patient without their consent. I think the Good Law Project was going to try to get them to do so, as a result of the March judgment, which confirms it would be permissible.

After the judgment, the Tavistock suddently decided that they would administer blockers on a patient without their consent, despite saying they couldn't conceive of it.

Devastating indictment of the Tavi.

Foxy took a case to the family court and the Judge allowed, in that case, but only in that case, for the parents to consent but this was because the child was already on the medication. The Judge also made it very clear that his decision in that case was in no way and he was very adamant, that this should not interfere with the Bell case

Ah thanks highame
That explains it, memory is returning!

The judge in the parental right to consent case was one of the judges in the Bell case. He was very clear that it had no impact on Bell. He was not disagreeing with himself.

Ahhh, yes, so reminding myself that a) puberty blockers are not harmless and reversable and there is now loads of evidence of that....

B) the Tavistock had no data!

What was the basis of their appeal, then?

Have they suddenly found some data?

And surely the stuff coming out of the Sonia Appleby case is devastating....

Will certainly be following with interest...

Quite a personal, vested interest....

The right to appeal was granted in January. This is the actual appeal - 2 days according to the crowd funder page.

@Manderleyagain

The judge in the parental right to consent case was one of the judges in the Bell case. He was very clear that it had no impact on Bell. He was not disagreeing with himself.

She.

@rabbitwoman

I must be missing something here, the evidence looks shocking, surely this is fairly clear cut..... If Bell looses this, there is surely something rotten in the state of Denmark....

I read somewhere (possibly here) that the Court of Appeal sometimes allows appeals where there is no chance of a change of outcome, but where the case has a lot of public interest and a chance to solidify the law on the subject would be useful. (Or something along those lines).

I wonder if that's what's happening here.

If the decision at first instance is overturned, this will mean that everyone seeking that result spent considerable time and money in pushing very hard to reinstate that puberty blockers can be given to children, and did this in the face of weak supporting evidence and plenty of contrary evidence of great concern.

If this does happen they will have to own that all of the consequences were known when they pushed for such treatment and won't be able to rely on an excuse of "someone said it would be fine" or "everyone else was doing it". This will focus the minds of the medical practitioners, well those with integrity. Some won't be bothered.

I don't have a legal mind at all so I am wondering if there is something I have missed, or something I have misunderstood - when I read the Tavistock / forstater/ Stonewall stuff I think it must be so obvious, all you have to do is take a second to absorb it and it is obvious there is a huge problem..... Of course, I have listened to the discourse on here throughout it all, and followed links and read articles, listened to interviews -it seems like such a clear cut case to me, why don't Stonewall and the Tavistock just admit defeat and start trying to heal? Do they know something I don't, is there something up their sleeves? Do the Tavistock really think they have a hope of overturning this?

I recognise that I am in a giant echo chamber a lot of the time and I have tried to find a convincing counter argument - anything. But there is nothing that stands up to scrutiny - so if anyone can suggest anything to me, point me in the right direction, I would be intrigued.

Where is Robin White when you need her!?

I think there are a lot of people who believe their own hype.

They believe that trans kids are born trans, that they're helping them be their true selves.

The Tavistock does no proper follow up. And I would imagine at the point at which the clinicians are involved, the clients themselves, many of the parents and the lobbyists are all telling them they're providing a vital service. After waiting so long for medication and being told it's the answer to their issues, I bet the young people are delighted to finally be referred.

To accept that they're actually engaging in gay coversion and sterilising GNC kids might be quite hard to face once they've dug themselves into denying it I imagine.

'To accept that they're actually engaging in gay coversion and sterilising GNC kids might be quite hard to face once they've dug themselves into denying it I imagine.'

See, that's huge.

That's massive, that's a scandal on a massive massive scale. I have listened to all the people trying to stop it and believe them utterly. I can see no gap in their arguments, I can see no flaw in their logic..... And yet, there are so many people, intelligent people who are utterly convinced that this is the right thing to do....

I even remember the late 70s/ early 80s when Adam Ant, Spandeux Ballet, Duran Duran were wearing frilly clothes and makeup with highlights in their hair, can't these guys be googled!? It's not new to play with image, to play with gender, to have fun with it - but this is a new level. This is no fun. This is really serious stuff.

Is there a sunk cost fallacy? They have already done so much damage all they can do is put their heads down and plough on!!

why don't Stonewall and the Tavistock just admit defeat and start trying to heal? Do they know something I don't, is there something up their sleeves?

I think Sonia's case has been giving us the answer. They're more captured than we thought. I was looking back at my posts on threads regarding the previous Bell cases, and I was giving them a lot of benefit of the doubt - "they were professionals, but they had to deal with all the groups like Mermaids", etc.

I was wrong.

It appears the leadership - Polly Carmichael and others - have fallen into the gender ideology, and as a result have been somewhat at odds with their actual staff. Hence the high turnover. They don't have anything - the leadership is now just trying to cover their asses, but they don't have the evidence for what they've been doing.

And, like Susie Green, they can't admit they were wrong. This is worse than "sunk cost". It's "sunk crimes against children". Their entire psyche is bound up in the belief that they've been doing the right thing - that they were helping these children.

This is worse than "sunk cost". It's "sunk crimes against children". Their entire psyche is bound up in the belief that they've been doing the right thing - that they were helping these children.