GIDS being sued by their safeguarding lead.

I'm totally broke but I have this and Keira Bell's crowdfunder when I have some cash. All power to you Sonia if you're reading, this is so, so important and I'm thrilled you are doing this.

Sad that this is happening, but glad it's finding daylight. Off to pledge now.

Please support this. Stopping children making life altering decisions that they may regret has to be our no.1 priority.

okay finally got somewhere there to sort it, but I wonder if it happens often.

Has anyone else pledged money to crowd-justice for this and not had it taken? They are ignoring enquiries about it.

It never used to be at the Tavi and other departments and services aren't implicated.

It seems that GIDS has been conducting itself in a very particular way.

Is 'innovative' the latest euphemism for giving off label drugs to children to see how it will effect them?

Bumping for those who wish to support this important case.

I'm sure that they do track it as a metric.

I do understand why people don't want to donate to CJ at the moment (neither do I) but as Allison Bailey pointed out they are hosting a number of important feminist crowdfunders at the moment - Maya, RRS, Allison.

Tricky.

Thanks for sharing, I've donated without the "recommended" tip for crowdjustice. I wonder if they track that as a metric?

Thanks, although I think that Kirkup's description of the Safeguarding Lead's role is only partial.

It's not only to 'ensure that whistleblowers' concerns about the safety of vulnerable children are heard and addressed'. Whistle blowing should be the last resort, when an individual believes that the usual safeguarding procedures haven't been implemented properly.

That's the meat of Appleby's case - that clinicians were discouraged from referring safeguarding cases to her when they normally would and that that was a mandated but unwritten directive from management that safeguarding concerns shouldn't be brought to her attention.

Kirkup, thanks phone.

James Kirkuk writing in The Spectator today on this issue and Sonia Appleby’s case, and essentially asking - what is it going to take for an inquiry to actually happen here?
www.spectator.co.uk/article/Are-whistleblowers-being-silenced-at-the-NHS-gender-clinic

Thanks SarahTancredi, that's really kind of you to explain all that.

Yes and there was Also neither a confirmation or denial from JF as to whether they had anything to do with the advise too.

I emailed gg about the outcome of the verita investigation and asked if they were aware and planned to review their guidance. After 2 or three Emails where they refused to acknowledge any of the issues I raised they then told me they would no longer discuss it with me.

Pretty sure AC also advised Girl Guiding on their trans policy. Which, predictably, is "let transwomen and transgirls do what they want, and for god's sake no one tell the parents".

I don't know if Ainee challenor has been involved with GIDs but they were involved with the Lib Dems which a poster above mentioned in regards to the chair of the Tavistock. Can't comment on time line however.

But the guidance that stonewall and mermaids etc ( allsorts guidence) has not been pulled as far as I know evev though AC was ( still may be who knows, some remain unlisted ) a member of the trans advisory board for stonewall.

There is an 80 page verita investigation document that declares AC as incompetent wrt safeguarding.

Agreed @rogdmum. I'm not suggesting there's no need, just the current business model is flawed.

She has met her £10k target by the way.

Thanks all.

SarahTancredi is AC Amiee Chancellor? Sorry, I don't know what EHRC stands for. Has AC had links to GIDs?

rodgdmum yes that's what's bemuses me. I used to work in mental health and interventions for people with bodily dysphoria or dysmorphia were always psychological. It's beyond comprehension how this aspect of the service has been neglected, possibly wilfully it would seem.

Xanthangum I would strongly argue that there is absolutely a need for GIDS clinics, just not in the current format. If you listen to detransitioners, so many say that they wish they’d had better therapy to understand themselves or get into underlying issues or help manage their gender dysphoria and all of that is completely and utterly lacking in the current system which primarily focuses on assessing suitability for the medical path.

I’d possibly argue that this would put even more demand on their service because it would be far more time consuming and parents like me who won’t touch GIDS with a barge pole would want to use their service!

Unfortunately, such an attitude is currently considered “transphobic” by many.

There's also the existential question - if all or most gender-questioning young people are given a watch-and-wait diagnosis, eventually someone will ask whether there is a need for this clinic at all.

So the picture painted is of a very valuable service; albeit one that is being overrun by demand.

Demand coming from the 'success' other organisations have had in encouraging more and more kids to go straight to asking for puberty blockers...

And some how they always seem to have more than one protected characteristic too.
Age
Race
Disability etc

So its also very hard to question someone is is not only potentially speaking from multiple places of discrimination but they are given the benefit of the doubt because no one wants to be seen as racist/homophobic/disablist.

Which is kinda discriminatory in itself as people who are black/gay/autistic etc are not only perfectly able to act within the confines of the law and do not need to be allowed to flout safe guarding or act inappropriately in order to participate in life . But instead holding them to these pretty average standards is seen as discriminatory instead.

Its bizarre.

Only £45 from their target now .

There also seems to be a lot of linkage with people. For instance the head if the ehrc is someone who worked for stonewall.

AC started off in the greens and ended up with the lib dems. AC Also worked fir stonewall and GI I believe and then was involved in an lgbt club called prism.

The same few people have their fingers im all the pies

It has always been regarded as a centre of innovation

Perhaps this is part of the problem? Innovation in medicine is going to be tricky, isn't it?

There will be a balance between risk/benefit and safety with any new treatment - if a service is being lauded for its 'innovative' approach, perhaps it suggests the 'safety' approach is being subtly denigrated, and thus the usual safeguards are tending to be disregarded. Drugs being used off-label, and using new and still-developing theories as a basis for treatment sound like relatively risky approaches in terms of treatment.

Has the service been somehow encouraged towards the riskier pathway and away from the safer pathway? Have they been pressurised into taking more risks and for some reason into avoiding the diligence and safeguarding that should be fundamental to any HCP?