Jo Maugham

Pleased to see Mridul Wadhwa is on the panel. Excellent news.

If he had been harbouring ambitions of becoming a judge, would hope the judgement/lack thereof he's displaying now would be factored in to his applications...

JM seems to be doing a really really good job of bringing a whole load of legal minds to critical consciousness on this issue.

Interesting, and reassuring, watching it all unfold.

But I think that’s the course of action the GLP are forced into by the Bell decision. Following Bell, those under 16 are not Gillick competent because of the nature and consequences of the treatment are not something an under 16 can generally be said to be competent to consent to. Since the Tavistock require the child’s (not their parents’) consent for PBs, they are now facing a dead end unless the court of protection finds a particular under-16 competent to consent.

The GLP want to sidestep the process of having to apply to the court for individual children to receive PBs and substitute parental consent for the child’s consent. An appeal against the finding that minors aren’t competent to consent would require some/new evidence that would change the way the HC applied Gillick.

I think you're probably right about Simon. He's very reasonable - doesn't really take a view just sticks to the law and evidence. It's good to see on twitter.

JM seems to be doing a really really good job of bringing a whole load of legal minds to critical consciousness on this issue.

Has he lost his mind ? Parents of course should be the first port of call in deciding what happens to their children, but the point of a neutral agency having decision making power too, is to avoid tragic consequences for children when parents are deluded, unwell, have extreme religious views , are evil or just plain stupid. Or cases where parents have been convinced by others that something is the correct thing to do, for social, traditional or fashionable reasons, when it is actually detrimental for that child ( eg FGM now, lobotomy or EST in previous generations).

Timothy Brennan's tweet has some encouraging responses:

'The Wests were parents'.

I know I say/think this frequently but I really cannot believe this is being argued, and educated people - at least some of them - sincerely believe these are good arguments worth fighting for?
I feel like I'm going insane sometimes.

(i) the need to hear what teenagers say about their own lives

(iii) wider implications (e.g. for access to abortion) of the decision

Am I understanding correctly, they're going to waste their time (because they obviously can't read) by making points that were already covered in the original case?

They did speak to trans people who didn't regret their decision, and Tavistock have already been told in their brutal appeal rejection that this doesn't affect Gillick. It's applying Gillick.

Are they spending people's donations on this??

They're acting as if puberty blockers have been banned. I would have thought the court of protection making the decision would have brought peace of mind to a lot of people involved in this.

What are they so scared of? That a court will do proper assessments before setting children on a lifechanging path? It's just strange, the tantrums about this judgement that aims to safeguard children.

As to the substance of it, Were they not able to read the part of the judgement where the judges explain that there is no impact on consenting to abortion/contraception? Why do they need to challenge it when it’s already been made clear? I can only guess that it’s using the strategy of tagging trans issues onto other issues that are more engaging for the majority of people - as recommended by the infamous Dentons briefing. Cynical, if so.

I agree the more sunlight the better. And hopefully he will bring the case. The more procedures etc are looked into, the more evidence is required, the more better decisions will be made and the more general awareness there will be. It’ll open the conversation up more and to more people. That’s a basic safeguarding principle and I hope it will all help safeguard children in this situation

Reading it and looking at their panel of advisers I wouldn't have thought they had a chance, but what do I know. They have plenty of money.

This jumped out at me:
The Tavistock will be invited – or sought to be compelled – to review its position in relation to whether to accept parental consent. In practice success on this action would remove, in many or most cases, the practical barrier to treatment posed by the Bell decision .

So the very unwell mother of Child J (who was supported by the Local Authority & Mermaids who moved into "wholesale acceptance" that this boy was a girl ) would have been allowed to trans her very young son despite all the contradictory evidence from his father and other less influential professionals.

www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/2430.html

The Judge was highly critical of the local authority and Mermaids for their behaviour and failure to safeguard this child from his unwell mother.

They also want to work with NGOs to request that they join the appeal proceedings. They seem to have raised a lot of money for this and think they have a case. I really want him to take this on - I hope it fails - and then see who or what they blame. Given the results of the trial that the Tavistock have now released. I can’t see how this would ever be appropriate treatment for children. More sunlight but probably some more digging required.

Did you see Mridul Wadhwa is on the advisory committee.

The GLP has published an update

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/?utm_source=Twitter&utm_campaign=gids%20group%20tw%202312&utm_medium=social%20media

Their strategy seems to be based on trying to get the Tavi to prescribe on parental consent alone.

Jo should also be aware that if he is doing any kind of campaigning on behalf of trans rights he is never going to get gushing thanks and displays of gratefulness from the TRAS. We are already seeing grumblings that he’s a cis white man.

Oh dear Jo

They’re never grateful enough, the proles, are they?

I don’t disagree that he needs to be transparent, not at all. I believe on this topic, as I do on many others such as healthcare, that trans people deserve better than what’s on offer. Better than experimental treatment, better than the soft bigotry of low expectations, better than the over eager capitulation instead of the healthy challenge, better than the suicide baiting. Better than contributing to Maughams quixotic quest without absolute clarity over what he will deliver for them.

Anyone who wants to do good ought to understand the dangers of do-gooding.

Looks like his white knight routine is about to piss off the people he's trying to 'save'.

He blocked a transwoman for asking where the donations were going, and who the people in his advisory group are. He apparently didn't foresee people wanting transparency.