Times Article - Webberleys Ignore Court Ruling

Interesting reading some of the comments on this article. So many saying parents should be referred for child abuse etc. Makes a refreshing change to reading comments in other papers talking about how devastating the judgement is.

Oh, Helen

archive.vn/1V3iq

There has to be one!

@AskingQuestionsAllTheTime I was just going to ask the same question about whether Brexit would affect this prescribing from Spain/Cardiff thing. That would be a surprise upside to Brexit.

Times article says
Despite being overseas, GenderGP has continued treating patients in England using a legal loophole which means drugs prescribed by doctors in the European Economic Area can be dispensed in the UK, allowing young people to circumvent some NHS safeguards and waiting lists.

Will this still apply after 1st January? I genuinely have no idea whether by leaving Europe we will also have left that arrangement and thus closed the legal loophole.

I wonder what other circumstances would parents be able to put their child forward for a medical experiment that would likely sterilise them and doctors would just shrug and say "OK sure, if you say so, I'll do it, no worries".

Fabulous. This is what needs to come next.

Those responsible for dishing out dangerous untested medication and doing dangerous, unnecessary surgery need to be sued. And locked up.

Also, schools that persist in teaching children lies about being 'born in the wrong body' or that puberty blockers are a safe, reversible treatment, also need to realise that in choosing to ignore their safeguarding responsibilities, they will face direct repercussions from Ofsted. Or conceivably be sued too.

And as the Guardian article www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/dec/06/keira-bell-lawyer-warns-on-internet-coverage-of-transgender-issues states, websites that knowingly promote dangerous treatments should also face sanctions (I assume in the same way pro-ana websites are agreed to be harmful).

Tootsweets I can fully believe that. They moved their business to Spain on paper, but of course they can still live here and access the funds now that the income is routed through shell companies. Or maybe they got stuck in Cardiff because of Covid.

Maybe they identify as living in Spain?

It is a common view that the webberleys moved to Spain isn't it? However there is a repeated commenter on the Times article saying they live in Cardiff.

One of the key points is that both cases being discussed in the review were where there was no parental consent. The judgement hinged on whether children could consent not whether parents could consent on their behalf. I wonder how this will impact what comes next.

I get so angry that there's zero structural safeguarding guidance on any of this.

Not in schools, not in social work. I know a Gp who completely gets the homophobia and stereotyped nature in it but it's his own opinions and he otherwise has to follow the patient guidance laid out in front of him.

I've sat through so many LA led safeguarding where I could potentially see how all of this stuff is a massive red flag. But it's never specifically outlined or detailed. Teachers can peddle what they like, few would actually be aware that the guidance is updated - it's not the on PSHE website!

Keira's story needs to become a working illustration that can be used to demonstrate and spell this shit out.

Thanks for this and thank you to all who are tirelessly fighting this, those journalists are doing an amazing job on this.

Blame the parents

What does "plan the parents" mean?

In the Judicial Review evidence, UCLH endocrinologists said that if they got sued for giving a child blockers incorrectly they'd plan the parents.

Thank you for that! It's been driving me mad because I thought it was Tavistock that had said that, but in the judgement they say they don't accept parental consent. I couldn't for the life of me remember Hannah Barnes' name either to check.

I expect handcuffs would stop them dishing out drugs to children. Since they're being so open about their plans it could come to that.

From the Times article:

Keira Bell, the claimant prescribed blockers at 16, said she was “delighted” by the judgement and that it would protect vulnerable children.

She described her own treatment as a “devastating experiment”.

“No one has apologised,” she added.

No additional comment needed.

" Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings."

Interesting.

Will it be the Tavistock's fault for referring? Or the endocrinologists at UCLH for administering the blockers?

In the Judicial Review evidence, UCLH endocrinologists said that if they got sued for giving a child blockers incorrectly they'd plan the parents.

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1314171132233252864?s=19

So this will be interesting.

Isn't (or wasn't) Webberly's doctor husband an endo by training?

Much as I like the idea of a few of these "professionals" ending up in the dock I'll be surprised if it happens.
And it's the NHS that will have to pay out for the negligence claims.

I actually meant for this bit:

Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings.

Is this bit talking about Tavistock?

That was a really good article, thanks for sharing.

Thank you for the share token OP.

Glad The Times are publishing these lawbreakers.

“ Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings.”

Which makes it pretty shocking that the Sandyford / Scottish Government are completely ignoring the ruling.

Over the past few months I've looked at my monthly Times subscription debits and wondered whether I can justify the expense but looking back over the past week I think I should let it run for a while.