Tavistock Appeal Denied

I wouldn't read that much into this. Unsurprisingly, judges tend not to agree that their decisions are potentially mistaken, hence the availability of a direct application to the Court of Appeal.

Is what Tavistock has been doing actually classed as unlawful? Was it the Times or Telegraph that alluded to possible criminal proceedings?

Even if the patients and ex patients are happy with their 'treatment', could they still sue on the grounds that this was experimental and they weren't aware of that at the time?

Sounds like the shit could really be hitting the fan soon.

Goodness me fancy using an ideology as a basis for experimental procedures on children! And then getting upset when a court says no.

The order refusing permission to appeal is linked in those tweets. It explains (again) why mermaids and stonewall were not given permission to intervene.

Suggest Jolyon and friends give it a read.

The irony of the evidence is that before the judgement the Tavistock had leeway to experiment and that was the golden time for evidence to be generated and now, after the judgement, that opportunity is significantly reduced.

However, although it looks like a missed opportunity I can't help but think that the Tavistock didn't want to create an evidence base because they suspected it would tell a story that would go against their activities.

Appealing against the NHS having to obey the law, and stop carrying out experimental treatments on children? Seriously?

I know. They couldn't identify themselves more decisively, if they tried. Have at it.

What startled me most on reading the judgement was the lack of data supplied by GIDs.
You would think, wouldn't you that, if you were facing a judicial review, you'd be all over it.

Will ex patients start suing now?

I don't think it matters what 'evidence' is flying around, does it?

The NHS, via Tavistock, were asked to provide the evidence they kept and were working from, and were using to under pin their provision of treatment to children. The judgement was based on the Tavistock's own evidence of what they did.

Someone handing helpful evidence to the Tavistock now does nothing to change this fact; if there is relevant evidence the Tavistock should have had it and been working from it. What Mermaids and Stonewall and Maugrim and anyone else thinks is irrelevant, unless they were working in the Tavistock, setting policies at the time. If it's the case that they're this involved because actually they were, then it's a whole other issue of why people with a lot of politics and personal agendas were involved in medical decisions they had no qualifications in, whether this involvement has influenced the practices the Tavistock has been taken to court over, and if so, why the qualified professionals permitted this to happen.

Appealing against the NHS having to obey the law, and stop carrying out experimental treatments on children? Seriously?

It seems all this 'evidence' flying around Twitter still hasn't made its way into Tavistock's hands, eh?

It seems all they've got is 'waah, discrimination!'.

£35,000 is not very much! Someone said on twitter that the cost to Keira's side was in the order of £300,000. Does anyone know if Keira is okay for money, and why she's been awarded so little? I thought in general that the winner gets costs in legal cases.

Can Jolyon and everyone now shut the fuck up about girls rights being snatched away by this ruling, please?

It would be better for it to be appealed and upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court, as that would bind all courts. High Court decisions only bind lower courts to follow the judgement.

That's the only way to achieve certainty and finality.

Appealing against what? Giving an extra level of protection to kids against experimental drugs. It’s a joke

Maugham said on his Twitter on the day the judgement was released that he didn't think an appeal would necessarily succeed.

I'm sure I'm missing something here, but what's the point of the High Court saying no to an appeal, if the defendant can just ignore that and go straight to the appeal court?

Are appeals usually upheld by leapfrogging over a High Court refusal like that?

Seems like it also means blockers can continue to be prescribed in the interim.

The matter won't be closed unless the Court of Appeal decides not to hear the appeal. In the meantime the decision of the High Court is stayed:

The implementation of this Order is stayed until 4p.m. on 22 December 2020.

The stay will be maintained if a request for an appeal is made to the Court of Appeal.

As has already been pointed out, these children are being discriminated against, but not it the way they like to think.

They've been receiving inappropriate care and less safeguarding than any other children. Why should gender dysphoric children be treated to a lesser standard than anyone else?

I'm glad the appeal failed. We need a public inquiry now.

That’s good, it must have been stressful enough for those who brought the case without opening it all up again

Crikey, discrimination? They're really going there?