Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

480 replies

FindTheTruth · 21/06/2021 06:15

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”.
OP posts:
WarriorN · 23/06/2021 11:42

Good judge.

yourhairiswinterfire · 23/06/2021 11:41

Tavi's side trying to argue that children are fully informed of possibilities like infertility, etc.

Judge says but children might not be able to understand how that will effect them.

littlbrowndog · 23/06/2021 11:41
littlbrowndog · 23/06/2021 11:40

Live streaming on YouTube

WarriorN · 23/06/2021 11:37

WPATH is being quoted? That pb are reversible

WarriorN · 23/06/2021 11:36

Lily Maynard is commenting on some

bitheby · 23/06/2021 11:34

Can't believe they still have to wear those ridiculous wigs

WarriorN · 23/06/2021 11:33

@CardinalLolzy

Is anyone comprehensively live tweeting? Sarah P has had to stop for her own work.

Perhaps not because of the live stream. I can't put it on here.

highame · 23/06/2021 11:33

Haven't been able to find anyone. V annoying as I'm missing an awful lot

yourhairiswinterfire · 23/06/2021 11:32

Judge pointing out a contradiction, that you can't say the treatment is completely reversible when by their own admission, they have to wait until this cohort are fully grown up to understand the full side effects.

nauticant · 23/06/2021 11:32

Counsel for the appellant now arguing that puberty blockers are wholly reversible.

CardinalLolzy · 23/06/2021 11:31

Is anyone comprehensively live tweeting? Sarah P has had to stop for her own work.

WarriorN · 23/06/2021 11:31

Can anyone link to anyone live tweeting please?

highame · 23/06/2021 11:26

They seem to have lots of 'bitty' evidence at the moment rather than the dragon slayer. I think that might be good too

yourhairiswinterfire · 23/06/2021 11:26

Yes, Sarah Phillimore said on Twitter that the respondents are Keira Bell and Mrs A 👍

nauticant · 23/06/2021 11:22

Sorry if I've got my respondent and defendent mixed up there. If the judge is saying that in the appeal proceedings the appellant needs evidence convincing enough to overturn the other side's evidence then that's great.

highame · 23/06/2021 11:21

Thanks for that. It seems as though suddenly the Tavistock has become a massively organised and knowledgeable organisation. How did that happen in such a short space of time?

OvaHere · 23/06/2021 11:18

Place marking. I don't have time to watch the live stream but I wish Keira's team all the best.

CriticalCondition · 23/06/2021 11:17

The respondent is Bell, not the Tavistock. The Tavistock is the appellant. No cause for concern.

VoleClock · 23/06/2021 11:17

No, original case was Bell - claimant - v Tavistock - defendant and now Tavi have lodged appeal so Tavi is appellant and Bell is respondent

highame · 23/06/2021 11:15

Isn't the respondent Tavistock. It was Bell & Mrs A vs Tavistock

highame · 23/06/2021 11:14

I am having real difficulty with the sound but earlier on it seemed that they were saying the previous Judge didn't take enough account of something they had submitted.

VoleClock · 23/06/2021 11:13

i took him to mean the respondent in this hearing which is Bell etc, so more optimistic

33feethighandrising · 23/06/2021 11:11

@highame

Isn't he saying that the initial evidence of the respondent takes precedence over anything new? So he's pointing out that if they submit something else, the first will be taken? I bloody hope that's what he's saying
This makes more sense, surely? I'm not a legal person though!
highame · 23/06/2021 11:10

Isn't he saying that the initial evidence of the respondent takes precedence over anything new? So he's pointing out that if they submit something else, the first will be taken? I bloody hope that's what he's saying

Swipe left for the next trending thread