Rod Liddle thinks Susie Green should be jailed

[ClingFilmApplications]

In today's Sunday Times, Rod Liddle states of Susie Green:
"My own view is that she should be in prison for child abuse and assault."

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-is-beyond-satire-woke-britain-look-out-or-youll-render-me-obsolete-6xff2xvb2

(don't know how to do share tokens, sorry)

that would be an interesting petition to start....

I never suggested for a moment that I had any influence on if SG is prosecuted. Luckily, as this is country where free speech hasn't been banned, I am allowed to state that I think she should be.

I have no intention of starting a petition. I think there should be processes in place for prosecution and that how the public feel shouldnt be one of them. For laws creation yes, there should be public involvement. I would support a petition that highlighted loopholes that allow males to be taken abroad for genital mutilation though.

Also I have no desire to be a TRA target because that would sure as hell happen. I'm female and without lawyers you see. I'll save my being targeting for something I agree with 100%.

Did you see Julia Long being dragged out of a meeting by seven police for the crime of sitting quietly in a public place holding opinions (unexpressed at that event) that SG among others did not agree with? And contrast it with the balaclavaed TRAs, mostly male, refusing women entry to a building to a meeting, threatening them, and the police standing around saying their hands were tied unless a crime was actually committed?

This is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I would imagine most of us who post on here have seen both the video of Julia Long surrounded by 7 police officers, versus the video of masked TRAs blocking the stairwell to a meeting and shouting abuse at women, or of Maria MacLachlan being punched at speakers' corner.

It's all about power imbalance (which is basically oppressed minorities 101). The genuinely oppressed (women, ethnic minorities, gay people) find themselves not merely at the mercy of genuinely violent people who want to beat up people who are different from them for the hell of it, they often find that the mechanisms of state power and law enforcement are largely indifferent to this violence (see, for instance, recent revelations about the number of women subsequently murdered by violent partners and ex partners who made complaints to the police which were ignored, prior to their murder).

Contrast this with the experience of the "faux oppressed", namely members of the dominant power group in society who manage to put on the "costume" of the oppressed and can then magically call upon the full weight of the state to back them up.

The power imbalance is striking and staggering.

There are several interesting issues regarding what was done to the child.

We know the NHS will often go to extreme lengths to prevent parents taking a child abroad for treatment the NHS doesn't agree with as in the case of Ashya King.
It is also a fact that we have laws in place to prosecute people who commit child abuse abroad.

I think as the child had been removed from mainstream school there was relative freedom to take the child abroad without anyone querying the reason. Otherwise, had social services been alerted there would have been the possibility of making the child a ward of court.

I am also interested abut the matter of the hormone treatment - presumably this was prescribed in the USA - were several months supply of the drugs imported I wonder, or did a tame doctor over here give follow up prescriptions? What about blood tests and monitoring? Are the hormones given by injection and if so I wonder who administered it.

In short it seems to me other people in the UK must have colluded and enabled when in fact their duty of care to the child should have meant the opposite. It's a shame any such professionals can't be tracked down and prosecuted too.

The other is the exemption for medical purposes. It could be claimed that the surgery was essential for mental health so was allowed.

What are we talking about here? Some law or other?

Cos if we are talking about one, then you can't use an exception like this in all cases anyway. Undue pressure and informed consent would still apply under domestic law. Particularly if it's a 15/16 year old.

Gillick competence (as in how its done properly not the bollocks version that's being promoted), undue pressure and informed consent are thing that we should keep reflecting on.

The use and abuse of the legal concept of "Gillick Competence" is something that interests me, Red.

Originally it was intended to protect children from having to bear life-long consequences (pregnancy and becoming a parent while still children themselves) because of a decision made while a child/teen (having sex). It was intended to prevent "abstinence only" parents from preventing their children from avoiding life-long consequences of a rash decision to have sex, aged 14, 15.

It was not (as I understand the debates back at the time) originally intended to allow children to make decisions with life long implications for their health and welfare (removal of body parts, self-imposed sterility).

“You have said it yourself, before backtracking and changing what you were arguing about. TRA's are reporting women because they are women.

TRAs are more likely to report other women
^ There Sun 24-Mar-19 15:52:28

So we all agree, women are targeted.”

I agree women are being disproportionately targeted but not because they are women. But because they are easy targets. Likewise I don’t expect to see Rod targeted, not because he is a man, but because he is not an easy target. Why would women be disproportionately easy targets? Perhaps because more ordinary women care about this issue than ordinary men do and ordinary people without large public platforms to defend themselves are by definition easy targets. Why should more women care than men? Perhaps because women will be disproportionately affected from everything to biological males in women’s prisons to biological men competing in women’s sports? Anyway whatever the reason is I don’t believe there is any bias against women on the part of the police. What I see (and this is only my personal opinion, how the situation looks to me) is bullies wanting to silence those who don’t agree with their opinions and them targeting the easiest to silence, whatever sex they happen to be.

The use and abuse of the legal concept of "Gillick Competence" is something that interests me, Red.

There's some useful informed Safeguarding discussion on this recent short thread:

truthisarevolutionaryact wrote:

"Gillick competence is concerned with determining a child’s capacity to consent. Fraser guidelines are used specifically to decide if a child can consent to contraceptive or sexual health advice and treatment. Where transitioning fits into this is arguable.
Advising a school to make a decision about a child's competency in isolation is a massive overreach. These are complex areas. I've sat in a number of courts listening to barristers and judges arguing the level of competence that a child or an adult has in relation to issues of consent and listening to them discussing whether to remove parental responsibility from a neglectful parent - working out where the bar sits.

This is yet another example of trans 'advice' being professionally dangerous - advising schools to determine matters well beyond their level of competence."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3531836-Has-anyone-had-a-meeting-with-their-childs-school-following-non-acknowledgement-of-reciept-of-Transgender-Trend-Schools-guide?pg=2

I agree women are being disproportionately targeted but not because they are women. But because they are easy targets

So near, and yet so far from getting it?

Why do you think women are easy targets?

Could it be that (in the case of direct physical violence) they are smaller and less strong, and (in the case of threats of legal action) lower paid, or more likely to work in the public sector (thus at higher risk from doxxing)?

You know, thinking through the material conditions and reality underlying women's vulnerability, rather than assuming it's all some sort of weird coincidence across widely geographically separated cultures, and down the ages since time immemorial, that women have typically been the ones getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop, not men. Rather than assuming it's all some sort of weird and incomprehensible cosmic coincidence.

Or worse still, assuming that liking pink and sparkles and handbags somehow makes women vulnerable.

Women are disproportionately targeted by internet trolls and troublemakers on other issues. Women MPs, Jewish women ....

I don’t believe there is any bias against women on the part of the police.

Yes, I used to believe that too. I don't any more.

Likewise I don’t expect to see Rod targeted, not because he is a man, but because he is not an easy target.

If Green does not report Liddle to the police and/or sue personally then she will never be able to go after an "easy target" again. Because she will be laughed out of court (if it gets that far) every time it's shown that she's fine with Liddle saying something and then tries to get Ms A Tweeter prosecuted for saying the same thing.

And Liddle and the Times know this, and are quite deliberately daring her. They are saying "put up or shut up".

I agree women are being disproportionately targeted but not because they are women. But because they are easy targets.

And why are they easy targets?

could it be because they are women?

I mean you have all the bits, you are saying they are disproportionately targeted, but for some reason, you are also still trying to argue that they are not.

Reading this has been hilarious!

I mean you have all the bits, you are saying they are disproportionately targeted, but for some reason, you are also still trying to argue that they are not.

Quite.

R0wantrees that post was exactly what I was thinking of when I was making the point above.

I've just done a touch of googling and I think we have a gap in the law that really needs looking at and perhaps should be a valid aim for campaigners in terms of safeguarding.

There seems to be a term called 'circumvention tourism' which appears to have been first coined in 2012 by Glenn Cohen. (paper is googlable)

It refers to going abroad for medical procedures which are illegal or unavailable in the country where someone is resident. It includes everything from going abroad for an abortion, to fgm, to assisted suicide, to experimental treatment and beyond.

And there seems to be a particular gap in the law when it comes to minors - which I speculate - might well be covered by other laws depending on the situation.

During the course of my googling I came across this case of a 4 year old who was taken abroad to China for stem cell treatment for autism, which was basically quackery. The parents were desperate but ended up feeling the 'treatment' was almost abuse and left £20,000 out of pocket. And that seems to be where the articles focus was. Not on the harm to the child or the parents told disregard for safeguarding their child before leaving the UK.
www.imtj.com/blog/stem-cell-therapies-show-medical-tourisms-darker-side/

Then I came across this legal blog which focuses on the ethics and legalities of travelling abroad with a minor for medical treatment. It actually mentions a trans gender child (though focuses on a 4 year old) but it strongly suggests there might well be a bit of an issue in the case of a 12 year old.
blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/07/medical-tourism-for-controversial-treatment-options/

And I note the following paragraph:
The key question is whether doctors feel that there is a risk of significant harm from the proposed treatment (or from forgoing treatment currently being provided in the UK). Professional bodies, such as the GMC, require doctors to notify child protection agencies if they suspect risk of harm, even if not certain.

So perhaps the way to go, might be to persuade discussion of the law on circumvention tourism generally.

And more specifically ask questions about why, no one was raising questions with child protection services over a 12 year old boy going abroad without courts being involved and a proper discussion going on about what was in the best interests of that child by social services.

It does not ban parents taking their children oversea for medical procedures etc, but it would oblige better scrutiny of such actions. And it goes past the trans argument.

Of course, if our state institutelion go full on woke then this would scupper this new law. But then you'd still have to ask why you'd have to go abroad for such a medical intervention rather than stick to services that are properly vetted in the UK. And that's important anyway.

This asks all the right questions about competence, the child's best interests, and undue pressure.

Discussion of circumvention tourism really does seem a valid topic for public debate, and frankly yes the example of Susie Green is an absolutely perfect one for public consumption.

Susie Green can not argue with this, because from her own admission and comments publicly available she was well aware of the ethical problems and potentially that that there was a legal issue regarding child protection.

These things are always worth looking at from an angle, and I think the case of the couple going to China for the autism quackery also suggests this is a growing issue and problem which perhaps needs some sunlight shining on it as there seem to be real dangers involving, often desparate and vulnerable parents.

I agree.

I think the Times will have had more pushback that we know about. The Ted Lord letter and the problems with Janice Turners journalism are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

I assume that having made a decision to support their journalists the editors have the bit between their teeth.

And for many people Mermaids/Susie Green are shocking. Child protection ffs. Then fanning the flames by trying to silence Caroline (and Miranda and Posie) and the fire is out of control. I can't see many PR firms wanting to take on the Mermaids account now.

What next?

In the meantime, thank you Times.

I can't see many PR firms wanting to take on the Mermaids account now

There is still a way to go yet.

And all the stuff about gillick competence and schools is huge and a massive over reach. It wouldn't stand up in a court of law about safe guarding either.

There is still a way to go yet

But why this article is important. Unless SG takes action, I assume it essentially defines what can be discussed. Useful as it goes some way beyond Caroline’s tweet.

And more specifically ask questions about why, no one was raising questions with child protection services over a 12 year old boy going abroad without courts being involved and a proper discussion going on about what was in the best interests of that child by social services.

It does not ban parents taking their children oversea for medical procedures etc, but it would oblige better scrutiny of such actions. And it goes past the trans argument.

YY Red

It asks specific questions of Tavistock GIDS if they decide for ethical/protocol reasons not to offer a course of treatment to a child where is the continuing care for a child when parents/carers seem intent on obtaining medication/surgery either at private clinincs or abroad?
There have already been serious concerns raised about the lack of follow ups when treatment is offered but what when treatment has been refused (for specific duty of care reasons) and there are legitimate concerns that parents will continue to seek treatments for their child?

I've just posted this on a current thread but seems relevent here:

This documentary about Jackie Green's quest to win a beauty pageant (aged 18) is really worth watching:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkWv9cbda4c

In the documentary above it is important to be aware of the role that Dr Spack played in influencing and impacting both Susie & Jackie Green.

He has talked about how he deliberately prescribed cross sex hormone so that Jackie would not reach her natural height.

He is seen talking with Jackie Green and thanking her as she has helped his work. Susie Green also talks about how Dr Spack absolutely affirmed her child's belief at a very difficult time for the family & how important this relationship was.

His influence on the family as well as Mermaids charity is considerable and seems yet to gain much attention

From Daily Mail 2016:
'The woman who used to be a boy is now at the heart of a controversy over children as young as nine given drugs to change sex'
(extract)
"Scientific research on the impact of the hormone treatments on a young body is sparse. Some parents nevertheless ignore the NHS age rules and buy the hormones online or take their child to private clinics in the UK, the U.S., Holland or Germany.

Helen Webberley, a GP in Wales, has set up a gender clinic where a ‘handful’ of children have been put on cross-sex hormones, including a 12-year-old boy who was born a girl. According to Dr Webberley, this child had been on ‘blockers’ since the age of nine and did not want to wait until 16 to bring on his male puberty.

"The evangelist-in-chief for early medical intervention is 73-year-old Dr Norman Spack, a paediatric endocrinologist at the Boston Children’s Hospital in America. He is also the guiding light of Mermaids and a friend of both Susie Green and Dr Webberley.

He wants children who identify as transgender to routinely be given hormone-blocking drugs around the onset of puberty, and then move to high doses of hormones to change their sex, after which they can consider surgery.

The Spack philosophy is that age limits are arbitrary and often cruel. ‘Why wait?’ is his mantra. He says he has put ‘about 200 children’ onto hormone blockers, and claims 100 per cent have gone on to take cross-sex hormones because ‘no one changes their mind’

But other medics, such as Dr James Barrett, a consultant psychiatrist at London’s Charing Cross gender identity clinic, warns of the dangers of starting irreversible treatment too early."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3973036/Jackie-Green-heart-controversy-children-young-nine-given-drugs-change-sex.html

There is a clip somewhere (not sure if it was the TedTalk?)of Susie Green in conversation with Dr Spack where he happily talks of deliberately restricting Jackie Green's height because she would have been 'too tall' for a woman.

Why was no court ever involved in a case of a child being taken abroad for medical treatment not available and deemed unethical in this country between the ages of 12 and 16?

Lots of people must have known. No one ever thought to have it properly assessed? Surely that leaves quite a few people exposed to rather a lot of questions?

Did a systematic failure occur? And if it did, is that likely to happen again?

Questions, questions.

I'd love to know the answer to them.

Whilst I don't agree with the political view of The Times, I can't say that the editors are stupid. Any reasonable person can see the problem with the transing children. The culture of silence around it is spookily similar to the Jimmy Saville situation.

I think the Times will have had more pushback that we know about. The Ted Lord letter and the problems with Janice Turners journalism are probably only the tip of the iceberg.

As Edward Lord wrote to Rebeka Brooks on City of London notepaper one might conclude he felt confident of support to do so:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3459026-Edward-Lord-asking-the-Sunday-Times-to-censor-Andrew-Gilligan

You could phrase this as the exploitation of desparate parents by foreign and domestic quacks out for a big payday, quite easily.

Why was no court ever involved in a case of a child being taken abroad for medical treatment not available and deemed unethical in this country between the ages of 12 and 16?

Lots of people must have known. No one ever thought to have it properly assessed? Surely that leaves quite a few people exposed to rather a lot of questions?

Its surprising that questions aren't asked of Tavistock.
With regards Safeguarding a child, the clinic and medics there seem to have shrugged what in any other area of medicine would have required Safeguarding action.