Update on Susan Evans/Keira Bell judicial review

[TheFleegleHasLanded]

This is now only a month away and is one of the crucial cases in the fight to protect children from harmful experimental medical treatment.
If you can, please support Susan, Keira, and Mrs A and her daughter by sharing details of this case wherever you can.

There has been an update today:

"It is not long now until the trial (7/8 October). All of our evidence was finally submitted to the Court on Friday 28th August. We are delighted that some very eminent specialists from different parts of the world have provided witness statements. We have presented evidence for our serious concerns about the life-long medical and social consequences of young people going through transition, as well as highlighting the experimental nature of this treatment. It is simply inconceivable that a 15 year old (and even younger children and teenagers), would have the necessary maturity to fully understand what they were doing in consenting to medical transition. We have also raised serious concerns that the clinical guidelines that are currently followed, have been shaped by activism, rather than science and medical evidence.

There has been a significant amount of interest from groups that have wanted to become formally involved in the case. Transgender Trend has been allowed to participate, as has a 13 year old trans-child. Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

We want to thank you for your generosity in helping us get this far. We haven’t reached our funding target and still have a long way to go. This case is so important for the protection and welfare of children and families and we are asking that you consider encouraging friends and family to donate and to donate again if you possibly can.

With huge thanks from

Mrs A (mother to a 15 year old child) and Keira Bell"

"There has been a significant amount of interest from groups that have wanted to become formally involved in the case. Transgender Trend has been allowed to participate, as has a 13 year old trans-child. Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved."

I'm not saying a word. I've just got to pop out to the garden for a moment, there's this hole you see...

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

If one were seeking somewhere to dig, where should one look?

Search Susan Evans or Keira Bell CrowdJustice @BoreOfWhabylon

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

What does that mean/implications?

Thanks Hazeldine

@ThinEndoftheWedge

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

What does that mean/implications?

They won't be able to provide any evidence that would be considered as part of the case.

@ThinEndoftheWedge

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

What does that mean/implications?

@ThinEndoftheWedge

The judge gave Transgender Trend and a 13 year old trans child permission to intervene in the case. But refused permission for Mermaids or Stonewall to intervene in the case.

UK courts may allow third party interventions, to:

• Intervene in the public interest
• Raise some issue of public importance.
• Provide an independent analysis of the human rights principles and standards
• Enable the courts to hear arguments which are of wider import than the concerns of the particular parties to the case
• Help when the courts are to decide questions of major public importance, with implications going beyond the facts of the case at hand

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

Excellent.

Good news, and extremely damning of stonewall and mermaids

It would be interesting to know why M and S were refused.

It sounds like courts have to judge whether or not to give permission to a 3rd party intervenor. I'm no legal expert...

In past cases Judges have expressed annoyance when the third party intervenor doesn't add anything new or doesn't help or only repeats what the claimant / defence are saying taking up the courts time.

Hmmmmm I do get completely why this is good bit honestly I’d rather they had been allowed to have their day in court so that their ‘evidence’ could have been destroyed in public

This way they’ll just get to bang on about how the court system is transphobic & scared of listening to their evidence because if it was allowed the public would rise up and support them. This way they get to play the victim

twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1303068391415177216

a prospective intervener must submit an argument relevant to the specific case, with evidence to support all points. The judge grants or refuses permission based on the merits & relevance of the application.

Presumably the 13 year old child will be giving evidence in support of GIDS?

@FindTheTruth

twitter.com/Transgendertrd/status/1303068391415177216

a prospective intervener must submit an argument relevant to the specific case, with evidence to support all points. The judge grants or refuses permission based on the merits & relevance of the application.

Very interesting.

Maybe the judge couldn't be arsed wading through the word salad and meaningless mantras.

I'm surprised, even shocked, that Stonewall and Mermaids were removed permission to get involved. Both organisations have been lauded, celebrated, listened to, and held up as representing best practice for years. The judiciary seemed as captured by the gender identity ideology narrative as many other institutions. Would love to know more about these decisions.

Both organisations have been lauded, celebrated, listened to, and held up as representing best practice for years.

Bet it came as a shock to them too Sultana after years of being the first ones at the table this time they can't even get past the door. Shocked? I bet they are fuming.

In judicial review courts are fairly reluctant to allow third party interventions. In the past they have allowed charities like Amnesty International or Greenpeace because they admire their expert evidence and ability to put a case together.

@Kit19

Hmmmmm I do get completely why this is good bit honestly I’d rather they had been allowed to have their day in court so that their ‘evidence’ could have been destroyed in public

This way they’ll just get to bang on about how the court system is transphobic & scared of listening to their evidence because if it was allowed the public would rise up and support them. This way they get to play the victim

In all honesty, what would stop them playing the victim? It's the default, go to tactic.

TransgenderTrend have tweeted about the judge's refusal of M & S's intervention:

Mermaids and Stonewall have been refused permission to get involved.

I too think this is really good and important. But it would be useful to have some sort of statement from the courts / judge as to why they were not seen as being relevant.

I am wondering if it is because they are just seen as campaign groups with a specific view point, rather than an informed source with actualy knowledge of the issues being discussed.

@sultanasofa

I'm surprised, even shocked, that Stonewall and Mermaids were removed permission to get involved. Both organisations have been lauded, celebrated, listened to, and held up as representing best practice for years. The judiciary seemed as captured by the gender identity ideology narrative as many other institutions. Would love to know more about these decisions.

The judiciary seemed as captured by the gender identity ideology narrative as many other institutions

I'm not sure that's true. I think the courts is where this will play out.

The judge in Maya's trial had certainly drunk the cool aid - he was tripping over himself to correctly gender Philip Bunce (although as Maya mentioned, there was no way of knowing whether Philip is IDing as a woman or a man on any give day if you're not in contact with Philip.)

But - and it's a big but - the employment tribunal court he was judge of is a relatively junior court. I would be very surprised if the judges in the Appeal Court, where Maya's trial will go next, will be so easily swayed. It's a higher court and the judgements they make create precidents. The burden of evidence is higher and the judges more senior.

Similarly both cases Keira Bell is involved with are seeking judicial review, and (if I've understood correctly) this means they will be heard by a branch of the High Court.

Together with the Court of Appeals Court and Crown court, the High Court is also one of the most senior courts in the land.

I have a reasonable amount of faith that they'll look at the evidence properly, assuming the lawyers do their job.

If they don't - well then, this country really is screwed on this front.
But it's reasonable to have hope - all the bullshit, science denial / fabricating of reality that the TRA orgs do just isn't going to wash in a senior court.

I too think this is really good and important. But it would be useful to have some sort of statement from the courts / judge as to why they were not seen as being relevant

I imagine that will come with time. The judge hasn't announced this, it's been leaked and now there's a whole load of speculation. I doubt the judge will say anything before the trial unless they'd already planned to.

I'm really interested in seeing the evidence package once it goes to trial.

Are courts impressed by cute children in the way the media are? Too often when discussing transideology the media wheel out a 11/12/13 year old child who still believes in Father Christmas and dare their interviewers to tell the child he isn’t real.