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"

Maybe 'there are pink jelly babies and there are blue jelly babies' wasn't considered evidence of sufficient merit.

Datum 😂😂😂😂

Why should they be involved?

I should think the NHS/GIDS have to argue that they did not have significant involvement, apart from that I can't see their relevance to the case. Afterwards if the case is won or lost, that's a different matter

Can anyone else see the first page of this thread? Every time I try to go to it it just brings me back to the 2nd page

I've dug a hole.

The arrogance of Mermaids and Stonewall is beyond disgusting. Nothing they lobby for medically should be based on anything other than NHS/GIDS expert advice, so why they should feel the need to be the "expert" intervener is eye opening. The NHS should be monitoring the children's wellbeing and have all the facts at hand about mental health and social needs, not relying on some happy rainbow bullshit from Mermaids or false suicide stats from Stonewall. Makes you wonder who is driving the medical intervention wagon.

All the gender-feels/faux interpretation of human rights and EQA are completely irrelevant to the medical case, if that is what they wanted to turn up to spout about - although I would have loved to have seen a judge take down their false suicide stats.

Have you 'bookmarked' maybe by accident??

Also just read on another thread that the reason they're refused permission is because their submissions weren't good enough? Too much info sloshing about to know what's right

Its not the bookmarking, if I click previous or first it still brings me back and if I change the page number to 1 it says the page doesn't exist

@Natsku

Its not the bookmarking, if I click previous or first it still brings me back and if I change the page number to 1 it says the page doesn't exist

Weird! If you post about it on the site stuff board Mumsnet should look at it.

Or, report your own post and add a note about it, to get Mumsnet's attention. (Personally I prefer the site stuff board because if anyone else is having the same issue they may see it).

@Natsku

Its not the bookmarking, if I click previous or first it still brings me back and if I change the page number to 1 it says the page doesn't exist

It’s been happening to others too, including me. Think there’s a thread on site stuff.

Cheers, I'll go look for that thread. So weird.

Yes I reported it already a few weeks back.

Just dug. It pleases me to remove the contribution to CJ after the Allison Bailey shenanigans.

I’ve dug and went to share on social media - wrote a big post explaining why it’s so important. Then chickened out and didn’t press send. Cross with myself and admire these women so much. I will be watching without blinking.

@Jellyeggs

I’ve dug and went to share on social media - wrote a big post explaining why it’s so important. Then chickened out and didn’t press send. Cross with myself and admire these women so much. I will be watching without blinking.

That's understandable, Jellyeggs. It's not easy to put oneself in the firing line - you might have got lots of positive responses, but could equally risk lots of negative ones, usually from people who haven't bothered to read up on anything yet like to make sweeping judgements about others.

In spite of so many of us feeling hesitant to speak out publicly, there are always so many donations coming in for these crowdfunders. This tells me there are a lot more of us than we realise.

I'm so pleased that TransgenderTrend is being recognised as the serious organisation it is. I can only imagine too clearly the gap between their submissions and the Stonewall Mermaid coalition.

Jellyeggs don’t be cross with yourself. My son has very strong views having watched his sister get dragged into this through school and I keep telling him to keep his mouth shut as I know the amount of damage it could cause him- and he’d be talking through first hand experience! If everyone just does what they can- even if that’s just being supportive here- little by little a difference will be made.

@Datun

Maybe 'there are pink jelly babies and there are blue jelly babies' wasn't considered evidence of sufficient merit.

Can someone cleverer than me explain what a judicial review is? What would Keira need to do to win? It sounds to me like she has a good case but I don’t know anything about the law. It could be that as other countries have the affirmative approach it is seen as a standard treatment.

Fuming indeed OhHolyJesus!

Thanks needaMNnamegenerator for the additional legal context. This is encouraging.

A judicial review is a kind of court case where a judge examines decisions/policies that have been made by public organisations and determines whether the organisation followed followed correct procedure in making that decision. In this case I assume the public body is the NHS/GIDS. Usually the public body defends their actions. There are various stages to a JR and not all attempts to get one work out as the courts have to be persuaded you have a credible case.

JR is the only avenue individual members of the public have to challenge government or public body decisions. It cannot be used to overturn Acts of Parliament though.

If a JR finds that a decision or policy was made in the wrong way (e.g. it was made illegally, was unfair, or unreasonable), then the policy is usually quashed and it sets a precedent for other public bodies who may have adopted the same policy on the same reasoning. You do not get any kind of compensation if you win, but you may be awarded costs.

posted too soon

I'm not sure precisely what arguments Keira and Susan are using. To win, they will probably have to demonstrate one or more of the following: that GIDS was biased in the way it made decisions, ignored relevant evidence, or failed to consider the right questions when making its policies, or didn't comply with existing law in some way.

Thank you Hereward that makes sense. I think they probably have good grounds under those grounds.

Thought a bit of a bump might be in order

@Natsku

Can anyone else see the first page of this thread? Every time I try to go to it it just brings me back to the 2nd page

That keeps happening - there's a thread on Site Stuff about it.

Sorry Xposted with others