Joint statement from Barnardo’s, NSPCC, National Children’s Bureau and The Children’s Society about gender clinic judicial review

[Toomie]

I've just seen that Barnados along with NSPCC and others have released this joint statement.

www.barnardos.org.uk/news/joint-statement-barnardos-nspcc-national-childrens-bureau-and-childrens-society-about-gender

'The defence has suggested that because 12-year-olds have nonconsenting sex, it means they understand what sex is, and therefore can make an informed decision about their future selves.'

Where is that, in context of the orgs being talked about on the thread please?

An issue with the NSPCC is that the functional experts in the charity have had a steadily declining influence inside the organization for the last ten years.
The PR and lobbyists have increasingly more influence and they don't have any background in child protection.

Under 13 in England and Wales is (supposed to be) a no excuses crime.

The NSPCC wouldn't go to court themselves, they would use their statutory power to put pressure on a LA to do so.
Not everyone employed within the NSPCC has this statutory authority, in fact few people do.

My guess is that "agency" will start to replace "consent" in policies and tweets we see from these organisations. It'll be where they go next with their lobbying.

What’s the purpose of releasing this statement now?

Did they apply to be interveners in the review and were denied, so now trying to exert influence via the media?

So is this a health / mental health issue or not?

Kantastic, agree - this makes my skin crawl and the hairs all stand up on my neck. Th He timing is utterly weird - are they somehow trying to exert influence on the process of the judicial review?

I honestly think it is just virtue signaling.
A kind of nothing to do with us we love everyone rainbows and unicorns all the way.

Thing is they didn't actually need to say anything did they.

And this statement seems very random in places. EG about giving children hormones which is not allowed in the UK.

Another case of some people who know fuck all about anything really putting it a knee jerk thing.

But this was approved not just by one org but by multiple major charities!

Are they signposting children to illegal hormone providers or what?

I mean that's basic stuff surely? It's not legal to give hormone therapy to children in the UK. We all know one doctor who got stuck off for this.

Nicegerbil - that is discussed on the other thread on this board, called something like 'I'm keira from the tavi case AMA'. Posts today. The arguments were made by the defence.

Thanks I'll have a look

What alternative children's charities are there that haven't signed this declaration?

It is indeed troubling that they’ve come together so that all four of them support children taking hormones, something which is not even legal in this country. So why would they support that?

Sorry nicegerbil I was referring to your question further up this page - on the defence arguing that children having underage sex means children can consent to things that might affect their adult sex lives.

Cwenthryth When it first came out that tt were allowed to intervene I thought either barnados or nspcc were mentioned alongside mermaids as being declined. I'm not certain though.

@beargrass

My guess is that "agency" will start to replace "consent" in policies and tweets we see from these organisations. It'll be where they go next with their lobbying.

I have a horrible feeling you’ll prove to be right, beargrass. “Consent” is too linked to “age of” in many people’s minds. But “agency” is one of those brilliant buzzwords that people intuitively support without looking too deeply into it. Ideal.

@lakesidewinter

An issue with the NSPCC is that the functional experts in the charity have had a steadily declining influence inside the organization for the last ten years. The PR and lobbyists have increasingly more influence and they don't have any background in child protection.

THIS

The wanking rubber man staff member clearly demonstrated how far from a safeguarding children ethos so many of the NSPCC staff had. Although the publicity forced the organisation (kicking and screaming) into sacking him, their first instinct was to bully and threaten the (mainly) women who called his behaviour out, accusing everyone of homophobia.

This smacks of trying to meddle in the judicial process. Why else say anything at all now, before the review has been completed?

So they would have 'stood in solidarity' with Keira when she was 16 but now she's an adult they're happy to dismiss her opinion entirely?

How does that even make sense?

@NiceGerbil

'The defence has suggested that because 12-year-olds have nonconsenting sex, it means they understand what sex is, and therefore can make an informed decision about their future selves.'

Where is that, in context of the orgs being talked about on the thread please?

This thread. The relevant post today at 1656.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3881347-Keira-Bell-from-Tavi-case-here-AMA

I actually consider that a much more nuanced (or muddled?) statement.

While it is politically dubious of them to comment at all, the impression I get from that statement is that their interest in the case only extends to their interest in supporting the legal principle of gillick competence.

They aren't going any further than supporting a child's right to have their views given due weight in any decision being made about them. We have a fairly long standing understanding in this country that for medical treatment, there is an assumption of competence from age 12.

I read the statement as basically stating that any child from age 12 can consent to their treatment without intervention from an adult. We support that even when it is controversial treatment. but expect adults around them to support them in making decent decisions.

I would have expected more emphasis on safeguarding and ensuring the medical options are appropriate and safe given the fact such young children CAN consent to treatment. It would have been better if they had said nothing at all though.

12 year olds can go on the pill without parental consent. The fact they have the legal right to do that doesn't ignore there is a much bigger question of how they got there in the first place. You would hope children's charities would be more robust on that side of things.

Preempting the law so that if the ruling goes against their position they can lobby for the removal of other laws and medical ethics?

They either are so monumentally confident the Tavistock will win that its a dead cert or they are blinded by their own righteous sense of being right.

Neither scenario is a good one for charities so actively involved in the safeguarding of children.

Most 12yo are on the pill for other reasons- awful periods etc.

In real life if a 12yo girl walks into a sexual health or go surgery by herself, and asks for the pill for contraceptive purposes, I would hope questions would fucking well be asked.

I know they weren't in Rotherham even when much older men were with them.

Under 13 is a no excuses crime.

I find it mind boggling this would go without any further interest. Not to say it doesn't.

Having said that I just saw an article on the guardian while googling... Better safe than sorry and it's good if 'young women' are protecting themselves (from pregnancy, not std obv).

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/joepublic/2010/aug/03/pre-teens-on-pill

With attitudes like this. We're fucked. Literally.

I'm quite happy with the law in the UK around consent. Needs to be applied better but the actual law is ok I think.

@NiceGerbil

The whole contraception argument is shite.

Pregnancy is way worse than not.

Children of any age can get hold of condoms I imagine. Does that mean boys should be able to say yeah castrate me at 13? Ummmm nope.

If we are talking about consent and being able to make informed decisions, we are also talking about how 12 and 13 year olds are capable of making an informed decision to deliberately get pregnant at that age too.

Even if their bodies are not physically developed enough to carry and baby and give birth. We know the risks of being pregnant and giving birth at this age are significantly higher than in a fully mature adult body.

Thats ANOTHER reason the age of consent falls at 16. To try and protect children and to make it clear there is a potential problem in there.

Remember that consent is the right AND the ability to make decision in either direction without undue pressure.

We dont go around saying that 12 year olds should be allowed to make affirmative deliberate decisions to get pregnant.

Why is that?

Isnt the point that any child making a decision like that (which actively differs from decisions made after accidentally getting pregnant and are made with the guidance of HCP or may be too make to make an informed decision about) is extremely unlikely to be making an informed decision?

Sorry my mind is blown tonight.