Keira

[YouNoob]

Live tweets from Belstaffie here:

mobile.twitter.com/Belstaffie/status/1333716720176033793

Has the option to appeal been refused?

So much alienation of children from the safeguarding adults who are trying to act responsibly and lovingly.

How dare these people seduce children away from common sense and sentence them to a life of medical intervention.

Giving your dc drugs obtained from the darkweb or overseas because they are not legally available here following a JR should obviously be a CP concern.

In a similar way to FGM.

I am surprised that Joylon doesn't know this?

Mermaids spokesperson talking live on their Facebook page about this now.

Interestingly, though in fact unsurprisingly, some newspapers are reporting it as "pubert blockers for under 16s OK".

I wonder if someone has put out a press release!

@napody

Defaultname I disagree that this is a fair summary: SOME children may not be Gillick competent no matter how much information given?! They are clearly saying that few if any children are capable of understanding the ramifications and giving informed consent, no?

Good point. 'Some' plus 'may' sounds much better than 'very few'.

We're going to see many attempts to overthrow the ruling. Already there's talk of lodging an appeal.

In the meantime, I'd expect a lot of claims for compensation to be lodged, though I'd guess that these would be held up while any appeals were before the court?

I think it should be made clear now that attempting to sidestep today's ruling by travelling abroad isn't allowed, and that the authorities will protect any child at risk of this.

Some people really need to have a serious word with themselves. The judgement confirms that this is experimental. People are actually sulking because the high court has decided that children can't consent to be experimented on.

Some serious questions need answering. How the hell was this ever allowed to happen, and so easily? Ideology has no place in healthcare.

Is that part accurate? My impression was that over-16s would not be presumed competent and that applying to the court for a decision would be an exception, in the case of an exceptionally determined and mature 16 year old who was deemed a suitable candidate for the treatment. But I'm not a legal academic, although I do know the difference between a principal and a principle.

Perhaps it doesn't make much difference in practice, as clinicians will want to legally protect themselves so will presumably err on the side of caution?

Yes, that's how I read it. The line in the ruling that says, 'the court recognised that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought before starting treatment with puberty blocking drugs' pretty much translates as, 'clinicians better have a bloody good reason for going ahead without specific court authorisation'. If they did it anyway and subsequently got sued I imagine they'd be on very shaky ground with their indemnifying organisation.

How does a judicial review cause a nosebleed?

Press release from Kiera

Sorry have I lost the plot here!? In this tweet are Mermaids now doing a reverse ferret on puberty blockers and saying they are harmful? I thought they advocated their use!?

a nosebleed and palpitations

Crikey. Try tipping the head back and taking deep breaths.

@justanotherneighinparadise

Sorry have I lost the plot here!? In this tweet are Mermaids now doing a reverse ferret on puberty blockers and saying they are harmful? I thought they advocated their use!?

someone SANE got hold of Mermaid's login for twitter!

@justanotherneighinparadise

Sorry have I lost the plot here!? In this tweet are Mermaids now doing a reverse ferret on puberty blockers and saying they are harmful? I thought they advocated their use!?

wtf?!

Sorry have I lost the plot here!? In this tweet are Mermaids now doing a reverse ferret on puberty blockers and saying they are harmful? I thought they advocated their use!?

That's a parody account! I had a moment too when I saw that.

justanotherneigh - wha’? Is that a mermaids parody account??

Oh my god, if they do reverse ferret on this, it will be glorious...

justanotherneighinparadise, that is the parody mermaid's account. It doesn't have a blue tick.

That tweet is fishy as fuck, woah!

Is it definitely their verified twitter account saying that?

"Complacent and dangerous culture" - bloody well said, Keira.

^I don't think it is, their twitter @ is in lower case, the one in that screenshot is in capitals.

I can’t keep up. Do any of these organisations have any fixed views in anything? How can anyone take them seriously, they don’t have a clue what they are even advocating for anymore.

Stonewall used to be for gay rights, now they campaign for trans rights and have thrown same sex attraction under the bus
Amnesty used to be a human rights organisation. Now they are campaigning against some people having any rights at all, even to have a discussion.
Mermaids - lord only knows. Maybe they’ll turn into a sea life attraction and starting campaigning for the rights of fish.

@Abhannmor

Has the option to appeal been refused?

The judgement is that the law already covers the issue, ie that unless the long term implications of treatment are fully understood then Gillick competency can’t be applied. No one understands the long term effects of PB , so Gillick competency can not apply.

I think the implication is that there is nothing to appeal, the law exists and no new ruling has been made to alter or extend it.

I bet the Tavistock and Mermaids are pretty damn sore that they didn’t keep adequate records, didn’t do adequate follow up, didn’t offer alternative treatment to compare and are regretting these omissions and all the other inadequate ways they have run this appalling programme , based on ‘feelings’ and bad science. One of the remarkable things about the judgement is the very clear way the judges horror at the medical incompetence that the clinics have got away with for so long comes across. “Surprising” is not a very strong word in most situations, but when it is repeated many times in a judicial report about medical procedures on children it resonates.

@stumbledin

Interestingly, though in fact unsurprisingly, some newspapers are reporting it as "pubert blockers for under 16s OK".

I wonder if someone has put out a press release!

The Mail's headline is "Campaigners say 'common sense has prevailed' after High Court rules children under 16 can only be given puberty blockers if they understand the treatment they are facing in landmark case" and the article's a lot better than I expected.www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9005007/High-Court-rules-puberty-blockers-transgender-clinics-landmark-case.html

Nancy Kelley, of Stonewall, reckons that "Although it is unclear, the judgment implies that trans under-18-year-olds should obtain permission from a court before being prescribed hormone blockers by the NHS. "

I think if I was a general member of the public, who didn't know much about the background to this, I'd have so many questions after reading some of these reports.

Why has a judicial review ended with a judgement that children with gender dysphoria must understand the procedures they want to undertake?
Was this not already the law? If it was, why were the clinics arguing against it (and want to appeal it)?
Have clinicians been breaking the law?
What are the 'experimental treatments' and are the different from the treatments we were told were safe and reversible? Why did they introduce experimental treatments? If they're experimenting, surely they are recording and analysing outcomes?
It seems to raise more questions that it answers (on face value).

Wonder what the BMA and HCPC will think of the Tavistock having not kept records?

Cos, I think that's a fairly basic requirement of providing healthcare.