Susie Green, to judge who has just objectively fact and evidenced checked the experts to whom Green sends families: 'that's not a good enough argument'.
About what fgs? The judge was asked to objectively evaluate the evidence of the Tavistock's practice. They did. The conclusions are that the Tavistock must immediately change the way they work to be in keeping with the law. And that this is serious enough that they didn't grandfather any of it and say kids on blockers keep going but no new prescriptions: it looks like every child on blockers will now need an objective court eye to what is happening for them to ensure they are properly protected.
What has any of this to do with Green?
Mermaids offer to give information to the review was rejected since the judge was looking for facts and evidence of Tavistock's practice and beliefs, and what Mermaids was offering was a lot of feelings and anecdotes and individual stories - three of which had been provided anyway as examples by the Tavistock, the experts.
Mermaids is a parents' support and advice group who should right now be thinking very seriously about the fact that they've been funnelling families into the Tavistock where those children have - according to the facts established by the judge from the Tavistock's own evidence - have been treated in a way incompatible with the law. They are now going to need to support those families to deal with this awful situation that they have children in the middle of treatment that is questionable to the point it may have to stop.
Green's opinion that they know better than the judge and the law is neither here nor there, and in the light of the objectively established facts, is not making Mermaids look too good.