Times Article - Webberleys Ignore Court Ruling

[rogdmum]

I think most people know they have vowed to carry on but this Times article is quite good.

“The General Pharmaceutical Council, which regulates pharmacies in England, Wales and Scotland, said: “We are carefully considering Tuesday’s High Court ruling and any actions we should take as the pharmacy regulator.”

“ Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings.”

Share token here:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/16db5c54-36f3-11eb-861c-b713ee2a0069?shareToken=3d3f09364a594f4f5a17e05b1b1d44bb

I think The Times in general and Janice Turner in particular have been very good on this.

It doesn't say who has instructed criminal barristers to look into possible law breaking by doctors. Who do you think has done that? It doesn't specifically relate that to webberly.

The Times has led the way in the UK press - refusing to be silenced and repeatedly asking difficult questions and reporting the issues generally. 20 years ago I would have relied on the Guardian for their investigative journalism - not any more.
How things have changed.

To place an order, internet users enter a name, email address and payment details. They are asked to confirm they are over 18 but this is not checked.

Yeah, those checks sound very robust

Is anyone else worried that besides children being able to self medicate, puberty blockers are also very easily accessible to paedophiles? Or are we expected to believe that men won't go to the trouble on this front either?

yeah, kids lie... 50% of them using anecdata....

Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings

I really hope this is true. Sadly, I think criminal proceedings will be the only thing to shock some sense in to people and make them think really hard about what they've been promoting.

I'm being noob, does the article refer to the doctors at Tavi?

Over the past few months I've looked at my monthly Times subscription debits and wondered whether I can justify the expense but looking back over the past week I think I should let it run for a while.

“ Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings.”

Which makes it pretty shocking that the Sandyford / Scottish Government are completely ignoring the ruling.

Thank you for the share token OP.

Glad The Times are publishing these lawbreakers.

That was a really good article, thanks for sharing.

@YouNoob

I'm being noob, does the article refer to the doctors at Tavi?

I actually meant for this bit:

Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings.

Is this bit talking about Tavistock?

Much as I like the idea of a few of these "professionals" ending up in the dock I'll be surprised if it happens.
And it's the NHS that will have to pay out for the negligence claims.

" Following the judgement, criminal barristers have been instructed to consider whether or not any criminal offences have been committed. It is being considered whether doctors were reckless as to the consequences, and reckless as to whether children were properly able to give informed consent. There is the possibility that this could lead to criminal proceedings."

Interesting.

Will it be the Tavistock's fault for referring? Or the endocrinologists at UCLH for administering the blockers?

In the Judicial Review evidence, UCLH endocrinologists said that if they got sued for giving a child blockers incorrectly they'd plan the parents.

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1314171132233252864?s=19

So this will be interesting.

Isn't (or wasn't) Webberly's doctor husband an endo by training?

From the Times article:

Keira Bell, the claimant prescribed blockers at 16, said she was “delighted” by the judgement and that it would protect vulnerable children.

She described her own treatment as a “devastating experiment”.

“No one has apologised,” she added.

No additional comment needed.

I expect handcuffs would stop them dishing out drugs to children. Since they're being so open about their plans it could come to that.

In the Judicial Review evidence, UCLH endocrinologists said that if they got sued for giving a child blockers incorrectly they'd plan the parents.

Thank you for that! It's been driving me mad because I thought it was Tavistock that had said that, but in the judgement they say they don't accept parental consent. I couldn't for the life of me remember Hannah Barnes' name either to check.

What does "plan the parents" mean?

Blame the parents

Thanks for this and thank you to all who are tirelessly fighting this, those journalists are doing an amazing job on this.

I get so angry that there's zero structural safeguarding guidance on any of this.

Not in schools, not in social work. I know a Gp who completely gets the homophobia and stereotyped nature in it but it's his own opinions and he otherwise has to follow the patient guidance laid out in front of him.

I've sat through so many LA led safeguarding where I could potentially see how all of this stuff is a massive red flag. But it's never specifically outlined or detailed. Teachers can peddle what they like, few would actually be aware that the guidance is updated - it's not the on PSHE website!

Keira's story needs to become a working illustration that can be used to demonstrate and spell this shit out.

One of the key points is that both cases being discussed in the review were where there was no parental consent. The judgement hinged on whether children could consent not whether parents could consent on their behalf. I wonder how this will impact what comes next.

It is a common view that the webberleys moved to Spain isn't it? However there is a repeated commenter on the Times article saying they live in Cardiff.

Maybe they identify as living in Spain?

Tootsweets I can fully believe that. They moved their business to Spain on paper, but of course they can still live here and access the funds now that the income is routed through shell companies. Or maybe they got stuck in Cardiff because of Covid.