Tavistock Appeal Denied

[OhHolyJesus]

Appeal denied!!!

Lady Justice 👩‍⚖️ (@RadFemLawyer) Tweeted:
Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in the Bell v Tavistock case has been refused. 10 grounds of appeal were advanced. None succeeded, including an attempt at an Article 14 (discrimination) point which had not been suggested previously by the Defendant. twitter.com/RadFemLawyer/status/1335926918223433734?s=20

Anyone know what happens next?

@NecessaryScene1

The logic makes sense - Gillick was being applied correctly, so the only path to do what they want to do to children is to open up a whole new can of worms for which there is possibly no precedent.

They want a ruling that parents can subject a child to medical treatment for which

• there is no firm evidence of its benefits or harm
• the child is not capable of consent due to its long-term impact
• doctors are not prepared to perform purely on the basis of parental consent

And they want to be able to force doctors to do this. (The Tavistock said they could not conceive of treating a child without their consent.)

Kind of scary watching how much people can be corrupted by believing themselves to be righteous. It will be interesting.

........................................ (so blown away a puff of wind could knock me a mile)

Is that really their angle? The consequences or implications of that becoming reality are terrifying.

Thanks for sharing Jacob’s story oldcrone. Can you imagine if as many of those style cases were reported, tv series made about them etc as the glamorized pieces? Like the approach the Swedish have taken. I suspect there would be a lot less demand for pbs.

It was very sad reading Jacob’s story. I would hope that they are getting the mental health support they need.

Even with genuine life altering or life saving decisions that parents need to make for kids, there's a clear diagnostic criteria and treatment path. There's research underpinning it. Isn't it mental that nobody expects or asks for evidence when it comes to 'gender' treatments?

This shit needs dragged through courts via experts and doctors and properly reviewed research. ASAP. In detail.

Is there a share token for that Times piece please?

You should be able to see the Times article on the archive link:
archive.vn/G3WXC

For those asking about statutory regulation of Clinical Psychologists, it is not the BPS (which is a voluntary membership Professional Organisation) but the HCPC (Health and Care Professions Council):

www.hcpc-uk.org/concerns/

The HCPC deals with concerns about competence, fitness to practice, etc. It’s purpose is to ensure public protection.