the court ruled Stonewall were not granted permission to intervene

[stumbledin]

This morning there was a preliminary hearing of the Bell v Tavistock appeal (re: whether young people can give informed consent to treatment with puberty blockers), where the court decided whether there could be any new interveners in the case 1/

The hearing confirmed that those who intervened in the original case – University College London Hospitals Trust, Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust, and Transgender Trend – would all be allowed to do so again in the appeal. 2/

In response to a joint application made by Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, the Endocrine Society and Brook – the court ruled Stonewall were not granted permission to intervene, but the remaining three have been. Association of Lawyers for Children will also be interveners. 3/

Dr David Bell – adult psychiatrist and former Tavistock staff governor - has also been granted permission to intervene. Dr Bell submitted a report to the Trust in 2018, after being approached by 10 members of GIDS staff who had concerns about the way the service was operating. 4/

None of the new interveners will be allowed to make oral submissions nor submit any fresh evidence. The court made the point that all of these parties could have sought permission to intervene in the original case, and that this was an appeal – not a fresh hearing. 5/

The court said that Liberty and the BMA were considering whether to apply to intervene, and they have until 12th February to submit their applications. 6/

In terms of timings, no date has been set for the actual appeal hearing yet, but there was an acknowledgment that this is a ‘very important matter’ that needed to be heard. It was hoped a hearing could take place in May/June/July. Two days will be set aside for the hearing. 7/7

twitter.com/hannahsbee/status/1355127683491917834

Even for a trade union, they have said enough in their statements to make sure they can change direction when the wind changes:

But Angela Dixon, a GP from Scotland, told the meeting that while all transgender people should be able to access healthcare and live their lives with dignity, the BMA should not be supporting medical interventions for gender dysphoric children, saying they were ‘far from evidence-based. Nor should the BMA be supporting legal changes that conflict with women’s sex-based rights,’ she said.
If the BMA is saying that trans women should be treated as women on the basis of self-ID, it impinges on provisions to ensure that women can access healthcare safely and with dignity.’

@VegetableLove

Are Brook the abortion charity?

Has someone told them this doesn't affect Gillick?

They already know. On 8th Dec they said "Brook wants to reassure Trans young people that their right to receive sexual and reproductive healthcare is unaffected by this ruling, which relates specifically to the provision of puberty suppressing drugs.

UK law allows for provision of contraceptive, STI and abortion care, for under 16s without parental involvement if the young person is competent to consent to the treatment."
www.google.com/amp/s/brookblog.health.blog/2020/12/08/bell-v-tavistock-brook-statement/amp/

So I can't understand what they are getting out of this. They are obviously not claiming that the ruling, if allowed to stand, effects abortion & contraception. Maybe they are seeking a stronger statement from the appeal ruling that makes it even clearer that this has no affect on repro health? Or they want a ruling that means children can consent to this medical care because they think someone will use the current ruling to argue that children cannot have capacity to consent to abortion or contraception, and want to head that legal argument off at the pass.

They tweeted this which is worrying depending on what they mean by young people:
"We are pleased the High Court has granted us permission to intervene in this appeal. We are committed to ensuring that all young people have the right to consent to their own medical treatment."
Even young people who have no capacity to consent to the specific treatment?

Dr Angela Dixon makes very good points which I imagine reflect the views of many doctors.

Unfortunately, the BMA set up and the way motions are passed has allowed a small coterie of doctors, heavily influenced by Stonewall, to push through an activist agenda while many other doctors are looking the other way and overwhelmed by dealing with the fall out from Covid...

🙄 at the BMA. They’ve never been able to confine themselves to being a trade union for doctors, and in fact are pretty crap at doing that. Being a member used to be the routine thing to do on becoming a medical student but I think that’s been declining for years. Stuff like this just proves how irrelevant they are to most grassroots doctors.

I'm not surprised the BMA has been captured so easily. It seems very few members bother to vote in the elections. 7.38% according to this tweet. Sorry, I sadly didn't save the breakdown of the votes in the screenshot, no doubt they can be searched for. But I do recall being surprised by the lack of engagement which is why I saved the tweet.

Know a few doctor friends. All have left the BMA. On left because the BMA agreed with the local deanary that chosing pregnant doctors was a perfectly legitimate way to decide which ones to remove from an over subscribe training scheme.

I think the vast majority of doctors who are very, very busy looking after sick people haven't really got time to get very involved in BMA things. So the ones who come up with this sort of nonsense are the ones with Too Much Time. I am sure we can all think of at least one.

Maybe they are seeking a stronger statement from the appeal ruling that makes it even clearer that this has no affect on repro health? Or they want a ruling that means children can consent to this medical care because they think someone will use the current ruling to argue that children cannot have capacity to consent to abortion or contraception, and want to head that legal argument off at the pass.

I think these interveners are all working on the issues they were talking about when the judicial review gave it's decisions. The effects on decisions about reproductive health, which we should all want to see firmed up, however I think the justices made it clear that this did not affect Gillick. The endocrinologist is there to try and say puberty blockers and cross sex hormones are wonderfully safe and lack of bone strength is super! I don't see how the BMA could add anything but would love to see them try. I would think that Liberty would be adding new evidence but am unsure. They could be looking at human rights but that has to be balanced with safeguarding and it's a bit thin ice.

I think some of these interveners have lost site of the fact that they can only shore up anything that has already been put forward. I don't blame them for trying and maybe something will come out of it but I wouldn't bet on it.

There has been a bit of a head of steam built up but if they were too daft to realise they should have intervened at the onset, then I'm not giving them too much hope

if they were too daft to realise they should have intervened at the onset, then I'm not giving them too much hope

They probably thought that due to all the institutional capture that the judges would rule in favour of the Tavistock. If they hadn't spent all their time insisting on #nodebate and shutting down the other side, they'd have realised that they needed better arguments on their side if they were going to win.

BMA membership has declined a little from its all-time high in 2015-2016, but at about 150,000 is far higher than the 110,000 it was at in 1999-2000. www.statista.com/statistics/286137/british-medical-association-bma-membership-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/#:~:text=However%2C%20in%20the%20period%202018,decreased%20to%20155%20thousand%20members.

Mind you, a common search term seem to be "How can I cancel my subscription?"!

[quote Triphazards]I didn't know what Brook was.

Look to be pro-puberty blockers.

www.brook.org.uk/your-life/transitioning/[/quote]
My goodness. A children's charity being so Pro-Trans is very worrying. They have a literal "How to be Trans" guide and it's all so so positive. This makes me sick.

I think some of these interveners have lost site of the fact that they can only shore up anything that has already been put forward.

This is my thinking too. And when we say captured, we all know they're subsequently singing from the same stonewall hymn sheet - puberty blockers are fine/kids can consent/else suicide.

We've seen all the arguments, over and over. I honestly cant see what could be different.

An odd Daily Mail article today. Maybe I have not read it carefully enough, but they don’t seem to give the context to why he was saying what he was saying. But useful anyway.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9203765/Trans-children-coached-giving-answers-access-puberty-blockers-Court-Appeal-hears.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

It says in the DM article the date for the hearing is '2 days in April'. Hadn't heard anything about that before, they're obviously trying to move quickly.

Maybe they all thought the Tavistock would win because they assumed there was tons of persuasive evidence for all the arguments we've heard over and over. #nodebate meant they never questioned the arguments.

I actually wish they were allowed to bring new evidence. If there are studies out there that the care guidelines are based on, and the clinic didn't bring them, then these orgs could, and whatever the court of appeal decided there would be no possibility of saying 'the court weren't shown the evidence, wpath is evidence based but they weren't shown, the clinic didn't defend themselves well...' etc etc. At least everyone would know that all the available evidence was laid open.

While the appeal isn't supposed to view new evidence, I do wonder how the court will view the Tavistock's failure to bring the (not especially impressive) results of its study into evidence last time, and then publishing it after the judgment was in.

I think they deliberately kept the results of the study under wraps, it was more helpful to their opponents!

Tibtom

Know a few doctor friends. All have left the BMA. On left because the BMA agreed with the local deanary that chosing pregnant doctors was a perfectly legitimate way to decide which ones to remove from an over subscribe training scheme.

@Doyoumind

Why do they always try to reframe it?

Because 'we clearly talk so much shite that we cannot even cobble together something based on facts, rather than feelings and emotional manipulation, but we cannot admit this because reasons. Ontop of this issue, the disgusting bigots were granted permision to intervene, despite us constantly preaching that said bigots have no facts on their side, only hatred.' wouldn't look too good?

Twice now, they have tried, and both times they failed. Its clear they have nothing new to add besides 'but suicide' and the likes. Terrifying in a way, given the amount of power they have had in many aspects of this whole thing, and how they appear to be lauded as experts on the topic when it seems, they have nothing. Glad the courts have a high standard really.

@VegetableLove

Are Brook the abortion charity?

Has someone told them this doesn't affect Gillick?

Surely noone needs to tell them it won't affect Gillick, and if anything the ruling actually strengthes it. A quick read of the actual judgement, rather than the TRA spin makes it quite clear. Hell, the judge even specifically mentioned that it will not affect abortion rights. And it also seems very clear that it won't affect Gillick in a negative way. It possibly won't affect Gillick at all, but IF it did, it would stregthen it, not weaken/remove.

Even without that being made so crystal clear, they should be expected to understand that..it wont affect abortion anyway surely?!

Its quite scary, that charities and such listen to TRA soundbytes and lies, and some have actively commented on the situation without looking into it themselves, simply accepting the word of MRA types..and making a fol of themselves in the process as anyone with any sense, can see immediately that the TRA version is utter fatasy.

Sorry Manderleyagain ..really need to get into the habit of RTFT before posting, you said it much better, and much less garbled than me

I wonder if the Brook will stand up and say most/ all of their services are predicated on biological sex.

I am a member of the BMA. Previous posters are right about the fact that a tiny minority of activist members actually participate in conferences and votes. The rest of us are too busy with the day job!

They are captured and the BMJ has been really disappointing on this issue, a couple of Margaret McCartney interventions aside. I will email them anyway.