Helen Webberley - hearing continues

[ItsLateHumpty]

See the original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4288795-Helen-Webberley?

And now Helen Webberley is back in court as the GMC seeks to extend her suspension until August 2022

Gender GP thread starts here:

twitter.com/GenderGP/status/1466049063099510790

GenderGP @ GenderGP
We're covering the hearing re Dr Webberley. There has been a failure of the GMC to disclose the full bundle, counsel for the GMC is explaining this is due to page limits put on submissions.

GMC Counsel is requesting an extension of the suspension for a period of 8 months. Dr Helen's counsel asks why the case won't finish for a year. GMC Counsel says that question is irrelevant to today's hearing.
12:48 AM · Dec 2, 2021·Twitter Web App

And Helens own Twitter here:

twitter.com/MyWebDoctorUK/status/1465727253392805893

Dr Helen Webberley 🏳️‍⚧️🧜‍♀️🏳️‍⚧️ @ MyWebDoctorUK
I have been unable to work as a doctor since May 2017 because of the GMC investigation into my work. The original restrictions were in place for 18 months and that has been extended many times to allow for delays and processes.
3:29 AM · Dec 1, 2021·Twitter for iPhone

Yes they do seem to thave, and no there never has been any robust data supporting any of that.

It is ALL based on 'being nice' and 'feelings' - and notice it is all male too!

Much of what is in that is drivel, the very least amount of thinking applied to some complex issues. I would like someone from the Endocrine Society to contact them (looks at own Contacts list...mmm!)

The sad thing is that, much like the MoJ decision, based on the fact that there is no law about housing men in the female state because who the hell would do it?, Webberley will get away with much of her antic as there is no precedent. Plus little or no actual information on long term issues, no follow ups, so no proof of harm.

Currently, in real terms, Webberley is the bloody expert by dint of the very things being held up to accuse her!

And now I need to lie down in a darkened room...

My guess is that an investigation will show that all the tribunal members will have been "trained" by Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence or some of the other self interested groups so very keen on transitioning children.

Yes, that's the problem. The tribunal were dealing with the 'facts' put before them and as we know the 'facts' are hugely contested at present, hence the Cass review and (hopefully) Javid's intervention. Also don't forget that all of the expert witnesses are working to the same model so when they were giving evidence they talked about afab, innate gender identity, gender affirming drugs etc. It was excruciating at the time to hear these terms being used in a tribunal without challenge but that is the lay of the land at present, so this is what the tribunal had to work with. It was not for them to make any type of determination about the rights or wrongs of the affirmation model, just whether HW did her job to a good enough standard or not.

I think my concerns now are as to what the outcome will be. Firstly they have to decide if her practice was impaired and if so, what sanction should be given. They clearly found her knowledgeable and impressive in bullshit but the lack of basic care surely cannot be ignored, never mind the criminal conviction.

I think my concerns now are as to what the outcome will be. Firstly they have to decide if her practice was impaired and if so, what sanction should be given. They clearly found her knowledgeable and impressive in bullshit but the lack of basic care surely cannot be ignored, never mind the criminal conviction.

1st they decide on misconduct (which is whether or not there was misconduct at the time of the events). I can't imagine that they will not find misconduct.

Then the will decide on current impairment.

It would be possible for them to find that there was misconduct (at the time) but no current impairment. I can't imagine that this would happen though (in this case) in view of the criminal conviction. The public would be outraged so it would be harmful to the medical profession to find no current impairment.

How is it that Dr Michael Webberley's tribunal managed to produce the expert endocrinologist Dr Richard Quinton (of Newcastle Hospitals Trust & University) - who was superbly focused - and Dr Helen Webberley's tribunal didn't?

What am I missing?

I thought that SpindleInTheWind! I also have no clue.

Yes, apologies, I'm typing on the hoof today. I'm not sure when that's happening either, does anyone know when they're due to reconvene? I seem to remember that Harrop's happened fairly quickly but I may be misremembering.

Well I'm glad that I'm not going nuts on my own here. I appreciate that different GMC teams will prep their cases differently, but it just seems like such a glaring anomaly. I don't even know if it can be put right now.

I'm another one also wondering about that!

I have no idea how any of this can "stand up" in light of the Cass Report.

As usual, logic is nowhere to be seen... (like the nailing jelly to the wall comment!)

Where is Ben Cooper when we need him

Where is Ben Cooper when we need him

Specific expert aside, I guess there's quite a lot of difference between the cases really. MW did not defend himself so the GMC's expert was not cross-examined in his case and also he did not provide his own expert witness for an alternative view. Wasn't it also argued that he was not even qualified to prescribe to children whereas HW was because she is a GP?

HW, on the other hand, defended herself so the GMC's expert was cross-examined and she had her own expert with an alternative view so the panel will have had to decide which expert they prefer which can be quite tricky when they have opposing opinions. Also my understanding is that HW would only have to reach the standard of a responsible body of medical opinion at the time she was treating these patients.

The Mail includes some of the curious quotes.

mol.im/a/10751047

Bugger. I had misread the initial charges which written that you did xyz as being the findings.

It looks some like the actual findings that were proven relate to things like not recording observations, or checking blood tests. Does anyone know if the the findings about dishonesty, such as not being open about the limitations placed on her previously have any more weight in terms of ftp?

I haven't read the determination, so this is a general observation, but dishonesty is taken HUGELY seriously. That's particularly true if it's repeated, pre-meditated, for personal gain, or involves a breach of trust. It would be a rare case where dishonesty is found proved that doesn't lead to suspension at least.

As I say, that's all just general principles as I know nothing about this particular case.

My guess is that an investigation will show that all the tribunal members will have been "trained" by Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence or some of the other self interested groups so very keen on transitioning children.

Your guess would be very wrong.

I'm a little wary of clicking on a google doc - is there a summary anywhere (else) of the 36 proven allegations?

How do you know this please? As the NHS has been wholesale captured along with the legal profession it seems a reasonable assumption. But I'd love to be wrong.

@Cuck00soup - I've now skimmed the determination. I can't see that any of the allegations of dishonesty have been found proved? May have missed it, mind.

(I HATE how the MPTS structures their determinations. You can't see the wood for the trees.)

Times article today quoting the panel chair as saying that medical attitudes at the time were not ‘enlightened’, ‘trans’ children couldn’t get access to healthcare etc.

if the quotes are accurate, to me, suggests bias.

In the quotes. Angus Mcpherson, criticised endochrine/medical associations for not ‘moving with the times’ and suggested that ‘inertia’ was ‘similar to past attitudes on homosexuality’.

Sharetoken for the Times article:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a836ccfc-c4ae-11ec-96a8-ce9dac41fe90?shareToken=cde53cf36acae7ec6ab49fe7bd1fde02

Someone needs to tell Angus MacPherson that scientific truth isn't decided by polls and following fashions.

How do you know this please? As the NHS has been wholesale captured along with the legal profession it seems a reasonable assumption. But I'd love to be wrong.

I believe that would be one of those nit-picky denials, in that Stonewall/GI wouldn't be offering direct training to individuals in those positions.

But rather, they would be offering training/guidance to HR/whoever in the relevant orgs who then go on to develop Stonewall/GI-compliant training for those individuals.

Hah! The chair of the tribunal outed himself with this comment:

The tribunal finds that the reluctance of the Endocrine Society and others to embrace enlightened views of transgenderism is symptomatic of the tendency in all professions to be slow to move with the times

Influenced by the lobby groups - no, not me.