High Court says ban by government on PBs was legal

[Justme56]

www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/29/puberty-blockers-ban-tory-government-lawful-high-court-rules

Should have said ‘lawful’ .

Good

Did anyone expect any different?

Has the grifter had a tantrum yet?

Another 'deeply technical' win for Jolyon and the good law project?

Brilliant news for our children.

Such good news

Behold the tantrums - https://www.reddit.com/r/transgenderUK/comments/1eevy3l/emergency_puberty_blocker_ban_was_lawful_high/

I am tittering beind my hand at this.

Wrt the OP: good.

Following his major rant when he got pulled up over the statistics he was quoting jolyon has taken a 2 week break from X while on holiday hiking. I am however awaiting his return for everything thats happened while his back was turned. I'm expecting pages and pages of stuff once someone gives him his phone back. 🍿

Was there any TribunalTweets? Was there any coherent argument other than the falsehoods about the Cass report introduced?

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/transactual-cic-and-another-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-and-another/

Did he get a heads up that the court case was going to bomb so he flounced early on twitter.

It is most disappointing (though probably a good thing give his contagion risking posts) we don't get to see him try and spin it in ever increasingly creative manners which bear little resemblance to reality.

Good news.

Great news. What a shame we won't see the meltdown from the fox basher.

TribunalTweets and TransActual both live tweeted throughout (links on previous thread). Quite hard to follow as the respondents in particular relied on documents (skeleton argument and case law) that we couldn't see (kudos to the fox-botherer that he posted their SA online).

I'm going to cut to the chase and just read the judgment.

There's a Press Summary here:

https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/transactual-cic-and-another-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care-and-another/

ie on the same page as the judgment.

Yes! Great news that children will be protected.

From that Reddit thread linked above, it appears SG’s loophole operation is being touted as a miraculous saviour. I wonder if anyone in government has sorted out the loophole and shut it down?

Thank god. Children CANNOT consent to this

So deep East17 might write another song about it

@StealthSpinach was just going to post that. There's so much misinformation just on the little bit of the reddit thread that I bothered to look at. Streeting and Co. need to sort out the loopholes and, while they're at it, do something about trans misinformation on line. Criminalise parents/carers who break the law to drug the children in their care if necessary, ie. by taking the kids abroad. They're supposed to do it in cases of FGM. What's the difference if the M is drug induced rather than surgical?

Its truly bizarre to think only 29 years ago these sorts of outbursts would have been seen clearly as outbursts of either poor adjustment or poor mental health,and obviously needed help. Ridiculous how we've got here do damn fast

The Good Law (sic) Project responds:

https://x.com/GoodLawProject/status/1817875899083100588

To summerise. The ban was brought in without expertise or consultation and they frame it as political interference in healthcare.

They don't see Cass as an expert 🙄

JM raised £60,329 for this dodgy case. A lot of money invested in utter failure which not only ended up safeguarding kids, BUT discredited the bullshit trans suicide myth as well. Plus weakening the TA in the internal battle inside Labour.

Plus once again showing that Trans Activist claims fail in court.

JM is Operation Let The Speak's biggest success story.

Labour Pains blog have used the evidence of JM's dodgy grifting and bias to raise complaints

In light of the above, I have renewed my complaint about the GLP’s ‘Puberty blockers ban’ crowdfunder, and its promotion by Jolyon Maugham and the GLP, made to the Advertising Standards Authority on 7 June (ASA ref: A24-1248491). And, on the advice of the ASA, I have reported the matter to Trading Standards via Citizens Advice.
I have also made a formal complaint about Jolyon Maugham to the Bar Standards Board (BSB ref: 0FAD3306). In my complaint, I suggest that Maugham may have: broken the law by committing a serious criminal offence (obtaining money by false representation); acted dishonestly; acted without integrity, including by failing to disclose a personal (family) interest; and behaved in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in them or in the profession.
And I have reported the matter to the police via the Action Fraud reporting portal (crime reference number: NFRC240706792775).
To be clear, I don’t expect any of these agencies to act on my complaints – my lived experience is that they are all chocolate teapots (and in some cases the chocolate is very poor quality). But there may eventually come a time when they have to account for their inaction.
https://labourpainsblog.com/2024/07/23/jolyon-maugham-v-trump-putin-and-er-wes-streeting/

The relevant parts of the press summary:

The First Defendant was entitled to conclude, under section 62 of the Medical Act 1968
(“MA 1968”), that it was “necessary to make the Order in the interests of safety”
(subsection (1)), and that it was “essential to make the order with immediate effect to
avoid serious danger to health” (subsection (3)).

Under section 62 Medical Act 1968, there is an exemption from the consultation
requirements when the emergency procedure is followed, as it was in this case. In those
circumstances, a duty to consult could not be implied. On the evidence, the First
Defendant did not undertake a voluntary “consultation”.

The absence of a consultation did not breach the Second Claimant’s procedural rights
under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

TLDR: Judge believes Cass. The law says no consultation is needed for an emergency order. Judge says human rights what now?