Tavistock Lead Psychologist is a Paedophile

[AndSoFinally]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13914025/amp/Psychologist-works-Tavistock-clinic-remains-FREE-practice-despite-caught-grooming-schoolboy.html

Well, colour me surprised

(Warning: DM link)

Sorry, I mean he worked at the Tavistock where they also work with trans kids.

Oh my god why are you going on about it? If you don't want to read in on the feminism board just start your own thread on chat ffs

Obviously it's not ok. I am trying to point out that previous posters (and the OP) are making erroneous links between this man and GIDS, due to a lack of understanding of what the Tavi is (an NHS Trust, not a gender clinic).

I think it's a legitimate topic for discussion here because:

• this is a site predominantly for mothers so of course we're concerned about harm coming to children
• this is behaviour far more often seen in men and boys than women and girls.

I know. I've made the same points as you have.

Ah yes, my apologies!

I think we could say that if guys like this are working within a larger organization which deals with children and young people, it raises questions about the overall beliefs and decisions being made or seen as acceptable in the clinic.

Strictly speaking, this guy does not seem to be a peadophile, he seems to be attracted to teens, which is a different thing. And it's also worth noting that this kind of liaison between teen and older gay men used to be an accepted feature in much of the gay community, and there are still groups within the community who see that as ok. More so than people ok with liaisons with children which seems to be a much smaller group. If you've ever looked at a thread here talking about this kind of hook up, there is a really surprising number of people who defend it as a "normal gay thing"

It's been a question, the extent to which those kinds of groups have been heavily involved in pushing gender ideology. Probably both because of the nature of their own sexual interests, as well as their theoretical views around things like the age of consent and teen sexuality.

So it's of interest I think to see a concrete example of someone involved in adolescent psychiatric care at a clinic where their understanding of boundaries has seemed so poor.

There may be legitimate reasons for privacy from parents (parental abuse for instance) but surely in that case kids should be chaperoned?

Thanks, I misunderstood that.

I would think.

I can also see that some kids might have a harder time talking openly with parents present.

But then, no one accepts that as a reason to have inappropriate privacy with people like clergy, even though that could be equally legitimate.

I think we could say that if guys like this are working within a larger organization which deals with children and young people, it raises questions about the overall beliefs and decisions being made or seen as acceptable in the clinic.

That's a bit of a stretch. There are nearly 1000 people working at that Trust. If recent history teaches us anything it's that paedophiles can turn up in any walk of life.

Oh look. His lawyer deployed the classic “but he was stressed” defence. Surprise surprise. Funny how busy jobs make men seek out children under the age of consent, isn’t it.

“Archie Manby, defending, said Canade had been working in 'an incredibly high pressure environment' within the NHS as a clinical psychologist but had now lost his employment and good character.
He said: 'He had patients, who he had been working with for some considerable time - their therapy with Mr Canade had to be immediate terminated.' The court heard that some of his patients had provided testimonials on his behalf.”

Oh and also the “but the service users at my place of work have written letters supporting me” defence.

We are not having this! Please will someone step in and investigate both the judge and the person or committee at the Tavistock who hired him!

Another one?

Is anyone surprised?

He is a child psychologist who's been convicted for grooming a child and was not immediately barred from practice, a massive safeguarding fail.

Funnily enough , some of the best safeguarding info and analysis on MN is right here in this board. I expect that's why it's posted here and is relevant here.

Men's sexual violence is, and always has been, a feminist issue.

CAMHS pushed my friend's kid into believing he was the opposite sex and pointed him towards the Tavistock.

CAMHS is steeped in gender identity ideology though. They’re a gateway to GIDS

And doesn't that undermine our trust in these organisations? I hate how all this undermines society. We should be confident that he's an outlier - but because of the links with GIDs people now wonder. I used to implicitly trust the NSPCC - until their reaction to the rubber fetish man. I used to respect the DfE and see them as a source of sound advice and guidance - until they took the Stonewall shilling. And as for all the teaching unions - completely captured. The list is endless and I look at all of them and wonder how could they all have thrown children and their safety under a bus in favour of genderism?

The court heard that some of his patients had provided testimonials on his behalf.

This is so many kinds of wrong. Children/young people mentally ill enough to be getting therapy from CAMHS, (which is no mean feat the bar for getting help is extremely high), should absolutely not be writing in support of their therapist when he is in court for grooming a minor.

They shouldn't be asked to, if they offer it should be declined, they shouldn't be trying to speak up for or 'save' their sex offender therapist. They shouldn't be writing testimonials if he got a parking ticket, let alone sex offences against a minor!. It's a huge boundary violation for them to be in that position, the defence have no morals to be putting those testimonials forward in court. And it speaks to boundary violations within the therapy that it came about at all, whether asked for or offered.

I am so sick of people in positions of responsibility (looking at you, Sandy Brindley) using vulnerable service users to speak in their support. It's wrong.

No. The people who are awake as opposed to woke are not surprised at all.

"No he didn't. There are many services at the Tavi. GIDS is one but he worked in CAMHS. Nothing to do with trans kids at all."

What was inaccurate about what I wrote? He worked at the Tavi. I didn't say he had anything to do with trans kids. Are there any other straw men* you would like to knock down while you are at it?

*I apologise profusely if I have misgendered your straw person.

Halle fucking lulia.

The damage done in terms of undermining ing public trust has been enormous, and I expect will not improve as it becomes clearer how badly so many institutions have been taken over.

Thank you for sharing the article, OP. Pretty shocking stuff - and also, sadly, not so much.

Even though he wasn't at GIDS, this autism link makes the story particularly interesting from a Sex and Gender board perspective. The consistent conflation of gender identity and autism is proving pivotal in a lot of what has been happening. Having someone in such an important role with connections to autism and proximity to GIDS is quite the red flag.

The defence that was put forward for him is desperate, to say the least:

Archie Manby, defending, said Canade had been working in 'an incredibly high pressure environment' within the NHS as a clinical psychologist but had now lost his employment and good character.
He said: 'He had patients, who he had been working with for some considerable time - their therapy with Mr Canade had to be immediate terminated.' The court heard that some of his patients had provided testimonials on his behalf.
Mr Manby said Canade had previously had therapy, having struggled with his own mental health, and was undergoing further treatment.

If I'm understanding this correctly, the poor doctor only became minor-attracted (is that the phrase I can use here? 🤞) because he was so stressed and struggling with his own mental health... and now his child patients will have to find a non-minor-attracted doctor instead. Erm.