Of course Sonia Appleby had ‘an agenda’. It was child safeguarding. This is where ludicrous accusations of ‘transphobia’ will get you. The deliberate abandonment of children’s welfare to serve an adult ideology.
So how did the usual suspects comment on this story? They didn’t. Here’s Mermaids and one of their patrons. How is upholding Gillick competence an attack on it?
Here’a David and John, and the burning issues of the day
Katy wants your validation and your money. But no comment on such a significant development about a failure in child safeguarding.
I would have like to ask Annie Wallace what on Earth she thinks she is blathering on about re Gillick competence - but predictably.
And I can see I have been unfair to Ms Wallace. She did in fact comment. But not on the clear failures to safeguard young children. Because, I suggest, for this group, medical transition from 10 years is seen as an ambition, not a medical negligence action in waiting.
We have to be aware of this. It’s a dangerous false equivalence, pushed by Jolyon Maugham among others. A 15 year girl taking birth control to avoid pregnancy is nothing like a 12 year old girl taking testosterone.
The latter will cause immediate and irreversible consequences to the child’s body and put her future fertility at risk. I do not see how any 12 year old is able to consent to this. But for some reason, a group of adults thinks it’s essential to THEIR validation.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Very useful conversation from about 6.19 where - fair play to him - FW calls out Sophie for misogynistic comments and they discuss how SM is ‘very aware’ of the impact of his words.
All of this I hope to explore in other arenas and in detail. It simply cannot be right that the article 10 rights of one group are fettered on the demand of another group, which itself engages in harassment and abusive speech.
Either the Good Law Project knows nothing about the activities of the man they champion as a fragile and vulnerable victim - or they don’t care?
Which is worse? I hope 2026 will give me a variety of stages upon which I may publicly drill down into all of this.
If we don’t stop one group from enforcing its own hecklers veto, while simultaneously abusing and threatening others, this is going to cause significant harm - not just to individuals but to our trust in the organisations that allow it.
Because this is what is notable about this group. Euan Weddell had a clear legal means of protection against my alleged harassment - a civil injunction against me using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The Good Law Project however decided to spend its money over months drafting a complaint to my regulator.
This weaponisation of the regulatory process is of course clever. It puts them at no risk of having to prove a case, no costs of expensive court action but hopefully maximum stress and embarrassment to me.
It also means I attract the attention of disgraced transvestite former police officer Lynsay Watson, already subject to harassment complaints from at least 8 others. So I guess he does know his way around the Act!
What I want to make very, very clear to this group - and I am slightly surprised that they haven’t grasped it yet - is that I welcome a light being shined on all of this. I would enjoy having my day or days in court and having my say. If you genuinely think I what I do is unlawful harassment - then make your case. Jolyon has the funds! If he won’t help you - ask yourselves why not?
Policing Panel! Luke Gittos is first. Changed his speech because of what he saw last night - footage of 2 police officers who ask a person ‘what’s that around your neck’ - a Star of David. Police say it risks antagonising protestors. Is it right to question someone about their religious dress? His original speech was mild mannered but now is time for anger #BattleFest
We have to say this ends now. The police don’t see how their power affects real people. See it as necessary step. Police have become an ugly beaurocratic machine.
But we do risk undermining the ability to recreate a police force that works. Need to have serious thought about foundations of police.
The judicial review against the decision to register Gender Plus as ‘safe’ to give cross sex hormones to teenagers fails.
UK courts continue to ignore the massive Elephant in the room, which is the lack of evidence base for this serious and irreversible medical intervention for children. This is not a matter of reasonable difference of opinion or for private practice to profit from. This is not safe.
Part of the problem, not grappled with by court. Clinicians in this area have gone bad. This isn’t ’reasonable disagreement’, it’s harming children. sussex.ics.nhs.uk/wp-content/upl…
I am trying to listen to this as I mop the kitchen floor. So I must be a woman?
It gets off to a very poor start. Mostyn unctuously introducing HK as a ‘beautiful feminist’. Of course Charlie F gets no such intro. HK simpers. And then they are off, referring to the ‘Equalities Act’.
Not sure if I will make it through but by god this floor will be clean.
At 6 mins in Mostyn confidently opines that this judgment only applies to 8k people with a GRC. The implications are of course much wider than this. Perhaps they will go on to talk of the problems caused by the Stonewallification of the law?
I had always thought Mostyn’s USP was a keen legal brain. It is not a sign of acuity to make such confident misrepresentation.
About 10 mins in ALL they can talk about is ‘passing’, how this is so unfair to those who underwent full transition 30 years ago and you ‘just can’t tell’. If they don’t move on to discuss the many thousands of men who identify as women and who have undertaken no modifications whatsoever, this podcast will be revealed as the hollow sham I suspect it already is.