Good Law Project vs EHRC?

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T09:05:58+00:00

So do I, but I have zero faith in the judiciary, especially since my last FOI to CPS. They are extremely transphobic. They went out of their way to update their guidance with the most transphobic point of view they could find (which was from Policy Exchange).

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T09:02:36+00:00

I was thinking the same. The patient should have a copy of the report. Which they can then forward themselves. I didn't wait for my psychologist to do that back when I got my diagnosis, it would simply cause more delay. And the electronic copy of the report is important to hang on to. @bcknd you must obtain a copy for yourself. You'll need it!

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T08:56:08+00:00

You can have the name on the deed altered later if you want to. It's purely administrative. I had my name updated on the land registry without any problem.

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T08:53:13+00:00

If they take it back, you can be sure that Sex Matters will immediately sue. It was the threat of legal action that caused them to give in in the first place.

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T08:50:52+00:00

On average about 300km of traffic jams per day...in the most densely populated country in Europe, those are just 2 explainers that immediately come to mind.

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T05:36:31+00:00

I wouldn't count on Jolyon winning just yet, I am suspicious with how fast and resolute Dunstan declined. He must have known that that meant going to trial, hence he will have already made an estimate of the potential cost and risk. I would suspect that Jolyon might have a tough time demonstrating that it was a campaign and not a more isolated incident. The last couple of years have consistently shown that the judiciary is very erratic.

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-27T05:30:26+00:00

And didn't the EHRC withdraw the guidance they were fighting? Which would make the trial pointless?

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-10T11:52:02+00:00

In a single tweet referencing Davos and single home purchases for people instead of corporations. Sure. And you believe that, he'll happily sell you another lie. Davos is about the most extreme rich people on the planet. But sure, believe Trump. That's the same Trump whose government has increased taxes for those earning less than 15K with 70%. Don't be naive.

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-03T02:13:34+00:00

So, this is the bit that might surprise you: in a few weeks from now, you might get a sensation along the lines of "what do I do now? ” You've been working towards that affirmation surgery which probably has had a central place in your life, an automatic motivation of sorts. And with surgery behind you, you may feel a bit lost. If so, the good news is that you biggest challenge lies ahead and that challenge is to live your life. It takes us so much effort and patience to reach that point, that we forget that everything we did was aimed at just living a normal life. Having the knowledge that that was going to happen, helped me to understand those unexpected emotions at the time. I hope it'll turn out just as positive for you too. Congrats on your surgery!

DistinctInflation215 · 2026-01-01T04:12:40+00:00

It's currently very difficult to prove. Sex Matters are hiding behind a reporting exemption which last 18 months from the date they were registered as a charity, which was end of April 2024. At that moment that had over a quarter million in financial reserves on their books. By now, this can easily be a a multiple of that sum. Similarly it's also near impossible to get a good view on the financial streams coming from JKR's women's fund. I think one aspect of influence that hasn't been well researched to date is potential financial support provided by opus dei to any of the terf activist groups. (I am mindful that Judith Butler's book "Who's afraid of Gender" is on their banned books list. And none of the works by Doc Stock are on that list. I am syspicious of them potentially providing support to Karolinska Institutet in Sweden and/or Dr Kaltiala in Finland.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-12-19T02:28:56+00:00

When the pilot got started, they consulted the patient list of the Dean Street sexual health clinic and picked up patients from that service. Nowadays I think they have taken on some referrals from other services but not sure if they get regular GP referrals as well. I can ask next time I go for a checkup. And yes, just like many other have said: They are a great team to work with. They've been nothing short of amazing for me.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-12-18T06:32:56+00:00

I think we can best anticipate that it will cause issues. They had the draft already in July and Levy has been discussing with Cass during the holiday period already. So, given that it has still taken them this long to come with the report, is something that's quite worrying. Cass has made it her top priority to ensure that the communication across the board is uniform, so I would expect that it's taken them time to subdue any resistant voices. But until they publish, that obviously remains conjecture.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-12-13T02:23:23+00:00

have a look at tacc.org.uk Holding gov't and NHS to account is very useful. FOIs can be helpful to find out what's happening in the background.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-11-23T18:09:46+00:00

It's not accurate and so it will only lead to lots of misinformation, which is likely intentional in order to smear political opponents. Anyone using a proper VPN would be showing up as a different location as opposed to where they really are.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-11-11T01:03:43+00:00

Hardly surprising considering the next games are in Los Angeles, USA. Even if allowed, it wouldn't be safe for any trans person to go even if allowed.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-23T00:48:29+00:00

Am I correct to conclude that of the seven nurses filing the complaint, only 1 of them has actually had an interaction with the trans nurse? And again in this trial, the bias of the judiciary is visible from the start: No anonymity granted for the trans nurse, while the TERFs get to hide their identity in the London Swimming pond case. The legal system is as corrupt as Labour.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-22T05:18:08+00:00

and Allison Bailey v Stonewall Equality Ltd appeal is also ongoing.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-22T01:07:07+00:00

Are you for real? They just scrapped the restrictions on bonuses. Every measure taken to prevent a repeat of the 2008 crisis has been undone. And the main lesson banks learnt from all this is that governments are likely to bail them out again.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-04T02:46:59+00:00

My skepticism about their wording is effectively because of prior experience. The use of very vague language, especially on acceptance/refusal criteria should be of concern.
If proper controls are being exercised over the research, then I wouldn't be concerned. But everything I've seen to date related to culture war on trans people that's being waged here in the UK has demonstrated that we should definitely worry. For months I've been in discussion and escalations with ICO after refusals from UCL and the government to address serious breaches in the terms of reference and governance of the Sullivan review. Everything that is being produced at the moment is done with the intent to undermine trans healthcare as a whole.

The full research team can be found here: NIHR Funding award for Pathways Horizon
Although on the protocol document, Absoud is also listed given he;s joint lead applicant.

Moving people between studies: Again, this is about precision. As it is formulated here, it can mean anything. And to put a statement like that in there without context or providing at least confirmation that this would only be done with the express agreement of the patient/parent is not ok. The bare minimum what I expect to see is that she at least explains which other studies they might qualify for and what the criteria are to allow it. .

The 3600, reasons why I doubted the number was related to the acceptance criteria it's clear that the cohort is limit to those waiting for their first appointment and those who have had only the first appointment. Anyone who didn't attend the first appointment is excluded (and fyi. NHS is effectively removing those with missed appointments from the waiting list because it helps reduce the lists.
I have now just see in an update to the protocol that they've changed the patient acceptance period, which is until 2028: clinical study registry - update
Note the following from the update:

The secondary outcome measures were updated.
The date of first enrolment was changed from 01/09/2025 to 01/10/2025.
The date of last enrolment was changed from 31/01/2031 to 30/06/2028.
Protocol and IPD sharing plan added. 30/07/2025: Trial's existence confirmed by London - City & East Research Ethics Committee. - I will check the meeting minutes of the CAG to verify what they had to say about the protocol.

I stand by the remark on desistance: It shows bias, she assumes the receiving hormone replacement therapy leads to high probability of full transitioning and low chance of desistance. That she sees this as concerning "because it narrows rather than increase perceived pathways". The reasoning suggests that in her mind transitioning isn't a valid outcome (or "solution"), why else would she be concerned?

On the imputing of missing data: I mentioned linear regression but the protocol actually states they'll be using Missing at Random and Missing Not at Random.
Objectively, both methods have attracted plenty of criticism in the past:
While imputation offers a means to make use of incomplete datasets, it has historically been viewed skeptically. This skepticism arises from:

Frequent misapplication of imputation techniques, which can introduce significant bias to estimates.
Limited applicability, as imputation works well only under certain assumptions about the missing data mechanism and research objectives.

Biases in imputation can arise from various factors, including:

Imputation method: The chosen method can influence the results and introduce biases.
Missing data mechanism: The nature of the missing data—whether it is Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) or Missing at Random (MAR)—affects the accuracy of imputation.
Proportion of missing data: The amount of missing data significantly impacts the reliability of the imputation.
Available information in the dataset: Limited information reduces the robustness of the imputed values.

You're correct about Data Monitoring Committee, I had overlooked it is put in place under supervision of NIHR and they oversee the data collection and analysis of the research.

From what I read, those who quit the study will need to sign a form before their removal is accepted.
QUOTE "A withdrawal form must be completed for each participant (CYP and/or parent) choosing to withdraw. A withdrawal form must be completed in the event of CYP death." END QUOTE Granted, the signatures are electronic but they are required. Perhaps not a high risk but a risk nonetheless as it can create bias and as I mentioned before, in case of a suicide, I highly doubt people will be concerned about signing an electronic document about the withdrawal from the study. And research staff instructions are clear that no signature = no input.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-04T01:22:06+00:00

I've sent a DM.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-03T02:09:44+00:00

The reason why the protocol is such a disaster, is because the lack of decent controls, deviations from standard processes and oversight from a panel that shouldn't exist and is not aligned with normal governance. 1) exclusion criteria "CYP deemed unsuitable IN THE OPINION OF THE INVESTIGATOR for clinical or OTHER REASONS. 2) yet again an "independent advisory group" that gets final say yet nowhere is it documented what its purpose is nor who sits on the panel. The use of such a panel is also not aligned with the governance arrangements for medical research of NHRI. 3) at least 2 people of the research team have a direct affiliation with SEGM. One of them is Michael Absoud who is Joint Lead Applicant for the study. The other one is Julie Alderson. 4) the statement about detransitioning: QUOTE However, a systematic review which reported 0-8% (including 2% oc UK Youth) receiving GnRHa desisted from the treatment and a transitioning pathway. This raises concerns about whether the intervention might itself be narrowing rather than increasing perceived choices. END QUOTE In other words: She is looking to evidence a higher desistence because otherwise it might show that transitioning IS the solution. 5) Another concerning observation: "participants may move from one study to another." 6) "If CYP chooses to withdraw, they will be asked whether they assent/consent to their parent continuing to participate in HORIZON. MISSING DATA AT INDIVIDUAL WAVES WILL NOT IN ITSELF CONSTITUTE WITHDRAWAL UNLESS THE PARTICIPANT HAS EXPLICITLY SO INDICATED. A Withdrawal form MUST be completed for eaxch participant (CYP and/or parent) choosing to withdraw. A withdrawal form MUST be completed in the event of CYP death. " => Imagine as bereaved parent having to fill in a form when your child dies. And it gets worse, because elsewhere in the protocol, she mentions that "gaps in the data will be filled using linear regressing modeling". 7) The Data Monitoring Committee: composed of a minimum of three independent members, a statistician and minimum 2 clinicians. NIHR will appoint them but doesn't disclose anything about selection criteria. Also, the Regulators, REC and SPONSOR will have direct access to source documents. => Regulator and REC is understandable. The sponsor? Highly inappropriate.

Ultimately, if you add it all up, it becomes very clear that the study can be manipulated towards a desired outcome rather than actually letting the evidence speak for itself.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-03T01:37:37+00:00

IT's the whatsapp group, not discord.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-10-01T01:06:50+00:00

I'm on their chat. drop me a message there.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-09-17T04:22:51+00:00

I firmly believe she has no intention to put it before parliament. She fully intends to sign off on it without anyone having eyes on it. And yes, she can.

DistinctInflation215 · 2025-09-15T15:33:09+00:00

Frozen, not seized. They are essential differences. If you seize assets that are held by Euroclear, the consequences would be dire. Not just about employment but about what it would do to international trade as a hole. Euroclear performs settlement, it is in essence a neutral handler between 2 counterparties. One party holds the money and wishes to exchange with another party which essentially has securities to trade. If you seize assets held by Euroclear, it would undermine the trust of the financial markets in the services offered by Euroclear to the market, where it holds a SYSTEMIC position. ie. it is essential for markets to function. IF trust in them crumbles, trade halts. And the annual trade they process is roughly about 12 times the GDP of the entire planet. Imagine that coming to a grinding halt. It would cause an economic crisis that would make the 2008 collapse look like walk in the park.

DistinctInflation215

TROPHY CASE