Steve Fontaine

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@AileenBart60380 Henry❤️

[Freyja. Missing Children Advocate🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @FreyjaBakke]

Urgent... She's only 11 Missing 11 year old girl.

My niece Amelia has been missing since around 8:45pm last night. She has been out with friends today and was last seen by her mother at 8:45pm and ran off from her, her last sighting was on Thornton road. Her best friend has informed us that she got on the S1 bus we think from Thornton road/St Helier Hospital towards Mitcham at around 9pm with another friend we do not know. Unsure if this was from other end of Thornton road/middleton road as the bus is hail and ride.

Her phone has since died and we have not been able to contact her. The police have been informed, if you have any information please message me or call the police. Police cad reference 8577 of 25th July 2026.

I have attached some photos if anyone may have seen her today or since 9pm.

Updated post: these are fairly recent pictures of Amelia in the last 2 months. She is 11 years old, not 31. The cake she’s posing with is a cake she made for her uncles birthday. There was no intention to mislead anyone with the age however in a time of desperation I did not think to blurr out the number on a cake.
Posted for the Aunty of Amalia

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@Zionist_faithfu ❤️❤️❤️

Bravo @Israel @IDF @MOSSADil @netanyahu 🇮🇱

@HumzaYousaf ⚫️

[aileen B 🇬🇧🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @AileenBart60380]

EXACTLY 💯

[The Essex Variant @JGerrings]

Well, its a day of from investigating BBC staff from fucking little boys up the arse.

[AngelicRelic GLO 💙 @EvoAngelic]

The killers were among those who arrived on the 165 people mega dinghy. Where are they now 😱@andyburnham @ShabanaMahmood
It has to stop, we do not want these people

Fury as group of migrants 'flee to UK on dinghy' after 'brutally' killing man https://t.co/l9cALMXtC6

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@HeroesOfBritain ⚔️

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@somersetlevel @andyburnham to leadership what @Schofe was to politics⚫️

@Rolf_Harris

[Lisa @lisareality1]

Why does Greater Manchester need improving? I thought @andyburnham had all the answers and has already ‘sorted’ it?

[🍀Mollly Malone🍀 @MolllyOnoway]

@ColliersWood51 Good morning lovely xx

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@YorkshireDna ⚫️🐽⚫️

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@WWIIMemorial ⚔️

[Tony @EvacTony]

Clear evidence that Andy Burnham and @ZackPolanski have been in talks about a possible Labour Green coalition.

[Jo 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 @__JC13]

CUNTFLAKE 👌🏻

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@Sweettalkin53 Oust @andyburnham the poor man’s @JoeBiden ⚫️

[Steve Fontaine @ColliersWood51]

@MolllyOnoway Good morning😊

[Jennifer Thetford-Kay @JenKteach]

On the 26th July 1983: Victoria Gillick (a Roman Catholic mother of 10) lost her High Court challenge seeking to stop doctors prescribing or advising on contraception for under-16s without parental consent.

Victoria Gillick (then 36, née Gudgeon, born 1946) of Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, appeared before Mr Justice Woolf. She sought declarations that none of her five daughters under 16 (aged 1–13 at the time: Beatrice, Hannah, Jessie, Sarah and Clementine) could receive contraceptive advice or treatment until age 16 without her knowledge and consent, and that a Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) circular advising doctors they could do so (in certain cases, as a matter of clinical judgment and confidentiality) was unlawful.

She argued it came close to aiding/abetting unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor and interfered with parental rights/duties.

Woolf J ruled against her on both points. He held that parents’ interests were better described as responsibilities or duties rather than absolute rights, that a doctor acting in good faith to protect a girl from the harmful consequences of intercourse would not be committing a criminal offence, and that the prescribed pill was more a “palliative against the consequences of the crime” than an instrument of it. He therefore declined to restrain the health authority or the circular.

Contemporary reporting records that Gillick reacted with strong emotion, bursting into tears, collapsing into the arms of her husband Gordon, and saying “God Almighty, that’s ridiculous” and that the judge did not realise “there are a large number of doctors happily encouraging children to be promiscuous.”

The case had already cost more than £7,600 (much of it legal aid); the couple said they would continue the fight and, if necessary, remortgage their 13-bedroom Georgian home. She had been in dispute with the West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority for several years after the 1980 DHSS guidance and had received significant public support (including from the National Housewives Association).

The Family Planning Association welcomed the ruling.

Gillick appealed successfully to the Court of Appeal (December 1984), which overturned Woolf J and held the guidance unlawful.

The DHSS appealed to the House of Lords, which in October 1985 (by a 3–2 majority) restored the lawfulness of the guidance in exceptional cases and established the principle now known as “Gillick competence”: a minor under 16 can consent to medical treatment (including contraception) if they have sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed; parental rights/duties yield accordingly.

Gillick began with contraception/advice under the DHSS guidance but applies more broadly to medical decisions. It is assessed case-by-case by clinicians (not a fixed age threshold below 16).

At 16–17 there is a statutory presumption of capacity for most medical treatment under the Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Gillick competence has been central to debates over puberty blockers (GnRH analogues) and related interventions for gender dysphoria/incongruence in minors.

In Bell v Tavistock (2020 High Court), the court held it was “highly unlikely” that a child of 13 or under could be Gillick-competent for puberty blockers, and “very doubtful” for those aged 14–15. Reasons included the experimental nature of the treatment for this indication, the high likelihood of progression to cross-sex hormones, lifelong consequences (impacts on fertility, sexual function, bone density, cognitive/psychosexual development), and the weak evidence base.

The court noted that Tavistock/GIDS practice appeared to treat virtually all referred children as competent.

The Court of Appeal overturned key parts of that guidance in 2021. It ruled that assessing Gillick competence is primarily for clinicians (not courts setting general age-based improbability rules), and that puberty blockers did not create a special legal category distinct from other medical treatments.

Court authorisation was not routinely required.

The Cass Review (final report 2024) found the evidence for puberty blockers and hormones in this context to be of remarkably weak quality, with unclear benefits for gender dysphoria or mental health and unknowns around harms (including cognitive and developmental effects). This led to the NHS stopping routine prescribing of puberty blockers for gender dysphoria outside research, followed by legislative restrictions/bans on NHS and private prescriptions for under-18s (with review mechanisms and limited trial pathways).

Recent clarifications (e.g., 2025 Court of Appeal) emphasise that Gillick is limited to medical treatment consent and is not a general test of adolescent autonomy for all decisions.

In short: the legal doctrine comes from the contraception case. Its use in the puberty-blockers context has been highly contested, with courts, clinicians, and the Cass Review highlighting difficulties in applying “full understanding” to experimental interventions with lifelong stakes. Current UK policy has shifted toward much greater restriction based primarily on the evidence base rather than abolishing Gillick competence itself. The debate continues internationally, with varying approaches.

The test, originally about contraception, later applied to far more complex and contested treatments such as puberty blockers, has meant that courts, doctors, and reviews have since argued about whether (and how carefully) the test was being used in that context, especially given the weak evidence and lifelong consequences....