en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGB_Alliance

The article attributes a broad rule to Bell v Tavistock that the court did not actually make.

What the December 2020 Divisional Court decision did was set out the information a child under 16 would need to understand in order to be competent to consent to puberty blockers. The judiciary’s own case page summarizes the declaration in those terms. It does not say the court ruled that all children must have court approval before receiving puberty blockers.

That distinction was made explicit by the Court of Appeal in September 2021. In the official appeal summary, the court said the Divisional Court’s guidance "would require applications to the court when there was no legal obligation for such an application to be made" and that this guidance "should not have been given." The full appeal judgment likewise says the lower court had imposed an improper restriction by giving guidance that would require "(probably frequent) court intervention," while noting that applications might be appropriate only in specific difficult cases.

So the Wikipedia sentence is inaccurate because it turns a judgment about clinicians' assessment of consent into a categorical rule requiring court approval in all cases.

The infobox lists the organization's formation as September 2019, but the available primary records point to a later date.

LGB Alliance's own published history states: "LGB Alliance was founded at Conway Hall on 22 October 2019." That places the founding in October 2019, not September.

The legal entity was created even later: Companies House records for LGB ALLIANCE (company number 12338881) show it was incorporated on 28 November 2019.

September 2019 was the month when an open letter to The Sunday Times argued there should be an opening for a new organization, but that is not the same thing as the organization itself already being formed. So the infobox date is inconsistent with both the group's own account and the official company record.