To think infant circumcision is wrong but also that a total ban on it will not work and is not the most effective way to tackle it?

I am not defending circumcision, I was explaining the rationale.

From my OP on, I have been cowardly that I oppose it for infants, I just think banning is not the best way to end it taking the full picture into account.

As I said upthread, it seems not to be used in these ceremonies usually.

Now : is pain relief used ?

In strictly traditional Haredi settings, many families rely on comforting measures (feeding, holding), and some do not use medical pain relief, though others do ask for it. It depends on the mohel and parental preference.

In Modern Orthodox, Masorti, and Reform communities, parents are generally more likely to include standard medical pain relief, either by doing the brit in a clinic or by combining traditional ritual with modern analgesia.

So, although the traditional interpreters I quoted earlier sometimes said pain was necessary for the commandment, many Jewish families who do it today DO use pain relief.

The Haredi are the ones who need this most, outreach and enforcement of pain relief should focus primarily on them.

I'm NOT justifying it - I have stated clearly multiple times on this thread that I strongly disagree with infant circumcision.

Questioning the accuracy of whether these restraint boards are used in UK Brit milahs is NOT the same as condoning the practice.

I googled and some articles say it's used to help keep a newborn still during certain procedures including catheter placement, imaging, etc. So not necessarily a reflection of terrible pain, though there surely is awful pain if no pain relief is used, and this MUST be mandated.

It's questionable whether such a device IS commonly used in Jewish circumcisions.

It seems that in UK ritual circumcision, a trained mohel typically carries out the procedure with the baby held by a family member, and the more common medical techniques (Plastibell, Mogen, Gomco) don’t generally require a restraint board.

Exactly: if only current theology could reflect this.

Are you sure that kind of device is commonly used in Jewish circumcisions?

Rabbi Saadia Gaon considers something to be "complete" if it lacks nothing, but also has nothing that is unneeded. He regards the foreskin as an unneeded organ that God created in man, and so by amputating it, the man is completed.[129] The author of Sefer ha-Chinuch[130] provides three reasons for the practice of circumcision:

To complete the form of man, by removing what he claims to be a redundant organ;
To mark the chosen people, so that their bodies will be different as their souls are. The organ chosen for the mark is the one responsible for the sustenance of the species;
The completion effected by circumcision is not congenital, but left to the man. This implies that as he completes the form of his body, so can he complete the form of his soul.

Now : the ritual of circumcision IS commanded in the Torah.

But I think a strong theological case could be made that the Torah does NOT command the drastic version that happens today. Moreover, evidence shows historic rabbis do seem to have been motivated by things we know now to be untrue (the foreskin is not unnecessary according to modern research)

Theology might be the most hopeful way of changing the practice to be much milder.

Is this used by most Jewish parents who do this, though?

What the hell? I hope this is not commonly used... 😢

The original version in Judaic history was either a ritual nick or cut done by a father to the acroposthion, the part of the foreskin that overhangs the glans penis. This form of genital nicking or cutting, known as simply milah, became adopted among Jews by the Second Temple period and was the predominant form until the second century CE.[19][145][1][147]

More telling info : the mid-2nd century CE, the Tannaim introduced and made mandatory a secondary step of circumcision known as the Periah.[19][145][1][2] Without it circumcision was newly declared to have no spiritual value.[1] This new form removed as much of the inner mucosa as possible, the frenulum and its corresponding delta from the penis, and prevented the movement of shaft skin, in what creates a "low and tight" circumcision.[19][62] It was intended to make it impossible to restore the foreskin.[19][145][1] This is the form practiced among the large majority of Jews today, and, later, became a basis for the routine neonatal circumcisions performed in the United States.[19][145]

That's terrible. It MUST be done in a medical environment with pain relief.

Great point re it not originally being so drastic : From Wiki , TW for circumcision detail :
At the neonatal stage, the inner preputial epithelium is still linked with the surface of the glans.[58] The mitzvah is executed only when this epithelium is either removed, or permanently peeled back to uncover the glans.[59] On medical circumcisions performed by surgeons, the epithelium is removed along with the foreskin,[60] to prevent post operative penile adhesion and its complications.[61] However, on ritual circumcisions performed by a mohel, the epithelium is most commonly peeled off only after the foreskin has been amputated. This procedure is called priah (Hebrew: פריעה), which means 'uncovering'. The main goal of "priah" (also known as "bris periah"), is to remove as much of the inner layer of the foreskin as possible and prevent the movement of the shaft skin, what creates the look and function of what is known as a "low and tight" circumcision.[62]

According to Rabbinic interpretation of traditional Jewish sources,[63] the 'priah' has been performed as part of the Jewish circumcision since the Israelites first inhabited the Land of Israel.[

The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion states that many Hellenistic Jews attempted to restore their foreskins, and that similar action was taken during the Hadrianic persecution, a period in which a prohibition against circumcision was issued. The writers of the dictionary hypothesize that the more severe method practiced today was probably begun in order to prevent the possibility of restoring the foreskin after circumcision, and therefore the rabbis added the requirement of cutting the foreskin in periah.[65]

According to Shaye J. D. Cohen, the Torah only commands milah.[66] David Gollaher has written that the rabbis added the procedure of priah to discourage men from trying to restore their foreskins: "Once established, priah was deemed essential to circumcision; if the mohel failed to cut away enough tissue, the operation was deemed insufficient to comply with God's covenant", and "Depending on the strictness of individual rabbis, boys (or men thought to have been inadequately cut) were subjected to additional operations."[2]

KitWyn, also, re this comment you made :

'As regards Orthodox Jews, they're sufficiently quiet and few in number, to largely keep under the British public radar. We don't read regular news reports on their involvement in child rape & torture gangs, or plans to commit acts of violence/terrorism. So they don't receive the same attention as UK Muslims, despite their beliefs also being typically misogynistic, homophobic and controlling.'

This is unfair. Modern Orthodox (not Haredi who are stricter) vary widely. Some branches allow women rabbis even, some don't but does this automatically make them misogynist? I disagree strongly with women not being allowed to do a particular role but I don't think it means people raised in that tradition necessarily hate women. I would also argue that many Modern Orthodox Jews are not 'controlling'. 'Homophobic' - many Modern Orthodox Jews tend to think gay people should stay celibate but some do argue for full acceptance (honophobia seems to be less loud in more conservative branches than US style evangelicals, eg, though this doesn't mean it's not harmful).

Haredi are very different but I don't think they should be earned as all 'misogynistic, controlling, etc' People raised in that community, esp men, may have very little secular education, know few non Jews, not u Internet much, so rarely see different views. It's not an excuse but it is a very different environment to start from, and very hard to leave often without losing family etc