Rod Liddle thinks Susie Green should be jailed

[ClingFilmApplications]

In today's Sunday Times, Rod Liddle states of Susie Green:
"My own view is that she should be in prison for child abuse and assault."

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-is-beyond-satire-woke-britain-look-out-or-youll-render-me-obsolete-6xff2xvb2

(don't know how to do share tokens, sorry)

I have a very small Twitter profile with few followers and as such, little influence. However, over the past few days four of my tweets have been reported - I presume in an attempt to get me blocked. It came as no surprise to me that these all referred to Ms Green and Mermaids.

While I do not agree with all of Caroline's beliefs, I think her treatment has been appalling. I am therefore delighted when male journalists highlight the current absurd situation where FGM is quite rightly prosecuted, but a woman who openly declares she took her 16 year old child to Thailand for "reassignment surgery" is treated with almost reverence by the police.

I think this is partly due to the training given to police by Mermaids and the sooner it stops the better. In the meantime, as an older woman I unfortunately know my opinion will not carry as much weight as a man's: however, in these circumstances I am pleased some men are putting their heads above the parapet.

Oh, please goddess we see the end of highly paid columnists and a resurgence of data-driven and investigative journalism.

Ah my hopes also alongside a surge in teaching critical thinking and critiquing of online materials.

I wish we could have a definitive view from a lawyer on whether Susie Green committed a crime. If you were to go to a country where, say, cannabis was legal, and you smoked cannabis there, you couldn't be prosecuted in this country. On the other hand, if you took your daughter to a country where FGM was legal, and had FGM performed on her, you could be prosecuted in this country. So is it simply the case that in English law, it has been made specifically illegal to take your daughter out of the country for FGM? But that in other cases, it's OK to do something abroad that would be illegal over here as long as it's legal in the other country?

I've looked into why SG doesn't appear to have been questioned.there appear to he two arguments against it.

One is that it is female genital mutilation. And that they are not female (using these words for clarity on a legal issue, don't delete me!). There does not appear to be a male version.

The other is the exemption for medical purposes. It could be claimed that the surgery was essential for mental health so was allowed.

My personal view is that SG should be prosecuted. Because of the influence she has, in large part because of possibly illegal activities which she now encourages for others, it would be in the public interest.

me too. I enjoy a bit of outrageous rudeness. it's bracing

And me. Far preferable to the po-faced snowflakery of the authoritarian youth.

The other is the exemption for medical purposes. It could be claimed that the surgery was essential for mental health so was allowed.

It seems likely that the professional medical backing for surgery came from US based Dr Norman Spack whose treatment of Sudie Gren's child included cross-sex hormones under 16. This is still contrary to UK NICE guidelines and viewed unethical by GIDS

Interview with Susie Green (CEO Mermaids Charity) October 2018:

'My child wouldn’t be here today if she hadn’t gone from Jack to Jackie': Defiant mum whose harrowing story inspired Anna Friel's transgender drama Butterfly praises show - which critics say is just crude propaganda

(extract)
"At her wits’ end, Susie consulted an educational welfare officer and, aged 14, Jackie left school and continued her education three days a week at a special unit for children with long-term health issues.

Meanwhile, Dr Spack prescribed oestrogen, which promoted breast development and helped to stop Jackie growing too tall. (Today she is a little over 6ft.)

‘Her school life in the specialist unit was much less turbulent,’ recalls Susie ‘but she still hated her body.’

So, in a move that many would find extreme, just before Jackie turned 16, Susie consulted plastic surgeon Dr Suporn in Thailand. ‘I asked him when my daughter would be able to have gender reassignment surgery. I expected him to say 18, but to my delight he said she could have it at 16.’

So, supported by psychological reports and a referral letter from Dr Spack, Jackie was admitted for surgery that transformed her life." (continues)

www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/pregnancy-parenting/my-child-wouldn%E2%80%99t-be-here-today-if-she-hadn%E2%80%99t-gone-from-jack-to-jackie-defiant-mum-whose-harrowing-story-inspired-anna-friels-transgender-drama-butterfly-praises-show-which-critics-say-is-just-crude-propaganda/ar-BBOp5c5

There won't be a journalist alive who isn't all over this now.

Unless journalism is like academia, where the woke are shouting down motions in support of academic freedom at local union meetings like a bunch of fucking hipster turkeys voting for Christmas.

I did not know what is in the Daily Mail link about Susie Green. Having read it, it does make me a bit uncomfortable about some of the things said about her.

Perhaps the problem is Green was faced with what seems to be an extreme and very difficult situation but is now losing sight that her situation was extreme.

because of possibly illegal activities which she now encourages for others' - what illegal activities?

“Don't be silly - Rod has a Y chromosome which renders him safe.”

Delusional. The police are no less likely to prosecute someone just because they happen to be male. Sounds like a chip on your shoulder?

The police are no less likely to prosecute someone just because they happen to be male

They are however more likely to visit women to talk to them about not commiting a crime.

what illegal activities

Medical pathways for children.

what illegal activities?

Referring children to unlicensed clinics run by convicted criminals (see the Helen Webberley case). Green has denied that Mermaids do this, in a submission to the lottery during the grant review, but Mermaids' website still promotes Webberley's services (in spite of being recommended not to by the lottery fund).

Also Webberley has said that yes she did have children referred from Mermaids.

Delusional. The police are no less likely to prosecute someone just because they happen to be male.

Actually not delusion at all, but evidenced truth. Thus utter outrage at the very real, happening, unequal treatment of women under the law.

Did you see Julia Long being dragged out of a meeting by seven police for the crime of sitting quietly in a public place holding opinions (unexpressed at that event) that SG among others did not agree with? And contrast it with the balaclavaed TRAs, mostly male, refusing women entry to a building to a meeting, threatening them, and the police standing around saying their hands were tied unless a crime was actually committed?

“They are however more likely to visit women to talk to them about not commiting a crime.”

Or, perhaps women who are TRAs are more likely to report other women for saying things that offend them? Police don’t not investigate because the alleged perpetrator is male.

Police don’t not investigate because the alleged perpetrator is male

See now you have twisted this haven't you.
Nobody has said this.

"My personal view is that SG should be prosecuted."

that would be an interesting petition to start....

Gosh. FWR is getting awfully popular this weekend! So many identicalnew perspectives being offered!

Welcome, newbies!

" Green was faced with what seems to be an extreme and very difficult situation but is now losing sight that her situation was extreme."

I have seen other parents do this in relation to far less controversial issues (e.g. choices they make about helping their autistic child which are followed by them proseltising for everyone else to make that same choice) and think this what has happened.

I can appreciate SG might have thought she had no other option than to do what she did-that I can understand. But the propaganda & dangerous ideology she is now complicit in peddling to schoolchildren, is unacceptable. Mermaids should not receive public funding or government grants.The fact innocent potentially gay children now believe they are trans, is just horrific.

“See now you have twisted this haven't you.
Nobody has said this.”

Have I? Well let me try and put it a different way. I think that if the man that wrote the times article isn’t visited by the police it will be because nobody reports it, not because he has a dick. I think it is unlikely he will be reported as he has the knowledge, the means and a huge platform to defend himself with.

it is unlikely he will be reported as he has the knowledge, the means and a huge platform to defend himself with.

In short he has power.

But he might be reported if he was considered a nobody without power?

if the man that wrote the times article isn’t visited by the police it will be because nobody reports it, not because he has a dick.

If the man who wrote The Times article isn’t visited by the police it will be because Susie Green hasn't reported him. That will be because she knows that taking on The Times could go very badly for her and Mermaids.

If you're after grinding your axe why don't you just make clear what's on your mind? This coded stuff is irritating.

I don't have a lot of time for Liddle in general either, but he's an effective communicator.

One of the things I've found so tedious about this debate is when people say "well x person agrees and they're right wing / sexist / have unpleasant views on minorities ergo your argument must be right wing etc" . They never say "well, Linda Bellos agrees and she's a feminist, left wing woc, ergo... etc". Owen Jones, of course, wheeled it out a while back (I think based on something else Liddle had said). It says pointed out in robust terms that he was on same side as David Challenor, Karen White, and many other really nasty TRAs. I think he just blocked as usual.

I saw this in 2 referenda and it was lazy then and remains so. It's also symptomatic of a really autocratic strain in universities and the "progressive" movement in general where there is one "correct" version and opinion on any topic which everyone on "right side of history" believes in absolutely and identically. I suppose social media bubbles have a lot to answer for but these people aren't learning to think!

OrderOrder

You have said it yourself, before backtracking and changing what you were arguing about. TRA's are reporting women because they are women.

TRAs are more likely to report other women
^ There Sun 24-Mar-19 15:52:28

So we all agree, women are targeted.

Susie green aknowledges that the treatment pathways she promotes cause infertility, but say that "it's not a big deal and has no impact on mental health."
that is criminal