We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

[SingleSexSpacesInSchools]

I do like someone who speaks their mind, clearly.

https://www.instagram.com/p/DUiPrqDYHD/

Restore - Rupert Lowe

"Important news. The sick puberty blocking trial has been stopped, for now.

A real win for everyone who has campaigned against it.

Our petition sent a strong message, but it is definitely not enough.

Restore Britain is clear here. We will prosecute any medical professional or anyone in ANY position of authority who has deliberately mutilated a young child in the name of gender ideology.

That will apply retrospectively.

We must keep this filth away from young children. We are sending a message that will hopefully make them think twice now.

Well done to all involved who have fought this - particularly James Esses and Rosie Duffield.

Heroes.

A good win. But the fight has just begun."

(FWIW Rupert says plenty of things I agree with, so does Zack , I hold a spectrum of views and I refuse to get involved in the polarising omnicause attitude both "sides" appear to have)

I am however, for reasons that may be clear if you have followed my exploits, not to mention the ones I have not yet shared, a single cause voter. ... not that they're going to win in Brighton...

Rupert Lowe is odious. But does he really want to break with centuries of precedent and have the criminal law apply retroactively? I dread to think what that might end up meaning if he and his cronies landed anywhere near power. Is the single cause really worth all that?

You may think he is odious - and yet this is the clearest statement in support of the poor children who have beens lead astray by our medical establishment.

I am willing to hold my nose.

if it was all legal when it happened then what grounds is there ?

Was it legal though? I don't think it was if the child didn't have the capacity to consent. I think there's been a lot of 'here sign this statement saying you agree' without the child / parents really understanding. It's on film in the case of Jazz Jennings. They really thought the doctors knew best and weren't experimenting.

I think he's helping to shine a light on all the dark corners of this pernicious ideology. It's easy to dismiss what he says with the usual ominicause racists, racists, racists or in this case bigot, bigot, bigot, but that tactic isn't working anymore.

Regardless of his 'perceived' political position, the one's who would prefer it if everyone would shut up with they're own opinions and just listen to what they're being told, can't shout down everyone now.

RL's value is he is an outspoken pain in the neck of the wannabe totalitarians, it's a bit of a Trumpian statement though, RL's going to have to do a lot better than just copycat the USA.

Honestly I think the retrospective part is the least interesting and I don't know if it could be, what I like about it most is the absolute unequivocal nature of the statement.

Most legal statements you have to agree to in software are not worth the paper they are written for just the same reasons. if you can't understand it, you can't be asked to agree.

but then legally they would argue that you dont click agree without reading it

So, even if this is unworkable for legal and political reasons, it’s a grand statement to make.
People do seem to fall for grand statements- Brexit etc- so maybe people will think twice when they are considering facilitating the mutilation of children.

Though I think in the uk now only adults have reassignment surgery.

Until recently safeguarding children from harm was an accepted priority for society. Until recently, nobody argued that children could consent to future brain / body impairment or being rendered sterile from experimental drugs in pursuit of the impossible "sex change".

Somehow we've reached a position where safeguarding children from all this is now bigotry with activists arguing, and useful idiots agreeing, that of course children or their parents and young people can give informed consent to future sterility, anorgasmia, incontinence, limited brain development and other serious medical complications.

Many landlords make renters sign contracts with certain clauses in them that won't be held up in a court of law. People still sign because they want a roof over their heads rather than argue. I suspect this is similar.

I highly doubt it would ever be applied retrospectively but I do like the extremely clear warning he is giving. Medics beware.

They might argue it, but they would be unlikely to win that argument in the case of software, because the terms are technical, one sided, and presented in a way that makes it impractical for the users they are targeting to become fully informed.

Even less likely to win in the case where the person who signed is relying on the expert opinion of the person who they are contracting with.

You won't be holding anything but pots and pans if fascists like him get any power, back to the kitchen with you.

Rhetoric is easy

If they were following best practices then they should be free from prosecution surely

? but threatening otherwise - saying let’s. Change something and then prosecute those who didn’t obey the new guidelines before they existed

I mean generalise that - change the speed limit in a road and charge everyone because they went at the old speed limit sometime in the past ? Great tax spinner

Please tell
me what part of their position is fascistic?

I applaud this statement and feel that many agree - people have been silenced and its time people were allowed to say what they think without being accused of prejudice

But gender ideology hasn't followed best practice in medicine - such as for example requiring a risk / benefit analysis of a drug before using it, requiring evidence of benefit outweighing harm, requiring follow up and analysis of follow up data to refine the risk benefit analysis. There has never been this evidence for gender 'care' in children.

So many doctors have come out and said they can't believe how far this has deviated from best practice elsewhere.

Interesting assumption ;-)

Quite a huge one if they knew more about me tbh.

also a bit lazy tbh.

Sorry but this is just hot air.

It's totally legally unworkable.

Parental consent has to endure in medicine because a lot of medical interventions that kids genuinely need to be well, or even to stay alive, are gruelling & painful. Off-label drug use isn't abnormal either, far from it, when economic liberalism decreed that drug research should be the purview of drug companies & the State shouldn't bother its head about such things, we rather lost any ability to feign amazement that they only bother to fund the headline use case trials. Lowe's just telling us that he understands neither law nor medicine, which will come as a surprise to nobody who's followed his political career. He does though, enjoy bloviating.

There's never going to be a reckoning for the gender cranks & their useful idiots, just as there was no reckoning for lobotomy, the Tuskegee Study, the Infected Blood Scandal, the radium fad, or any other of medicine's many excursions into dangerous foolhardiness. The best one can hope for is a Statutory Inquiry & adequate govt support for survivors - but Lowe doesn't at all like the taxes that such measures require either.

But the parents didn't really give proper consent either. They didn't understand the level of experimentation involved. As I say, on film in the case of Jazz Jennings.

Define "young child".

From the General Medical Councils own website.

We use the term ‘children’ to refer to younger children who do not have the maturity and understanding to make important decisions for themselves.

Young or not, they are still children who don't have the ability to give true consent.