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...

Sounds credible.

Wonderfully, Bronze Age Pervert himself weighs in on Restore: Bronze Age Pervert on X: "A big worrying aspect of Restore UK is how stupid the people leading it are. Here is an article by @cfdownes_ in which he lies about having read Rousseau; this is just bizarre misreading. Like coming from someone who’s never read a page and just repeat conservative boilerplate https://t.co/j0X3fuL70b" / X

Meanwhile, I've been skimming a debate that Dan Wootton (who seems to be one of the big Restore platforms these days) was just moderating between Lowe's deputy Charlie Downes (a recent convert to Catholicism, I believe) and a couple of Islamists. It is... interesting. I'm paraphrasing here but I think I have the gist.

*

Downes: So yeah I really respect conservative Islam and I respect you guys and I think we need something like conservative Islam in Britain but obvs Christian because this is Britain and you guys shouldn't be here

*

Islamist: So in Islam we have the death penalty for rapists and murderers

Downes: Based dude, we need that kind of thing but for white Brits

*
Downes: So let me tell you about the Jews

Wootton: No let's get off that subject VERY QUICKLY

I think we could have avoided some grief if someone had done a Father Ted type intervention like when Ted explains to Dougal the difference between small and far away.

"This is Sir Oswald Mosley... and this is Freddie Mercury."

Now you've gone & frightened the dog! 😂
I snorted so loudly at that that the poor mite woke up all of a fluster.

'Young children' are not getting gender affirming surgery, you wallies!

It can only be carried out on over 18s on the NHS, with top surgery sometimes being allowed privately with assessment aged 16 (Scotland) or 17 (England).

For top surgery, a 'young child' doesn't have breast tissue to remove, do they? Bloody hell....

I had not expected to ever find my bosom returning an echo to BAP but he's right, that's a rum notion of Rousseau.
What's the odds that Downes has "converted" via some Sedevacantist loon or other? I'm only surprised he hasn't joined the Orthobros & anyway, this is Ingerlund, we have an Established Church of our very own, no need to go splashing about in the Tiber.

Edited for capitalisation

Well if it never happened nobody will be going to jail. So all is fine.

IMHO, anyone who imagines that any teenager is mature enough to opt for an elective bilateral mastectomy, in any jurisdiction, has thoroughly outed themselves as the wally in any discussion.

There's a bunch of them - Tomlinson certainly, and I think Pitt - who make a big deal out of being Catholic, but in an incredibly strange way. They seem to be totally illiterate in their religion. They never talk about Christ's sacrifice redeeming the world, or the virtues, or other Catholic theological or ethical themes. It's all about order and tradition and a system of government where you don't have to think for yourself because there's an external moral code. They really do seem to conceive Catholicism as "Islam but for white people".

They also have a massive boner for Cromwell, which I would say is very odd for Catholics, fits into their whole political ideology being "muh strong man".

But it's not fine because it's a lie that is used to impugn actual human beings, and causes fuckwits to do things like threatening hospitals and their staff with violence for a thing that is not happening.

I'm on a GK Chesterton jag ATM so my best response to that is to take the dog for a nice relaxing stroll round the block while I try not to grind another layer of enamel off my teeth.

Who is threatening hospitals and their staff?

A government cannot and should not make an act that was previously not a crime, retrospectively criminal. It is a fundamental principle that underpins the criminal justice system. If waived here (not that it would be) it means that any government could suddenly decide that any, even minor, act is now criminal and anyone who “committed” it when it was not illegal, can be prosecuted.

It would not work. It has even been tested in respect of sentencing - crimes which are prosecuted years after the event can only be sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines in place at the time, even if those guidelines are now more or less lenient. This has been challenged and has failed because it would breach fundamental principles of justice.

Rupert Lowe and his party either do not know this, which means they are incompetent and ignorant, or do know this and lying about it to attract gullible people. Either demonstrates they are unfit to hold office.

Or the acts they’re talking about have actually been illegal all along, but everyone’s been looking the other way in order to be kind or whatever.

Except they were not. And he specifically refers to applying these provisions retrospectively. So what are you talking about?

Were they not? How do you know?

This cannot be a serious question. You think doctors were routinely carrying out operations which were criminal offences? And people knew they were illegal but allowed them to happen and then turned a blind eye to prosecuting them? Ridiculous.

Another curious thing is that, for all the talk of Restore having momentum, if you look closely it's already got a Joe Biden/Weekend At Bernie's air to it.

After the launch announcement Lowe did two interviews, a softball one with Carl Benjamin where Carl spent an hour brown-nosing Lowe and telling him he was the greatest Englishman since the Duke of Wellington; and one with Lowe's friend David Starkey, which they must have expected to be softball but turned into an irritable Starkey telling Lowe to grow up and put the country ahead of his personal grudges.

Since then he's been almost invisible, except for SM content that he obviously isn't writing himself. It's almost as if his team have decided that, if he were allowed out into the wild to answer questions, the reality of Lowe would disrupt this exciting online environment they've created full of memes depicting Lowe as a Caesar figure.

It's Downes who's been doing all the media, and not very well, because even if I try to be charitable to Downes, it's painfully obvious he's 25 and doesn't know anything about government or law or policy. The other young men on the team might be even lower quality.

These stentorian tweets about RETROSPECTIVE PROSECUTIONS are the kind of slop I'd expect, and I take them as seriously as I take Lowe's promise of private prosecutions arising from his fake "inquiry" into grooming gangs.

No, but I think it’s an offence to “unlawfully and maliciously administer to or cause to be administered to or taken by any other person any poison or other destructive or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, or so as thereby to inflict upon such person any grievous bodily harm”, and it’s not clear to me why administering puberty blockers in order to prevent puberty from taking its natural course shouldn’t fall within that.

Because legally prescribing them wouldn't come under the umbrella of "unlawful" or "malicious".

Because they would not be classed as a "poison or noxious substance" in this instance.

Because you would have to prove intent by a medical professional to endanger life or inflict actual bodily harm on the patient.

Let's not be silly. We know puberty blockers are bad and it's great that they're not longer given to under 18s.

That doesn't mean doctors who prescribed them were maliciously poisoning patients deliberately to cause harm, and that would never fly in a court.

Aren’t we at risk of collectively overlooking the obvious though, just because there was a group we weren’t paying attention to who went off the rails but had good PR? eg If you administer a substance which retards normal sexual development, why isn’t that ‘bodily harm’?

Because negative side effects are sometimes the price that is paid for what is deemed to be the best possible course of action.

There are deleterious effects on the body of many medicines or treatments. Chemotherapy, to take just one well-known example, can cause infertility and significant organ damage.

If it is still felt that those pathways are in the best interests of the patients then that in no way means the practitioners prescribing them are guilty of maliciously or unlawfully poisoning someone with the intent to cause bodily harm.

This includes puberty blockers. Even though we now know they should not have been prescribed, that does not mean the doctors who did describe them did so maliciously, illegally, or with the intent to cause harm to their patients.

That would be the defence, yes. But what if all that were true and the administration were not and could not have been the best course of action? It wouldn’t work as a defence against charges of prescribing cyanide.

What negative side effects?

The bad effects are the sterilisation and castration which is exactly what the drugs do. It isn't a 'side' effect.

No way am I 'holding my nose' to vote for any of these self-serving, regressionist, extremist racist arseholes.

Dear god I wish the far right would stop co-opting feminism to push their own agenda.