Good Morning, Missouri! Part 2

Update 373

Here is Part 2, dear readers.

Sticking with Three Billboards, the clip below is the brilliant opening scene. Sorry, I have featured this before but I think it is worth the repeat 😎

Thanks as ever to two wonderful readers for suggesting pieces.

Sascha Bailey

Excellent interview by Patrick Christy on GB News with Sascha Bailey, son of the famous photographer, David Bailey. Sascha was working on ‘transitioning’ but thankfully pulled back from the brink.

Cross Sex Hormones Case

Report by Transgender Trend of an extremely disappointing court judgment. I only hope this gets appealed.

I reported on the previous case that involved Gender GP here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/down-and-out-in-beverly-hills-part?utm_source=publication-search

In that case the father had to rely on an Australian endocrinologist who did an excellent job and whose evidence clearly was very important in the final judgment. In this case an expert could not be found (!!??) and this equally clearly had a very detrimental impact on the judgment as acknowledged by the judge. Indeed the judge said she had never come across a case before where an expert was required but they couldn’t find one!

I note that Sarah Phillimore was counsel for the applicant. Bad luck, Sarah.

Court refuses to treat provision of cross-sex hormones to child over 16 as an exceptional case (15 May)

[Note: the judge referred to Child Q as ‘he’ throughout. We refer to Child Q as a girl for clarity of understanding].

The second recent case concerning a teenage girl’s access to cross-sex hormones concluded in the High court on April 8th. In both cases, the court rejected the more cautious parent’s application that medical transition should be treated as an ‘exceptional case’ requiring continued court oversight if private treatment was sought. The result is that in both cases the child will be assessed and possibly prescribed cross-sex hormones at the private clinic Gender Plus.

In this second case the judgment was not in favour of the more cautious parent (the mother) but agreed with the father that his now 16 year-old daughter (Child Q) can access testosterone if this is deemed the appropriate treatment and she is judged to have capacity after assessment at Gender Plus.  

The mother originally made an application for a prohibited steps order (PSO) in 2022, asking the court to prevent the father from arranging for Child Q to access hormones. This was agreed up to the age of 16 and the mother was seeking to extend the PSO until age 18.

The mother did agree to Child Q joining the waiting list for NHS treatment, but not to accessing treatment privately. At that time there was no private clinic in England except Gender GP, which Child Q, with the support of the father, wished to pursue. In both court cases a judgment has been made that Gender GP is not safe. The Guardian of Child Q gave evidence in this case:

“Given the Guardian’s evidence that a referral to an offshore body such as Gender GP would not be safe for Q, I consider it right to ask the father to give the court an undertaking that he will not fund or facilitate it whilst he is a minor.”

From information in the judgment, there are some issues worthy of note in the background to this case. Child Q does not have a background of serious mental health issues as Child J did in the previous case, but does fit the profile of the adolescent-onset group described in the Cass Review in other ways: an acrimonious family break-up as a child; mild autistic traits; lesbian.

“In October 2022, and at his mother’s request, Child Q agreed to undergo an autism assessment which concluded that he had some limited traits of the condition. In November 2022 the local authority conducted a single assessment which noted that Q had suffered disruption and trauma because of parental acrimony and gender dysphoria.”

The father’s parenting style is described as “permissive and indulgent, characterised by a relaxed and responsive approach towards Q, sometimes overly accepting and deferring to his wishes.”

“This can be seen in the father’s approach in providing Q with a breast binder at 12 or 13 years of age, supporting his wish to social transition at school when she wanted (the mother says without consulting her) and stating that Q’s wishes as to whether or not he contacts his mother or shares information with her should be followed.”

The mother was described as having “appropriately balanced authoritative and permissive styles of parenting, moderate in both responsiveness and demand.”

The result is that Child Q is “closely aligned with his father and rejecting of his mother.”

This is hardly surprising. It is not uncommon for different parenting styles to cause friction between parents, which can be exacerbated when parents separate. The permissive parent can become more popular with a teenager for obvious reasons and this can sometimes be more exaggerated when it’s a dad and a daughter.  

“Q perceives that the mother is placing barriers in the way of the person that he wishes to be. The mother refers to him by his original, female name and misgenders him. During the course of these proceedings, Q’s relationship with his mother has deteriorated so that there is now very little contact between them.”    

Child Q is now living most of the time with her father, stepmother and her stepmother’s daughter. Child Q is also in a relationship with the stepmother’s daughter, who also identifies as a boy.

These are quite unique circumstances. Child Q lives in an affirmation bubble, her beliefs reinforced as truth both at school and at home with two adults who clearly do not question that the two lesbian girls under their care are really boys, in a relationship built on an identity both girls share and is dependent on validation from the other. There is no chink open for uncertainty to intrude here.

Given these circumstances it is not surprising that Child Q is so certain that her identity is fixed and will not change and so confident of her rights and the treatment pathway she has been led to believe she needs. Neither is it surprising that Child Q is not open to any exploration or challenge to her beliefs.

“Child Q refused to agree to his medical records being disclosed.  A Consultant Psychiatrist was identified, but Q refused to be assessed by him.  He was reluctant at the start to be asked to engage in an assessment which was not part of an assessment/treatment pathway, and he refused altogether after finding an article online by the expert which led him to believe he could be sceptical about treatment for young people.” 

Autistic traits in themselves may exacerbate a fixed certainty in thinking, as well as the urge to research all evidence to support a need to be right. The ability to assert your case based on evidence-gathering from the internet and social media is not necessarily indication of maturity if a child is resisting any views counter to their beliefs. Social media is a platform where adolescents will find only pro-trans ideology, met with cries of ‘transphobia’ whenever challenged; it is not a place that will help a teenager understand a mother’s concerns. It seems naïve in the extreme to trust in a teenage girl’s ability to think critically about information she is accessing that will only bolster her conviction that she is right and her mother is wrong.

“The Guardian said that Q is very mature for his age, and that he is articulate and knowledgeable about all the issues, having acquainted himself widely with information available on the internet, from reliable websites such as the NHS but also from social media sites, including Reddit.”

From the facts laid out in the judgment it does not seem that there is any adult in this child’s life who is brave enough to challenge her, except for her mother – who has paid a high price for doing so. This scenario will be familiar to so many parents. With other risky behaviours in adolescence, at least parents can depend on other adults and society in general to support them in their concerns about decisions their teenagers are making.

The subject of ‘trans’ seems to be exempt; as if on this issue alone children know best. A child’s view that a parent is being unfairly obstructive will be reinforced on social media, at school, among peers and on popular broadcast media – and in this case the father and stepmother are doing nothing to provide an alternative view.

The judge states:

“I know that Q believes that his mother has lied, or that she is motivated by wider political matters, but the fact that he holds these views does not mean that they are objectively correct. If he is being allowed or encouraged to believe his mother is behaving in this way then that is a great pity. The mother has, with some difficulty, agreed that he could change his name. She accepted the fact of his social transition even though she did not think that should happen (and the Cass Review raises questions about this). The price she has paid for fighting for what she considers to be best for her child is to lose her relationship with him.”

The judgment also states that Child Q “is aware of the law and this creates its own expectations.” Child Q, along with schools and other institutions, will have learned about the ‘law’ through groups like Stonewall and Mermaids. She will have learned misinformation such as having the right to be ‘affirmed’ as a boy and allowed to use boys’ facilities. And she will have learned that medical ‘gender-affirming care’ is also a right, only denied by transphobes and bigots.

The judge herself expresses some scepticism about Child Q’s ability to weigh the evidence:

“I am not sure I share the Guardian’s confidence that Q is able to consider all the evidence about gender dysphoria and the treatment available in a balanced and unbiased way (something that is beyond many adults).” 

The judge also highlights the extent of the ‘toxicity’ of the debate in the fact that, as in the Child J case, no UK endocrinologists were willing to provide expert evidence:

‘The toxicity of the debate has very much affected the parties in this case on a private level. It has also affected the court in that it has not been possible to obtain any independent medical evidence. Whilst there is a paucity of experts in some disciplines (radiologists and pathologists particularly come to mind) I have never encountered a case where there was simply no-one willing to provide such evidence for the court.’

What is not stated is the fact that it is the fear of the consequences of questioning ‘gender affirming care’ that is likely to have prevented endocrinologists from providing evidence. The question is, why were those who have already been providing this medical treatment to children unwilling to stand up and be cross-examined in court?

We are back to the issue central to the Keira Bell judicial review: the capacity of minors to consent to an experimental medical pathway, this time specifically in the case of children over the age of 16. The judgment hinges on Section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 which provides that:

“The consent of a minor who has attained the age of sixteen years to any surgical, medical or dental treatment which, in the absence of consent, would constitute a trespass to his person, shall be as effective as it would be if he were of full age and where a minor has by virtue of this section given an effective consent to any treatment it shall not be necessary to obtain any consent for it from his parent or guardian”.

It raises the question of whether legislation designed in 1969, when the advent of ‘sex change’ medical procedures for minors could not possibly have been foreseen, is adequate to protect children today: the issue is so far removed from the issue of consent for contraception.

The Cass Review final report makes the point that the competency/capacity of a child to consent to medical treatments is only part of the process of decision making about treatment options. In Dr Cass’s meeting with the Scottish parliament she said:

“It is hard to make a legal distinction between a 16 and an 18 year-old in terms of capacity. When I thought about consent, the challenge is not so much about capacity but the other elements of it, which is the clinical judgments to offer a treatment which as you know, we all bear responsibility for treatments we offer and knowing whether that is the right treatment for that individual, and secondly the information we give to inform consent about the risks and benefits which again is weak. So legal cases have obviously focused on competence and capacity but those are the other challenges, those are the two pillars of knowing whether we’re giving the right treatment to the right people.”

The Cass Review final report cites the General Medical Council (GMC) guidance (2020) that a medical professional must be satisfied “that in their reasonable professional judgement, a medical procedure or treatment is suitable and useful to reach a specific therapeutic goal with a certain probability” (16.3) and that “the clinician is responsible for recommending and providing effective treatments based on the best available evidence.” (16.4).

However, “the evidence for the indicated uses of puberty blockers and masculinising/feminising hormones in adolescents are unproven and benefits/harms are unknown” (16.14) and “As set out in the section on brain development, maturation continues into a person’s mid-20s, and through this period gender and sexual identity may continue to evolve, along with sexual experience” (16.10).

“For these reasons, many clinicians who the Review has spoken to nationally and internationally have stated that they are unable to reliably predict which children/young people will transition successfully and which might regret or detransition at a later date.” (16.11)

NHS England has committed to implementing the recommendations of the Cass Review and will review the policy on cross-sex hormones (CSH) for under-18’s, and include CSH in the research programme to evaluate outcomes. The Cass Review recommends ‘extreme caution’ in the provision of CSH to under 18’s:

“The option to provide masculinising/feminising hormones from age 16 is available, but the Review would recommend extreme caution. There should be a clear clinical rationale for providing hormones at this stage rather than waiting until an individual reaches 18.” (Recommendation 8)

The new NHSE gender hubs will follow a thorough assessment and treatment framework, including screening for neurodevelopmental conditions including autism, a tiered approach, standard evidence-based psychological and psychopharmacological treatment approaches to support the management of associated distress and cooccurring conditions, and individualised care plans. Every case considered for medical treatment will be discussed by a national Multi Disciplinary Team (MDT).

The private clinic Gender Plus cannot possibly provide the level of care deemed necessary by Cass. The ex-Tavistock clinicians working there are those who were committed to ‘gender affirming care’ and clinical director Aiden Kelly has already accused the Cass Review of showing “an unjustified level of caution.”

“We’re in a far worse position than we were four years ago,” he said. “The Cass review and NHS England’s policy updates, and the kind of measures and decisions they’ve made in terms of what to do with services, how to set up services – or not, as the case may be – means we’re in a far worse position.”

Dr Cass, in her meeting with the Scottish parliament, expressed her concerns that private clinics will not be meeting the necessary standards of care:

“I have really deep concerns about private provision, de facto based on the recommendations we have made, that will not be meeting this standard, and I feel that that does put young people at considerable risk to not have the level of assessment that we’re describing.”

The two post-Cass court cases leave us with some questions. It is clear that the more cautious parent in cases like this will be likely to fail in their attempt to safeguard their child through the courts, despite being more aligned with the cautious approach recommended by Cass and implemented by NHS England. The parent likely to succeed on the other hand is the one supportive of the gender affirmative approach now rejected as unsafe.

The fact that Gender Plus was registered by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) gives it respectability despite the fact it is likely to continue with the level of assessment and treatment that failed children at the Tavistock GIDS. Sue Evans is challenging the CQC on this decision and this is why it’s such an important case for parents. In terms of private clinics, judging Gender GP alone as unsafe sets an extremely low bar.

The two court cases raise again the issue central to the successful appeal by the Tavistock to the Keira Bell JR: the judgment that medical decisions were not for the courts but the medical profession to decide. But what if both the clinicians and the regulators are captured by a non-scientific ideology? The medical profession has failed to safeguard children from harm in this regard. NHS England may have changed now, but there is no sign that ideology does not prevail in private provision, as well as within the NHS.

The result of this latest case is that an adolescent girl is left with no protection. Parents with reasonable and wholly justifiable concerns about experimental medical interventions with serious risks and irreversible effects are left unable to safeguard their own child once they turn 16. The law did not see this coming but the Cass Report leaves us in no doubt that this area of medical practice is like no other. It is an ‘exceptional case,’ is it not time the law recognised that?

https://www.transgendertrend.com/court-provision-cross-sex-hormones-child-over-16-exceptional-case/

WPATH

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) are still up to their old tricks. Thanks to Lisa Selin Davis on a substack called Broadview for this excellent piece:

WPATH Gets Caught

A damning email reveals what they tried to hide

MAY 16, 2024

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health is an advocacy group comprised of both activists and clinicians, who appointed themselves world experts and created documents to outline what they consider proper medical and mental health treatment for people who transition. They call these Standards of Care. Many in the gender medicine biz consider these the North Star of guidance.

“We Follow WPATH Standards of Care,” boasts DukeHealth’s Gender Care for Children and Adolescents. Same for University of Washington. A California community health company, too.

Famously, or infamously, their most recent version, SOC8, included a chapter on eunuch gender identity, but cut out a chapter on ethics, and removed almost all age restrictions for surgeries.

It also included this paragraph:

‘Despite the slowly growing body of evidence supporting the effectiveness of early medical intervention, the number of studies is still low, and there are few outcome studies that follow youth into adulthood. Therefore, a systematic review regarding outcomes of treatment in adolescents is not possible.’

Instead of including a systematic review, SOC8 outlined a few of those low number of studies, and said they showed that gender-affirming care was beneficial.

But a document released this week, as part of an ongoing legal case, shows that statement is false. In fact, WPATH had commissioned evidence-based medicine experts from Johns Hopkins to conduct a systematic review. As with all the other such reviews, this one found that there is “little to no evidence about children and adolescents.” That is, there were studies they could look at and that might claim good outcomes (or bad), but because of the studies’ designs or other limitations, they couldn’t be relied on as evidence.

These emails, between Johns Hopkins and the HHS’s Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, indicate that WPATH prevented the publication of the review.

As for the studies that WPATH included in SOC8, the Cass Review—the recent report commissioned by NHS England to evaluate youth gender medicine—noted that “authors cite some of the studies that were already deemed as low quality, with short follow-up periods and variable outcomes, as well as a selected account of detransition rates.”

WPATH 8 concludes in its statement on the use of gender-affirming medical treatment that: “The evolving evidence has shown a clinical benefit for transgender youth who receive their gender-affirming treatments in multidisciplinary gender clinics (de Vries et al..,2014; Kuper et al.., 2020; Tollit et al., 2019)”.

•De Vries et al. (2014) is the original study of the Dutch protocol sample, which has marked differences to the population being treated currently, and as discussed had much stricter criteria for treatment.

•Kuper et al. (2020) is a study with a one year follow up that showed very modest change. It fell into the group rated by the University of York research team as too low quality to be included in their synthesis of evidence on masculinising/feminising hormones (Taylor et al: M/F hormones).

•Tollit et al. (2019) is a study protocol and does not include any results.

and:

“WPATH 8 overstates the strength of the evidence in making these recommendations.”

The only reliable guidelines Cass could find came from Sweden and Finland, where they implemented high bars to entry for youth gender medicine, with long-term evaluation and long-term follow-up. Their strict protocol came after—wouldn’t you know it—a systematic evidence review.

Will the AAP finally conduct the review that it promised? Will that make a difference? Will WPATH release the Johns Hopkins review? Will any of these medical associations shift gears?

We’ll have to engage in some watchful waiting to find out.

https://open.substack.com/pub/lisaselindavis/p/wpath-gets-caught?r=7ogxh&utm_medium=ios

Wyoming Sorority

Mead Gruver in The Independent ( Dispute over transgender woman admitted to Wyoming sorority to be argued before appeal judges 14 May) reports:

© ASSOCIATED PRESS

A U.S. appeals court in Denver is set to hear arguments Tuesday in a lawsuit brought by six members of a University of Wyoming sorority who are challenging the admission of a transgender woman into their local chapter.

A judge in Wyoming threw out the lawsuit last year, ruling that he could not override how the private, voluntary organization defined a woman and order that she not belong.

The case at Wyoming’s only four-year public university has drawn widespread attention as transgender people fight for more acceptance in schools, athletics, workplaces and elsewhere, while others push back.

In their lawsuit, six members of the Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority chapter challenge Artemis Langford’s admission by casting doubt on whether sorority rules allowed a transgender woman.

The lawsuit and appeal describe in detail how Langford's presence made the women feel uncomfortable in the sorority house in Laramie, Wyoming, yet sorority leaders overrode their concerns after a vote by the local chapter members to admit Langford.

The full article is here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/dispute-over-transgender-woman-admitted-to-wyoming-sorority-to-be-argued-before-appeal-judges/ar-BB1mlkMG?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=e06c52559e8b437a9b55200f78e2a969&ei=21

Moms For Liberty

I can’t believe I am quoting Pink News 😂

A California county will pay $70,000 (£55,300) in damages to settle a lawsuit filed by Moms for Liberty and other women’s groups, after a librarian shut down their women’s sport forum for misgendering trans athletes. 

Yolo County has agreed to pay the damages and lawyers’ fees. As part of the settlement, it will also revise its library policy to ensure staff “shall not interfere with presentations or other speech by individuals or groups that have reserved meeting rooms, based on the content of such speech”. 

Well done, Moms for Liberty!

The full article is here:

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/moms-for-liberty-to-be-paid-damages-after-library-event-shut-down-over-misgendering/ar-BB1mw7rR?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=4b325743e8a54bf8bac05cd4a8c7e28c&ei=37

Guidance on single sex services

See Sex Matters campaign here:

https://sex-matters.org/take-action/submit-evidence-of-bad-guidance/

Scottish Greens - bringing misogyny to new heights!!

Looks like a good legal challenge for the expelled members as far as I can make out!

Take me to your leader: Lorna Slater and Patrick Harvie, co-leaders of the Greens | Alamy

Kirsteen Paterson in The Holyrood newsletter ( Scottish Greens expel gender rebels deemed ‘threat’ to trans members 16 May) reports:

Rebel members have been kicked out of the Scottish Green Party for declaring that “sex is a biological reality”.

Signatories to the Scottish Green Declaration for Women’s Sex-Based Rights were accused of making the party less safe for trans and non-binary members in an official complaint.

Now several members have been expelled with immediate effect by the ruling Conduct and Complaints Committee (CCC).

They include long-standing activists who have spent decades campaigning for Green politics.

In documents seen by Holyrood, a total of 13 Scottish Green Party members were accused of breaching its code of conduct by signing the declaration, which was published online in November last year.

The eight-point statement stated that “sex is a biological reality”, asserted that women have a right to maintain the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act, said lesbians are same-sex attracted and declared that “women and girls have the right to discuss policies which affect them without being abused, harassed or intimidated”.

It stated: “We know that globally women, as a sex, are disproportionately affected by climate change and environmental degradation, and that their empowerment is essential to our work as environmentalists.”

The declaration was signed by current and former Scottish Green Party members and supporters.

A total of 13 activists who put their names to it, including office bearers and other persons “of seniority”, were reported to the CCC, triggering a disciplinary investigation.

Complainants, including the then-co-convenors of LGBTQI+ group the Rainbow Greens and a co-convenor of its Women’s Network, said the signatories had failed to “maintain political discipline” and broken rules that prohibit the undermining of party policy, bullying, “behaviours that constitute prejudice based on sexual orientation or gender identity” and “behaviours that constitute a threat to others”.

Now officials of the party, which since 2018 has had a rule which states that “trans-exclusionary individuals of any kind are not welcome as members”, have issued letters of expulsion.

All of the group have been expelled.

One of those to have his membership cancelled is David Jardine, who first became involved with the Greens in 1983. The 72-year-old, who rejects allegations of transphobia, said: “It’s quite clear that the party didn’t read the declaration very carefully or closely. All that it did was assert the right of women to advocate for a series of eight beliefs that they had. It wasn’t a demand that the party overturn policy, merely that people be allowed to speak without being harassed and pressurised.

“Some of the women who signed the declaration did so anonymously. Some were members who didn’t want to face a disciplinary, others were worried about their safety or their work.”

The full article is here:

https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,scottish-greens-expel-gender-rebels-deemed-threat-to-trans-members

He’s A Man continued…

I previously reported on this here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/cold-mountain-part-1

I am a great supporter of wonderful Helen Joyce but I am confused about her position as to how we should be referring to larping men and our ‘gender critical’ approach to them. EDI Jester on his substack understandably took her up on a piece from a speech she gave recently:

No retreat No Surrender

The enemy is just that

MAY 14, 2024

Excerpt from Helen Joyce talk…

Helen expands on this, but it is a good point for discussion.

I beg to differ, the only possible way this would work is if the entire edifice of CSJ, queer theory and gender identity ideology et al was treated as worth anything, it is not, EDI pushers, moral and cultural relativists and the deranged human weaknesses they exploit are all the SAME THING. Ignoring the blatant fetishism and paraphilia of the cultists, whose public behaviour makes them walking signifiers of the very cult we seek to end, is a tactical error that will come back to haunt us.

The analogy here is drunk driving, "he's only partially pissed give him the keys" not "they are merely eccentric" because before CSJ and its revolting academic effluent flooded across the UK eccentric was as eccentric is, look at me for gods sake. We have always had British eccentrics, but they did not come with a constructed fetid belief system based on power and oppression narratives with the temperament of every horror of the 21st century from Communism to Nazism via Mao and Pol Pot.

No, anyone practising or proclaiming this cult’s behaviours and mantras is a walking advert for child transition and we need them out of the public square, which social shame will do, once we change the law. Cass has gone a huge way to ensuring we shut the front door of the "Trans the gay away" factories, and as the last of those groomed, (in the case of children), and conned (in the case of adults), encouraged or willingly participating, shuffle out through the back door with whatever damage occurred to them on the way, we can then shut that final door and concentrate on the real issues facing children/adults in distress.

Time will do the rest, as this dumpster fire of a medical/social experiment is confined to the mists of history like Lobotomy and we are free to mourn the victims and ensure it never happens again. It's a cult, and should be treated like one. It is not a religion, not least of all by dint of provenance, for they have none bar other cults such as the Skoptsy. Liberal accommodation is it own worst enemy, it is largely what got us here and adore

@HJoyceGender

as I do, I worry greatly that when the leaders of this extraordinary collaboration get close enough to kill the beast, that they will lack the fortitude and courage to slash it's throat, gut it and check its pulse to make sure it is dead. Because if I am right about this, we will all end up with these LARPING men and women still in our workplaces and spaces, still pretending and demanding rights when they don't get the attention they so desperately desire. This is not an individual level problem, it is a victimhood collective and they always end up murderous. Individuals are going to get hurt, and sadly, that is the collective price we pay for being remiss, from Universities to Governments and beyond, in failing our collective duty to each other and to children. I have stated before and I will state state it again.

This started in the Ivory Towers and will end in the streets.

Repeal the damned GRA 2004, amend the Equality Act and let's all stop lying. This has been an abject societal failure from the days of John Money to the present of Michael Brady. Gender Identity does not exist, gender expression is fashion and gender dysphoria is a confected condition entwined with male sexual desire, Quackery and Corporatism. It is not abandoning the needed shaming of fetishist/perverts, pillocks and pronoun plonkers and purveyors of harm to children in the name of accommodation that we should be discussing, it is ending this.

Whosever does find themselves in front of the beast and compromises, will be doing a Chamberlain. And in the name of what, a quiet life, a glass of wine and a cheeseboard? The time for being conciliatory is long gone, I am with Hitchens on this. “There’s another immoral injunction. Go love your own enemies, don’t go loving mine. My enemies are the theocratic fascists. I don’t love them, I want to destroy them.”

CSJ and all its disgusting offshoots are as close to the revolting movements of the 20th century as we have got in the 21st, we have the power to see this, and pussyfooting around gusset fumblers, grievance archaeologists, victimhood coveters and the mentally ill will be a mistake that many may well come to regret. A regret that will be to late for the future generations. #repealtheGRA

However, just to confuse me, Helen does a great job here in an interview on Spectator TV with her and Debbie Hayton. What she says here just does not line up with the above statement.

What’s going on?

All thoughts, as ever, gratefully received.

Endpiece

A day in the life of a legacy media journalist 😊 Thanks again to my wife for this.

https://twitter.com/TheRabbitHole84/status/1790426276840476955

The next update will probably be on Sunday, Terven.

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.