Late last night we linked to a Mail on Sunday online piece concerning the forthcoming prosecution of Nottingham-based Dr Balvinder Mehat, one of AVfM’s Known Genital Mutilators – here – for allegedly performing MGM on a young boy without obtaining his mother’s consent.
The paper took the unusual step of not publishing further comments after just 32 were published, an hour or two after online publication. However the voting functionality appears still to be operating, as we can see from the remarkably high number of votes for comments supporting the prosecution, and votes against comments supporting MGM, or the doctor, or the father and/or his apologists – here.
If everyone who read this gave us just £1 – or even better, £1 monthly – we could change the world. Click here to make a difference. Thanks.
Justice for Men & Boys 
Why did they even report on it if they’re going to do this? Why allow comments in the first place? They’ve published circumcision articles before and the top rated comments are always anti-circumcision. They should know the majority of the British public oppose mutilating kids.
This is why people end up dreaming up conspiracy theories like the Jews control everything. I mean, you would have thought the Daily Mail, given their history of anti-immigration rhetoric, would be against this as it shows Islam in a bad light. So if they’re not, you can’t help wondering, who at the Daily Mail is defending this and for what reasons?
LikeLike
How much alleged anti-semitism is just revulsion at this barbaric tradition of child-mutilation? It is difficult to have too much sympathy for people who do this to their children and then seek to minimise or justify it.
LikeLike
I understand it was very difficult to get the mainstream press to cover this story at all, so perhaps we shouldn’t be too hard on the Mail. I
LikeLike
Agreed! Kudos to the paper for running this.
LikeLike
The paper probably suspended comments to avoid publishing anything prejudicial. Most mainstream media do not allow comments on anything that is before the courts.
LikeLike
This comment bears repeating here:
I agree with all the comments about the boy being assaulted. What I can’t understand is why the police said there was insufficient evidence.. the boy went in with his foreskin and came out without. What more evidence do they require???‘
As much evidence as they needed not to investigate the paedophile Greville Janner?
LikeLike
I see my comments eventually got published, as did yours, Mike. The Daily Mail has a very weird hit-or-miss system on the comments section.
LikeLike