Our thanks to HEqual for this, a BBC piece. The error:
Male circumcision is legal in the UK if both parents consent.
With reference to non-therapeutic male circumcision – the focus of the article – that statement is manifestly untrue. HEqual writes:
I’ve archived the article here, mainly because the sidebar shows it’s currently the second most popular article on the entire BBC website: https://archive.fo/76kqf
I’ve also submitted a correction complaint to the BBC, taking issue with the sentence that states “Male circumcision is legal in the UK if both parents consent.”
Perhaps you (and all your readers) would like to submit a correction too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/contact-us/editorial
I’ve just sent the following to that URL, and would ask you to send your own request for a correction to be made. It will only take seconds, no need to register. Thanks.
I lead the political party ‘Justice for Men & Boys’ and there is a manifest error in the above article, “Male circumcision is legal in the UK if both parents consent”. Non-therapeutic male circumcision (the focus of the article) is at least Actual Bodily Harm under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and probably Grievous Bodily Harm.
As you report, the doctor in the Nottingham case about which you’re reporting – Dr Balvinder Mehat – has been arrested on suspicion of Grievous Bodily Harm with Intent. It would require a parliamentary override to make non-therapeutic male circumcision legal, and that has never existed.
Earlier this week I took out a private prosecution against Dr Joseph Spitzer, charging him with ABH under OAPA 1861. I hope you will correct your article forthwith, and I should be happy to have these comments published. Thank you.
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.
