End the sexual abuse of schoolgirls

Roger Titcombe's picture
I am talking about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM).

We are approaching 'the cutting season' when hundreds (some estimate it as thousands) of British schoolgirls are permanently scarred and mutilated every year for religious or 'cultural' reasons.

It is illegal but virtually no efforts are made to detect it or prosecute the perpetrators because of 'cultural sensitivity'.

This is a disgrace, and schools need to be involved in the solution. Michael Gove should insist that all schools, including Academies, Free Schools and faith schools, should provide clear and specific health education to all pupils and parents about this practice. Ofsted needs to check that this is effectively taking place.

More controversially, this will not be enough. Victims need to be identified, given as much remedial medical attention as possible and the perpetrators pursued and charged. Schools also have a vital part to play in this.

In the late 1950s I remember being intimately examined by the school health visitor in order to check on the sexual health of my dangly bits. We called it the 'drop and cough' test. It was completely uncontroversial.

Something similar is needed for all girls, not just those from the communities where this 'traditional' mutilation is common. Our schools take all sorts of over-the-top measures in the name of child protection but nothing is done about this vile practice.

Hospitals and GP surgeries also need to be proactive. There is a legal duty to report suspected child abuse. This too should be made clear to the medical profession with regard to FGM.

Read more here.
Share on Twitter Share on Facebook

Be notified by email of each new post.


Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 16:06

Is the first link to an American Islamic source? Is FGM illegal in the USA in some or all states?

I am not at all reassured because the implication appears to be that whether or not FGM is forbidden, not encouraged or permitted appears to depend upon interpretations of the Qur'an rather than the secular law of the land.

I think is it reasonable in the UK, where FGM is illegal, for all Imam's to make a clear statement that it is illegal and that all Moslems are required to obey UK law.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 16:23

I've no idea whether FGM is illegal in the US wholesale or a patchwork of State decisions. The reason I put that link up was highlight the potential difficulties within Islam in adopting a global prohibition on FGM. That said, the final paragraph is clear regarding that Islamic position is for that community in Maryland i.e. it should be prohibited.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 16:17

I remain minded that key issues here are (and in no order of priority for indeed they are of equal need):

1. The Police to be told that every case must be reported and prosecution pursued
2. The full extent of the medical and social services organs be directed to:

a. Raise the profile amongst all their clients/service users
b. Coordinate with the police on every occasion FGM is found

3. The DFE write to every HT advising them of the need to reflect FGM in their PSHE curriculum
4. Every school be required to alert social services of any extended/unexpected absence involving girls from the target ethnic communities known to practice FGM

As with all forms of child abuse the whole national system needs to be remodelled to reflect a multidisciplinary approach e.g. education, health, social services and police whereby incidents can be handled on a 'case' panel basis. This the best way to avoid abuse slipping through the net/between the cracks through poor communication and/or that dreadful phrase 'missed opportunities' leading to 'learning from the mistakes'.

If Scotland can decide to write to all HTs then so can DFE England and Wales and their NI counterparts.

(I hope the link works. It is to an ongoing movement toward change and eradication of FGM)


FJ Murphy's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 17:17

You have distorted most of what I have said and put false constructions on it. I no longer wish to participate in this discussion and listen to your Dave Spart rants about neo-liberal this, that and the other. I am a sceptic means that I am not convinced one way or the other and I explain to my pupils that the climate is very complex and poorly understood. Let me say once more that I deplore FGM and want to prevent it. You have decided to ignore my repeated remarks to this effect so it is pointless for me to repeat them once more.

FJ Murphy's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 17:20

If you don't agree with the LSN line, you will be accused of being a neo-liberal blah, blah, blah. There are two ways: the LSN way and the wrong way.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 17:30

FJM - I am not the 'LSN Line'. Relatively few individuals have contributed to this thread.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 10/02/2014 - 18:11

Roger, I neglect to click on 'reply' and hence my reply is at 4.23 today.

agov's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 10:41

Or split your reply into separate bits with one link in each, which is what I started to do before but then decided to discontinue.

It is very irksome though. I was hoping the revamping of the website might eliminate this problem but there has been no further news of that.

Janet Downs's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 11:04

Andy - the problem arises if there's more than one link in the post. The computer plonks the post in moderation which is where it sits because LSN hasn't got a moderator. However, I had a look just now and found 180 comments were listed as awaiting moderation but all of them except yours had actually been accepted.

However, your comment (10/02/14 at 4.17) has now been posted.

You're right about the need to be evidence-based - it's frustrating when evidenced comments don't appear. Please keep trying - your contributions are valuable.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 11:42

Andy - I think your suggestions would be a very significant step forward.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 11:49

FJM - You once accused me of being a Marxist supporter of genocidal tyranny. I didn't take the huff. I only wanted to challenge your arguments, not cause offence. Keep posting.

agov's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 12:11

Roger -

I'm sorry to have been a disappointment. Honest. However, I think that should you at some point investigate the issues more closely you might find good reason for a reassessment.

I'm not going to get into all that science stuff you detailed as it's not my thing. The point though is that there are plenty of qualified people who would be perfectly happy for the scientific issues to be properly examined. It was the advocates of the global warming industry who refused to debate the science.

It is just nonsense to claim that "the climate denial lobby" (as you put it) has huge financial resources. They do not benefit from grants from governments and international organisations. Can you provide evidence of this vast funding from the "the entire multinational fossil industry"? Last I heard there had been one small research grant, but, if I recall correctly, there has also been funding by energy companies (- why should they care what energy source they use provided they profit?) into researching the new technologies you, I assume, support.

I looked at the Sheffield link you cite. Apart from the 'reach for the sick bag' bit about raising awareness, and leaving aside the mandatory reference to carbon, I don't have any problem with what it says. (I have not accessed the documents that could be downloaded.) I'm all in favour of building 'good' houses instead of the draughty, tiny, and neighbour-noisy housing stock we have so much of - nothing to do with climate change though.

One of the difficulties is whether some of the 'solutions' to this alleged problem actually work. Use your science to tell me if this is true - Cold weather often brings with it a lack of wind meaning wind farms produce little energy. Too much wind means wind farms can't be used because it would be dangerous. So just at the times when energy demand might be expected to peak one of the greeny solutions is useless. Therefore, in order to ensure there is energy available at such times it is still necessary to build just as many fossil fuel/nuclear power stations as we would have needed anyway: at huge cost. No doubt you will have noted that when the owners of conventional power stations in Germany wanted to shut them as they had become uneconomic, due to the use of 'green' energy, the government threated to introduce laws compelling them to remain open. It's like money grows on trees when it comes to funding green 'solutions'.

I would much rather a great deal should be done regarding wealth distribution (as discussed at the annual jolly for rich people in Davos) than focussing only on more economic growth primarily to benefit the rich. Quite why that would be a criterion of truth I don't know.

Apart from the stating the central point that the EU is a disaster for Britain, UKIP usually talk rubbish about everything. Good point about the Netherlands except that Roman law usually allows the rest of Europe to adjust laws for their own convenience. As to them being "wholly signed up to the theory and practice of the EU", that may change -


[The headline is misleading as it is actually a report about leaving the EU. I understand that Capital Economics will be producing a report re benefits/disbenefits of the UK leaving the EU fairly soon.]

I agree about EA spending - I saw these figures '£395 million on staff (£592 million including pensions) compared to £219 million on capital projects, and just £20 million on maintaining rivers'. Also, last year, albeit possibly from a dodgy source (The Sun) "£1.7m: What Environment Agency chose NOT to spend on dredging" "£2.4m: Amount it DID splurge on public relations campaigns".

I cannot take responsibility for the electoral strategy of the ConDems.

I think it would be honest for me to risk disappointing you again as I also think that the circumcision of boys is a form of child abuse. It may (I rely on 'Sex and the City') be or have been a fashion amongst adult males in New York but that does not justify assaults against minors. Not that I (or FJM) suggest it is in any way on the same level as FGM, which is certainly a far more serious and urgent matter. I'm a little surprised at your rather intemperate attack on FJM on this matter, especially when he normally presents so many other targets.

Andy V's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 13:17


Another step in the right direct! Thanks to the courage and persistence of a 17 yo muslim girl Fahma Mohamed who started a petition to gather support against FGM on Change.org she led a live web chat yesterday and a few minutes ago I received an email revealing that Mr Gove has agreed to meet with her to discuss how he can help.

Her petition is still open at: www.change.org/endFGM

While all due credit should be given to her recognition should also go to the many other groups who for many years have been lobbying in the background.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Tue, 11/02/2014 - 18:59

agov - There is more that I agree with you about than disagree. We are not going to agree about the science behind man made global warming if you won't read it. It is a serious mistake to think that the arguments amongst scientists are evenly balanced. So far as serious science is concerned the denial group are a tiny minority.

The underlying driver of escalating greenhouse emissions is global capitalism and its requirement for year-on-year economic growth. The Swedes have a word, 'lagom' for which there is no exact English equivalent. It is a sort of exaltation in the idea of sufficiency as morally necessary as well as wise in terms of personal happiness, compared to the gross ugly evil of excess.

This is a nightmare concept for conventional capitalist economics. However, capitalism doesn't have to be like this. There is a new book out by Philip Roscoe, 'I spend therefore I am - the true cost of economics.


Capitalism stokes economic growth. Greenhouse gas emissions cannot be seriously reduced without finding some form of economic 'lagom'. This would have serious consequences for the world's super rich individuals and corporate interests, which is why they fund climate scepticism on a gigantic scale.

Of course there are massive challenges to replacing fossil fuels as the world's main energy source. Wind turbines can make a significant contribution, despite variations in the strength of the wind. I take an apocalyptic view that an irreversible tipping point in terms of global warming has now probably been passed meaning that the future for human life on the planet is now extremely bleak. It is by far the most important issue facing all of us.

However, moving on, what can we agree about? Male circumcision for a start. I too can see no justification for this ritual abuse of babies for religious reasons. I was just making the point that the arguments against FGM are so many orders of magnitude stronger that it is tactically unwise to be side-tracked into worrying about male circumcision until the gross scandal of failure to effectively address FGM has been addressed.

We also agree about gross overconsumption and escalating inequality.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 13/02/2014 - 10:39

The DfE has issued a statement re FGM.

In January last year, the parliamentary under-secretary for education, Edward Timpson, had a roundtable discussion with various children's societies about FGM. It appears it took over 12 months for the DfE to issue a statement.

Details of meetings for Jan-Mar 2013 can be downloaded here.

Janet Downs's picture
Thu, 13/02/2014 - 10:45

According to New Statesman October 2013 Edward Timpson and others have been working behind the scenes re FGM:

"Children’s minister Edward Timpson is working with chairs of safeguarding boards; Jane Ellison, the recently appointed minister for public health, has already taken an interest in FGM within her constituency; and Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, has an action plan towards the first prosecution of FGM in the UK."


Chris Manners's picture
Fri, 14/02/2014 - 16:01

I think this is what needs to happen, with the right people in government involved.

I was very uneasy with The Guardian's behaviour. Excellent campaign, building up a real impetus, but the "where's Gove?" thing was out of order.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 09:37

Ed Miliband may be useless on education but he is absolutely right on climate change.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 09:56

Ed has simply joined a very long line of rather more informed and erudite personalities who have been lobbying in this area for many years.

The reality though is permeated with very real difficulties. Not the least of these is that even if the entire EU zone met or exceeded its reduction targets this would not make a tangible difference to the global impact of climate change. Why, because the industrial economies of China, India, Brazil and USA create, and are continuing to grow, their use of carbon fuels in their manufacturing process.

The real-time impact on the UK comes not only in the form of the weather but, and this is perhaps the more immediately telling and more keenly felt, is through the significant additional costs via utility bills and hugely inefficient wind farms, and impending power shortages caused by slavishly following EU climate change measures causing the closure of coal fired power stations prior to sustainable alternatives.

I am not a denier rather I am a pragmatic realist facing up the impact of lone ranger style climate change reduction measures.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 10:38

Andy - You are entitled to your view, but it is profoundly misguided. The consequences of climate change are apocalyptic, whereas the economic costs and implications of combatting it are merely extremely challenging. That is if it is not already too late.

Miliband's intervention is however very significant for political reasons. It is a very powerful argument for the necessity of big government, the reality of which is proving very difficult for David Cameron to deal with - hence his rash, 'money is no object' statement. What is 'difficult' for David Cameron will cause much deeper problems for his 'wild west', 'bonfire of regulation', let capitalism rip, small state, neo-Con nutter MPs. It is not difficult to predict Gove's view on climate change. For them the climate change scientific consensus is just another even more dangerous manifestation of 'the blob'.

The public, including many from Henley-on-Thames, will swing behind Labour on this, making it all the more important that its education policies finally escape the New Labour straightjacket and also start reflecting 'the blob'.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 11:04

Roger, This is purely and simply yet another bandwagon electioneering politics being espoused by an opposition party struggling to find a solid sustainable and believable platform on which to fight the upcoming general election.

On the political front we have had the Clegg debacle re tuition fees and Cameron's shame re his pre 2010 election promises to be the greenest government yet. Why, oh why, should the electorate believe Ed when he jumps on another bandwagon and joins the empty rhetoric game?

The reports arising from this devastating cycle of weather impacts has already highlighted that while climate change has a part to play, it is not the singly significant factor:

1. Failures of the DEFRA and successive governments in river, flood plain and coastal management are the major contributing factors
2. An excess of subsidies for wind power at the expense of (1) above have directly contributed
3. Failures of town planning and building regulations re combating surface water flooding and lack of foresight in regulating developers in building up to date water management processes into new estates (i.e. moving away from total reliance of traditional Victorian systems called sewer run aways)

No matter what the UK does by itself will not make the slightest recordable impact on reducing climate change. Even collaboratively the EU efforts if fully realised will make little/no difference. However, all the stealth taxes through power generators/suppliers and misguided renewable energy strategies are costing the ordinary taxpayer heavily and for many directly contributing to making life thoroughly miserable.

If I wanted to cast my vote for a credible and well-informed group on climate change it would be for the Green Party not a disingenuous Labour leader (wannabe MP) who like the vast majority of our politicians will say anything to curry favour and garner votes. As for Henley on Thames voters boo-hoo, if they are that short sighted then they deserve everything they get.

I do remember tanker loads of rhetoric and soundbites for the misery suffered by the people of Carlisle when it repeatedly flooded in recent years but I don't recall any substantial and immediate investment in flood defences ...

Roger Titcombe's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 15:22

Andy, this is nonsense. The reason for the current emergency is an unprecedented weather pattern, not too many wind farms, or failure to dredge rivers. The latest analysis coming from America, which is suffering an extremely prolonged period of unprecedented severe weather, points to a major shift in the pattern of the jet stream. Climate science predicts such changes as a result of polar warming. Changes to global ocean currents as a result of warming oceans are also predicted, which will have disastrous consequences for the UK climate.

As Ed Miliband says, " When you throw a die and it keeps coming up with a six then something must have loaded it."

I can't see any logic in your argument that if other governments are determined to risk the future of the planet then we should do the same. I think we will soon see some major changes in superpower politics with respect to climate change but you may be right that it is probably too little too late.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/02/2014 - 15:46

Roger, as you said earlier we are all entitled to our opinions. You must also acknowledge that I was not atomising the situation to focus solely on the "recent" storms and flooding but instead was placing it in a wider historical context.

It is far from nonsense that the Somerset floods could have been markedly reduced had the the two rivers been dredged and maintained in the preceding 22 years.

It is nonsensical and utterly illogical to say that the history of floods in the UK over the last 100 years are down to the recently suggested change in direction and force of the gulf stream (e.g. 1928, 1947, 1953, 1979, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2012).

It is irrational to ignore the major change in residential developments over the last 100 years leading to irresponsible planning permissions that enable substantial developments on know flood plains.

It is illogical to ignore the fact that the past 2-3 decades have seen recommendations on new approaches to infrastructure developments to deal with surface water that town planners and developers have turned a blind eye to.

Please do not skew what I said about wind power. That is to say, at no stage did I say these were a cause of flooding for climate change. Rather I specifically stated that the subsidies they had received would have been better spent on upgrading flood defences. In this regard Carlisle may have enjoyed marked benefits had the money saved on wind power projects been diverted to flood defence work.

I do not characterise the substantial stealth taxes lumped onto the ordinary citizen as inconsequential. These would be better understood if they actually led to the UK making a noticeable difference to global climate change but the financial burden doesn't lead to that, neither do the EU targets. The change will only come when the major players come to the table and agree that they as well as everyone else will pay the ultimate price. Put another way the UK is a woefully insignificant player on the global climate change stage to play the knight in shining armour.

That said, electoral profiteers like Miliband clearly think they can bolster their self-interested opportunistic lunge for political power and control (mirroring a Cameron ploy at the last election).

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 17/02/2014 - 14:50

Andy -

"It is far from nonsense that the Somerset floods could have been markedly reduced had the the two rivers been dredged and maintained in the preceding 22 years.

It is nonsensical and utterly illogical to say that the history of floods in the UK over the last 100 years are down to the recently suggested change in direction and force of the gulf stream (e.g. 1928, 1947, 1953, 1979, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2007, 2012)."

Your first point is not nonsense but a counter-intuitive 'common sense' error. If rivers are dredged then it stands to reason that they have more capacity to drain away flood water. Not necessarily. Apparently it depends on the steepness of fall of the river. The shallower the fall, the less the effect of dredging because of the increased effect of the back pressure from incoming tides. The rivers in the Somerset Levels have a very shallow fall, therefore dredging the rivers would not make much difference and would not be worth the cost. This is the balance of view of the experts. It is not what the residents want to hear so the experts are keeping quiet about it (unlike David Cameron who feels he has to say what the voters want to hear).

Sorry, but your second illustration really is nonsense. Just listing the years in which there has been significant flooding (however you determine that) is meaningless. It is the severity of the floods and how long lasting they have been that matters. The current flooding is unprecedented so no-one is prepared to estimate when river levels will return to normal, but it will certainly be measured in months not days or weeks. Your previous 'significant floods' years may have equalled the heights that flood waters reached, but none of them have come anywhere near matching the duration. The Cumbria floods that you mention, went down fairly quickly when it stopped raining. The residents of Cockermouth and Workington were inconvenienced for much longer than that because bridges had been damaged or washed away.

I have been onto the Thames Barrier Information Office (0128 305 4188) and they emailed me the historic records of closures. These have been as follows.

From 1993 - 2002, 56
From 2003 - 2012, 73
From 1 Jan 2013 - 14 Feb 2014, 129

I fear that the 2014 figures might be on a different basis to the preceding decades in that for those I have counted all the occasions on which the barrier was raised, which can be more than once per day. The 2014 figures are on a different basis - the number of days that the barrier has been raised at least once. For some weeks now the barrier has been raised every day and this is continuing in an effort to increase the flow rate of the river by reducing the back pressure of tides. This is an unprecedented measure that has never previously been considered to be necessary.

This isn't going to persuade you, I know. Science teachers understand that pupils have to be prepared to believe, before they can begin to develop their personal conceptual framework to cope with the dissonance between the evidence and what they are comfortable with. Newton's Laws of Motion and Relativity are both profoundly counter-intuitive. They are not that difficult to understand; it is the belief threshold that is the problem.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 17/02/2014 - 14:54

Sorry - a typo caused an error in the Thames Barrier phone number. It is
0208 305 4188

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/02/2014 - 14:59

There are no blind as them that refuse to see by dint of closed minds.

The dredging is based on factual news reports since this round of floods started - not the least from the people affected, their MP and a public spat between Pickles and the Lord in charge of the quango at the root of the diversion of funding.

The dates for the flooding are not simply plucked from thin air but gathered via internet searches and the BBC news website.

But, hey, I'm only the product of a secondary modern education so what would I know?

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/02/2014 - 15:04


"This isn’t going to persuade you, I know. Science teachers understand that pupils have to be prepared to believe, before they can begin to develop their personal conceptual framework to cope with the dissonance between the evidence and what they are comfortable with. Newton’s Laws of Motion and Relativity are both profoundly counter-intuitive. They are not that difficult to understand; it is the belief threshold that is the problem."

Your assumed superiority, condescension and patronising rudeness appears to know no bounds, so as with FJM I'm out of this and will not be engaging with you on any topic in the future.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Mon, 17/02/2014 - 15:23

Sorry Andy - I was only arguing my case. We got a long way from FGM where I was persuaded and informed by many of your arguments, as on other matters.

agov's picture
Tue, 18/02/2014 - 15:16

Roger -

Apologies, the unexpected appearance of yet more work (- a governor's work is never done) followed by a planned period of activity kept me away from LSN so am just catching up. Again.

It's all very well claiming this overwhelming scientific consensus (as if Kuhn is the only way to gauge scientific truth) but if that is so they shouldn’t be so scared of discussing it with the allegedly tiny number of scientists who disagree. Perhaps the reason for their reticence is the weakness of their case.

Scientific theories are not immune from assessment. The proper way to judge a scientific theory is to consider whether it accounts for the observed facts and whether it makes successful predictions. I’m doubtful of the track record for the first bit but the second exists mostly by claiming after something (- anything) has happened that it confirms and was predicted by the theory.

Lagom may be a desirable state but it is not just capitalist economics that needs growth. Redistributing the entire wealth of the world equally would make everyone extremely poor. (Not that redistribution, to some extent, isn’t urgently required.) You say you believe the prospects for human life is now extremely bleak due to global warming but (a) it’s now referred to as climate change not global warming as the advocates seem to change the prediction on whether it will get hotter or colder depending on whatever most recently happened and (b) some warming (and not even the atrocious IPCC predicts a temperature rise of as much 5ºC) would quite possibly be beneficial rather than harmful: it has been warmer in the past. I gather that Nasa data on sea levels shows that, on the trend of the past decade, the rise by 2100 would be 6.7in – there will still be land.

As the comments on that article you linked to mention, that book (on the basis of the slightly confusing review) seems to make tendentious claims about economics (ignoring behavioural economics for example). You seem to say that capitalism doesn’t have to mean economic growth but then appear to suggest that it does. I’m not really sure what point you are making. The article does praise Aristotle but it was the religious zealots of Aristotelian science that kept Western science in stagnation for a millennium by, very crudely speaking, refusing to permit debate about the basic assumptions involved.

You again make assertions about the funding of “climate scepticism on a gigantic scale”. Let me know when you come across evidence of that. Do you deny that governments and international organisations supply huge amounts of funding for the climate change lobby and ‘research’ industry?

I look forward to learning how ruinously expensive excess wind energy, produced when it is not immediately required, can be stored until it is needed. Perhaps it’s one of those things that will be solved in 50 years, like nuclear fusion.

Andy is right. We should be spending on defences against flooding, whatever causes it; not wasting squillions on wind fantasies.

If you think dredging makes no difference are you now claiming that the Dutch were wasting their time when they reclaimed the Somerset Levels from the sea in the first place? [Incidentally, I now understand that Holland did have a fierce debate about breaching some of their dykes (sorry, can’t link – I don’t do Dutch) to comply with EU requirements re wildlife. It seems that whereas our Environment Agency decided to ‘just add water’ and ignore the cost of the resulting damage, the Dutch spent a couple of billion Euros to ensure any flooding wouldn’t result in disastrously expensive, and distressing, damage.]

As for Miliband, of course it’s just political posturing. NuLab’s only electoral strategy is to hope they are hated by their supporters a bit less than Tory supporters hate Cameron. Miliband will simply do whatever the EU instructs him to do, as with those ridiculous long life light bulbs that cost more, don’t last as long as, and give worse light than proper light bulbs.

Forgive my saying so but I think your normal judiciousness has been a bit overwhelmed by your passion in this thread. Next time the IPCC pops up with more idiocy I’ll share concerns with you.

Andy V's picture
Thu, 20/02/2014 - 18:13

Further update:

In addition to getting an audience with Mr Gove (see above) Fahma's efforts have been recognised and fully supported by the UN Sec Gen:


Andy V's picture
Wed, 26/02/2014 - 18:24

She did it! Who can deny the power of 1 - if only to have the tenacity and personal courage to get the ball rolling ...


It is a damn shame that HMG could not have been rather more proactive.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Wed, 26/02/2014 - 18:43

Yes, she and Malala, who supported her have been brilliant and a wonderful example. Better late than never from MG.

Roger Titcombe's picture
Thu, 03/07/2014 - 08:39

Some time has passed since I posted this thread, but recent events in Birmingham have put the issue back into the news.

I still argue that not enough is being proactively done to protect girls from FGM and it appears that the Home Affairs Select Committee agrees with me.



Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.