So who is GUILTY of vast expenditure and prosecution in a case which should, possibly, never have been brought? An immediate investigation, I suggest, as to whether people were genuinely misguided or if, as we must suspect, a desire for conviction over whelmed a desire to discover the truth.

Who made the complaint? It looks like yet another case of the State ruling over the personal mores and traditions of it's citizens. We are not told if the patient asked for her circumcision to be remade. I can only presume she did ask, or he asked her, or there was a medical reason.

If MGM became illegal, would doctors be obliged to reconstruct the foreskin? I really can't see the difference between FGM and MGM done for religious reasons on young children who have no say in the matter. Why isn't the circumcision of young boys treated as ritualised child sexual assault? After all, it has all the elements.

My own view is that once the age of majority has been reached, people should be able to decide for themselves how they mutilate their own bodies. If it's part of their religion, OK by me, with the caveat that many cults and factions exert undue pressure on the followers to conform.