Jolyon Maugham and Maya - time for the Bar Council to step up.

For "deter", read "discourage".

• Undermines women's rights.
• Batters wild animals to death...
• ...using a baseball bat he keeps "to deter intruders" (this is code for "as a weapon").

The picture I'm getting of this man isn't pretty.

I can't imagine JM will be doing anything other than laying very low for the foreseeable future.

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1210110735189233665

He clubbed a fox to death in a kimono. As you do.

After what happened yesterday

What happened yesterday?

Betty Bowers: An absence of ethics is exhibited by calling the absence of ethics "controversies" instead of an absence of ethics.
Seeing that a lot lately.

I find it embarrassing to watch someone, whose actual job is to win an argument, argue so poorly. Jesus Jolyon, you get paid for this.

It certainly is strange that he has taken up this issue, considering how ill-equipped he is for defending his POV

Jolyon does seem to have lost the plot.

So, he was happy to advise Maya back in May - he was happy to work with Joanna Cherry, I believe? - who shares Maya's views - on the legal action against the proroguing of parliament - now Maya is causing the death and self harm of trans people

He's also going off on one at Laura Kuensberg tonight, talking about engaging lawyers over something she's said about remainers blocking brexit being on the wrong side of history. I'm an ardent remainer, but I don't see how what Laura said constitutes anything worthy of legal action. He needs a holiday I think, and to get off twitter for a bit.

I'm starting to think that all the lights aren't quite on in JM's house.

He's certainly got the worst political instincts.

This is the second time in a week I've seen TRA using the word "extreme" about gc women. Firstly, Clara Vulliamy describing Rachel Rooney's book as representing "an extreme ideology that explicitly targets children", and now Maugham describing gc women and Maya as adopting "extreme positions". Is this new? It certainly seems like darvo to me.

Sorry follow-up - what Maugham is doing that is not dissimilar to Hewson - albeit in a much less aggressive or unhinged manner - is hounding people whose views, however reasonably expressed, don't chime with his own possibly understandable bias. But in doing so, he's not too different from Alice Roberts, albeit her MO subtly differs. Hers goes something like this: 'undermine fellow-academic or GC feminist/back herself into a corner re scientific debate then refuse to argue her point - lock down her Twitter account for 2 days - start making posts which reclaim the moral high ground - give a few interviews to broadsheet media claiming she's the victim of misogynistic bullying. Same drill - every time.

Maughan goes one step further using aggressive rather than passive aggressive tactics: 'pick a journalist' Pounce on her (it's always a 'her'). Try to shut her up by grinding the point relentlessly and wait for the attack-dogs/memes to join in.

I'd say this teeters on bringing the profession into disrepute, but Hewson has shown just how far someone needs to go to be hauled in front of a disciplinary.

Also - HR isn't really known as an area of law that attracts the best and the brightest frankly. Not saying they're all doofuses but the really brilliant ones go into other areas.

JM has not done anything like that, as far as I'm aware.

It was more a comment on how substantially someone needs to stray from the path for professional standards to trigger the Bar Council to intervene. And it felt the more tragic that it seems to be agreed that Hewson had previously had an excellent career and was well-respected before her behaviour lapsed and matters went awry. I think Phillimore was arguing that earlier intervention by her peers might have saved Hewson from herself.

I watched the Barbara Hewson case play out live. Her harrassment of Sarah Phillimore was unconscionable, as was the way she aggressively targeted victims of child sexual abuse. She was relentless, like a dog with a bone, and would not leave those identifying themselves as CSA survivors alone. And it was her pursuing them. Not vice versa.

I followed this as someone who has also been the victim of rape and sexual abuse and was open-mouthed at some of the filth she posted before she locked down her Twitter account. It was also painfully apparent that this is a woman who was very unwell (although that in no way excuses her behaviour).

I think this does raise questions about Bar Standards. Watching this shitstorm unfold I recall thinking that the SRA would - and have in the past - struck solicitors off for much less.

That Barbara Hewson case is grim, and in a different league from JM being a smug wanker on Twitter - she harassed a fellow lawyer who was granted a protection order. JM has not done anything like that, as far as I'm aware.

Barbara Hewson, a human rights lawyer, was suspended for two years

That would be the Barbara Hewson who advocated for the age of consent to be lowered to 13 after the Savile revelations and has argued that most rape victims bear some moral responsibility for their rapes?

Couldn't have happened to a nastier piece of work.

I really think Twitter can affect some people's ability to think rationally. Having constant arguments in 140 characters, surrounded by people shouting from the stands, is not conducive to logical or reasonable thought. Look at what happened to Owen Jones - he's totally lost the plot now.

Thank you! I remembered it was Janice Turner and had the name Helen in my head but was defaulting to Mermaids' Islan rather than Belcher (IYSWIM).

www.pressgazette.co.uk/activist-loses-ipso-complaint-against-janice-turner-times-column-about-trans-suicides/

It was Janice Turner, wasn't it?

It was Janice Turner www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suicides-should-never-be-a-political-weapon-w0jlhn5v0?shareToken=ba0fd2f887fe92fc085757a9d7b00907