Jo Maugham

He is behaving in a fashion which undermines the code of conduct imo but doesn't quite cross it. Which is just as bad in practice but not necessarily enough to get him hung out to dry on it.

Not sure what his current and future career plans are, but if I were paying £££ for somebody's expertise on tax law, I wouldn't be impressed - not so much because of the ethics, but because I would think his head just isn't in the game.

Really shocking to me - in truth a real eye opener - how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard. A really powerful lesson to me.

He's almost at TRA levels of DARVO now.

Great tweet from Oliver Burkeman (who has consistently been sensible about all of this). Doesn't say who he's talking about but I assume probably Maugham and Pullman.

The Bar code of conduct is interesting. He is sailing close to the wind. I did have a good look and think he is probably a good legal argument on which side to the wind he is. At the moment i think he could argue his innocence in legal terms but only just.

The code of conduct is that you should uphold the principle and integrity of the profession and its institutions. So basically don't call judges liars or corrupt in anyway. Looking at his tweets he hasn't done this directly. Only by implication and in a round about way. (Look at the exact wording).

He is behaving in a fashion which undermines the code of conduct imo but doesn't quite cross it. Which is just as bad in practice but not necessarily enough to get him hung out to dry on it.

The arrogance of it is astonishing.

Also, as a lawyer, a foundational duty is that you should never let your own personal beliefs interfere with your duties to a client. Jolyon doesn’t seem able to grasp this, which is very odd for someone who is a QC

Particularly odd because at the moment the rest of barrister twitter seems to be defending the profession against government attacks on “activist lawyers”. Either you believe in the principle of legal representation for all or you don’t.

He’s a tax lawyer and has no expertise in human rights law or family law but feels the need to wade in and give everyone his totally uninformed opinion.

I suspect that he will run as an MP before long. He’s trying to win popular appeal through all this.

As others will remember, he was initially against transwomen standing on Labour all women shortlists and made that clear in a tweet. His current extreme TRA stance was a direct response to some pushback he got. He has absolutely zero integrity and will do whatever makes him appear popular. He got a lot of stick from fellow senior lawyers for his tweets about the Bell case. It’s an extremely low blow to attack a fellow lawyer just because you don’t like the result in a case. Yes, Keira’s lawyer has brought some questionable cases in the past but that a) he is a legal professional and acts on instructions from clients and b) his other cases do not in any way diminish the validity of the Bell case. Also, as a lawyer, a foundational duty is that you should never let your own personal beliefs interfere with your duties to a client. Jolyon doesn’t seem able to grasp this, which is very odd for someone who is a QC.

That’s very interesting, ratonastick. Not surprised at all!

This dragging in of abortion and contraception is no accident. It comes over like “You naughty mouthy women just won’t shut up, will you? Well, you can’t have your abortion and contraception any more then. There! That’ll learn you! Do what you’re told like a good girl”.

[quote nauticant]Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949[/quote]
Funny, isn't it, how it's always creatures like clownfish, seahorses and slugs that are used as examples to support the argument that biological sex is very complicated.

No one ever pulls up examples of chimpanzees or bonobos, primates that are considerably closer to humans than slugs to try to illustrate their point. In fact, mammals in general are decidedly unhelpful to the "it's complicated" line of argument.

We don't use the fact that lizards can lose and re-grow their tails as a way of arguing that humans can re-grow lost limbs.

The idea that slugs have any relevance to humans in this area is just silly.

how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard

The Tavistock don’t treat a community, they treat individuals.

Judith Butler and Margaret Atwood weren’t in court and have no particular expertise on this matter.

It’s very odd to hear a barrister talk like this. Presumably his arguments carry more weight when he does the day job in tax law.

Seeing as JM and Co are now so interested in the issue of abortion and contraception, if they would be able to name which class of human actually need access to these things? Which class of 13 year human would need access to an abortion or contraception? Is there a way of telling this, ya know, if biological sex doesn't really exist?

The sense I get and I may be wrong. With the abortion thing. Is that they almost want it to impact so they can say see what you have done now. As a sort of punishment.

I don't believe they actually care about girls at all.

Interesting and insightful post @Ratonastick

Especially when you look at her contribution:

Don't worry, I am a tough old boot. Knowledge is different from opinion. The facts are the facts. Those stuck on Nature being immutably divided into M+F should delve into slug sex. :)

twitter.com/MargaretAtwood/status/1280270945069010949

So is he admitting that he's too dim to think for himself, and therefore relies on an appeal to authority to justify his poorly thought out views?

It’s not even a very good appeal to authority. The High Court of England and Wales who looked at all of the evidence and heard all of the witnesses vs...Margaret Atwood.

He'd do better to think about why he believes what he does, and set out a coherent argument for his point of view.

And really, suggesting that a lobby group, a writer of fiction and a queer theorist are people who we should trust as authorities on anything is just nuts.

Haha, now he’s proud about being on the same side as Judith butler? That’s nothing to be proud of, mate. I also don’t buy for one second that Jo has settled down in his dressing gown to read gender trouble or any of her major works...

I’m loving Moore’s spelling there, ‘Jollyon’.

I propose we make ‘getting a Jolly-on’ a new FWR saying.

No idea about random caps there, but seems to fit!

Unfortunately Abortion Rights were sucked in Vulva and posted a tweet in line with JM's views which they later deleted. Seems they're not bothering to put the record straight and reassure people that this won't impact abortion rights.

Really shocking to me - in truth a real eye opener - how a community can be spoken at, about over and around but never listened to and certainly never heard. A really powerful lesson to me.

Oh, don't we know it Jolyon. You'd have realised it a lot sooner if you hadn't blocked every sensible woman who could have pointed it out for you 😂 Indeed women are constantly spoken at, about and over, and never listened to.

He's the gift that keeps on giving, this one.