Jo Maugham

It seems TRAs (and Jo) are spending a fair amount of time TRYING to get abortion charities to back their (very twisted, wrong) POV. but hopefully such charities will actually do their homework,. rather than parroting false soundbytes. When such charities do do their homework, it morphs into terror of the right, rather than want/need to tell the truth! Its just such nonsense.

I know! - and the tweet right under it is about how much money is coming in from that um most voiceless, disposed, most vilified community the world has ever seen.

Oh and here's Jolyon's reply to another misogynist:

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 Jolyon, is there no end to your woman-hate?

😂 particularly to a “voiceless community”

When I'm with Stonewall, Margaret Atwood and Judith Butler; the medical establishment around the liberal world; the World Health Organisation and EU; if I am putting myself on the line to try and shield a voiceless community from ignorance and hatred, I sleep easy in my bed.

Jolyon's still at it.

The ruling does not weaken bodily autonomy for girls and women, as she claims. It strengthens it by reinforcing that bodily autonomy requires consent and understanding and these poor kids lacked it.

Indeed. And of course you only have to think about this issue for a couple of minutes to realise that there are reasons we don't allow children to have tattoos or body piercings until they're 18, or indeed to refuse a blood transfusion. There are any number of scenarios where children don't know what's best for their own body.

It's the perennial question, though: are these people genuinely so stupid they don't understand this? Or are they deliberately disingenuous for reasons we can only guess at?

Many years ago, I was involved in a VAT tribunal and JM was the junior barrister on our side against HMRC. Without wishing to bore (or indeed re-live the tedium myself) it concerned a contract that was silent on some critical matters and involved application of a couple of international amendments as well as uk law. It was mega complex and turned on a lot of verbal evidence of intention rather than written contracts. My main recollection of JM is that he had a brilliant mind and could instantly grasp incredibly technical documents but really struggled with the elements of the case that were not written down. He just couldn’t apply nuance or deal with the implications of verbal testimony of witnesses, he wanted paper (which didn’t exist in either side) to support the case. He was also hugely opinionated and got slapped down several times by both the lead barrister and the VAT expert.

It was also a bit of a strange case because the local VAT inspectors involved weren’t particularly supportive of the HMRC’s decision to pursue. They’d been our inspector for years so witnesses on both sides knew each other well, were fairly friendly and chatted between tribunal sittings. It was a VAT tribunal, not a court so a lot more relaxed. JM got quite agitated and tried to create artificial conflict and angst (again slapped down by the lead barrister).

Ultimately we won the case which was great. Everyone shook hands and it was all perfectly pleasant. In particular I had a good chat with the inspector who felt personally vindicated busy the outcome so it was all quite nice. All except JM who tried to pass it off as a great victory against The State. It really, really wasn’t.

I often ponder over his behaviour in that case when I read some of his pronouncements. I think it tells us a lot about character.

Suzanne Moore is having none of it today:

Jollyon now puts feminists in quote marks . Owen , him their followers decide what feminism is because they know best. Of course. Jollyon is happy to weaponise the holocaust . I say it again . These "progressives" are actually patriarchal conservatives. You see that or you dont.

twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1335528696065744896?s=21

^The latest tactic is to say that people like me are financed by shadowy right wing lunatics who want to stop womens reproductive rights. What?

My history on this stuff is out there on record. Speak outs on abortion since 80s etc. In the House of Commons etc. Where is theirs?^

twitter.com/suzanne_moore/status/1335533220419563521?s=21

Let's hope that the QC takes the Observer on a Sunday and has a read of their editorial today that concludes:

Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/06/the-observer-view-on-the-high-courts-ruling-on-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-children

He's taken QC out of his twitter profile.

Sorry image didn’t post

He has really upset another QC

And he's a Regal-person-who-identifies-as-female's Counsellor, too.

As Twitter pointed out, he missed out the most important of them all in that little self description there- male^. Unless that's what he meant by 'and of privilege'. Utter twatbadger.

A tweet from him

A solicitor could get in serious shit for giving advice outside their competence and for using their status for personal gain (and I think here he clearly is using his status to intimidate and for personal glory). I don't know anything about the Bar code of conduct but I'd be amazed if he's not trampling on the spirit of it.

His wife has it arse about tit. The ruling does not weaken bodily autonomy for girls and women, as she claims. It strengthens it by reinforcing that bodily autonomy requires consent and understanding and these poor kids lacked it. The Tavistock were inflicting treatments on kids that they didn’t understand , and that are experimental. That doesn’t promote bodily autonomy. I’m really sorry for banging on about this , but I’m shocked to see people coming out and just lying and representing this judgment as something it’s not purely for political ends. There’s already enough confusion about the legal system in this country, and people are going to see a QC as an authority.

Forgot the screen shot.

Yes Claire seems to have a poor understanding of the issues as well.
Why do people think bodily autonomy = the right to insist doctors prescribe experimental and harmful drugs on demand?

Should doctors listen to immature children and just hand out whatever medications and treatments they think they need? Is that bodily autonomy?

Aside of any of the trans issues it's a very strange point of view.

"As a lawyer" the word around the Temple is that he's leaving his current chambers very very soon. Couldn't possibly comment.

his wife agreeing with him and blaming "feminists" for whatever it is the Maughams imagine is happening.

The judgement considered medical ethics. It had nothing to do with feminists/the GRA/gender critical theory.

Had the Tavistock been able to produce data to show that PBs were completely reversible and not experimental, it is likely the judgement would have been different.

Talking about feminists just undermines the judiciary because it suggests they had ulterior motives not mentioned in the judgement. Again, where have we heard that kind of talk before?

twitter.com/clairemaugham/status/1335124010787614721?s=19 his wife agreeing with him and blaming "feminists" for whatever it is the Maughams imagine is happening. I'm old enough to remember when she used to come on here gushing about her Very Important Husband and sharing his legal wisdom with us nappy brained dolts.

Who benefits from children being prevented from going through puberty, and remaining childlike in both their bodies and brain function?

Any man who openly campaigns for this is a huge red flag....