Jo Maugham

I agree with others that he seems to have many of the “qualities” of Owen Jones.

Can you imagine these two getting together and have a chat about this subject. The stuff of nightmares! The thought makes my skin crawl.

I think it’s important to counter his lies, and here’s another one today . Maugham says that “as a lawyer” he can confirm this ruling will affect abortion rights in the U.K. This is a total falsehood- complete fake law. Here is a QC using his legal credentials to scare and mislead people. The judgment is confined to the very particular facts of the case. Abortion is not the same thing at all as life long body altering drug regimes that lead to infertility and sexual issues. The judgment upholds and strengthens gillick competence so if a child can consent to an abortion then they can have one (and even if they can’t consent there may be best interest arguments.)

He's probably just talking about Amnesty and Liberty and we already know what they think.

I wondered about that - but they haven't been afraid to comment.

And to be honest, since when have abortion charities been afraid of criticism from the Christian Right? That has been a feature of their existence since day one

Agree. Can only assume that he is using the term leading charities who protect abortion rights rather loosely - but even then he'd still have to explain who this all powerful 'Christian Right' is in the UK and why feminists suddenly have such influence.

I'm sure I read somewhere that people who are highly educated are more vulnerable to confirmation bias because their ability to construct a strong argument to support an existing opinion makes them less able to accept that they could be wrong.

However, you'd hope that a highly educated person could spot when don't have any argument at all.

I’m genuinely baffled how he can continue spewing lies & no one from the Bar Council thinks it’s a problem

It's reminiscent of Dr Haddock and the GMC. What exactly do you have to do before your professional body will act?

I’m genuinely baffled how he can continue spewing lies & no one from the Bar Council thinks it’s a problem

Cara 🤫 mum’s the word. Or maybe it’s - uterus owner who’s uterus I once occupied’s the word. Seems unwieldy though.

Ps another one loving "fachidiot" - that's made my morning.

Sophocles I've a pretty good idea what your theory might be, and I think I share it.

Quote from JM: "(which echoes a journey of my own with someone I love)"

someone I love

he has to pretend that this ruling will have an impact on young women wanting abortions because he knows perfectly well that, if it's only about access to puberty blockers, lots of people will agree with the ruling. If he creates fear that it also affects abortion, then everyone can join him in tutting about those terrible feminists.

Spot on Corgi

*The Germans have a word for this, of course: fachidiot

Noun. A derogatory term for a one-track specialist who is an expert in his field, but takes a blinkered approach to multi-faceted problems.*

Brilliant, Sophocles! Steve Pinker instantly springs to mind.

Why is he doing this? Why can’t he just tell the truth?

Maugham is one of those people who loves occupying the moral high ground. In terms of personal sanctimoniousness, the only other person who can begin to match him is Owen Jones. So he has to pretend that this ruling will have an impact on young women wanting abortions because he knows perfectly well that, if it's only about access to puberty blockers, lots of people will agree with the ruling. If he creates fear that it also affects abortion, then everyone can join him in tutting about those terrible feminists.

you cant tweet him on this: when you are as privileged a white male as jolyon you certainly dont need to hear nasty women's voices on ..i dunno things that may affect them like abortions, consent or on experimental drugs for kids.

But if this concern from abortion rights charities exists, it could be cleared up very easily by simply reading the judgement, where it articulates how this ruling doesn’t affect abortion or contraception.

Why is he doing this? Why can’t he just tell the truth?

I think Twitter just does this to people. It is a destructive medium.
I think if you get lots of followers and positive attention over something (e.g being a Twitter remainer fighting the good fight) it becomes addictive and all encompassing and you start to get delusions of grandeur about your thought on all sorts of other matters too and when that goes away (and you actually become a bit of a Twitter meme due to an unrelated thing you do) it is devastating and you want an issue that will give you authority / respect again and Jo has decided this is the issue.
I never really get the demograph argument generally, that there is a divide between younger and older people on the any debate and over time the younger viewpoint will win out. Labour activists use it for lots of their arguments but what they forget is that young people grow up and become older people and views change and so that perfect demograph of younger people taking their exact viewpoints in everything into their middle/ old ages just does not really happen.

it's very clear that it deals exclusively with the situation regarding puberty blockers and isn't more widely applicable.

Indeed - previous case law for contraceptives, abortion, blood transfusions is brought up in the judgment and used as a comparator for why this alleged "treatment" is different (indeed, "unique").

All are subject to the same law and rules. Unlike the others, "puberty blockers" fail the tests due to what they do and the lack of an evidence base.

There was no change in any of the rules here - the rules are now just being properly applied to an experimental treatment that had not been properly assessed according to those rules.

Thats why I and others crowdfunded the case - we could see the rules weren't being applied, and it seemed clear that they could be applied as-is without any need to endanger other things like reproductive rights.

I'm not blocked yet if I need to take one for the team and tweet him anything?

No, there is no evidence of it and if you read the ruling it's very clear that it deals exclusively with the situation regarding puberty blockers and isn't more widely applicable. I'm assuming Jo has read the ruling so he must know that he is talking nonsense.

And to be honest, since when have abortion charities been afraid of criticism from the Christian Right? That has been a feature of their existence since day one. It seems equally unlikely that they would be afraid of criticism from "trans exclusive 'feminists'" (note the quote marks around feminists) given that bashing so-called trans exclusive feminists is a sport everyone can join in. Unlike fox-killing, which is just for the select few.

Oh yes Helmet he's pulled out the big guns this morning, abortion charities are afraid to speak out about the Bell ruling because he says: they fear public criticism from an unholy alliance of the 'Christian' Right and trans exclusive 'feminists'. Now where have we heard that before? There's no evidence of it. He's not acting in good faith.

no one allowed to reply even though he likes to insist people 'listen' more.

have you seen his tweets this morning?

'first they came for the Jews'

could he (and his two fellow white oxbridge males) hate women more?