Jo Maugham

The arrogance of a man who thinks three senior judges have failed to appreciate all sides (having heard all sides), throws around suicide “statistics” with no proof and against Samaritans guidelines, accuses Fair Cop of being “terrorist” (when the cause Fair Cop is fighting for should send chills down every lawyer’s spine) and blocks any woman who either disagrees with him (politely or otherwise) or likes a tweet that disagrees with him (like me!).

His echo chamber is so complete I doubt there’s anyone on Twitter able to disagree with him.

Poor Jo needs just wants to go clubbing to let off some steam.

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.

which certainly seems to apply to our Jo

I too have a theory for why Jo is so interested, but getting deleted is not how I care to start my weekend, so I’m not going to share it.

To be honest, the more testerical he gets, the better, because if all you’ve got is bloviating outrage, and your case is so unformed it can immediately be switched from the one you said you were bringing, to challenging another one that’s already happened that you didn’t seem to have noticed was happening, then what you’re saying is you don’t know what you’re doing, and you haven’t got a case. Good.

What I’m not pleased about is him ratcheting up the emotion and making trans people feel they’re under attack. I never fail to be shocked by how cavalierly vulnerable people are treated by those who profess to be looking out for them.

I noticed that angry outraged Tweet of his as well. I unfollowed him immediately. I wonder if he’s got less female followers now?!

If you are a man and the reality of your engagement with equality issues is that you do little more than default to the views of a significant woman in your life that doesn't make you woke it makes you lazy

Because anyone can do better than listen to a woman, much less learn from her, even if you have to pretend so she’ll let you shag her.

Other notable quotes. Again, the metaphor of journey beimg used here.

I've been on a journey on trans issues - and I have ended up a long way from some or even many in my tribe - and I wanted to set out some things I've learned along the way. THREAD

[...]

If you are a man and the reality of your engagement with equality issues is that you do little more than default to the views of a significant woman in your life that doesn't make you woke it makes you lazy.

I've certainly got the impression from public utterances by JM & others close to him that they have a personal connection (one that he hasn't publicly disclosed as a motivation for his campaign to ensure children have access to puberty blockers).

Tax law is notoriously difficult and does attract a tiny group of very clever people who can master it.

However, people who have that extremely narrow form of cleverness sometimes assume they must be brilliant at everything. Which ironically is its own form of stupidity.

His Twitter bio is "perform your values" and he does love a touch of theatrics

He’s infected with whatever Susie Green has that causes her to spout nonsense
Caught it off a Fox maybe?

I think he’s incredibly emotive for a lawyer. He called Fair Cop a terrorist organisation.

Sarah Phillimore (@SVPhillimore) Tweeted: I am making formal complaint to the Bar Standards Board. This is appalling, disgraceful conduct. t.co/a7ff1oodYh

I just looked at the board members - just two.
It's actually three if you scroll across, I think.

I don’t know how he is as a tax lawyer but his work in other areas suggests he’s the type of lawyer who construes the law to suit his facts without the ability to step back and analyze it objectively. I don’t mean advocating your case but not actually analyzing it properly. For example, his response to Keira’s case is so weak. What evidence does he think Mermaids or Stonewall would have brought that would have changed the decision? And why didn’t they just give it to the Tavi? Also, I find it “surprising” that they didn’t consider the possible outcomes of Keira’s case in the opinion they published on their waiting list case. There are some other glaring problems with that case they don’t seem to have considered. Either they haven’t thought of them or the opinion they published is not their whole advice, which is misleading if you are using it to raise money. It’s a bizarre decision in itself to publish the advice, which suggests he hasn’t fully considered what he’s doing here. Also, I agree with the PP about him charging in to an area of law he has no experience in. He seems to think tax law is harder so he can turn his hand to any area of law he fancies.

Along with arrogance, he has a strong sense of himself as a good person. I think he’s blinded himself to the possibility of being in the wrong, legally or morally. This seems to be quite common among these so-called lefty men.

All in all, a toxic combination.

The same way Trump gets attention and fanatical support.

I just looked at the board members - just two. Seems like a small number to have on a board. Were there more, has someone or some people left recently? Two chums from the same school/uni, hardly needs a board does it?

Maugham managed to get himself into a position where he was highly respected and influential a couple of year ago, making his name off the back of brexit. He became something of a 'twitter star'.

Its possible as thats faded he's just looking for the next issue to make a name for himself / maintain the influence / status he has previously had both on twitter and in wider outside circles.

This happens to be the idea he has hitched his wagon to, knowing its more popular with younger people and its a key issue of both the LD and Labour Parties.

It could therefore be straight sucking up to certain people or an outright opportunistic position which he thinks he can get popularity / status from in a way not altogether different to Mr Garage.

He says it because it generates outrage.

Plus Mermaids & Stonewall weren't able to put forward new or relevant evidence that's why they weren't included.

There was trans people giving witness

Why is he lying

For example, he said the high court 'refused' to hear from a single trans person in the review. This makes me think he hasn't read the judgment because I recall at least three trans witnesses for the Tavistock, who all had favourable things to say about their treatment. So Maugham is either straight up lying, or he's made a massive mistake.

He's lying

Excellent summing up WeeBisom

They do indeed