Jo Maugham

Maugham, is now beginning to realise there's something wrong with what he said if even SB is popping his head above the parapet so has now blamed the quote on someone else and rephrased it...and it still doesn't make much sense. Apparently his view is actually "it is nonsensical for the law to be that where a parent, doctor, and child agree that a treatment is in the child's best interests the parent's views are ignored and the court's view must be sought." It's incredibly rare that the court goes against expert medical evidence in what is in the child's best interest, but I suppose it could happen. This scenario doesn't describe the Tavistock case at all, though, because the doctors have admitted they aren't sure if the treatment is in any individual child's best interests due to its experimental nature.

I've also always thought SB was male due to all the smug mansplaining. But impressed that he stood up to JM, I wouldn't have expected it.

SB called out JM as so many other barristers have about his misrepresentation of the Bell judgement. JM went into full pompous threatening mode demanding that SB withdraw the tweet

SB deleted it but said this. JM has not deleted their tweets

Legal twitter seems to be head in hands and lots of ppl who follow both seem to be doing the equivalent of begging mummy & daddy not to fall out

Actually this is the deleted from SB. Wow. Good for SB.

I think the secret Barrister is male! A few years ago they tweeted or retweeted a story about a false rape accusation and said something like "this could happen to any of us...this could happen to me or you" The story went like "you meet a lovely woman, go to the pub for a date, have too much to drink, next day she accuses you of rape." It seemed very male to assume that one could be a victim of a false rape accusation. I don't think many women go around worrying about that. But that's all the evidence I have. Oh dear, Jo is now fighting with SB? I really think someone needs to delete his Twitter account.

From the conversation with secret barrister, glp's position on parental rights & puberty blockers is a bit clearer.
Tavistock never considered the parent's consent to be relevant because they felt they needed the patient's consent. The issue of parental consent therefore never came up in the case. Glp are saying (though you wouldn't know it from the tweet & interview) that if the child, parent and Dr all think the treatment is in the child's best interested the parent should consent on behalf of the child as happens with young children for any medical treatment. I expect they are going to try & intervene in the appeal to bring in this angle, because it was Tavistock's chosen system which means parental consent has not been in the picture, rather than any other reason.

The arguments against will be the same arguments that led the Tavistock to decide it needed the patient consent in the first place, plus the fact that the court views the treatment as experimental with flimsy evidence base.

Nah, I reckon SB must be male. The amount of mansplaining coming from that account is off the scale. Although I am somewhat impressed that SB has gotten involved in this because to date, SB has assumed a rather cowardly stance of refusing to get involved in any of the debate over gender identity stuff.

What happened with the Secret Barrister?

Rachel Smethers sounds about as much of a switched on feminist as her mother.

As a not so secret barrister, chambers is split between the women who think SB is a woman and the men who think SB is a man.

Whereas all of us think SH is a man

I'd always assumed SB was a woman to. The 'as you do' was flippant.

Christine also assuming The Secret Barrister is male. As you do.

Urgh & Christine burns shoved their oar in

twitter.com/christineburns/status/1340006695347601408?s=21

I have to say I always assumed Secret Barrister was a woman

What a huge coincidence it is that the GLP advertised a post and the best candidate turned out to be the daughter of one of the directors! What are the odds? I note that Rachel Smethers has been involved with the Fawcett Society too, for over five years. No doubt this voluntary role was also given to the best candidate who applied.

Although I'm slightly annoyed with myself for not realising maughamsplaining works better.

Sam Smethers from the Fawcett Society? Good grief.

The GLP has a Comms Manager. I think her mother may be a well known former director of the GLP and she previously worked as Harriet Harman's Adviser and Parliamentary assistant. So do Sam Smethers and HH also think like this?

‘Jolsplaining’

He's now having a row with the Secret Barrister.

Which has resulted in the Secret Barrister deleting their tweet and Mr FoxyWoxy being agressively threatening anyhow.

Though having helpfully pointed out that Mr FW is assuming the Secret Barrister is a male, and isn't that just a tad misogynistic, I am now obviously blocked from reading his tweets.

According to the annual report they had no staff until early 2020.

He hasn’t read the room

He's far too busy fucking Jolsplaining to it.

The governance of GLP often comes up here:

goodlawproject.org/about/ (scroll down)

Stewart Wood is on twitter but doesn't seem to have Maugham's mania. Rupert Evans keeps a pretty low profile.

I think the change (somewhere around 2018) in his references to his three daughters to his three children is telling. Not proof. But interesting.

Pretty sure that the GLP is also Just Jolyon. Do you ever hear from anyone else representing the GLP?