Good Law project have succeeded...

Hmmm. He is quite an odd character. He’s alive to the secret motivations of others, while seemingly oblivious to the concept of people seeing his own glaring biases and faults.

WeeBisom thank you for highlighting what a serious slur it is to accuse a judge of bias.

Someone on Twitter produced Jolyon’s Guide to the British Courtroom

But grasp of fine details isn't his thing - despite having 'commissioned resarch' on the band of travelling transphobes that are, apparently, making a living from appearing as experts in 'anti trans' cases, their names had slipped his mind. And the alt-right organisations 'astroturfiing' money into the crowdfunders he also couldn't name.

Losing the plot? Certainly. And all shred of professional credibility at the same time.

Wow, he really did just drag the only female judge didn't he? A little point about bias in judges. Judicial bias is a special term of art, and it refers to a case where a judge has, through bias, pre-determined the outcome of a case and shuts her eyes and ears to contrary evidence. It is a serious accusation to make because it makes the judgment automatically unsafe. A case had to be sent back from the Supreme Court last year to be entirely re-tried because the judge was biased towards the claimant. And when you read that case it really is extreme - he was saying things like 'you're a horrible man, and I can't wait to judge against you and see you go bankrupt," or "I don't want to hear another word, you just lie about everything." In this context, accusing a judge of reaching a decision through bias isn't a small thing - it's essentially saying the judge was not guided in her decision by the facts and evidence but by pre-conceived ideas and would have made that same decision no matter what. And he has strongly implied that she reached this decision because she is of a certain demographic, and could be a certain kind of feminist. finally, he's once again showed he doesn't really get this area of law by saying that he 'doesn't understand' why judges feel they are qualified to make these decisions over loving parents. He did tax law for a long time, so surely he is a aware that not all judges are tax experts. The reason judges get to make these decisions is they are trained to apply the law, and the law says the best interests of the child are to be taken into account. They are good at balancing the various considerations in a neutral way. If he doesn't appreciate why it's legitimate for judges to make these kinds of decisions, why is he trying to even get into this area of law?

Isn't the judge he singled out from the Bell case, Mrs Justice Lieven, the same judge in GLP's parental consent case?

But he's only complaining about one of the judgements...🤔

Sarah Phillimore Substack article,
'Jive Talkin'
Just what can we do when people in positions of power and authority keep misrepresenting the truth persistently and deliberately?'
(extract)
"On the morning of Friday 2nd April I awoke to find some of my Whats App groups more than usually aggrieved by this Substack post. “The Divisional Court Brought to That Decision a Series of Preconceptions about Gender’: A Conversation with Jolyon Maugham, QC”. This was a conversation between Mr Maugham and an American based academic who does not appear to have any qualifications in areas of law or medicine but specialises in “Victorian literature and culture, trans feminist studies, and contemporary popular culture” at Berkeley University in California.

As it was no longer April Fool’s Day I began to read with a weary sense of dread and immediately even my low expectations were met. I tweeted my concerns about the persistent and deliberate dishonesty contained within, and found a high level of immediate engagement. You can read the thread here.
archive.is/D6ZRq

But because Grace Lavery’s post represents a really serious level of dishonesty about a High Court Judgment, scaffolded by defamatory attacks on the judiciary and a solicitor, I thought it might help other truth seekers and truth pushers consider what was claimed against what actually happened. (continues)

Conclusions
But regardless. To come to court without the ability to evidence what you are saying is nobody’s fault but your own. I suggest that no one who reads this judgment and the pages and pages of careful analysis of all the evidence put before it, could possibly agree with Maugham’s criticisms of the court’s approach to the available evidence. As he said:

I’m a practicing Queen’s Counsel, so I’m a practicing trial lawyer, and so I have to choose my language carefully.

So I have to assume, very sadly, that the deliberate misrepresentations of Mr Maugham in this interview were not made out of carelessness or casual language but chosen. He has used his status as Queen’s Counsel to give his arguments a credibility that they do not deserve. He has made personal attacks on a serving Judge and a solicitor in a matter that is due before the Court of Appeal in a few months. He has made no child any safer. Quite the reverse. He has continued to fan the flames of obfuscation and simple, deliberate lies that have so polluted any attempt to have sensible discussions about any of this.

He is a disgrace."
sarahphillimore.substack.com/p/jive-talkin

One might think he's been alerted to the comments on this thread and is now doing some post-facto justification of his imprudent criticisms.

Jolyon has tweeted about the obligation to highlight judicial biases

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1377948122844958727

He also has a thread on the NICE PB review and the BBCs reporting of it. I'm not sure I understand what his objections are but I'm pleased he's at least looked at the NICE evidence.

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1377916230678499328

What did the Tavistock think they were being taken to court for?! It wasn't ''all of a sudden'', they had plenty of time to prepare. There was enough time for Keira to crowdfund, so there was enough time for them to get their shit together. They weren't just dragged into court randomly one day

They didn't fail because they took the 'wrong evidence', their evidence was just shit. They couldn't even give the stats on the number of children they treat/treated that have autism. You'd think it might have crossed their minds that they'd be asked for this info, considering the case was brought by the mother of an autistic teenager.

He's also complaining that judges aren't medical experts. Whilst sulking that Stonewall and Mermaids weren't allowed to intervene. Are they medical experts? The parents consenting for their children, are they all medical experts?

Such a bizarre take.

He left his Chambers under something of a cloud I think, which ended in him blocking his former head of Chambers on twitter.

He's angry with her for talking about a man sexually assaulting her.

4th rule of misogyny: Women's opinions are violence against men thus male violence against women is justified.

9th rule of misogyny: Men always know the "real reasons" for everything women do and say.

10th rule of misogyny: The worst thing about male violence is that it males men look bad.

11th rule of misogyny: Basic pattern recognition skills are cruel and evil when they hurt men's feelings.

That interview glad it's been archived.

He has left his chambers to run the Good Law Project, but as Sarah said in a tweet:

He is still a barrister with a practising certificate and he needs to abide by the Code of Conduct which I do not think he has done here.

Justhadanother
Indeed, Shiloh Jolie-Pitt dressed as a boy for many years and had the same haircut as her brothers.
It would appear that she has now decided she is a girl.

WELL DONE to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie that amidst the rancour of their divorce they allowed Shiloh to be herself and did not weaponise her choices.

If only other families could see that medicalising short term choices
may well destroy their children, not save them.

He's going to end up being reported to the BRB at this rate

I think he's pre-empted this by making his professional status moot:

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/barrister-jolyon-maugham-blacklisted-allen-overy-tweeting-killing-fox-b919879.html

Yeah, that 'jus saying' comment about the judge;

I’m not saying she’s a transphobe. I’m just saying that she is in that demographic.

Twitter thread about that JM piece:

twitter.com/SVPhillimore/status/1377871589493063684

Nothing reveals more clearly the poverty and dangers of our current ‘’debate’ than this conversation between Grace Lavery and Jolyon Maugham.

Let’s examine the misrepresentations.

He's going to end up being reported to the BRB at this rate, his comments about one of the judges being biased is really unprofessional. The bit about commissioning an investigation into all of the witnesses is either his usual self aggrandisement (he just did a Google search of their names) or a bit threatening if he actually paid someone (with GLP funds??) to investigate them.

Maugham on Rowling:

And what I was particularly angry with J.K. Rowling about, somebody who I’ve spoken to privately in the past and previously had a good relationship with was that I thought that she weaponized in a rather mischievous way the abuse that she received.

Well it’s a case I’ve been following right from when it, sort of, launched, and I took quite an interest in it. I first read about it in The Guardian––it sounded a bit like a joke, to be honest. No one—certainly I couldn’t see any legal basis for the court to decide the matter in Keira Bell’s favor.

A joke?

That's rather terrifying, to be honest.

Because even IF this man is utterly convinced that some children need these drugs, the fact that they render them sterile, with irreversible side-effects, will compromise their sex life, with little or zero orgasmic capacity, and turn them into a medical patient for life, doesn't deter him from his opinion that questioning that is nothing more than a 'joke'.

If I had a very sporty gnc child I would be doing my best to keep them away from bone thinning treatments, not making a bloody crusade about it.

Apologies for formatting failure.
Should read,

The central issue for present purposes was the information that the doctor needed to have given the patient in order to establish that she had given informed consent for the treatment

Well it’s a case I’ve been following right from when it, sort of, launched, and I took quite an interest in it. I first read about it in The Guardian––it sounded a bit like a joke, to be honest. No one—certainly I couldn’t see any legal basis for the court to decide the matter in Keira Bell’s favor.

From the Bell v NHS Tavistock finding:

(extract)
119. In determining the level of understanding that the child needs to have to consent to PBs, Mr Hyam attached considerable importance to the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lancashire Health Board. That case concerned an action in negligence brought by a mother on behalf of her child. The child was disabled as a result of complications during delivery and the mother argued that she should have been advised as to the possibility of delivery by elective caesarean. The central issue for present purposes was the information that the doctor needed to have given the patient in order
to establish that she had given informed consent for the treatment.

120. Lord Kerr set out the requirements placed on a doctor in providing information on risks of injury from treatment in the following terms at para 87: “An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken. The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.” (continues)

www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Bell-v-Tavistock-Judgment.pdf

Another detached from reality nugget:

And although that which people abroad see of the BBC is largely positive, the content that the BBC serves up to its domestic audience is very different and is very transphobic.

The only thing I can imagine that being based on is Glinner getting a small amount of airtime, and the Newsnight Tavistock reports. What else is there for him to possibly complain about?