Is Time Up for the foxbotherer?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60386670

I think people donating are perhaps quite happy to believe that if GLP keep losing it's only a demonstration of how corrupt and wrong the courts/system/gov are. It's emotively angled; it's not really based on logical thinking, is it?

How many times does JM and GLP have to lose before the insurers. start declining to quote for business?

In principle they can just crowdfund costs plus likely defendant costs. There is no scrutiny about what's happening to the money they raise but don't use on cases or a maximum on what they raise for one issue. It's not a charity so there is no charity commission oversight. It doesn't make profits (money is removed by paying 'costs' and salary) and has no shareholders.

The only reason for undertaking any litigation at all is for attention and because it can produce a double payday. I can quite believe they will occaisionally sue when they have no chance of success if it benefits their public profile enough.

Are you suggesting JMs cheque-writers are a few pennies short of the full shilling?

No. I think the vast majority are people who just want to do good on whatever issue or regulars who want to see an awful government held to account.

On first contact the GLP looks like a realy good idea. A bit of detail might make people suspect it's a bit of a publically funded ego trip, but still well intentioned.

I think it takes quite a lot of reading to understand why the way it's funded really isn't kosher. That's the analogy with the victims of email scams- his ideal mark donor is passionate but not going to ask lots of questions.

How many times does JM and GLP have to lose before the insurers. start declining to quote for business?

I guess now the GLP's been called out on standing on this case, it will be easier for other's being challenged by them to question it too.

I'm sure that's true but I suspect JM considers even this utter (legal) beating to be a win for a few reasons:

1. They don't proceed on many cases and can often find someone with standing to use as a front. Where a case is lucrative enough they won't care of they lose this way again, occasionally.

1. Their model relies on attention. They have just generated loads of it. Quotes from Matt Hancock slagging them off and BBC articles pitting them against the government translate to cold hard cash.

1. Letters from Nigerian princes are badly written on purpose- the scammers don't want to waste any time on people who might question the scenario. Similar people fund the GLP- the fact that their model has been criticised in a legal judgement doesn't impact their marketing one bit.

I think costs have yet to be determined in this case, as GLP lost their case in its entirety it could be very costly

They don't proceed on cases unless they've raised enough to insure against costs if they lose. There is literally no scenario in which they lose money.

I think the GLP identifies as having standing in all cases.

I think they will try to find someone / somebody who has standing who they can bring a case on their behalf. The GLP / Mermaids case tries to do this but they will find others who can e.g. the case brought against GIDS after the Keira Bell case.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1401454842460135426

Issue of standing of GLP and Mermaids in re: GLB Alliance and Charity Commission

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1459456190916739076

"What's essential is dealing with reports and complaints of any kind is discerning between a usual, a persistent and a querulant (unusually persistent) complainant.

The persistent complainants’ pursuit of vindication and retribution fits badly with complaints systems established to deliver reparation and compensation. Extract from a report on Unusually Persistent Complainants against the Police in Scotland:

The research on which this report is based arose from my view, shared by many others, that increasingly organisations are required to manage people who make persistent complaints. This small group of individuals can consume a disproportionate amount of an organisation’s resources, pursuing what they believe are legitimate complaints, for longer and with more intensity than the majority of the population would consider reasonable.

The key to managing unacceptable complainant conduct is to manage your own response to it (New South Wales Ombusdman, 2009A) and the importance of adequate training, supervision and managerial support for complaints handlers can not be overstated.

They used the term ‘querulousness’ to refer to a constellation of behaviours and attitudes, which may, or may not, arise secondary to a major mental disorder. The key is that it is a problem behaviour, the causes of which can be many and varied. The behaviour involves “the unusually persistent pursuit of a personal grievance in a manner seriously damaging to the individual’s economic, social, and personal interests, and disruptive to the functioning of the courts and/or other agencies attempting to resolve the claims” (Mullen and Lester, 20)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241727-Weaponising-of-the-Complaints-Process

What criteria do Crowdfunder apply when accepting causes? Surely if someone is cynically raising many thousands of pounds which and diverting it to their own pocket there comes a point when it begins to look like fraud?

Oh it's ok I still managed to find a LOL

mobile.twitter.com/dxwqc/status/1493603416572145673?s=21

🎣

In other cases GLP seems, to my untrained and unqualified eye, to be no better than a vexatious litigant. Just being a lawyer and calling yourself a nice name does mean you are always right

This.
I suppose JM will carry on bringing these cases which clog up even more the backlog waiting to be heard until people stop crowd funding them.

The standing of GLP and Mermaids to bring the case against LGBA was already disputed IIRC.

Here is the judgment if anyone is interested www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Queen-on-the-application-of-1-Good-Law-Project-2-Runnymede-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf

It has a good explanation of standing for anyone keen to read up on the finer points of administrative law!

I think costs have yet to be determined in this case, as GLP lost their case in its entirety it could be very costly

How embarrassing for the GLP.

Sounds like the GLPs wings have been clipped. The court concludes in paragraph 58: “‘It cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’

I think it will continue on for a while until those who keep donating start asking questions.

I wonder what this ruling means for the case that the GLP and mermaids have against the LGBA and the charity commission 🤔