Jolyon Maugham Gets It Wrong Again

More...

J.K. Rowling

Maugham has an unblemished professional record in the same way that I have an unblemished karaoke record: misplaced confidence followed by making a complete tit of yourself.

JKR saw JM's post and found it interesting. :)

J.K. Rowling

The Supreme Court upheld the rights of women and gay people today. Now they're getting a 'kicking' from the man who tried and failed to sue a gay rights charity out of existence. I'm guessing they'll sleep just fine.

Victoria McCloud, who was essentially offered the chance to resign quietly, as them had been overtly politically active. Hmm, they is so VERY credible, isn't them?

Located in echo chambers more like

Are they all located in Garden Court Chambers?

ETA: re the boast that he has an unblemished reputation - he really needs to stop blocking people.

That is fabulous.

Who are the fools who keep donating to them? That’s what I want to know? You’d think after so many losses people wouldn’t bother.

I think it's useful to remember this: the Good Law Project and Jolyon Maugham personally always win... money. They get paid regardless of how many cases they lose. They have no need to win cases as long as there is a steady stream of idiots willing to bankroll them.
Another thing to bear in mind is that the GLP is a limited company who only have to post small business accounts with Companies House. For all their cant about transparency, there are very reluctant to disclose who they actually give money to. You can see this in the accounts where they post how much they spend on "legal advice" which in previous years was over a million pounds. Who did the give these huge sums to? Nobody knows, but those windmills don't pay for themselves.

For anyone who wants an extra giggle today here is his utterly insane take on the ruling:

https://archive.is/xWnp7

Love this bit

We know this because the organisation I run, Good Law Project, has funded and supported their legal actions in the past and we have seen the consequences.

Yes the consequences were you made a lot of money and you LOST.

He even boasts about the incompetent way he makes money:

But we did persuade the two architects of the Gender Recognition Act that created that certificate to intervene: an academic, Stephen Whittle, and until she resigned because of what she experienced as a judge, our only “out” trans High Court judge, Victoria McCloud. Both trans, both with a gender recognition certificate.
Three barristers worked on their intervention – two are now KCs – and they spent hundreds of hours and many tens of thousands of pounds working on it. We funded them. But without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused.

He raised £31,874 from 849 donors for that without having any real basis to intervene it was a waste of time and money.

I read on X that he now has two children identifying as transgender - someone had found an interview of them.

He’s finished

Oh, I agree completely. I just haven't decided whether he's doing a performance for his political allies, in which case he actually does understand the legal situation, or whether his fanaticism on this one subject has clouded his ability to think.

I like the guy personally, but it's a poor show. I don't care what your ideological commitments are, if you're a lawyer people will turn to you to explain the law, and you have to be willing to tell them bluntly why they're on a losing wicket.

It's very much the same as Jolyon telling TRAs what they want to hear.

He must be very foolish. He clearly hasn't read the judgement, which painstakingly explains how the judges came to the conclusion they did (and remember it was unanimous). For example, the Equality Act was drawn from the 1974 Sex Discrimination Act, which very definitely referred to biological sex, because there were no gender recognition certificates then. Similarly, when the Act is talking about pregnancy and birth it is very obviously talking about biological women, and it would be anomalous for the Act to be using a definition of women as biological in one part, but not the others.

The judgement also points out that if you allow men with a GRC into single-sex spaces, then lesbians would no longer have the right to gather without the presence of men.

It's a very lengthy and considered judgement. The point, ultimately, is that if they had ruled in favour of a definition that included men with a GRC, it would have created a massively complicated and confusing legal mess.

We love to mock the Fox killer, but lets take a moment to thank him. Remember by taking on many trans cases - arguing them incredibly badly and losing decisively, often before going to court, GLP shifted the UK case law narrative and the governing trend further towards reality.

While our side was winning consistently the TAs were pouring cash into a Joylon sized incompetent hole of lost cases. It could have been used in far worse ways. The Justices of the Supreme Court keep an eye on case law and it is also thanks to the GLP's failure the genderist cause was getting weaker.

Even if the TAs hired competent lawyers - the Scottish government mostly did - they were likely to lose their case was poor . However when the history comes to be written Agent Joylon will be seen as an asset for reality. One of the many incompetent men who helped expand women's rights while trying to take them away and making huge sums of money at the same time.

There's a rather amusing sentence is his Wikipedia entry that reads "The Times reported that Maugham "flirted with Labour in the run-up to the 2015 election, harbouring a fleeting fantasy of becoming attorney-general, but decided he wasn’t a party political animal"."

So, which political party would he fancy standing for? And which one would have him as a candidate? The Lib Dems? The Greens? Both batshit enough on the genderism issue. The Lib Dems might want to win the seat, though, and might balk at his track record.

Jolyon is so going to find that he'd rather be an MP than a lawyer. You can say what you like as an MP and only risk losing once after five years.

Poor Jolyon, I’m sure he can put on his wife’s kimono and cradle his baseball bat whilst chanting ‘Trans women ARE women’. What a moron.

Jolyon is such an idiot. He has no credibility at all.

I've just read something from another lawyer who's as fanatical on this as Jolyon, and he's spluttering about how this is a political judgment, and the Supreme Court is lining up with Trump and Putin, and Britain has become a more dangerous place for the trans community, yada yada yada.

He's a smart chap with a good track record in his field, but I don't believe he's a specialist in equality law. So on this he's just opinionating in front of his similarly minded political associates.

But he's not saying it was never arguable. Which suggests to me that, for all his bluster, he knew the law was messy and it could go a number of ways. He's just not willing to openly say so.

And that also suggests to me that Jolyon is shamelessly bullshitting.

I'm starting to think he's a trans-KC.

Not just specialists - deep specialists. If M&S did trans specialisms...

I'll hazard a guess. Some other people are also numpties.

In addition, some other people, whilst superficially appearing intelligent, are so in thrall to beliefs fashionable in their circles that they lose all common sense and grasp of reality, and spaff their money away accordingly.

Not one KC. Not even two KCs. Three KCs at three different leading sets. All with the same extremely strong wrong view. Extraordinary.

Brilliant 🤣 although that 'lost cases' case should be bigger...much bigger.

He is such a numpty 🙄

I have no idea why people still want to give him their money.