I'm not sure Jo Maugham is quite well

Beclowning himself, mainly.

Making money via the system before making even more money by criticising it

I still don't understand what a tax barrister is even doing running human rights cases.

Delicious

JKR has the receipts from 2019

He’s quite simply deranged. I wonder if his wife is as bad as this? Can you imagine the atmosphere in their home if they’re both this bad, those poor kids?

Ever the taste for drama isn’t there

My guess is he’s deregistered to run the GLP and be able to say/do what he likes without fear of investigation

Ffs. Just for using the unisex toilet.

They should constantly be brought back to prisons, rape refuges and sport. Cherry picking in which facilities they are confident they can lie about their sex, and which they aren't, would be quite enlightening.

If men can be women in public toilets, why can't they be women in sport, or if they commit rape, in prison?

Just (finally) got round to watching his response video to the SC ruling.

He doesn't look well does he.

I've noticed that public figures who fancy themselves 'Progressives' and use that cloak to bully and malign people who disagree with them, all seem to exhibit an accelerated physical deterioration commensurate with the collapse of their beliefs when they come into contact with reality. It's like their Dorian Grey portraits have escaped from the attic.

Talcum X and Tennant exhibit similar. As does Prince Harry, by the way, albeit for different reasons.

To be fair, I do think that article raises some good legal points.

And so does Naomi Cunningham who has praised it on LinkedIn.

She disagrees with it, to be clear, but she is applauding it as a reasonably sensible attempt to actually address the legalities.

I think all the Human Rights arguments are nonsense, because obviously you can’t trash some people’s human rights to give other people extra ones, but for example the precedent set by the police case did worry me.

It was specifically brought to the attention of the Supreme Court and I think the FWS barrister said ‘it hadn’t aged well’ because it argued that no woman could possibly have a good reason for not wanting to be searched by a male. But nevertheless it was a HoL decision.

Crash Wigley?! Is that some sort of fetish name?

On both counts I have no idea.

I would think your KC lapses if you're no longer registered, but Jolyon seems to operate in his own reality.

Crash Wigley is an excellently silly name.

Has anyone considered that GLP is actually just a long running comedy piece? Joly's latest article would certainly fit.

There was a talk hosted by the LSE Law School last night on the implications of the judgment. The panel members were expert practitioners in the field Akua Reindorf KC, Ben Cooper KC, Naomi Cunningham and Sarah Vine KC.

Someone mentioned this piece by Crash Wigley. Let's just say that these leading lawyers gave it the attention and analysis it deserved.

May I ask two questions? Why is he no longer registered as a barrister and, given that he is not, is he still entitled to use the title KC?

The key point here:

Just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should legislate.
Legislation has its limitations.
And you should never ever lose sight of the unintended consequences of your well intended ideas.

The road to hell is paved with them.

You need to think about practical terms and what you can define in law and what you can't. If you can't make clear and easy distinctions - which are reasonably understandable for law abiding citizens to follow and works in their own interests, you don't make law.

Because its Bad Law that Does More Harm Than Good.

@Darkgreendarkbark and @RedToothBrush good points, I certainly wouldn’t want to make it harder for individuals to crowd fund.

I think JM’s behaviour here is appalling, obscuring inconvenient facts to keep the donations rolling in.

I think this is true of crowdfunding in general, isn't it? Anyone can start a crowdfunder, and say it's for a good cause, and it's not regulated at all afaik. Donors can report fraud to the crowdfunding platform, but it's up to the platform to decide whether they get a refund. Caveat emptor.

I think people need to be more aware of what a registered charity is. The Good Law Project is not a registered charity, therefore they are pretty unaccountable. If someone wants to donate to a person or organisation which isn't a registered charity, they need to realise they're taking a risk. For example, regarding vulnerability, charities would have a policy on vulnerable donors, and they are accountable to the Fundraising Regulator and the Charity Commission. That said, it's not black and white - vulnerable people are allowed to spend their money in many ways that we may consider unwise, and making a donation to a cause they believe in might give them a sense of reward that outweighs the cost. And as for foolish people - well, you know what they say about a fool and his money - I have limited sympathy.

I do think, with the Good Law Project, that Jolyon is a true believer with a Messiah complex, rather than a cynical scammer.

I have the marrvellous Milli Hill to thank for this image which was included in her latest newsletter (subscribe here https://millihill.substack.com

My only concern about that, is how do you legislate and distinguish because Gardening For A Legitimate Cause and Grifting?

The politics on this become relevant and your unintended consequence might be to make it impossible for good causes to be defended because they are unable to define themselves in law as being different to grifters.

Thats why I would be opposed to this as an idea; you'd do as much harm as good.

There is no substitute for better education about Cults and Exploitation unfortunately.