JK Rowling - Women’s Fund

Or a shoe in for Pseud's corner.

Perfect.

I didn't think of Nigel Slater so much as EJ Thribb.

So. Hello again
Jolyon Maugham KC. "The
so-called Supreme Court
has erred in law." Yes. That
is your catchphrase.
Sometimes you also
wonder aloud
about why women don't
understand feminism
like you do. Keith's mum
says you even pick
arguments with JK Rowling.
Oh dear.

Blimey, he's trying (and failing) to be Nigel Slater now. Is there no start to this man's talents?

Oh my God.

Clunky to the point of being almost unreadable.

C minus

If jkr (new book in a popular series coming out, massive new series in the pipeline, rich enough to pay her taxes and be a huge philanthropist - with an emphasis on being a philogynist - with enough left over for a yacht…) is an example of being ‘washed up’ … hell, where’s the beach she’s landed on? 😂

Meanwhile, the kind of shit Jolyon Maugham writes:

I'm sitting, writing, under an apricot tree in Cyprus and every welcome breeze brings a small series of 'plops' as the ripe fruit falls, sometimes through the rosemary bush, to the ground. They taste the best, those that pick up the scent as they fall.

Wow he is desperate for her to notice him more

I agree @ThatCyanCat. I was highly amused the other day when a renowned furious poster on here had a dig at her for writing in a cafe owned by a member of her family as if that made her in some way massively privileged!
It was hilarious 😂

People are so mad that not only does she have the resources to fight this, they can't put it down to her having the money from an inheritance or marriage. She not only earned it all herself, she earned it doing something no sane person enters into for the money. She wasn't an investment banker or, God help us, a tax lawyer. She did it being creative and driven, capturing the world with her imagination, and now she uses the crazy money to pay her taxes, set up charities and level the playing field for women who couldn't fight otherwise because they were up against institutions and governments.

It makes them furious!

Oh dear, I think he needs a bit of a lie down.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to men like Jolyon and Willoughby that, when using an online platform, they should really think twice before sticking it to women who write for a living.

The power she has over him is wonderful to behold!

He's so adolescent. What a fucking tool.

Oof she really pressed his buttons with that article, he's absolutely fizzing

From the Suzanne Moore article:

This man, though, calls her “a billionaire cry-baby”. He won’t care what I say. He blocked me a long time ago for being “rude”. In other words, I challenged him. Still, I have had the dubious pleasure of once being at a dinner with him. We got an extra chair for his ego. He was droning on and I went out for a lot of “smoking breaks”. (I don’t smoke.)

She’s not a fan, is she?

Holier-than-thou Jolyon is going to find JK Rowling a far tougher opponent than the fox he beat to death - Suzanne Moore
https://archive.is/ONON0

Strangely the original version of the article said "Woke Barrister Jolyon"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/28/jolyon-maugham-accuses-jk-rowling-of-anti-feminism/

Leaving aside the start and end that's a very good response - and if my MP ever bothers to reply (I suspect he won't) I'll probably use it. I think I'm on his list of "dont bother" - but that means I can put comments on the local Facebook page about how he doesnt bother to reply to constituents unless they agree with him. 😀His supporters always have puff pieces about him before elections.

This! Just so bloody insulting! It is not your job to patronise your constituents. And we've seen the dismal Christine Jardine in action before on the Women and Equalities Committee. The LDs seem totally a lost cause.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay thank you,* *I like it, this gives me something to work with.

Dear LibDem Ignorant Wanker,

I am pleased to hear that the LibDems support LGBTQ+ people. The Supreme Court decision was especially supportive of the human rights and dignity of lesbians and transmen and offers them considerable reasurance that these rights would be upheld - for lesbians, the rights to socialise and form associations without male presence, and for transmen, their continuted maternity rights. Your reply does not acknowledge these benefits to the LGBTQ+ community, perhaps you are not aware of them?

I am very interested to know if the LibDems intend to support the rights and dignity of all women which were upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has upheld that all women are entitled to the safety, privacy and dignity of single-sex spaces where necessary under the Equality Act 2010. It would calm and decrease the toxicity and hostility experienced by trans people of both sexes if trans people and their supporters were to end any existing encroachment on these rights of women. Many voters (party members?) like myself have noticed that the LibDems have added to the toxicity of the debate by refusing to acknowledge women's need for single-sex spaces. I trust that your colleague Christine Jardine is aware of this and will be looking for solutions that respect women's rights and needs as well as trans people.

Now FOTTFSOFAWYGTFOSM, yours sincerely,

Consituent.

A handy 2 paragraphs for those why can't manage all 88 pages.

And isn't it delicious that ScotGov is paying for the fundamental upholding of women's rights? That must sting.

The response makes me wonder if he did actually read my letter. If he did then he didn't understand a word of what I'd said.

I'll come up with a reply and will include a copy of the court order just released by the Supreme Court, as shown here: https://x.com/ForWomenScot/status/1927404685217972326

Well, not the only possible reply, but carving 'Women have rights!' Into his lawn is illegal.

Aargh!

I think the only possible reply to that is 'Thank.you for the boilerplate cliches. Dd you actually read.my letter?'.