GLP ownership structure is changing

And the line about people "who have had to get by with not quite enough" just shows how bonkers Maugham is.
Polanski is paid £63000pa as a member of the London Assembly, how did he not notice he had paid no council tax for 3 years?

Former tax silk in favour of giving tax dodgers the benefit of the doubt? I'm shocked 🧐
Between this and offshoring his Pet Grievance Project I'm starting to wonder if foxy is getting bored. Paying himself a pittance then being constantly mocked, rather than hailed as the people's champion probably wasn't how he saw this panning out.

And still They/Them and their allies will pay him inordinate amounts of money and won't see that he really is the grifter They/Them so often accuse so many activist women of being

@misscockerspaniel
Holy convoluted ownership structure Batman!

I initially assumed this was something to do with Sarah Phillimore's defamation case, but maybe Mrs Fox-killer has binned him off and he's having a little restructure?

Good Law Project Trustee Ltd was incorporated in England on 31 March 2026. The filings on the Companies House website name the fox botherer as the subscriber/shareholder.

Shares in an English company cannot be registered to a Jersey trust, so a person or company needs to be the registered shareholder. A way to deal with this would be for the registered shareholder to sign a declaration of trust in favour of a someone else, a company or a trust. So it is feasible that (1) this new company holds shares in GLP and (2) the fox botherer has signed a d/t stating that he holds shares in the new company on behalf of the Jersey trust.

There isn't a publicly-available register of Jersey trusts but I can see that a company name, GLP Holdings Limited, was reserved in Jersey on 8 March 2026. It has yet to be activated and, of course, it may have nothing whatsoever to do with the Good Law Project (plus, if I was incorporating a company in Jersey, I would use an anonymous-sounding company name, such as Fox Ltd).

GOOD LAW PROJECT TRUSTEE LIMITED filing history - Find and update company information - GOV.UK

"stop men abusing the law to gaslight women"

Absolute masterclass

"Again and again, we’re seeing men use legal loopholes to keep in the shadows while they shut down the women who call them out.

Help stop men using the courts to silence women 👇"

https://nitter.net/GoodLawProject/status/2050923389888426230#m

He’s attempting to have the appearance of a charity - but isn’t a genuine charity with the daily reality of what being a charity actually means.

Now what does that remind me of?

What does this mean for the Director who is also a Director of Mumsnet?

He’s completely candid about that in the podcast interview. It’s obviously his vehicle for pursuing projects of interest. A vanity project i suppose, to give him some salience.

It’s rather like being a trans charity.

He’s attempting to have the appearance of a charity - but isn’t a genuine charity with the daily reality of what being a charity actually means.

He’s one of the most crooked lawyers I’ve come across. Helps briefings are so error laden.

I think this is JM's attempt to get as close to being a charity as possible, without putting GLP under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, which, he feels, would fetter his freedoms.

The first paragraph of FK's announcement suggests that very strongly.

"When Good Law Project was set up in 2017 by Jolyon Maugham he wanted the public interest features of a charity but outside of the moving political guardrails policed by the Charity Commission."

JM is ticked that the High Court found GLP didn't have standing in it's application for Judicial Review of the EHRC interim guidance. Mr Justice Swift said:

"The Good Law Project Limited is not personally or directly affected by the decision challenged in this case. I accept that it has a sincere interest in the subject matter of the case but that is not enough to establish the “sufficient interest” required by section 31(3) of the Senior Courts Act 1981. "

If GLP had been a charity, it probably would have standing: see for example Laing LJ overruling Lieven J (who had denied Sex Matters standing to bring Judicial Review of the Hamsptead Ponds issue) - "That aspect of the Judge’s [Lieven's] judgment is wrong, not least because, as A points out, the statutory scheme also envisages an application for judicial review (section 113(3) of the Equality Act 2010). As A also points out, this part of the decision appears to contradict many authorities in which it has been held that expert charities do have standing to bring claims for judicial review, even where individuals can also do so."

I think this is JM's attempt to get as close to being a charity as possible, without putting GLP under the jurisdiction of the Charity Commission, which, he feels, would fetter his freedoms.

I forgot GLP is limited by guarantee. JMs liability for GLP is limited to £1

Not being paid and having the responsibilities legally are pretty normal and the whole point. Being a trustee is exactly about accountability and someone keeping an eye on the charity.

I don't know what the hell you thought the role was for!

Probably the new trustees won’t even be paid.

I was once asked to be a voluntary trustee of a struggling community organisation. When I read the small print it was clear I could be potentially and personally on the hook for losses, debts and liabilities.

Funnily enough, I didn’t fancy having the stress of potentially losing my house over previous trustees’ poor decisions, so felt I had to decline. The whole thing was effectively a pyramid scheme built on screwing grants out of the increasingly skint council, and paying one rather forceful founding director/CEO/leader-type-person a salary.

He had no liability in relation to GLP before these changes. He's not a director and he would have no personal liability as shareholder other than possibly unpaid share capital

Here's what will happen. He'll find some trans and other patsies to be Trustees.

A few months of the GLP losing stuff, and those trans and other Trustees being flamed on Bluesky for not being perfect enough, and slowly they will start to drop out.

Especially when they realise that they have legal duties to whatever construct it is that he is cooking up.

Gawd, he'll be floating himself on the stock exchange at this rate.

By any chance, does this put ol'Joly further from any legal, financial or otherwise detrimental liabilities that may come in the GLPs direction?

And conversely does it have any function where his personal income could increase?

The PSCs will be shareholders rather than directors (although they may be both). It's about who owns shares and has voting rights in the company.

Yes all registered companies have to declare who this is. I think it can be one or more of the directors. The articles of association will say how many directors are needed to make decisions and move money etc. if someone can find the company listing we can see how many shares have been made and get an idea on how many “pattsies” he’s looking for

A person with significant control (PSC) is someone who owns or controls your company. They’re sometimes called ‘beneficial owners’.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/people-with-significant-control-pscs

I think because it is a legal term.