Jo Maugham

[GoodbyePorpoiseSpit]

I follow Jo on Twitter and feel that the GoodLaw project is a needed and good thing when it comes to holding ministers/gov spending to account. He seems to take refuge in the rule of law and facts .... so, so WHY after the recent ruling on puberty blockers is he tweeting and retweeting Trans folk who are sharing (in emotive and extra detail) their experience post ruling. What his deal?? What’s his skin in the game? Looked through some old tweets and he really seems to have come down hard against women’s rights.
Ca anyone explain his deal here?

Oooohhhh i just realised why the JM ‘tilting at windmills’ tweet wrt his attack on feminists is so apposite

He's in good company with this ignorance - cf Sarah Palin moaning about fruit fly research: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/oct/27/sarahpalin-genetics-fruit-flies

Loving the user name, WiltingAtTreadmills.

I remember that Sarah Palin comment about fruit flies. Bless. For a long time I went through life assuming that people who had reached some degree of seniority in life were reasonably knowledgeable and intelligent. How wrong I was.

"WiltingAtTreadmills"

I'm still chuckling at Rupert Murdoch being 'in thrall to Big Vagina'! 😂

That's a terrible thing to say about Jerry Hall. They seem like a lovely couple.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

"WiltingAtTreadmills"

Hmmph...

If you just heard a funny noise, that was my brain exploding and then being put back together.

The Good Law Project has gone full throttle on the argument that children belong to their parents and the state should never interfere.

Screw patient-centred treatment! We want parent-centred treatment. Apparently.

If you're a parent, the court is saying to you a judge knows better than you what is in the interest of your child.

That's a morally offensive and nonsensical position for the law to find itself in. We intend to challenge it. @RubyJLL

<a class="break-all" href="https://t.co/J8Jfd2NLrotwitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1338881117894696960?s=19" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">t.co/J8Jfd2NLrotwitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1338881117894696960?s=19

They're going to be eaten for breakfast.

If you're a parent, the court is saying to you a judge knows better than you what is in the interest of your child.

Two words: Jehovah's Witnesses.

That Twitter link's not working, so looks as if they may already have thought better of it.

Sadly not.

I just screwed up the link.

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1338881117894696960?s=19

This year's Christmas event is going to be Mr Maugham and a bouncy castle outside the Family Division of the High Court.

We can do away with Social Services and Child Protection then, being as every single parent everywhere knows absolute best?

If you're a parent, the court is saying to you a judge knows better than you what is in the interest of your child.

Based on what I've seen from some parents of 'trans kids' (not generalising, MN, I know it's not all) I think it is absolutely best for the judge to intervene actually.

And what about all those staff concerns that homophobic parents were pushing their children to transition? Didn't a whistleblower say they were very concerned by one man who they believed may have been a paedophile pushing his daughter for puberty blockers? Those parents know best, do they? They're doing what's best for their child?

In taking this stance Maugham is aligning himself and the Good Law Project with the US religious right.

Obviously this has no impact on them being on the right side of history.

Whom the Gods would destroy they first make woke.

So, remind me again who it was who was going to destroy girls' rights to access contraception without their parents' permission?

And what about all those staff concerns that homophobic parents were pushing their children to transition? Didn't a whistleblower say they were very concerned by one man who they believed may have been a paedophile pushing his daughter for puberty blockers? Those parents know best, do they? They're doing what's best for their child?

“All the pushing was coming from the father to put the kid on puberty blockers. Thinking back on it now, I fear that the father was a paedophile and the child was being abused.”

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/it-feels-like-conversion-therapy-for-gay-children-say-clinicians-pvsckdvq2

Will Maugham also be supporting the parents who Marcus Evans wrote about in this article?
quillette.com/2020/01/17/why-i-resigned-from-tavistock-trans-identified-children-need-therapy-not-just-affirmation-and-drugs/

Almost as soon as I’d joined, I was made aware of the growing controversy over GIDS. A letter had come in from a group of parents complaining that their children had been fast-tracked through GIDS without any serious psychological evaluation.

Dr. David Bell, a senior consultant at the Tavistock & Portman NHS Trust and a Tavistock governor, was approached by 10 GIDS staff members (amounting to about one-fifth of the London-based service) who had grave ethical concerns similar to those expressed in the parents’ letter—including inadequate clinical assessments, patients being pushed through for early medical interventions, and GIDS’ failure to stand up to pressure from trans activists.

Or is Maugham only supporting the parents pushing for drugs for their children. Some of whom may be homophobic and believe in 'better a straight daughter than a gay son'.

I looked at the Twitter link from Pothole. Isn't it interesting that, although Maugham has blocked so many feminists, he still got ratio'ed?

You only have to think about it for a couple of minutes to know that his position is nonsensical. Someone made my point about Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions. Others mentioned FGM. Someone else mentioned her own experience of being a mother who was a heroin addict - the court placed her child with grandparents. Others talked about parents who abused their children. Loads and loads of cases where the court quite clearly knows better than the parents what's best for their child.

Maugham may have forgotten every word of the principles of law outside taxation, but other people haven't!

What about parents who don't want their child to access hormone blockers, where the child is making an application to the court of protection?

Or does Maugham suddenly decide he would like a judge's decision to outweigh that of the parents, then?

I have a theory about why he's going in so hard on this now despite his usual coterie of Twitter fluffers backing away from him. I think he'd convinced himself that once he got involved in the Tavi v Bell case the outcome was a foregone conclusion. JM would coach Child S into giving a barnstorming performance in front of the judges which would melt their icy hearts & legal history would be made yada yada...
Obviously none of this happened hence the furious overreaction and dissembling about the actual judgement. He's taking it personally because he's made it personal.

Was he actually involved in the case? I got the impression that he's been trying to muscle in on the case since it was lost, ready for appeal.
When he initially responded on twitter to the judgement he said there was nothing in it that would likely be successfully appealed, so he's changed his tune alot.

Was he actually involved in the case?

Not as far as I know. He said somewhere he assumed the Tavistock would win.

I think this has broken his brain a bit - his worldview can't make sense of a bunch of bigotty bigots somehow defeating the forces of Trans Truth and Goodness in the High Court.

It's taken him a while to figure out how best to integrate these new facts into his model without having to reconsider his fundamental assumptions.

So, all those parents whose kids have been transed on the school roll without their knowledge, let alone permission, do they also know best, Jollyon?

The incoherence of this stuff is astounding.