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?

@Ereshkigalangcleg

What happened with the Secret Barrister?

From what I saw SB said that it was bizarre for JM to claim that medical issues were off limits for judges. But now seems to have deleted it.

From the conversation with secret barrister, glp's position on parental rights & puberty blockers is a bit clearer.
Tavistock never considered the parent's consent to be relevant because they felt they needed the patient's consent. The issue of parental consent therefore never came up in the case. Glp are saying (though you wouldn't know it from the tweet & interview) that if the child, parent and Dr all think the treatment is in the child's best interested the parent should consent on behalf of the child as happens with young children for any medical treatment. I expect they are going to try & intervene in the appeal to bring in this angle, because it was Tavistock's chosen system which means parental consent has not been in the picture, rather than any other reason.

The arguments against will be the same arguments that led the Tavistock to decide it needed the patient consent in the first place, plus the fact that the court views the treatment as experimental with flimsy evidence base.

I think the secret Barrister is male! A few years ago they tweeted or retweeted a story about a false rape accusation and said something like "this could happen to any of us...this could happen to me or you" The story went like "you meet a lovely woman, go to the pub for a date, have too much to drink, next day she accuses you of rape." It seemed very male to assume that one could be a victim of a false rape accusation. I don't think many women go around worrying about that. But that's all the evidence I have. Oh dear, Jo is now fighting with SB? I really think someone needs to delete his Twitter account.

Actually this is the deleted from SB. Wow. Good for SB.

SB called out JM as so many other barristers have about his misrepresentation of the Bell judgement. JM went into full pompous threatening mode demanding that SB withdraw the tweet

SB deleted it but said this. JM has not deleted their tweets

Legal twitter seems to be head in hands and lots of ppl who follow both seem to be doing the equivalent of begging mummy & daddy not to fall out

I've also always thought SB was male due to all the smug mansplaining. But impressed that he stood up to JM, I wouldn't have expected it.

Maugham, is now beginning to realise there's something wrong with what he said if even SB is popping his head above the parapet so has now blamed the quote on someone else and rephrased it...and it still doesn't make much sense. Apparently his view is actually "it is nonsensical for the law to be that where a parent, doctor, and child agree that a treatment is in the child's best interests the parent's views are ignored and the court's view must be sought." It's incredibly rare that the court goes against expert medical evidence in what is in the child's best interest, but I suppose it could happen. This scenario doesn't describe the Tavistock case at all, though, because the doctors have admitted they aren't sure if the treatment is in any individual child's best interests due to its experimental nature.

@WeeBisom

Maugham, is now beginning to realise there's something wrong with what he said if even SB is popping his head above the parapet so has now blamed the quote on someone else and rephrased it...and it still doesn't make much sense. Apparently his view is actually "it is nonsensical for the law to be that where a parent, doctor, and child agree that a treatment is in the child's best interests the parent's views are ignored and the court's view must be sought." It's incredibly rare that the court goes against expert medical evidence in what is in the child's best interest, but I suppose it could happen. This scenario doesn't describe the Tavistock case at all, though, because the doctors have admitted they aren't sure if the treatment is in any individual child's best interests due to its experimental nature.

The doctor can only say PBs are in the child’s best interest if the child consents to it. Whereas the doctor can say that having an appendectomy is in the child’s best interests regardless of what the child says. So we’re not comparing like with like in what Jolyon says.

Also, there have been cases where doctors have performed FGM on girls at a parent’s request. According to Jolyon’s view that’s fine and dandy. Some doctors will engage in deeply immoral practices which is why you need the court there to protect the child’s interests.

@RealityNotEssentialism, I thought of another example where the courts have ruled against both the parents and the doctors. There was a case a while ago where the parents and doctors wanted to sterilise a very disabled girl. The court said this was not in her best interests. The court said that the doctors had focused too much on what the parents wanted and what would be convenient for them, rather than what was best for the child.

@Manderleyagain

From the conversation with secret barrister, glp's position on parental rights & puberty blockers is a bit clearer. Tavistock never considered the parent's consent to be relevant because they felt they needed the patient's consent. The issue of parental consent therefore never came up in the case. Glp are saying (though you wouldn't know it from the tweet & interview) that if the child, parent and Dr all think the treatment is in the child's best interested the parent should consent on behalf of the child as happens with young children for any medical treatment. I expect they are going to try & intervene in the appeal to bring in this angle, because it was Tavistock's chosen system which means parental consent has not been in the picture, rather than any other reason.

The arguments against will be the same arguments that led the Tavistock to decide it needed the patient consent in the first place, plus the fact that the court views the treatment as experimental with flimsy evidence base.

Makes sense.

But surely, this means GLP intends to attempt to undermine Gillick, whereas the High Court upheld it?

So the absolute opposite as to the misinformation that is the standard TRA argument?

[quote WeeBisom]@RealityNotEssentialism, I thought of another example where the courts have ruled against both the parents and the doctors. There was a case a while ago where the parents and doctors wanted to sterilise a very disabled girl. The court said this was not in her best interests. The court said that the doctors had focused too much on what the parents wanted and what would be convenient for them, rather than what was best for the child.[/quote]
Yes that’s a good example. Children are not just possessions of the parents. They are individuals who will be adults in the future and deserve not to have their entire future irreparably changed by actions taken by adults. You can always find some doctor or another willing to do something. Doctors don’t speak with one voice and there is huge divergence within the medical profession. For example, there have been several doctors at the Tavistock who have been very uncomfortable with what is happening there. You then have doctors like Adrian Harrop or Helen Webberley who don’t give two hoots about safeguarding and who believe that gender reassignment for children is a positive thing. It would be extremely scary if we let parents and doctors make choices with no chance for the child’s interests (both current and future) to be represented.

It would be extremely scary if we let parents and doctors make choices with no chance for the child’s interests (both current and future) to be represented.

Another Barrister is disagreeing with JM, and I think he's making a similar point to yours.

I’m glad that people are speaking out about some of this stuff now. Previously it’s been hard to do so but I think the fact that a lot of lawyers are now putting Jolyon straight has helped. Still a total lack of common sense on this from many academic lawyers though but most of them have never had a real-life job outside academia or had to deal with real cases, so possibly not surprising.

One problem about the deleted tweet by The Secret Barrister:

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1340006006005370883

is that they included the hashtag #FakeLaw which is the one they're using at the moment to flog their newly published book. It's a bit grubby to use this argument to sell stuff:

twitter.com/search?q=%23FakeLaw&src=hashtag_click

[quote nauticant]One problem about the deleted tweet by The Secret Barrister:

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1340006006005370883

is that they included the hashtag #FakeLaw which is the one they're using at the moment to flog their newly published book. It's a bit grubby to use this argument to sell stuff:

twitter.com/search?q=%23FakeLaw&src=hashtag_click[/quote]
Absolutely characteristic of SB, though. He probably wouldn't have criticised Jolyon had the latter's stupid tweet not neatly illustrated one of the fallacies in SB's latest book.

There doesn't seem to be much fawning/agreeing with him so PPs' thoughts around his motives for doubling down are interesting

Yes, that is a very good point. As evidenced by Helen Webberley, there are doctors happy to make money out of children in this way.

the parent should consent on behalf of the child as happens with young children for any medical treatment

I'm not sure that that would be possible as WPATHs Standards of Care state

"The adolescent has given informed consent and, particularly when the adolescent has not reached the age of medical consent"

I think there is a feeling among many at the bar that JM is treading quite dangerously now. I certainly wouldn’t be tweeting in the way that he has done recently. This whole issue has raised urgent questions about the extent to which (and way in which) the bar code of conduct applies where social media is concerned.

An aside: the secret barrister is male. He narrated something on news night a while back about the unacceptable state of delays in court proceedings - a male voice.

Newsnight. Damn spell check

Sorry, thinking about it, maybe I'm being thick and it wasn't SB's real voice. Still think SB is male though.

I'm glad SB is calling out JM (and JM's replying like a 5yo). I sometimes get SB and David Allen Green confused, but DAG was tweeting fairly TWAW tweets a while ago.

I'd gone back and forth re SB being male/female (from the infrequent tweets I read) til I read their book which comes across as male.

Is it just me who thinks that this is absolutely nuts though? Glinner pointed it out - it definitely reads like a threat to reveal SB's identity. He's threatening to release private information he is party to about the SB if the SB doesn't do what he wants?

twitter.com/JolyonMaugham/status/1339999171538006017