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?

I’m genuinely baffled how he can continue spewing lies & no one from the Bar Council thinks it’s a problem

I’m genuinely baffled how he can continue spewing lies & no one from the Bar Council thinks it’s a problem

It's reminiscent of Dr Haddock and the GMC. What exactly do you have to do before your professional body will act?

The twitter comments this morning are disingenuous at best. He has some nerve calling out abortion charities to join his crusade.
Pretty sure they can manage to actually read the ruling and react themselves —no need— without vomiting up half baked ideas on Twitter...

And to be honest, since when have abortion charities been afraid of criticism from the Christian Right? That has been a feature of their existence since day one

Agree. Can only assume that he is using the term leading charities who protect abortion rights rather loosely - but even then he'd still have to explain who this all powerful 'Christian Right' is in the UK and why feminists suddenly have such influence.

I'm sure I read somewhere that people who are highly educated are more vulnerable to confirmation bias because their ability to construct a strong argument to support an existing opinion makes them less able to accept that they could be wrong.

However, you'd hope that a highly educated person could spot when don't have any argument at all.

He's probably just talking about Amnesty and Liberty and we already know what they think.

I wondered about that - but they haven't been afraid to comment.

I think it’s important to counter his lies, and here’s another one today . Maugham says that “as a lawyer” he can confirm this ruling will affect abortion rights in the U.K. This is a total falsehood- complete fake law. Here is a QC using his legal credentials to scare and mislead people. The judgment is confined to the very particular facts of the case. Abortion is not the same thing at all as life long body altering drug regimes that lead to infertility and sexual issues. The judgment upholds and strengthens gillick competence so if a child can consent to an abortion then they can have one (and even if they can’t consent there may be best interest arguments.)

I agree with others that he seems to have many of the “qualities” of Owen Jones.

Can you imagine these two getting together and have a chat about this subject. The stuff of nightmares! The thought makes my skin crawl.

Maugham says that “as a lawyer” he can confirm this ruling will affect abortion rights in the U.K.

"As a lawyer" is dodgy given that his expertise and area of practice is tax law. Even there he has chosen his words carefully "would give support" is very vague.

"Success in the judicial review of the Tavistock would inevitably - I speak as a lawyer when I say this - give support to those seeking to close down abortion rights."

My reply would be "The ability to use the Tavistock case to close down abortion rights - I speak as someone who can read - would be limited because of the large amount of available data evidencing the comparable risks of abortion and pregnancy"

My reply would be "The ability to use the Tavistock case to close down abortion rights - I speak as someone who can read - would be limited because of the large amount of available data evidencing the comparable risks of abortion and pregnancy"

Conveniently for him he's prevented anyone actually replying to his tissue of lies.

Or maybe it’s - uterus owner who’s uterus I once occupied’s the word.

Brilliant. I wish my mother still had enough marbles to enjoy the joke. I'll have to try it on the daughters. Uterus owner who once occupied my uterus.

I wonder who he means. Mostly it's one issue covered by women's orgs eg fawcett, wep. The latter are saying nothing about trans issues at the mo while their consultation is on.

Abortion rights UK haven't said anything.

My guess is they don't think the judgement poses a threat to abortion rights. Or if they think it potentially could cause trouble to the defence of abortion rights, or provide a new inroad to anti-abortion campaigners, they also think this is not straight forward, is complex & needs a nuanced response with good lawyer input rather than the kneejerk sloganeering that jm, amnesty, & liberty favour.

I think it's worth acknowledging that those who are anti abortion might use this case in their campaigning. They may even try and use similar arguments in court (about ability to consent) to make their case. Ive seen that conrathe works on anti abortion cases. I'm v well aware of all the arguments that show the difference between consenting to this and to abortion which is why having looked into it I did support keira's case. But at the centre is the issue of a child's ability to consent to things to do with their body, and where we draw the lines on that. If I was a lawyer for a pro choice campaign I would be going through the judgement, and thinking through the possible ways a future judge could interpret it in relation to abortion.

Oh no I was wrong. Half an hr ago. I take back my predictions that abortion rights would be complex & nuanced
mobile.twitter.com/Abortion_Rights/status/1335165087166963712

Also their abortion rights advent calendar is trolling anti abortion Christians.

I really don't get this Christian Right stuff. We are not in the US.

Who needs the 'Christian Right' to conflate this judgement with abortion rights when 'Abortion Rights' are happy to do the job for them?

@nancywhisky

I really don't get this Christian Right stuff. We are not in the US.

No it’s just bollocks! Woke left always trying to paint this as right wing Christian fundamentalists rolling back all rights for LGBT ppl & it’s nonsense. They never have any proof / they just scream accusations & then block!

Well I for one I’m stunned that an organisation that is supported by the NUS & trade unions all of whom have been chanting twaw for the last few years have misrepresented the judgement

All those links are pretty tenuous. This is scaremongering and conspiracy-theorising, what with references to 'dark money' and all.

Where's their common sense? Where's their evidence? Heck, where's their reading comprehension?!

@nancywhisky

I really don't get this Christian Right stuff. We are not in the US.

I also don't know why it's not considered hate speech, religion is a protected characteristic.

I was going to give an example of an equivalent statement using a different religion or protected characteristic but they are all too offensive and would be immediately deleted

If they believe this case threatens Gillick and abortion rights then doesn't that mean all laws or rulings regarding what under 16's cannot consent to also in theory threaten it?

They have no arguments only lies and emotional blackmail. Like they conflate gay and trans rights they'll now try and use abortion rights to ger the bell ruling struck down. It seems like a long shot because the ruling was clear and reasoned but I guess they are trying to whip up an atmosphere of moral outrage to place judges under pressure to cave. So expect lots more of this crap.

Janice Turner has a word:

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1335169738041937921

That's a pretty good burn.

I can't see that tweet from Abortion Rights - have they deleted? I'm a longstanding donor and will be very upset if they've supported JM this morning.

@Pepvixen

I can't see that tweet from Abortion Rights - have they deleted? I'm a longstanding donor and will be very upset if they've supported JM this morning.

Yes it would appear so.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4098393-Abortion-Rights-UK-tweet-about-Keira-Bell-case

Idiots! At least they deleted... it does make me consider my monthly donation...

As a tax lawyer he's not an expert in the field of Gillick competence. No one would place any reliance on his opinion (and if a charity is paying for advice from him in an area outwith his expertise it needs to be reported to the Charity Commission).

He must know this perfectly well, and he must (at some level) also know he's spouting dangerous untruths about this judgement. Why not just come out and say that he wants children to take life changing medication even if they don't understand the implications?

Just be honest about it!

And finally - all the respect he gets for being a QC! I have (in my professional life) met many QCs and taken advice from many. The standard of their skills is hugely variable. Some are talented, constructive, and vastly knowledgeable. Others are rambling idiots who can't be bothered to do the work - who don't read their materials and are not familiar with recent developments and try to bluster their way through case conferences. No one should respect this man - a man who gleefully joked about killing a defenceless animal remember - because he's a QC. Its a nothing.