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?

From Wiki it seems that Maugham's social justice side is a moderately new discovery. And I'm not sure that he's very left wing. Wiki says that he was last on the advisory council of liberal conservative think tank Bright Blue, which advises the Conservative Party. In April 2017, he reportedly contemplated forming a new centrist political party.

Wiki also says that despite his public talk about tackling tax avoidance and evasion, Maugham has himself represented corporate interests in quite a number of cases against HMRC.

He generally sounds like a virtue signaller who is basically full of bull - which we already know. But on this his interest seems personal. I don't think he'd publicly refer to himself as "someone I love" though, I think it's a family member.

There's some very satisfying discussions by other barristers on twitter about the shitshow that JM has turned in to.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1335169738264244224

Having just had a quick look on twitter this morning I think today might be the day he finally overstepped the mark. Give someone enough rope .. Surely the Bar Council should intervene. When you start bringing the holocaust into the argument about the result of a Judicial Review you've lost it and it's utterly offensive. Is there anywhere/any point in members of the public complaining about his behaviour. He needs an intervention from someone who cares about him.

Yep.

How on earth is he getting away with these insane attacks on everyone, and the deliberate misinterpretations whilst saying ''speaking as a lawyer'' so that easily led people believe him?

The man has lost it. He has overstepped the mark here, this is so low. Reprehensible bastard.

I would like to never be aware of Jolyon ever again. Unfortunately, every time I see a fox (regularly) I feel horror at the image of him in his half done up satin kimono clubbing a fox. I again shake my head that no civilised person would behave as he did.

He thought it was a "what a hilarious guy I am" moment when in fact it was more of a "horror story Norman Bates type" moment. He revealed far too much of himself (not just in the kimono) but when he posted his delighted tweet at what a crazy morning he'd had.

Of course, there is the whole trans issue and I choose to ignore his peculiar and hectoring interest in telling women that he knows what it is to be a woman.

However, ignoring this ignoramus is no longer possible since the foxes and every day I'm reminded of his appalling behaviour.

Wiki also says that despite his public talk about tackling tax avoidance and evasion, Maugham has himself represented corporate interests in quite a number of cases against HMRC.

He has certainly represented tax avoidance schemes.

Who benefits from children being prevented from going through puberty, and remaining childlike in both their bodies and brain function?

Any man who openly campaigns for this is a huge red flag....

@nauticant

Janice Turner has a word:

twitter.com/VictoriaPeckham/status/1335169738041937921

That's a pretty good burn.

Great to see Hadley straight in there too.

twitter.com/clairemaugham/status/1335124010787614721?s=19 his wife agreeing with him and blaming "feminists" for whatever it is the Maughams imagine is happening. I'm old enough to remember when she used to come on here gushing about her Very Important Husband and sharing his legal wisdom with us nappy brained dolts.

his wife agreeing with him and blaming "feminists" for whatever it is the Maughams imagine is happening.

The judgement considered medical ethics. It had nothing to do with feminists/the GRA/gender critical theory.

Had the Tavistock been able to produce data to show that PBs were completely reversible and not experimental, it is likely the judgement would have been different.

Talking about feminists just undermines the judiciary because it suggests they had ulterior motives not mentioned in the judgement. Again, where have we heard that kind of talk before?

"As a lawyer" the word around the Temple is that he's leaving his current chambers very very soon. Couldn't possibly comment.

@PenguindreamsofDraco

"As a lawyer" the word around the Temple is that he's leaving his current chambers very very soon. Couldn't possibly comment.

A career in Z rated celebrity twitter beckons?

@DrudgeJedd

twitter.com/clairemaugham/status/1335124010787614721?s=19 his wife agreeing with him and blaming "feminists" for whatever it is the Maughams imagine is happening. I'm old enough to remember when she used to come on here gushing about her Very Important Husband and sharing his legal wisdom with us nappy brained dolts.

Did she really? God, mega cringe 🤣

Yes Claire seems to have a poor understanding of the issues as well.
Why do people think bodily autonomy = the right to insist doctors prescribe experimental and harmful drugs on demand?

Should doctors listen to immature children and just hand out whatever medications and treatments they think they need? Is that bodily autonomy?

Aside of any of the trans issues it's a very strange point of view.

Forgot the screen shot.

His wife has it arse about tit. The ruling does not weaken bodily autonomy for girls and women, as she claims. It strengthens it by reinforcing that bodily autonomy requires consent and understanding and these poor kids lacked it. The Tavistock were inflicting treatments on kids that they didn’t understand , and that are experimental. That doesn’t promote bodily autonomy. I’m really sorry for banging on about this , but I’m shocked to see people coming out and just lying and representing this judgment as something it’s not purely for political ends. There’s already enough confusion about the legal system in this country, and people are going to see a QC as an authority.

A solicitor could get in serious shit for giving advice outside their competence and for using their status for personal gain (and I think here he clearly is using his status to intimidate and for personal glory). I don't know anything about the Bar code of conduct but I'd be amazed if he's not trampling on the spirit of it.

A tweet from him

As Twitter pointed out, he missed out the most important of them all in that little self description there- male^. Unless that's what he meant by 'and of privilege'. Utter twatbadger.

And he's a Regal-person-who-identifies-as-female's Counsellor, too.

He has really upset another QC

Sorry image didn’t post

He's taken QC out of his twitter profile.

Let's hope that the QC takes the Observer on a Sunday and has a read of their editorial today that concludes:

Children are not pawns to be deployed in adult debates about identity. Bell’s bravery has paved the way for a child-centred judgment that gives them the protection they deserve

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/dec/06/the-observer-view-on-the-high-courts-ruling-on-puberty-blocking-drugs-for-children