Jolyon Maugham, GLP and scary stuff re parental consent

[RealityNotEssentialism]

goodlawproject.org/update/advisory-group-transgender/

I know that there is another thread on JM but thought I would start a new one as this has just been released. First of all he has named the people on his advisory committee. They include Alex Sharpe, whom we know all about and about whom no more needs to be said.
Second, they are trying to force a change of policy from the Tavistock that they give PBs simply on parental consent to children who cannot consent to them. That is chilling and dangerous and puts an awful lot of power in the hands of adults with nobody to protect the child’s interests. JM has lost the plot.

Hmm. Wikipedia tells me David Icke, who presumably needed a new career after his professional footballing days were over, has published more than 20 books as well as lecturing around the world.

No doubt the Webberley's have made a comfortable living from providing a niche service (although one would have thought they should have had a perfectly satisfactory income from combined careers as GP and Consultant Gastroenterologist). Interestingly Mike's twitter bio now describes himself as "Retired".

The other two are a long way from retirement, they are at a stage when their careers should be gaining momentum and they should be reaping the rewards of years of hard graft. How will they reinvent themselves to generate income in the future I wonder?

@Siablue

That is very interesting that that comes from the head of his chambers. I do think it shows that he must be a difficult person to know. I think a good test of how safe someone is as a person is how they treat animals. Anyone who can treat an innocent animal like that is worrying and somebody you would want to avoid.

It also shows that lawyers do not think there is a case and what the Tavistock are doing is illegal.

I only knew of him through his government challenges at that point and I was disposed to think well of him.

In one tweet he changed that. How to ruin your reputation in less than 280 characters, that was.

Can anyone recall any other ideological movement that caused otherwise apparently sane, educated professionals to throw caution and their careers to the wind inviting widespread ridicule from their peers?

The satanic ritual abuse conspiracy. Which after being discredited and lying dormant for a number of years re-emerged as a key component of QAnon.

ArabellaScott perfect! The fake “Cake” scare exposed just how eager people in the public eye are to take any opportunity to jump on any virtue-signalling bandwagon in the hope of boosting kudos, no questions asked.

That is a good real-life example, nauticant. Not so far removed from Recovered Memory Syndrome and Multiple Personality Disorder. The flavours of trans ideology that push “gender fluidity” and hundreds of “Tumblr Gender Identities” (Moon Gender etc.) seem not so far removed from MPD.

AnotherLass you are probably right about JoMo’s trans interest - there is a mention on another current Mumsnet thread “Jo Maugham”. The post includes a link to one of his tweets but his Tweets are protected and private at the mo, so a dead end unless you are following him:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4098041-Jo-Maugham?msgid=102340792

It's a huge relief that legal pros and other QCs are willing to call this out. Jo is clearly out of his depth to an astonishing degree on this subject and personal obsessions are driving him to make decisions that compromise him, the groups he's attached to and the title of QC in a massive way. We can sit back and watch in horror but there must be so many people in legal profession doing the same at this tax lawyer gone rogue. He's so out of his lane personally and professionally I don't think he even knows what lanes are.

Mole

The post includes a link to one of his tweets but his Tweets are protected and private at the mo, so a dead end unless you are following him:

I think that's only if he's blocked you. I certainly don't follow him but I can still see the tweets.

This is the relevant one for those who are blocked, he links to an article in The Independent by Nora Mulready and adds the following about his own situation in brackets:-

"Seeing this issue unfold within my own family taught me a profound lesson: the importance of humility in the face of something you do not understand" - an outstanding piece from @NoraMulready (which echoes a journey of my own with someone I love).

The importance of humility in the face of something you don't understand?

Think he might want a refresher.

I think I've lost track, and I'm sure it's already been discussed but can anyone explain the financial position re The Good Law project and crowd justice? I know it has been pointed out that donations to GLP intended for their other work, eg re PPE contracts or stopping Heathrow expansion may be redirected to this Tavistock appeal work.
Is that allowed in the crowd justice rules?

I have an older, very well connected, friend who has sent me various links to JM and GLP for some time, supporting their work on the other issues, but the tone of her emails has changed over the last few weeks, from "isn't this good" to "I know he's a bit barking on some points but this is really important" to "I've cancelled my direct debit (£50pm)".

It certainly doesn't seem right that he can treat this as his personal fiefdom and redirect incoming cash as he pleases.

One problem with identifying as being on the right side of history is that it can be very seductive to start ignoring rules, modes of thinking, and standards of decency that get in the way of The Great Work.

Absolutely, nauticant.

People on here are constantly speculating about JM's motivation, yet he is one of perhaps hundreds of supposedly leftist men who have morphed into pro-trans activists and started dishing it out to women. When we look back I'm confident we will find similar motivations driving a lot of these men. Imo it's taken the lid off a lot of suppressed sentiment.

It's a tricky one, but I think considering these issues of how people have ended up in such positions are really important when it comes to real 'diversity' and tolerance, how disparate peoples/belief systems can co-exist peacefully - the balance between critical thinking and open mindedness.

I suppose humility involves suspending judgement and being open and willing to listen and explore different viewpoints. Which means at least in part setting aside our own beliefs/views/judgements, even if temporarily. Maintaining awareness of our own ignorance, possible blindspots, prejudices. Does this leave us open to indoctrination and brainwashing? Or is it just a misunderstanding of what 'humility' really means?

The didactic model of learning that we are very familiar with and is mostly still used in our education system seems to encourage a total abnegation of one's own critical thinking and common sense - the model is of a student with an empty mind and a teacher pouring information/knowledge into them. We also see this quite often within religion, where recent 'converts' or would be converts want to give themselves up entirely to a new way of thinking, hand over power and decision making to a guru. (Unfortunately, of course there will always be people on the look out for exactly this kind of useful idiot.)

These hierarchical models of learning are very open to abuse, abuse of power, and perhaps also can lead to the kind of madness where presumably intelligent people can chant a mantra that is a clear and obvious oxymoron with apparently no qualms at all. (2 + 2 = 5, TWAW, etc)

A good teacher will encourage a student to ask questions, think for themselves, and not abandon common sense or their own knowledge and experiential learning. Is there space for this kind of approach within our institutions, or is it all based on power differentials and top-down models?

I don't know how clear this all is, I am thinking out loud here, I think that in the last few decades the internet and globalism has really pushed some of these crucial issues into more urgent positions!

That may be the process but we can't ignore the fact that trans politics have presented a unique opportunity to attack and remodel feminism and social conventions concerning women that were perhaps not accepted by men in the way we might have thought. I have been surprised at the number of men who think that if women want equality they have no business asking for separate sports, for example. Men and boys who have never gone through male puberty will considerably strength the argument for male inclusion in women's sports and segregated areas. I suspect a lot of the emotion displayed by many men in this field comes from deep seated and huge resentment against women and a perception they have had their cake and eaten it for too long. I'm equally sure some of these men would never acknowledge their resentment, and seek to rationalise it, in the same way domestic abusers do. I am not suggesting this applies to JM. I just wonder why people are so keen to ascribe a personal motivation when so many men have clearly needed no such thing.

I think I've lost track, and I'm sure it's already been discussed but can anyone explain the financial position re The Good Law project and crowd justice? I know it has been pointed out that donations to GLP intended for their other work, eg re PPE contracts or stopping Heathrow expansion may be redirected to this Tavistock appeal work.
Is that allowed in the crowd justice rule

There are some serious questions to be asked about how the Good Law project is funded. Maya has a thread that is worth a read:

twitter.com/MForstater/status/1336450415362236416

Yes I've seen lots of comments suggesting that this is all the fault of feminism. You asked for equality, well now you've got it.

I just wonder why people are so keen to ascribe a personal motivation when so many men have clearly needed no such thing

I think there are 2 reasons - Some of his tweets have referred to a personal situation; and the lack of professional courtesy towards judges and other lawyers with specific expertise is strange.

Really fascinating to see the head of his (ex) chambers publicly slating this. He doesn’t seem to use twitter much at all but felt compelled to in this instance.

The whole thing is like a slow motion car crash.

Actually that's a very important point, @SadlyMissTaken.

What if an influential man were claiming a personal motivation in order to help disguise the fact that he's really just an out and out misogynist?

There's probably a lot of that going on. 'I've got a friend ...', 'I've got a constituent ...'

@Sexnotgender

Really fascinating to see the head of his (ex) chambers publicly slating this. He doesn’t seem to use twitter much at all but felt compelled to in this instance.

The whole thing is like a slow motion car crash.

Yy. Absolutely not someone who makes a habit of tweeting in haste and repenting at leisure.

@Sexnotgender

Really fascinating to see the head of his (ex) chambers publicly slating this. He doesn’t seem to use twitter much at all but felt compelled to in this instance.

The whole thing is like a slow motion car crash.

It's astonishing to watch. I actually thought JM would come to his senses when he took a break from Twitter after the fox-killing.

Thanks for that link RoyalCorgi
Curioser and curioser.

Someone may have said this already on one of the JM threads but I'd totally missed the Mumsnet/Good Law collab www.mumsnet.com/news/86-percent-of-child-maintenance-service-users-say-it-was-used-to-control-or-abuse-them?utm_source=boxingday&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2020-12-26&utm_term=2020+and+all+that%3A+the+end-of-the-year+Mumsnet+roundup&rei=202653