MN director appointed as director of the Good Law Project

[PlayYouLikeAShark]

Link to Companies House

I'm wondering what the implications of this are?

This person is/was (?) a "Management/strategy consultant" who "advised the Founder & CEO on strategy and organisation".

Was this director involved in suggesting the FWR board should be split as part of the 'strategy advice'? Was this 'strategy advice' in any way linked to discussions or negotiations to sign on as a director of the Good Law Project? Was MN fully aware of the intention of a director to take on another directorship that I'd struggle to describe as benign or neutral, given the USP here is targeted litigation & campaigning (including attacking the charitable status of an LGB organisation)? What now for women who have opinions that men disagree with?

If there's a case brewing to sue MN, I think this could prove to be an 'interesting' move.

Has anyone put it in Site STuff?

@Fitt

What exactly have you seen though, a strategy consultant with 39 non executive directorships including Mumsnet, also is on a board of another organisation you don't like?

I share this view.

I very much doubt Justine will answer or, if she did, how anything she said could be totally reassuring.

I can also see how, especially from the outside looking in, this might all look a bit tin foil hatted. But it's been a long, slow journey to where we are and I think all we can do is keep watching and sleuthing.

@Fitt

What exactly have you seen though, a strategy consultant with 39 non executive directorships including Mumsnet, also is on a board of another organisation you don't like?

Actually, Justin has 5 current non executive directorships, including Mumsnet. The other 34 are former directorships from which he has resigned, and in some cases from companies that have been dissolved. Furthermore, one the 5, Ways of Eating (Newcastle), is for a company being wound up.

This does not have any specific implications about his intent with respect to Mumsnet, and it's certainly true that Good Law Project is catering to a number of different issues so we cannot draw any firm conclusions about his POV on specific issues.

But, Mumsnet is one of a maximum of 4 active directorships he has with companies that are also active, the only other ones being Good Law Project, OC&C Consulting and My Clinical Outcomes.

Just posting to see any updates as this has made me curious too now.

Yeah, apologies for missing out current and former. You still aren't pointing to any actual drama other than a professional NED doing his normal job.

@Fitt

Yeah, apologies for missing out current and former. You still aren't pointing to any actual drama other than a professional NED doing his normal job.

You are right, except that if an NED of a discussion bulletin board around environmental issues turned out also to be an NED of a company running an oil and gas drilling business, then I would be concerned. I acknowledge that my analogy is not perfect, but it's also not perfectly wrong ...

The bottom line is perhaps that we need a backup forum option, in case the segregation of FWR GC posts are a harbinger of further hushing.

Any ideas?

Excellent twitter thread showing a detailed letter to the directors of the Good Law Project

twitter.com/Jebadoo2/status/1430487005436289027

I've just seen this thread and am surprised not to see a comment from Mumsnet about this. I'm sure people will be away on holiday but surely someone is working?

except that if an NED of a discussion bulletin board around environmental issues turned out also to be an NED of a company running an oil and gas drilling business

Surely we want environment experts to influence oil and gas at board level?

I'm getting the impression that there's a preference for strictly segregated camps with no space for mutual understanding and cooperation.
NEDs may have a bad reputation but they do have a legal duty to enforce regulation and do play a part in regulatory improvement.

Surely we want environment experts to influence oil and gas at board level?

Looking at that in the reverse… I’d be highly sceptical of an oil and gas expert influencing the board of an environmental organisation. Which feels like a better analogy here.

@zurala

I've just seen this thread and am surprised not to see a comment from Mumsnet about this. I'm sure people will be away on holiday but surely someone is working?

I wonder if we'll get a response today, before the usual reduction of staff at the weekend.

If these boards do go, does anyone know of anywhere else where we can have these discussions?
The antipodean fruit farmers have some stuff, but the discussion isn’t as clear as it is on here

Perhaps someone else could report the thread, in case the message didn’t get through to @JustineMumsnet?

Although I'd be interested to hear anything mumsnet had to say on the subject, I doubt that this is anything to be very concerned about. NEDs tend to be just a variation on management consultants, providing advice and challenge to the executive directors on the running of the business. By their nature they are involved in a wide range of businesses, and they don't need to have any engagement or intense interest in the actual product.

As a Good Law Project NED, he is not more likely to have any role in its ideological opposition to anything related to gender critical stances, than he is likely to have had a role in MN's decision over the years to facilitate gender critical discussion.

And issues like data protection aren't really a concern because data protection law plus the regs surrounding NEDs (and the arms-length nature of their role in relation to the day-to-day running of an organisation) would make any dodgy access to our data completely off-limits.

Also, remember that aside from its bizarre hostility to gender critical politics the Good Law Project is doing masses and masses of good stuff. It isn't essentially a sinister organisation. It is just subject to one particular hobbyhorse that (IMO) taints its overall reputation.

I'm surprised at this thread because I can't see the issue.

If there is genuinely no issue here then it would be very easy for MNHQ to come on the thread, say so and explain why.

@DrBlackbird

Surely we want environment experts to influence oil and gas at board level?

Looking at that in the reverse… I’d be highly sceptical of an oil and gas expert influencing the board of an environmental organisation. Which feels like a better analogy here.

Depending on the environmental organisation, I'd expect them to espouse Nolan principles of public life.

For every meeting, I have to make DOI/COI and consent to the information being held on a register for every NGO or similar body. A number of private companies/organisations follow the same principles although I can't comment on the ones named here.

If there is genuinely no issue here then it would be very easy for MNHQ to come on the thread, say so and explain why.

I've no idea what that explanation would look like. What would it take to dissuade people from some ideas and reassure them on others? Perhaps the people here might draft something that would look like a sufficient explanation without involving MNHQ in extensive follow-up questions?

Bump.

Still no comment from MNHQ? Strange….

Hi all,
Sorry I didn't respond till now - have been away and also managed to break my hand in a freak kitchen accident (don't ask). Anyway thanks for raising this. Justin has been on our board for a while now and he and I go back a long time. I did know he was joining the board of the Good Law Project, which I think is broadly a force for good in that it's holding government and institutions to account in some important ways. Their founder certainly holds some strong views which I don't agree with and I'm pretty sure Justin disagrees with some of those views too.

In any case, as others have said, boards are there to provide high-level governance, strategic advice and challenge. This does not usually include any involvement in day to day operations and in our case I can assure you that the MN board, which meets only 6 times a year, has zero operational remit and specifically absolutely no input into our moderation decisions or stances, and never has done. That said, whenever I have raised the Trans/women's rights issue for information/noting they've been wholly supportive of our commitment to hosting this important conversation on Mumsnet.

I hope that provides some reassurance - feel free to raise any further concerns either here or in Site Stuff. Thanks.

Thanks for updating, Justine. Hope your hand gets better soon

I have had mixed feelings about the Good Law Project over the years. They've done some good stuff. They've also done some bonkers stuff.

On the whole I think its good that Maugham has gone from their ranks because he was becoming a liability and his personality was bringing problems and controversy - and I suspect may have driven away support from people who support public accountability / a generally liberal (old fashioned meaning) agenda because of him personally.

I certainly started to get very pissed off with him - thats without some of his views on the trans subject.

When the story is more about the personality rather than the cause you end up painting yourself into a corner, if you have rather dubious personal incidents that are splashed all over twitter.

In terms of accountability and the law, its probably worth considering recent rulings and how scandals have flaired up around some of these issues. There may come a point where it becomes untenable for an organisation interested in accountability to support certain types of court case...

We shall see.

But on the whole, I reserve judgment on the potential conflict of interest (but its worth keeping an eye on all the same) and perhaps there is a hope that Maugham stepping down is in itself a good thing which might mean some of the more batshit stuff that the Good Law Project has got involved with goes with him.

I think its a wait and see what happens....

I missed the fact that the fox botherer had stepped away from the good law project. I’d not seem that anywhere