Is Time Up for the foxbotherer?

[Awkwardy]

www.spectator.co.uk/article/has-the-good-law-project-been-dealt-a-blow-

“It cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.

In other words, the Good Law Project is now the No Legal Standing Project. What a shame.

As a non-legal brain I do find this slightly confusing, as obv the whole Dido Harding thing is a fiasco

However

In other cases GLP seems, to my untrained and unqualified eye, to be no better than a vexatious litigant. Just being a lawyer and calling yourself a nice name does mean you are always right.

Short but interesting - I don't think I'd fully appreciated the need for 'standing' before, and how the GLP had tried to cast its objectives so widely.

I'd LOL @ him on Twitter, but he has blocked me like every other woman on Twitter

On the judgement today which is being spun by Foxy as a win for GLP, I couldn't really get my head around it until I read this explanation on the Guido Fawkes blog:

order-order.com/2022/02/15/good-law-project-fails-in-its-entirety-on-dido-harding-case/

Maugham gets his own tag on that site. It's great.

order-order.com/people/jolyon-maugham/

I've never tweeted anything about the GLP or Maugham, or anything related. I've never even accessed his Twitter page, but I'm blocked.

@spacehardware

I'd LOL @ him on Twitter, but he has blocked me like every other woman on Twitter

I'm not on Twitter so I don't know if you genuinely mean every woman (except for Shon Faye and who doesn't want to forget the 'sliding into your DMs' exchange) or merely any woman who has ever at any time 'liked' an account that tweeted a biological fact or similar.

Love this, especially Steerpike suggesting funders should be told

Is Time Up for the foxbotherer?

No. The GLP's business model doesn't rely on winning cases, or even bringing them:

1. Crowdfund making vague promises to sort out an important issue.
2. Raise a modest amount- take the money as payment for 'work' on a lawsuit to 'realise' it wasn't viable
3. Raise a lot. Sue somebody and claim all the wonga in the crowdfund. If you win, great (you get paid costs you didn't have), but you got paid either way. You have no clients so no one can moan you wasted their money.
4. Use the profits to advertise about another issue that makes middle class youth froth at the mouth. Repeat.

This is the white heterosexual man who's trying to shut down a lesbian and gay charity? Am I right?

I wonder what this ruling means for the case that the GLP and mermaids have against the LGBA and the charity commission 🤔

Sounds like the GLPs wings have been clipped. The court concludes in paragraph 58: “‘It cannot be supposed that the GLP now has carte blanche to bring any claim for judicial review no matter what the issues and no matter what the circumstances.’

I think it will continue on for a while until those who keep donating start asking questions.

How embarrassing for the GLP.

I think costs have yet to be determined in this case, as GLP lost their case in its entirety it could be very costly

Here is the judgment if anyone is interested www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/The-Queen-on-the-application-of-1-Good-Law-Project-2-Runnymede-Trust-v-1-Prime-Minister-SSHSC-judgment.pdf

It has a good explanation of standing for anyone keen to read up on the finer points of administrative law!

@Hoardasurass

I wonder what this ruling means for the case that the GLP and mermaids have against the LGBA and the charity commission 🤔

I was wondering this. Surely the other parties will be challenging?

The standing of GLP and Mermaids to bring the case against LGBA was already disputed IIRC.

@donquixotedelamancha

Is Time Up for the foxbotherer?

No. The GLP's business model doesn't rely on winning cases, or even bringing them:

1. Crowdfund making vague promises to sort out an important issue.
2. Raise a modest amount- take the money as payment for 'work' on a lawsuit to 'realise' it wasn't viable
3. Raise a lot. Sue somebody and claim all the wonga in the crowdfund. If you win, great (you get paid costs you didn't have), but you got paid either way. You have no clients so no one can moan you wasted their money.
4. Use the profits to advertise about another issue that makes middle class youth froth at the mouth. Repeat.

Now you put it like that, you can see the business model. I guess now the GLP's been called out on standing on this case, it will be easier for other's being challenged by them to question it too.

In other cases GLP seems, to my untrained and unqualified eye, to be no better than a vexatious litigant. Just being a lawyer and calling yourself a nice name does mean you are always right

This.
I suppose JM will carry on bringing these cases which clog up even more the backlog waiting to be heard until people stop crowd funding them.

Oh it's ok I still managed to find a LOL

mobile.twitter.com/dxwqc/status/1493603416572145673?s=21

🎣

What criteria do Crowdfunder apply when accepting causes? Surely if someone is cynically raising many thousands of pounds which and diverting it to their own pocket there comes a point when it begins to look like fraud?

@Andante57

In other cases GLP seems, to my untrained and unqualified eye, to be no better than a vexatious litigant. Just being a lawyer and calling yourself a nice name does mean you are always right

This.
I suppose JM will carry on bringing these cases which clog up even more the backlog waiting to be heard until people stop crowd funding them.

Interesting post about vexatious litigants or querulant (I like that word) complainants:

"What's essential is dealing with reports and complaints of any kind is discerning between a usual, a persistent and a querulant (unusually persistent) complainant.

The persistent complainants’ pursuit of vindication and retribution fits badly with complaints systems established to deliver reparation and compensation. Extract from a report on Unusually Persistent Complainants against the Police in Scotland:

The research on which this report is based arose from my view, shared by many others, that increasingly organisations are required to manage people who make persistent complaints. This small group of individuals can consume a disproportionate amount of an organisation’s resources, pursuing what they believe are legitimate complaints, for longer and with more intensity than the majority of the population would consider reasonable.

The key to managing unacceptable complainant conduct is to manage your own response to it (New South Wales Ombusdman, 2009A) and the importance of adequate training, supervision and managerial support for complaints handlers can not be overstated.

They used the term ‘querulousness’ to refer to a constellation of behaviours and attitudes, which may, or may not, arise secondary to a major mental disorder. The key is that it is a problem behaviour, the causes of which can be many and varied. The behaviour involves “the unusually persistent pursuit of a personal grievance in a manner seriously damaging to the individual’s economic, social, and personal interests, and disruptive to the functioning of the courts and/or other agencies attempting to resolve the claims” (Mullen and Lester, 20)

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3241727-Weaponising-of-the-Complaints-Process

@Pluvia

What criteria do Crowdfunder apply when accepting causes? Surely if someone is cynically raising many thousands of pounds which and diverting it to their own pocket there comes a point when it begins to look like fraud?

iirc barrister Barbara Rich has commented on this topic several times because she has reservations about the ethics of some litigation crowdfunding in re: the likelihood of success and the test of public interest.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1401454842460135426

Issue of standing of GLP and Mermaids in re: GLB Alliance and Charity Commission

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1459456190916739076

I think the GLP identifies as having standing in all cases.

I think they will try to find someone / somebody who has standing who they can bring a case on their behalf. The GLP / Mermaids case tries to do this but they will find others who can e.g. the case brought against GIDS after the Keira Bell case.