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.

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

They don't proceed on cases unless they've raised enough to insure against costs if they lose. There is literally no scenario in which they lose money.

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.

I'm sure that's true but I suspect JM considers even this utter (legal) beating to be a win for a few reasons:

1. They don't proceed on many cases and can often find someone with standing to use as a front. Where a case is lucrative enough they won't care of they lose this way again, occasionally.

1. Their model relies on attention. They have just generated loads of it. Quotes from Matt Hancock slagging them off and BBC articles pitting them against the government translate to cold hard cash.

1. Letters from Nigerian princes are badly written on purpose- the scammers don't want to waste any time on people who might question the scenario. Similar people fund the GLP- the fact that their model has been criticised in a legal judgement doesn't impact their marketing one bit.

How many times does JM and GLP have to lose before the insurers. start declining to quote for business?

@spacehardware

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

Not me because I blocked him first

@donquixotedelamancha - on your second, and particularly your third point. Are you suggesting JMs cheque-writers are a few pennies short of the full shilling?

Are you suggesting JMs cheque-writers are a few pennies short of the full shilling?

No. I think the vast majority are people who just want to do good on whatever issue or regulars who want to see an awful government held to account.

On first contact the GLP looks like a realy good idea. A bit of detail might make people suspect it's a bit of a publically funded ego trip, but still well intentioned.

I think it takes quite a lot of reading to understand why the way it's funded really isn't kosher. That's the analogy with the victims of email scams- his ideal mark donor is passionate but not going to ask lots of questions.

How many times does JM and GLP have to lose before the insurers. start declining to quote for business?

In principle they can just crowdfund costs plus likely defendant costs. There is no scrutiny about what's happening to the money they raise but don't use on cases or a maximum on what they raise for one issue. It's not a charity so there is no charity commission oversight. It doesn't make profits (money is removed by paying 'costs' and salary) and has no shareholders.

The only reason for undertaking any litigation at all is for attention and because it can produce a double payday. I can quite believe they will occaisionally sue when they have no chance of success if it benefits their public profile enough.

I think people donating are perhaps quite happy to believe that if GLP keep losing it's only a demonstration of how corrupt and wrong the courts/system/gov are. It's emotively angled; it's not really based on logical thinking, is it?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-60386670

@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.

Are you saying that in effect its a charity sector type organisation whose primary beneficiary financially is itself?

Beware the online fundraising scam.

The Twitter thread linked the article is interesting and asking a pertinent question

twitter.com/Scott_Wortley/status/1493538501845041152

Scott Wortley
@ Scott_Wortley

“slightly bemused that the Good law project can do a press release on the case today without mentioning its own case was wholly dismissed for two fundamental reasons. Is that not something people who donate money should be informed about?”

Scott’s bio:
Scottish Law lecturer. Interest in statutory interpretation & legislation, Scots property law, debt & insolvency law. Accidental mental health advocate.

twitter.com/GoodLawProject/status/1493539909910597633

Just make up a case idea, doesn't matter if it will get anywhere cos PAY DAY.

Good thread about GLP and today's decision by the excellent Barbara Rich.

twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1493558241741135881

@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.

So, what your saying is... GLP and the foxbother are GRIFFTERS?

Well color me schocked!

Quite funny how they are trying to spin it as a win. "Fails in its entirety" doesn't sound much like winning to me.

Essentially the only thing which the judgement says that the government did wrong was that it didn't consider candidates from X and Y minorities.

Yes and that claim wasn't from the GLP itself.

Quite funny how they are trying to spin it as a win. "Fails in its entirety" doesn't sound much like winning to me.

Actually it's disgraceful. This is what their website says We speak the truth and act with integrity goodlawproject.org/about/

People are donating in good faith off the back of this 'win' as spun by GLP

People are donating in good faith off the back of this 'win' as spun by GLP

There’s been quite a lot of publicity about the recent case so hopefully potential donors will see it for what it is.

I has thought GLP were misguided but well intentioned. This outrageous spin and misrepresentation suggests the latter may not be true.

Having looked at the GLP accounts, I’m amazed at the amount of money that is spent on “legal advice and litigation costs”.

' We are hugely grateful to have received support from Avaaz, Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, Lund Trust, a charitable fund of Lisbet Rausing and Peter Baldwin, Necessity, 38 Degrees, and Dale Vince, CEO of Ecotricity. '

'no one in the organisation can be paid more than the annual salary of a backbench UK MP.'

Big of them. The basic annual salary for an MP from 1 April 2020 is £81,932.

holy fucking moly, nearly £3million income for y/e 2021!