Police interviewing Jolyon Maugham

[fromorbit]

It seems the Rozzers may be too busy dealing with the fox killer to come after Mumsnet now.

Police question barrister Jolyon Maugham for tweeting that Brianna Ghey's killers 'exchanged transphobic slurs' while murder trial was still going on
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12893145/police-barrister-jolyon-maugham-brianna-ghey-tweet-killers-transphobic-slurs-trial.html

To be fair, I imagine this is exactly the kind of thinking one would look for in a tax lawyer.

"No exaggeration to say its hands are dipped in blood."

I would say this is practically the dictionary definition of exaggeration.

I've long suspected our fox-killing friend is deranged, and this has more or less confirmed it.

Thanks for that @PronounssheRa and others who’ve added details - I’m not using Twitter atm.

Of course a KC should be disciplined for this.

I suppose I just find the weaponisation of a young person’s death to be really depressing but I also can’t crow over Maugham being disciplined. He shouldn’t have behaved so badly in the first place.

Sorry, I think I’m just sick of the gender ideologies. Been in the trenches with this stuff for the last 6 years and just want it to stop. As we all do.

I'm not sure that's what has happened here though, is it?

This isn't a gender critical organisation reporting Jolyon to the police. This is the judge in an ongoing court case sending the police to question him in connection with potential contempt of court.

The dipped in blood comment is horrendous. It is just so irresponsible to speculate on suicide in that way. Where has he got those stats from and why is it possible to collate trans-specific victim of crime and suicide stats but, in so many other areas (such as when recording perpetrators of crime) this data is merged into statistics relating to women and men?

A lot of responses on X asking in what sense the headline is 'flatly untrue' or even misleading. Plenty of responses agreeing with Maugham that it's untrue, but nobody explains how. I can't see how the headline could be interpreted to imply anything other than what Maugham himself admits happened. Can anyone enlighten me?

Yes, he wasn't questioned by the Police but, he was questioned by the Police is what he's saying. Seems perfectly clear to me

I think, if you squint, you can discern a difference between, they came to question me, rather than they dropped round as the Judge's own personal Deliveroo to pass on some comments.
Maybe there is a point of principle for him that he immediately rolled over, rather than arguing back?
He's no longer practising though, I believe.

It's a very defensive comment from a privileged and wealthy man with considerable legal knowledge who should understand basic judicial laws about contempt of court. His original comments were indefensible and one would have hoped that he'd been interviewed under caution for such an appalling set of tweets.

It could be argued that the lack of any sanction is a worrying sign of privileged treatment on the basis of sex, class and occupation :

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12893145/police-barrister-jolyon-maugham-brianna-ghey-tweet-killers-transphobic-slurs-trial.html

It was ruled not long ago that misogyny is not a hate crime. In a baffling logic, here's the conclusion:

The Law Commission concluded in its ‘Hate Crime Laws: Final Report (PDF, 3.2MB)’ (published 7 December 2021) that making misogyny a hate crime may be: “more harmful than helpful, both to victims of violence against women and girls, and also to efforts to tackle hate crime more broadly” and that “…we have reached the view that hate crime recognition would not be an effective solution to the very real problem of violence, abuse and harassment of women and girls in England and Wales, and may in fact be counterproductive in some respects.”

I'd remove this "hate crime" stuff that has worked it's way into the law and into police practice altogether. Especially the "non-crime hate incident" stuff.