What's the end point for a country ruled by a Government that has become indifferent to breaches of the rule of law?
We don't think the Government has consent from the people for its law-breaking. You and I comply with the law - or face the consequences - and so should the Government.
This is no trivial matter. This is not some technicality. This is the High Court agreeing that a Cabinet Minister looks to be channelling public money - your money - to his associates. Outrageous that the Government should pretend there is nothing to see here.
With your help we are exposing them for what they are. Sleazy, self-interested and law-breaking. Join us. actions.goodlawproject.org/subscribe

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jo Maugham

Jo Maugham Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JolyonMaugham

10 Jun
Assume you are an ambitious civil servant. Someone who is a clearly a friend of Hancock's writes to him offering to sell PPE. He passes the email on to you. Do you (a) treat them like everyone else? Or (b) take your cue from their relationship and him passing you their offer?
This 👆🏼 is what Matt Hancock says he was doing. So it's not an academic question.
What is Matt Hancock's friend going to do if they feel they ought to have won a PPE contract and didn't? If they kick off will that be good for your career? If they threaten you will you take that seriously? Will you be damn sure to treat them with kid gloves?
Read 4 tweets
9 Jun
Curious interview with BBC World At One. A judge has just found Govt's conduct unlawful and characterised by the appearance of favouritism to friends: a striking thing. But the interviewer gave me little space to explain the implications and argued Govt's case against me.
It's progress of a sort, I suppose. They never even had me on when I was winning all the Brexit cases. But I continue to think the BBC reveals itself in these interviews: as a defender of power rather than as interested in the accountability of power.
We'll clip the interview and add it to this thread so you can listen for yourself. But the BBC's attack-minded positioning felt to me as though, by exposing the Government as a law breaker, it was me who had done something wrong.
Read 7 tweets
9 Jun
BREAKIING: The High Court has ruled Michael Gove broke the law in awarding a contract to his associates at Public First. The Court ruled a reasonable observer would think there was a real risk Public First won the contract because of favouritism.
The decision vindicates what @GoodLawProject has been saying now for a year: that the Government's pandemic procurement favoured friends of the Conservative Party. Full blog here: glplive.org/judgment
We have now two concluded judicial reviews of pandemic procurement. Each established that a Cabinet Minister - respectively, Matt Hancock and Michael Gove - acted unlawfully. We have a slate of approximately a dozen further judicial reviews to come.
Read 6 tweets
8 Jun
Just imagine an ongoing national debate about the 'reasonable limits of black existence' conducted exclusively by white people. That's what trans people face - and it is *abysmal*.

Spoken about, over, through but never to and never heard.
What unspoken prejudice is embedded in the shutting out of trans people from (problematic) conversations about the legitimacy of their existence?

I find it hard to get beyond the conclusion that we - 'good' 'cis' 'normal' people - think trans people are not fit to participate.
Any thoughts, @BBCRadio4?
Read 4 tweets
7 Jun
Yesterday Government placed an attack piece in the Mail on Sunday specifically and explicitly targeting me.

Here is our response glplive.org/crowdfunding
The attacks are preposterous.

Yes, I argued cases for would be tax avoiders - and I have written about that here: waitingfortax.com/2015/05/01/tax…. But the hypocrisy is all the Mail's.
Yes, I killed a fox to save my chickens. But, again, the hypocrisy is all the Mail's (magzter.com/stories/Fashio…).
Read 4 tweets
5 Jun
We understand that tomorrow @RobertBuckland will call for reform of crowdfunding.

In principle, @GoodLawProject supports a bespoke ethical framework and I have repeatedly called for one: see (for example) lawgazette.co.uk/practice-point…
In practice, the way Government is briefing makes this look like a very specific legislative attack on @GoodLawProject and the work we do.
We at @GoodLawProject have *repeatedly* been commended in judgments by High Court judges for the ethical and responsible way in which we have conducted ourselves. We also have an extraordinary record of success in exposing a Government that is contemptuous of the law.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!