Share this page!

Jo Maugham Profile picture
Twitter logo
Feb 19 • 4 tweets • 1 min read
So frustrating to have to read perhaps the leading Anglophone intellectual refracted through such such a thick lens.
No doubt the Guardian had its reasons.
Inadvertently revealing of how reduced some have become, that they could consider taking a mind as majestic as Atwood's and try to fix it into a box of their making. Doesn't she deserve better?
There are vast moral and intellectual universes out there - but only for those who remain open to them.

• • •

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!

PDF

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

Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 21
So, we've had some questions in from The Times and so I thought I'd share our responses here.🧵
The first suite of questions is about standing. And the effect of the Divisional Court's decision on how we work.

To that first suite of questions we have said:
Sometimes, as with the Runnymede case, we’ve worked with partners who clearly have standing. Sometimes we have standing ourselves, as the Courts have repeatedly confirmed. Sometimes we have achieved the outcomes we want by backing cases brought by others.
Read 19 tweets
Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 20
What Boris Johnson's premiership has shown is how those who rule us - VIP Tory donors, politicians, newspaper proprietors, and the rest of the entitled Establishment - hate being held to the same rules as normal people.
And if you seek to disrupt their ugly status quo they really, really don't like it. Several days after, yes, that Boxing Day I was messaged by a sympathetic Tory insider thus: Image
This was after I had been monstered for killing a single fox which was caught in netting attacking my chickens on the front page of the Mail. Yes, the Mail whose proprietor's wife boasts in the society pages about her love of hunting - the routine killing animals for fun. Image
Read 40 tweets
Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 18
Key point, for law students: how the political mood music affects the application of the law. If the mood music is unfavourable that helps your prospects of losing and if it is favourable it helps your prospects of winning. theferret.scot/trans-men-and-…
The principle extends beyond trans issues (England, hostile; Scotland, supportive). During the 'Brexit years' we brought a whole bunch of cases that we won in Edinburgh but we would have lost in London.
All sorts of interesting applications given that the Government can often be sued throughout the UK and English courts are becoming more hostile to challenges to the Executive.
Read 5 tweets
Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 16
Hancock, a man three times found to have broken the law, including yesterday is on his high horse. Tell your publican. Or the taxpayers who'll pay for your illegal VIP lane. Or the woman you had an affair with in lock down. Or the ethnic minorities or disabled people you ignored.
The sheer front of these sleazy little men. They really do think they are too good for the law. They have no care for how they betray those who work hard and pay taxes to fund the public purse which they use as an illegal treasury for their VIP associates.
Number of times Matt Hancock has broken the law: three (so far).

Number of times I or Good Law Project have broken the law: zero.

Who's discredited, Matt?
Read 4 tweets
Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 16
So. A few points on why I think our comms yesterday were basically right. 🧵
First, an important point which many have overlooked. We have not said that *we* won. We said that Johnson and Hancock broke the law. And they did.
Second point, there was no real difference between the interests of Runnymede and ourselves in the litigation. We both sought the same remedy and for the same reason. Moreover, we indemnified Runnymede against all costs liabilities (as we always do with co-claimants).
Read 10 tweets
Jo Maugham Profile picture
Feb 15
When you ask 'could someone else bring this claim' remember that Runnymede was referred to the Charity Commission for bringing it. Civil society is frightened to litigate even alongside us - Runnymede's experience suggests justifiably - and few or none will litigate alone.
And that's even before we get to financial support, litigation expertise, comms support and regulatory support putative partners rely on us for. In theory there may be better litigants. In practice if you want to uphold the rule of law in these times there isn't much else.
Perhaps you're cool with that. Perhaps you don't care if the Government's persistent illegality is challenged. But if you are living in the real world, rather than a law library, you have to take the practice of this litigation seriously.
Read 4 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

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

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

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @JolyonMaugham has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @JolyonMaugham!

Read all threads by @JolyonMaugham

:(