So. Let’s be utterly transparent about what I am doing now and why.
Below I tweet explicitly that expressing dislike for people’s arguments is a normal part of human discourse and no business for the police unless of course I cross a line into threats or targetted abuse.
If I were to threaten violence against an individual or repeatedly bombard them with rude tweets, I fully accept I would have to answer questions about my behaviour and face consequences.
That is exactly what I have expected, and has been done, to the individuals who did that to me. It is right they faced consequences for their targetted harassment, abuse and doxing of me and my daughter.
And I will pursue with vigour any other person who does that.
With regard to the timetable of this challenge, it seems something positive did come out of the #FairCopJR in that the rules were changed to allow me the opportunity to make representations to the Police and Crime Commissioner.
"The General Medical Council's Good Medical Practice demands of clinicians compassion, shared decision-making and safeguarding of young people's open futures."
"The counterargument to unquestioning gender affirmation is that the process of medical transition may itself prove to be another form of conversion therapy, creating a new cohort of life-long patients dependent on medical services ..."
"... and turning at least some lesbian and gay young people into simulacra of straight members of the opposite sex. Psychiatry sits on this knife-edge: running the risk of being accused of transphobia or, alternatively, remaining silent throughout this uncontrolled experiment."
Yesterday I was invited by our favourite legal vulpinologist to delete my tweets and 'publicly apologise'. I was given the deadline of 'the end of the day'. The consequences for failing to comply were suggested as action in defamation or report to my Regulator.
I have declined
So I will await to see which particular consequence now attaches to my freedom of speech and expression. I am, as ever, willing to take the consequences.
I have received another message today from someone terrified that they are going to lose their job over an anodyne tweet.
As legal challenges mount to the unlawful and dangerous trans orthodoxy promoted by Stonewall and Mermaids, so to does the dishonest and eager attempts by some to smear those of us who speak up against it as some witless Far Right puppets.
No wonder you block us Jolyon. Is this all you have in your tool box? Why are you - a QC - afraid to engage with these mere women?
I will debate with you. Any of them would. So why do you sneer and hide behind a block?
Is your position really so weak?
I have sent @C_P_Resource into bat. Join with me in guessing what his response will be. Will it be - block now! Or block a bit later!
So men of Legal Twitter, most of whom we haven’t heard a squeak from, even as women face the dismantling of their fundamental legal rights alongside threats of graphic sexual violence. You need to pick a side here. If you don’t, your champion by default is Jolyon Maugham.
I am sorry you feel I patronise you. I am sure you can understand my concern that you have given considerable space to a position antithetical to the very foundations of social work. And my disappointment that you did not allow similar space for the response.
"Now and in the time to be, I think it will pay for you to zero in on being precise with your language. Try to build and treat your vocabulary the way you are to treat your checking account. Pay every attention to it and try to increase your earnings."
"The purpose is to enable you to articulate yourselves as fully and precisely as possible; in a word, the purpose is your balance. For the accumulation of things not spelled out, not properly articulated, may result in neurosis..."
"Articulation lags behind experience. That doesn’t go well with the psyche. Sentiments, nuances, thoughts, perceptions that remain nameless, unable to be voiced and dissatisfied with approximations, get pent up within an individual and may lead to a psychological explosion..."
And I remind myself of this post where a social worker with a 'trans child' told members of @BASW_UK that this was simply never a safeguarding issue, thus taking it off the table entirely and apparently ignorant of the decision in Re J  tinyurl.com/yas3zd2m.
So I wonder if @Baronness_Nichol could also inquire - in what other area of law or policy, are parents of individual children allowed to be the driver of it? This has immediate and possibly severe consequences for disabled children, for e.g.
Thankfully @Baroness_Nichol can see clearly what many of us say is so worrying about the various ‘Toolkits’ offering ‘advice’ about ‘transgender children’ - they fail to recognise the distinction between very young children and teenagers: they assume families are harmful.
The desire to isolate a child from his or her family is a common feature shared by cults and sexual predators - any adult who sees the child as merely an object to secure their own gratification.
The fact that had it not been for #FairCopJR I might not publish this due to fear I would be arrested for some kind of hate crime, shows how close we have come to the edge. We have a way to go, but current signs are good.
We have a significant problem here. It was decided, by the Equality Act 2010 and the establishment of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, that the way to secure the human rights of the most vulnerable was to set them out as 9 protected characteristics.
I have just been asked by @thebarcouncil to confirm if my identified gender is the same as that assigned to me at birth.
I have replied to say that I was 'assigned' no 'gender' at birth. My sex was observed and recorded. It is female.
Sex is a protected characteristic under the EA. It is instantly observable in 99% of people and it is immutable. It is the basis of sex based oppression and the reason why women and girls need additional protection in a great many fields.
'Gender' refers to a mishmash of subjective concepts about what sex stereotypes mean. It is incapable therefore of definition and cannot be legally protected. I have refused to answer these questions and diverted money I would have donated to the Bar Council to @WeAreAdvocate
I ask @PeterTatchell now to explicitly confirm or deny if he stands by his earlier views that a 9 year old having sex with an adult is not necessarily harmful. He appears to in this document iai.tv/articles/lesso…
But I remain concerned by call for this kind of education to begin ‘in the first year of primary school’ and that children should be ‘taught’ how to have ‘good sex’.
This is unworkable and potentially extremely dangerous. ‘Good sex’ evolves from trust in a partner and enough self esteem and life experience to know what you want. YES these qualities can be scaffolded in children -
First and obvious point. Why this continuing coyness over the definition of ‘child’? A child is a person between 0-18. To say a pre-pubertal child has a ‘sexual orientation’ is dangerous for obvious reasons. NO pre pubertal child should be looking for sexy online friends.
But I have a good feeling about this. When have white men with beards ever steered us wrong about child protection?
Care proceedings where the Judge saw no problem with two unrelated children in the same family ‘transistioning’ at the ages of 7 and 4
An article in the BASW journal to say issues around transition were ‘not’ a safeguarding issue - and
- last night a social worker opine that those who wished to organise to promote the rights of those who were same sex attracted were a ‘hate group’.
The only evidence he would provide was that this group failed to put trans people at the centre and he refused to withdraw -
Over the weekend I reviewed the guidance produced for schools around issues of transition and found that it gave only superficial recognition to the issue of Gillick competence and in 66 pages mentioned parental responsibility only ONE TIME.