User Overview

Followers and Following

Followers
Following
Trendsmap

History

Total Followers - Last Year
Daily Follower Change - Last Year
Daily Tweets - Last Year

Tweet Stats

Analysed 32,465 tweets, tweets from the last 170 weeks.
Tweets Day of Week (+0:00h)
Tweets Hour of Day (+0:00h)
Key:
Tweets
Retweets
Quotes
Replies
Tweets Day and Hour Heatmap (+0:00h)

Tweets

Last 50 tweets from @JolyonMaugham
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Valium for Ep 1, stimulants for Ep 2, red wine for Ep 3.
Replying to @lucyprebblish
*rummages optimistically through old pill bottles*
 
I'm sure @JolyonMaugham and the guys at @GoodLawProject will do their up most to make sure they don't/can't or advise us how we can try & stop it
It's not that significant, as I understand it.
 
Jo Maugham Retweeted ·  
JOB ALERT: Two of the best jobs going in the voluntary sector... you've got just under a week to apply
cpag.org.uk/about-cpag/wor…
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Thank you! Prepare for some...intensity.
Replying to @lucyprebblish
In practical terms, drink more wine?
 
Thrilled to feature in this. #IHateSuzie is available on HBOMax, NOWTV, SkyGo, and also now, AppleTV/Itunes. time.com/5914325/best-t…
Replying to @lucyprebblish
On our list to start this evening. Reviews have been so good!
 
Jo Maugham Retweeted ·  
I'm a non-binary lawyer and the judgment of Taylor v Jaguar Land Rover published this week means a lot for the non-binary community. Here are the main points to take away (a thread) /1
 
Thatcher: "Children who need to be taught to respect traditional moral values are being taught that they have an inalienable right to be gay. All of those children are being cheated of a sound start in life." theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
South Kesteven residents: how do you feel about the 100k Thatcher statue unveiling?
theguardian.com
 
If people donate any amount to this and DM me with a screen grab of the receipt, I will give them e-book copies of all four of my currently available books.
Please r/t for visibility, even if you can't donate. Thank you.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
There's a long discussion of the journey back from Re Alex in this extraordinary presentation from Justice Steven Strickland, Judge of the Appeal Division and Chair, Law Reform Committee, Family Court of Australia. familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connec…
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
I am very grateful to @katedoak for the link. The decision yesterday was a shameful moment for our legal system and I will not rest until it is overturned.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
The Court in Re Jamie held that Stage 1 treatment could be described as therapeutic. Because Stage 1 was reversible, none of the concerns of the High Court of Australia about risk of the wrong decision, or grave consequences, arose.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
There's a long discussion of the journey back from Re Alex in this extraordinary presentation from Justice Steven Strickland, Judge of the Appeal Division and Chair, Law Reform Committee, Family Court of Australia. familycourt.gov.au/wps/wcm/connec…
 
In a 2004 decision (Re Alex) the Family Court of Australia found that the court's permission was required for puberty blockers. It took until 2013 for that decision to be reversed in Re Jamie.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
The Court in Re Jamie held that Stage 1 treatment could be described as therapeutic. Because Stage 1 was reversible, none of the concerns of the High Court of Australia about risk of the wrong decision, or grave consequences, arose.
 
In a 2004 decision (Re Alex) the Family Court of Australia found that the court's permission was required for puberty blockers. It took until 2013 for that decision to be reversed in Re Jamie.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
The internal debate about how they should respond to your publishing an email which is not *on the face of it* privileged, would be interesting. ‘Private and Confidential’ indicates that only the recipient should open it or read it. It doesn’t impose obligations on the recipient.
Replying to @Wigapedia
Very grateful. We've also taken paid advice from specialists who tell us it's very low risk...
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Debatable how 'private and confidential' such an email actually is.
I am likely to start publishing them and let their lawyers do their damnedest. If they're going to use their huge profits from weird PPE contracts to try and bully those acting in the public interest at least have the decency to do in the public domain.
 
We believe Government and Pestfix have been misleading us and the Court. You can read why we say that here. rebrand.ly/hearing-ppe
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
Oh, and @OsborneClarke? Before you guys send me another "private and confidential" email full of threat, how about your client responds to the substantive allegations?
 
We believe Government and Pestfix have been misleading us and the Court. You can read why we say that here. rebrand.ly/hearing-ppe
Were in court tomorrow - Good Law Project
goodlawproject.org
 
"The portal did not require suppliers to provide information about their expertise, experience or record in sourcing or providing safety equipment. This meant that it was swamped with offers and genuine suppliers were crowded out." Damning from @ArcoSafety 1drv.ms/b/s!AgDubbkGwE…
 
Jo Maugham Retweeted ·  
Join the us & @GoodLawProject for a live panel discussion on Thursday 10th December on our challenge over Dido Harding’s appointment.

Panellists include: @Halima_Begum, @JolyonMaugham & @labourlewis. Sign up here 👇

eventbrite.co.uk/e/cronyism-how…
 
Replying to @theJeremyVine
Each time gets the hero it deserves, Jeremy.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
We will not be making any media comment. All announcements will be made here or via the @GoodLawProject website. What we can do to protect trans young people from institutional transphobia we will do.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
If you would like to support our efforts, we have now reopened the crowdfunding page which we closed whilst we processed yesterday's judgment. #TransRightsAreHumanRights crowdjustice.com/case/transgend…
Legal Defence Fund for Transgender Lives
crowdjustice.com
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
We will publish advice shortly from a Queen's Counsel on whether loving parents who access care for their gender incongruent children in line with accepted international treatment norms are at risk of having their children taken into care following yesterday's decision.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We will not be making any media comment. All announcements will be made here or via the @GoodLawProject website. What we can do to protect trans young people from institutional transphobia we will do.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
We will make announcements in relation to those actions as soon as we sensibly can. We are acting with the benefit of advice from the leading public and healthcare lawyers in the United Kingdom.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We will publish advice shortly from a Queen's Counsel on whether loving parents who access care for their gender incongruent children in line with accepted international treatment norms are at risk of having their children taken into care following yesterday's decision.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
We have identified two separate legal interventions which we expect to make to secure that the international scientific consensus that exists around the treatment of trans young people is applied in the United Kingdom.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We will make announcements in relation to those actions as soon as we sensibly can. We are acting with the benefit of advice from the leading public and healthcare lawyers in the United Kingdom.
 
We at @GoodLawProject are taking advice from several leading QCs in relation to yesterday's decision of the High Court which we believe to be legally, scientifically and morally flawed.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We have identified two separate legal interventions which we expect to make to secure that the international scientific consensus that exists around the treatment of trans young people is applied in the United Kingdom.
 
We at @GoodLawProject are taking advice from several leading QCs in relation to yesterday's decision of the High Court which we believe to be legally, scientifically and morally flawed.
 
 
Just been asked to go on @LBC tomorrow morning to comment on the Tavistock judicial review result. I said I’m not sure what two cis-gender men talking to each other would achieve. I wonder if LBC will have a trans person or the parent of a trans person on?
Replying to @benjamincohen @LBC
About, at, over, around but never to.
 
In reply to @AdamRamsay
So many! Dark Streets of London? Amazing looking back through them now how many are about a particular moment in Anglo-Irish history.
(I do quite like Waltzing Mathilda, tbf.)
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Haha, educate me..?
Replying to @AdamRamsay
So many! Dark Streets of London? Amazing looking back through them now how many are about a particular moment in Anglo-Irish history.
 
The Pogues are essentially a Celtic folk band, playing in a tradition where people borrow, update, bend, change and alter all the time. Their best song is their own brilliant take on Eric Bogle’s anti-war classic. The idea their original lyrics are unchangeable is idiotic.
Replying to @AdamRamsay
Am blocking you for that penultimate sentence.
 
No better advice to give to your daughters than marry a partner who'll support your career.
Merkel is asked (at a tech conf): Do you use smart technology at home or do you switch on the washing machine yourself?

Merkel: My husband does the laundry.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
There is also explicit reference to the fact that "high profile contacts" are managed by a separate team. pic.twitter.com/0hlVSMSm1v
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
Slight clarification to earlier in this thread. The NAO recognises that VIPs - although it doesn't call them that - were processed "alongside" the normal lane. God you have to read this stuff carefully to get the truth: they were handled by a special team.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Moreover, there was a special free floating VIP team who don't look to have been accountable to anyone else. goodlawproject.org/news/update-co…
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
There is also explicit reference to the fact that "high profile contacts" are managed by a separate team.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
There was a special Opportunites team, a special Quality Assurance team and a special Closing team specially for VIPs. I have all the names of all the civil servants involved.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
Moreover, there was a special free floating VIP team who don't look to have been accountable to anyone else. goodlawproject.org/news/update-co…
Cabinet contacts awarded COVID19 contracts - Good Law Project
goodlawproject.org
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
We also know there was a special Opportunities "Cell" - one of six in total - handling "VIP"s. I know the names of the civil servants running that cell but it would be unfair to publish them.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
There was a special Opportunites team, a special Quality Assurance team and a special Closing team specially for VIPs. I have all the names of all the civil servants involved.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
See our blog post citing leaked documents - widely ignored by the press - which predated the NAO Report by a number of weeks. goodlawproject.org/news/special-p…
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We also know there was a special Opportunities "Cell" - one of six in total - handling "VIP"s. I know the names of the civil servants running that cell but it would be unfair to publish them.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
And a further reminder that, although the NAO suggests "VIPs" were merely those *introduced* by (mostly) Ministers, this leaked document suggests they were also *processed* on a different track. pic.twitter.com/OkOaXBgdd2
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
See our blog post citing leaked documents - widely ignored by the press - which predated the NAO Report by a number of weeks. goodlawproject.org/news/special-p…
 
Just a reminder that, although Government is now running furiously from the description of the "VIP" channel, this is the language it used itself. pic.twitter.com/mofti4TU31
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
And a further reminder that, although the NAO suggests "VIPs" were merely those *introduced* by (mostly) Ministers, this leaked document suggests they were also *processed* on a different track.
 
Just a reminder that, although Government is now running furiously from the description of the "VIP" channel, this is the language it used itself.
 
Slightly worried where that hyperlink will take me. pic.twitter.com/BUKhOoetCk
 
In reply to @TheElliotPage
Elliot, can you reach out to @JolyonMaugham please, who is fighting for better services for #TransKids crowdjustice.com/case/transgend…
Replying to @brightsider123 @TheElliotPage and 1 otherfalse
We have closed the page whilst we consider next steps.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
The bare facts, and they are undeniable, are that (at least) two charities, Stonewall and Mermaids, applied to intervene in the judicial review and both were refused permission. And (at least) one trans child also applied to intervene and they, too, were also refused permission.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
I shrink not one inch from the point I made, before the hearing started, that it was profoundly wrong of the Court to determine the treatment rights of trans children whilst refusing to hear from any.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
This is not a formal difference. The Tavistock pathologises gender incongruence and departs from international treatment norms recommended by, e.g. the World Health Organisation (see euro.who.int/en/health-topi…). The Tavistock is not liked or trusted in the trans community.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
The bare facts, and they are undeniable, are that (at least) two charities, Stonewall and Mermaids, applied to intervene in the judicial review and both were refused permission. And (at least) one trans child also applied to intervene and they, too, were also refused permission.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
That the Tavistock, in support of its case, led evidence from those seeking treatment from it is very different to trans children or charities representing their interests being heard, having their own voice, before the Court.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
This is not a formal difference. The Tavistock pathologises gender incongruence and departs from international treatment norms recommended by, e.g. the World Health Organisation (see euro.who.int/en/health-topi…). The Tavistock is not liked or trusted in the trans community.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
On a personal level I want to re-up this thread (dating to before the hearing) that makes the point that, I believe, it was profoundly wrong for the Court to have refused to hear from a single trans child or organisation representing their interests.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
That the Tavistock, in support of its case, led evidence from those seeking treatment from it is very different to trans children or charities representing their interests being heard, having their own voice, before the Court.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
On a personal level I want to re-up this thread (dating to before the hearing) that makes the point that, I believe, it was profoundly wrong for the Court to have refused to hear from a single trans child or organisation representing their interests.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
We are taking advice on whether families who take their child abroad for treatment are at risk of having their child taken into care. We will, of course, publish that advice.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
It is also possible to, in effect, self-medicate by buying drugs on the dark web without any triaging. It is inevitable, I would say, that this practice will grow.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
On a personal level I want to re-up this thread (dating to before the hearing) that makes the point that, I believe, it was profoundly wrong for the Court to have refused to hear from a single trans child or organisation representing their interests.
The case against the Tavistock, seeking (in effect) to deny trans kids in the UK treatment that is available throughout the rest of the developed world, will hear no submissions from trans kids. They, and charities representing them, asked to be heard but were denied all voice.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
And, in practical terms, the length of NHS waiting lists were such that most families of young people sought treatment abroad anyway: sub-optimal for the wealthy and discriminatory against the poor. This practice is now bound to accelerate.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
It is also possible to, in effect, self-medicate by buying drugs on the dark web without any triaging. It is inevitable, I would say, that this practice will grow.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
But, of course, the decision only covers prescribing practice in the NHS - which was already an international outlier in terms of its institutional hostility to gender dysphoria.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
And, in practical terms, the length of NHS waiting lists were such that most families of young people sought treatment abroad anyway: sub-optimal for the wealthy and discriminatory against the poor. This practice is now bound to accelerate.
 
In reply to @JolyonMaugham
Nor is it easy for me to anticipate a legislative intervention. This is likely to be the situation in the United Kingdom for a very long time indeed.
Replying to @JolyonMaugham
But, of course, the decision only covers prescribing practice in the NHS - which was already an international outlier in terms of its institutional hostility to gender dysphoria.
 
 
Register for Trendsmap Access
Login via Twitter to start your free trial now

Don't have a Twitter account? You can also register via Facebook

* Analytics, alert and visualisation tools require additional authorisation
Existing users can login

Our trial allows access to only the 8 hour timeframe for this page.

A Trendsmap Plus subscription provides full access to all available timeframes

Signup Now