Given how reluctant Bridget Phillipson seems to be to lay the EHRC Guidance before Parliament, I am nervous that letter from the Good Law Projecf will lead her to delay still further.
Might it be appropriate for a group of experts in equality and human rights law, such as yourself, to write to Bridget Phillipson expressing your concern that misinformation by the Good Law Project is unhelpful and likely to lead to misunderstanding?
Similar to Bronwen’s comment above, very much hoping that you and/or Sex Matters would be able to correct the GLPs deliberately misleading interpretation via a letter to Bridget Phillipson, they simply should not be able to get away with it, and BP should be given no fuel to further delay
The lobbyists are doing what they have always done; deliberately misrepresenting the law to sow doubt and create confusion. It is what they have done since the 1990s going back to the days of Press for Change.
Hi Michael, thanks again for a painstaking dissection of the appalling spin from the GLP about this.
In terms of practical effects, there seem to me to be several possibilities.
First, the Government might come under pressure from MPs who swallow the GLP spin to reject the EHRC draft code of practice for service providers, or at least to sit on it for longer on the pretence that this case has intensified or confirmed doubts about it. This is a political question not a legal one. However, if the Secretary of State is willing (or eager) to consider this, wouldn’t she have to obtain her own legal advice from Government lawyers first? And wouldn’t they be forced to conclude (relying on their own professional integrity) that the GLP’s analysis was pure hokum? The advice would surely then be that the Secretary of State might be exposing herself to some legal risk of her own to use that as the basis of rejecting the draft code. And the Secretary of State might have to reveal some of this if asked about it directly in Parliament (though there is always the fallback that legal advice to Goverment is confidential)? So at its highest the effect might only be to extend the delay.
Assuming you’re right that the GLP aren’t incompetent, and they must know that their analysis is bogus and intentionally misleading, I can think of another couple of possible consequences.
If their deliberate lies could be tied to any effort to obtain a benefit - such as more donations to fund an appeal - is there a prima face case for a fraud investigation by the police? I realise this goes outside your usual area of expertise around equalities and human rights law, but I think it at least prompts the question.
Failing this, given that the GLP as an organisation has only one person with a controlling interest, Mr Maugham, and so if he is accountable for things done and said in the GLP’s name, wouldn’t this also prompt an investigation by the Bar Standards Board as potential breaches of Mr Maugham’s core duties in the Bar Handbook of honesty and integrity “at all times” (duty #3), not behaving in ways likely to diminish trust and confidence in the legal profession (#5), making misleading communications or publicity in the course of practice, and (especially perhaps) misconduct linked to a financial benefit? If so, this could end up being an extremely short-sighted and counterproductive foray into the dark arts of spin.
Hi Michael. It is almost impossible for any reasonable person to believe that this could be a simple error or mistake or misjudgement, so what is being dome to stop the GLP and Mr Maugham from spreading disinformation so deliberately and clinically. We, as women, are entirely dependent on both our executive and our judiciary to get this right and protect our interests as well as those of 'trans' people. If, every way we turn, wrong information is being fed to the executive by reputable legal groups and personages, it become a very much more serious matter than mere errors or errors of judgement.
Thanks, Michael, for both these pieces on the Good Laugh Project case and your live which I listened to most of. Maugham is outrageous and I can't believe people are still funding him. he has lost the vast majority of his cases.
Thank you.
Given how reluctant Bridget Phillipson seems to be to lay the EHRC Guidance before Parliament, I am nervous that letter from the Good Law Projecf will lead her to delay still further.
Might it be appropriate for a group of experts in equality and human rights law, such as yourself, to write to Bridget Phillipson expressing your concern that misinformation by the Good Law Project is unhelpful and likely to lead to misunderstanding?
Fantastic analyses as always Michael, thank you!
Similar to Bronwen’s comment above, very much hoping that you and/or Sex Matters would be able to correct the GLPs deliberately misleading interpretation via a letter to Bridget Phillipson, they simply should not be able to get away with it, and BP should be given no fuel to further delay
The lobbyists are doing what they have always done; deliberately misrepresenting the law to sow doubt and create confusion. It is what they have done since the 1990s going back to the days of Press for Change.
Hi Michael, thanks again for a painstaking dissection of the appalling spin from the GLP about this.
In terms of practical effects, there seem to me to be several possibilities.
First, the Government might come under pressure from MPs who swallow the GLP spin to reject the EHRC draft code of practice for service providers, or at least to sit on it for longer on the pretence that this case has intensified or confirmed doubts about it. This is a political question not a legal one. However, if the Secretary of State is willing (or eager) to consider this, wouldn’t she have to obtain her own legal advice from Government lawyers first? And wouldn’t they be forced to conclude (relying on their own professional integrity) that the GLP’s analysis was pure hokum? The advice would surely then be that the Secretary of State might be exposing herself to some legal risk of her own to use that as the basis of rejecting the draft code. And the Secretary of State might have to reveal some of this if asked about it directly in Parliament (though there is always the fallback that legal advice to Goverment is confidential)? So at its highest the effect might only be to extend the delay.
Assuming you’re right that the GLP aren’t incompetent, and they must know that their analysis is bogus and intentionally misleading, I can think of another couple of possible consequences.
If their deliberate lies could be tied to any effort to obtain a benefit - such as more donations to fund an appeal - is there a prima face case for a fraud investigation by the police? I realise this goes outside your usual area of expertise around equalities and human rights law, but I think it at least prompts the question.
Failing this, given that the GLP as an organisation has only one person with a controlling interest, Mr Maugham, and so if he is accountable for things done and said in the GLP’s name, wouldn’t this also prompt an investigation by the Bar Standards Board as potential breaches of Mr Maugham’s core duties in the Bar Handbook of honesty and integrity “at all times” (duty #3), not behaving in ways likely to diminish trust and confidence in the legal profession (#5), making misleading communications or publicity in the course of practice, and (especially perhaps) misconduct linked to a financial benefit? If so, this could end up being an extremely short-sighted and counterproductive foray into the dark arts of spin.
Hi Michael. It is almost impossible for any reasonable person to believe that this could be a simple error or mistake or misjudgement, so what is being dome to stop the GLP and Mr Maugham from spreading disinformation so deliberately and clinically. We, as women, are entirely dependent on both our executive and our judiciary to get this right and protect our interests as well as those of 'trans' people. If, every way we turn, wrong information is being fed to the executive by reputable legal groups and personages, it become a very much more serious matter than mere errors or errors of judgement.
Thank you Michael.
Extraordinary and depressing, coming from a KC (or the organisation he heads).
I’m glad you have written about this, I nearly asked you to comment on it earlier today - and then I thought no you have enough to do!
Thank you for this detailed explanation!
I hope service providers don’t rely on his interpretation.
And can Bridget Phillipson please hurry up and either reject or accept the guidance
Thanks, Michael, for both these pieces on the Good Laugh Project case and your live which I listened to most of. Maugham is outrageous and I can't believe people are still funding him. he has lost the vast majority of his cases.
Have cross posted :
https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-cowboys-i-hate-a-liar
Dusty
It’s all very reminiscent of Kemp’s Peggie judgment, probably both the work of ChatGPT KC.