Bringing Down Goliath: How Good Law Can Topple the Powerful

Product Information

Later today, WH Allen, part of Penguin Random House, will announce the publication of my new book, Bringing Down Goliath – How Good Law Can Topple the Powerful. I’m really excited to share the book with you – and I insisted on telling our supporters first because, without you, there would be no book.

This book highlights significant failings and potential widespread corruption. It shows how the law can prove and challenge but is failing to hold to account. However, as argued in this book, it is beyond its reach or remit. He claimed that gender-critical feminists - who believe sex is biological and cannot be changed - had rejected his offers to debate the issue with him. Initially, in turns out that a couple of contracts had been awarded to Tory party donors on terms unfavourable to the government and details not published. In Bringing Down Goliath, Jolyon Maugham shares his inspiration and his purpose, and he reveals the story behind these landmark cases and the hidden fault lines of our judicial system. He offers an empowering, bold new vision for how the law can work better for all of us in the fight against injustice. Hoffman sat as a Law Lord in the extradition case of Augusto Pinochet.That case had been brought to the House of Lords by Amnesty International (AI) and others.A revealing, empowering vision of how the law can work better for all of us, from Jolyon Maugham KC, founder of Good Law Project.

Given how confused the rest of his writing is, Maugham is strikingly clear on this point. Judicial diversity, for example, is not good if judges simply reflect the population they serve. The “real problem” which diversity must solve is changing the sort of judgments that come down, so that judges take the “political context” into account in the way Maugham likes. A judge who comes from a demographic that makes them close to a “feminism of privilege” (apparently, being older and female?) is likely to issue suspect decisions. Maugham wants a judiciary which speaks not with many voices (which, of course, is the definition of diversity) but rather “a single voice”, presumably one which is in perfect concord with him. Maugham doesn’t mind if his political goals are achieved either by a written constitution (which judges cannot pass) or judges simply judicially inventing one. We both know I have written to many GC feminists seeking a private discussion of trans issues and to de-escalate the ‘debate’. This is, surprisingly, not hypocrisy. Like many convinced of their own righteousness, Maugham arrives at a seemingly hypocritical conclusion by fanatical sincerity. The explanation for these contradictions is simply that, to Maugham, ideology is the first condition of judging, and the law is merely an instrumentality to achieve his preferred political ends. A good judge, to Maugham, is a judge who will implement Maugham’s preferred political outcomes. He wrote: “The evidence that JK Rowling has been ‘cancelled’ for her views about trans children is (self-evidently) a little thin on the ground. But the evidence that her words cause anguish to trans children, who cannot speak for themselves, is evident from charities, like Mermaids who are obliged to speak for them.”We both know the review has got nothing to do with the quality of the book and everything to do with what The Times is - and where it stands in relation to my politics - which is exactly the point my tweet makes,” he wrote.

I’ve followed GLP for some time and it is a very mixed bag. Prorogation has already been discussed in this thread in some detail, so we can gloss over that. By law, the government must publish a summary of any publicly awarded contracts within a certain timeframe. The Harry Potter author’s remarks triggered a row as Maugham first suggested Rowling should read his book, before turning his sights on her gender-critical views. Her remarks triggered a row as Maugham first suggested Rowling should read his book before turning his sights on her gender-critical views. He claimed that gender-critical feminists - who believe sex is biological and cannot be changed - had rejected his offers to debate the issue with him. But the fundamental difficulty with the worldview of this book is the belief common to so many lawyers, which is that everything is resolvable by legal means. He seems blind to economic and political realities: it’s not clear that he gets the economic point of the non-dom tax rules, and he seems proud of destroying Uber’s business model and of making it more difficult for ordinary Londoners to get taxis late at night.Rowling rejected the suggestion that she was aware of his attempts to engage in discussions about gender issues with other feminists. When this was revealed, and because of possible accusations of bias, it meant the UNPRECEDENTED setting aside of the House of Lords judgement, because in the words of another Law Lord, Lord Hutton:” public confidence in the integrity of the administration of Justice would be shaken if his Hoffman’s) decision was allowed to stand”. Jolyon Maugham KC lashed out after a reviewer said he was “in love with his own prose” and “a first-time author who should not be encouraged to re-offend ever again”.