Back in August, I noted on this blog how infamous animal batterer and wealthy activist tax lawyer, Jolyon Maugham KC, had teamed up with failed actor and one-time boob-enlarging hypnotist David Paulden (aka Zack Polanski) to legally defend the ever more Palestine-obsessed Green Party against a small group of feminist Green Party members who believe in biological reality.
In October 2025, the Green Party cancelled – at less than 48 hours’ notice – a stall at their annual conference that had previously been successfully applied for by the group Green Women’s Declaration (#ForWomenAndPlanet). The latter then launched a legal challenge, claiming that the Green Party had discriminated against them because of their beliefs about sex. In March this year, they told the Times:
The way the Green Party has been acting is akin to a witch-hunt, purging people with gender-critical views. We are middle-aged ladies with leaflets who wanted to go inside the conference last year and talk about these issues. The cancellation of our stall was simply the Party’s leadership saying, ‘We can’t allow these women’s voices inside conference’.
On 27 August this year, Maugham’s Good Law Project announced that they will defend the Green Party in court against the legal challenge brought by Green Women’s Declaration (GWD). And they launched a crowdfunder – with an initial target of £40,000 – in support of that legal defence.
As journalist Jo Bartosch noted back in March, the basis for the Green Party machine’s last-minute cancellation of the GWD’s October 2025 conference stall appears to have been an internal document, ‘Guidance to identify queerphobia’, adopted by the Party in 2023. That ‘guidance’ provides that any expression of gender-critical beliefs is discriminatory – so must not be tolerated by the Party.
Sound familiar? Well it should, because in recent weeks Paulden/Polanski and his Green Party machine have been catching flak for a motion tabled to and debated and passed at thisyear’s annual conference, held in Brighton last weekend, to adopt a policy equating Zionism with racism (as well as calling for Israel to somehow be abolished and ‘replaced’ by a single Palestinian state).
In short, the passing of the motion means that any expression of support for Zionism is discriminatory – so must not be tolerated by the Party.
Some Jewish members of the Green Party have reportedly expressed concern this will mean they could face disciplinary action simply for belonging to Jewish organisations, including synagogues, that support Zionism. And, as Jonathan Freedland noted in the Guardian last week, that “includes almost every synagogue, or synagogue movement, in Britain and indeed the world”. Maybe they will, maybe they won’t. But I suggest they might well find it very hard to get a stall at the Party’s annual conference – as the Green Women’s Declaration group did again at this month’s annual conference. And, well, members of the GWD group certainly havefaced disciplinary action.
Today’s Guardianreports Paulden/Polanski stating, in response to such concerns:
Antisemitism and criticism of the Israeli state are, and must always be, completely distinct – blurring the line between the two is not only wrong but antisemitic, and makes Jewish people less safe. It’s our role as a movement for justice to protect both the rights of Palestinians and our Jewish communities here in the UK. As leader I will not accept any exclusion, or refusal to engage with anyone, because of the religious or communal body they are part of [my emphasis].
But you have to wonder whether he ran that last sentence past the Green Party’s legal representatives – namely, Jolyon Maugham KC and his Good Law Project. Because the Green Party is clearly refusing to ‘engage with’ the Green Women’s Declaration group – a communal body of Party members and supporters who believe in something as simple as human beings not being like clown fish.
Interestingly, after the usual initial wave of donations, the Good Law Project’s above-mentioned crowdfunder in support of their legal defence of the Green Party is currently struggling to reach it’s initial target of £40,000. Launched on 27 August, by mid-September the crowdfunder had raised £18,705 from 977 donors. But since then it has flatlined, with just a further 107 donations totalling £2,158.
That could be at least partly due to the fact that Maugham and the GLP have done relatively little to promote the crowdfunder to their supporters. Having deleted his X and Bluesky accounts earlier this year, Maugham has yet to promote the crowdfunder on his Instagram account, while the GLP have done so only once – on 27 August. (That said, the GLP have promoted it more recently on both their Facebook and X accounts.)
Whatever, it’s going to be an interesting day in court. Because, as Suzanne Moore noted on her Substack on Sunday, after the ‘Zionism’ motion had been passed by the conference:
This is shameful, shameful stuff. Now every other party – especially Labour – has to say it would never go into coalition with such racist opportunists. And I pray to God that Polanski has to recycle his CV one more time.
‘When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.’
The Greens have been showing us who they are for some time now. On this dark day, I only hope more people see it.
So, the NHS-Assisted Suicide Bill that just will not die is back in the House of Commons later today, with Labour’s Lauren Edwards MP set to kick off the Second Reading of the very same – so identically flawed – Bill that Labour’s Kim Leadbeater MP failed to sneak into the Statute Book via the ‘back door’ of the equally flawed Private Members’ Bill process during the two years of the directionless Keir Starmer government.
In November 2024, Leadbeater’s Bill passed its Second Reading with a majority of 55, but by June 2025, when MPs gave the Bill its Third and final reading in the Commons by 314 votes to 291 to send it off to the House of Lords, that majority had fallen to just 23.
It’s unclear how many MPs have changed their position on the Bill since then, but earlier this week Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch hit the nail on the head when indicating that, despite supporting the principle of state assisted suicide, she will once again vote against the Bill, on the grounds that it is not fit for purpose:
One of the things that has gone wrong in our country is how we make laws. Not based on whether something works or not, but how it makes us feel. As legislators, we have to do more than that. It is not enough to ask what we want the law to achieve; we need to question whether the system we build to achieve it will work.
However, despite having said in July that the government needs to fix the palliative and social care systems before introducing NHS assisted suicide, newbie prime minister Andy Burnham will be taking the soft option of abstaining. Apparently, he’s now happy for his government to just go with the flow, and ignore the consistently expressed concerns of the hospice charities and others, including many of his own MPs.
As is the former TV personality and prominent supporter of Kim Leadbeater’s Bill, Esther Rantzen, who was given less than six months to live three years ago, in 2023. Somewhat predictably, Rantzen popped up in the rabidly pro-assisted suicide Guardianyesterday to conveniently ‘reveal’ that she is now “too physically fragile” to travel to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland. Which is odd, because Rantzen’s family told the Guardian the very same thing 18 months ago, in March 2025, when Leadbeater’s Bill was at a crucial stage.
The use of such emotional blackmail is no way to debate and legislate for significant social change in the 21st Century. Burnham should step out from behind his inadequate fig-leaf of supposed government ‘neutrality’, and – as I suggested in 2024 – put the issue to bed, for now at least, by establishing a Royal Commission on assisted dying, or by asking the Law Commission to examine the issue and make recommendations for legal reform.
Update, 3pm: Well, some sanity at last. After almost five hours of debate, MPs have just voted 286 to 270 against giving the Bill its Second Reading. So, the assisted dying Bill is finally dead. Not that you’d know it from the Guardian politics live blog, which was determined to have it both ways:
(The first vote, won by a majority of 75, was simply a procedural vote on whether to now have the actual vote on the Bill. Parliamentary democracy in the 21st Century, innit. If the Guardian politics live blog team would like a tutorial, my rates are very reasonable.)
It’s fair to say that Lauren Edwards MP – who was given a rough ride when opening the debate – and the pressure group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalisation Society) have not taken defeat well, accusing MPs of having “dropped the ball today” and characterising the vote as “a failure of our democracy”. But Edwards and Dignity in Dying arguably brought about their own defeat by hubristically insisting that MPs pass her Bill without amendment before sending it on to the Lords a second time, simply so that they could then try to invoke the Parliament Acts if the Lords did not do what they wanted.
Yet it was Dignity in Dying who chose to use the deeply flawed and chronically anachronistic Private Members’ Bill process to try to force assisted dying into the Statute Book, rather than do the hard work of convincing one or more of the major political parties to commit to NHS-assisted suicide in a general election manifesto. To my mind, it’s rather telling that Labour did not make that commitment in July 2024, despite the personal commitment of Keir Starmer. And, of course, Andy Burnham has no electoral mandate of his own – he’s only Prime Minister because a majority of Labour MPs belatedly realised that Keir Starmer is a technocrat, not a politician.
Meanwhile, some bloke called Gordon has posted on social media: “I hope we can all now come together to radically improve end of life care”. If only someone like Gordon had been in a position to do something radical about the funding of end of life care in the UK, eh?
Maybe it would have been better for someone like Gordon to put upwards of £30 billion towards funding the UK’s ludicrously under-resourced palliative care system, rather than towards helping George Bush’s US of A to slaughter hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though Afghanistan was a basket case posing no military threat to anyone, and Iraq not only had nothing to do with 9/11 but did not possess the mythical weapons of mass destruction that gave Alastair Campbell and others such a hard-on.
Yes, these things are connected, people! You need to get intersectional!
It’s not easy to imagine a nuttier combo of ‘late developer leftie’ nutjobs than former boob-enlarging hypnotist David Paulden (aka Zack Polanski) and former tax (avoidance) lawyer Jolyon Maugham KC. So it’s entirely fitting that Maugham and his Good Law Project’s latest crowdfunder – their 101st lawfare-related crowdfunder since 2017 – is in support of the GLP’s legal defence of Paulden/Polanski’s Green Party machine against a small group of feminist Green Party members armed with little more than the facts of life.
If I were Paulden/Polanski, I think I would have wanted to be legally represented by an actual law firm, ideally with a track record of success in ‘defending trans rights’. However, given how much money the Green Party has been having to shell out on lawyers since Paulden/Polanski became leader, I can see why they’ve gone for the cheap option.
But again, if I were Paulden/Polanski, I’d still want my free lawyers to have some sort of track record of success with the law thingy, rather than just the crowdfunding thingy.
When it comes to crowdfunding, Maugham and the GLP are in a league of their own – as noted on this blog earlier this month, they’ve crowdfunded a stonking £6.762 million since 2017. But, as barrister and blogger Matthew Scott also noted earlier this month, their “record of success can politely be described as patchy”.
Jolyon Maugham KC, dressed in the clothes and spectacles of a polite white tax lawyer
More to the point, their record of success in transgenderism-related lawfare, for which they’ve raised some £1.376 million from 17 crowdfunders since late 2020, is not even ‘patchy’. It’s practically a blank page.
Indeed, to my mind, £1.376 million is a lot of (other people’s) money to have squandered on virtually fuck-all over six years of ‘Angry Dad’ lawfare.
But maybe Maugham and the GLP – as well as Paulden/Polanski and the Green Party – will strike lucky this time. Well, even a stopped clock is right occasionally.
So, trade unions are reportedly worried that the Government’s plan for zero-hours contracts will break the Labour Party’s July 2024 manifesto pledge.
Which it will. Because, as I’ve said repeatedly on this blog and elsewhere, the manifesto pledge was utter bollocks. And that’s because, as I’ve said repeatedly since at least 2013, it’s simply not practicable or desirable to ‘ban’ zero-hours contracts.
But Labour MPs and their 21-year-old employment policy wonks with a first in Italian Literature only listen to the trade unions. And the trade unions are led by nutjobs who believe a woman can have a penis, a man can breastfeed a newborn baby, and the government can ban zero-hours contracts.
That’s it. That’s the blog post.
Welcome to the working week. You got to do it till you’re through it, so you better get to it.
This morning, the Good Law Project launched their 💥 100th 💥 lawfare-related crowdfunder since wealthy tax lawyer turned turd polisher Jolyon Maugham KC founded the GLP in March 2017. So today seems the right moment for me to update – probably for the very last time – my Table of Failure & Futility (ToFF), which tells us quite a lot about the GLP’s past and present schemes and adventuring.
[NB: In late September, I stumbled across a GLP crowdfunder – in support of an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against a decision by the Information Commissioner, about Palantir’s contract with the NHS – of which I was previously unaware (possibly because the GLP appear to have done very little to actively promote it). This crowdfunder may have been launched in September, but seems more likely to have been launched in mid-April, when the appeal was filed. In which case, what I thought was the GLP’s 100th lawfare-related crowdfunder was in fact their 101st, and accordingly some of the figures in this post require adjustment (though not by much, because as of 30 September the crowdfunder has raised only £12,172 from 716 donors).]
You do not need to be a geek to see from my ToFF that the GLP’s crowdfunders do not hit the big numbers quite as often as they used to when Maugham and the GLP were labouring to bring down the Goliaths known as Brexit, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak. Of the 44 crowdfunders they launched between 1 January 2021 and 4 July 2024, 26 (60%) raised more than £40,000, and 17 (40%) raised more than £60,000. But of the 27 crowdfunders they have launched since the demise of their Tory cash cow in July 2024, only four (15%) have raised more than £40,000.
Sure, each of those four crowdfunders has raised a lot more than £40,000: three of them have raised more than £120,000, and one has raised a walloping £489,606, making it the GLP’s most lucrative crowdfunder … EVER!
Indeed, collectively, the now four open crowdfunders in support of the GLP’s ongoing but seemingly doomed effort to undo the Supreme Court’s April 2025 ruling in the case of For Women Scotland have so far raised a colossal £761,781, somewhat more than twice the GLP’s total income from crowdfunding in their financial year 2024-25 (£322,000), and not far short of the £804,952 they raised from nine crowdfunders over two years of Brexit-related lawfare in 2017-19.
Well, if you don’t support trans, you are a monster. Or something. And, as Maugham reportedly told a group of Cambridge University students late last year, “trans rights are the canary in the coal mine for fascism” and “people who are transphobes become fascist adjacent”. Of course they do. Just as wealthy tax (avoidance) lawyers who have trans-identifying kids become Gandhi adjacent.
Josh Glancy interviews Jolyon Maugham, the Times, 29 April 2023
So you also do not need to be a geek to see from my ToFF that eight (40%) of the GLP’s 20 most recent crowdfunders were/are about transgenderism, and that those eight crowdfunders – six of which remain open to new donations – account for £832,820 (82%) of the total of £1,012,650 raised by the 20 crowdfunders to date. And that is despite Maugham having emailed GLP supporters in September 2024 – a couple of months after he and the GLP were given a legal spanking by the High Court on puberty blockers – to inform them that, as “it’s getting harder and harder to win rights for the trans community through the courts, and it doesn’t feel right to keep asking the community and its allies to carry on contributing to the enormous costs of this increasingly difficult litigation”, the GLP would now be “focusing our legal campaigns elsewhere” instead.
Evidently, Maugham now does consider it right to ask the trans community and its allies to contribute to the enormous costs of increasingly difficult litigation.
However, the ruling of the apparently fascist adjacent Supreme Court judges in For Women Scotland was a singular event that is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. And, overall, the GLP’s ever more frantic crowdfunding is showing diminishing returns.
The 13 crowdfunders launched between April 2020 and the end of that year (i.e. Year One of Covid19) raised an average of £162,930, while ten (77%) of the crowdfunders raised more than £60,000, six raised more than £120,000, and two raised more than £400,000.
Similarly, the average sum raised by the 23 crowdfunders launched in the two-year period January 2021 to December 2022 was £62,482, while the 21 crowdfunders launched between January 2023 and July 2024 raised an average of £41,139. But, leaving aside the four For Women Scotland-related crowdfunders (including the brand new one), the average sum raised (to date) by the other 23 crowdfunders launched under the Labour Government is just £20,602.
Somewhat hilariously, and characteristically, in 2025 the GLP claimed this decline in their crowdfunding fortunes is due to “fewer of [our] campaigns requiring crowdfunding support”. In fact, over the past five years, the number of crowdfunded campaigns has steadily increased, from nine in 2022, to 12 in 2023 and in 2024, to 14 in 2025, and ten in the first eight months of 2026 [update: now 12 in the first nine months of 2026].
Whatever, you certainly don’t need to be a geek to see that there isn’t an awful lot of green shading in my ToFF. Maugham and the GLP may have raised a total of more than £3.5 million from 71 crowdfunders since 1 January 2021, but all that they have achieved with that moolah (to date) is:
two now irrelevant court wins on Net Zero, in 2022 and early 2024, that did not lead to any significant change in the then Tory government’s policies before the change of government in July 2024;
the overturning of a Shrewsbury Town Council planning decision, in 2023;
a settlement with Northumbria Police on behalf of Nina Cresswell, in 2026.
Furthermore, compared to trying to stop Brexit or topple Boris Johnson, many of the GLP’s recent crowdfunded cases seem somewhat parochial. Currently, as well as fighting a long-running and hugely expensive but contrived and utterly pointless legal battle with Reform UK over trivial data protection issues, the GLP is enabling Michaela Hall’s family to sue Devon & Cornwall Police and the Ministry of Justice; helping student activist Stella Maris sue her university (St Andrews); helping right-wing commentator Albie Amonkona bring an Employment Tribunal claim against his right-wing former employer GB News; enabling an unidentified individual to bring an Employment Tribunal claim against the Daily Mail; and enabling Gaie Delap to sue the Ministry of Justice for making her serve a few weeks more of her 20-month prison sentence in prison (Delap having previously been released on home detention curfew after serving just three months in prison).
Whatever the merits and outcome of such cases, they will most likely not Change The World, however much the GLP grifts from people who (understandably) want to Change The World.
So, Crime of the Century? Or just a Soapbox Opera? You decide. But do bear in mind that the wealthy activist tax lawyer – indeed a legal profession – that does not labour to turn rights into realities is but a servant to the interests of those with money. Or something. And the work done by wealthy activist tax lawyers is only possible with crowdfunding.
Maybe this is because the wealthy activist tax lawyers need to keep their own money for things like luxury windmills, holidays in apricot orchards with remarkably fragrant rosemary bushes, wine cellars, and baseball bats. Whatever, we must surely welcome the rise of the wealthy activist tax lawyer.
With the revised Equality & Human Rights Commission (EHRC) Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations finally coming into force tomorrow, it’s time for another traffic update from the Road to Nowhere.
As noted in previous traffic updates, following the Supreme Court’s landmark April 2025 ruling in the case of For Women Scotland, four pro-trans pressure groups – the Good Law Project, TransLucent, Liberty and the Trans Legal Clinic – jumped into their clown cars to race down the road to Nowhere, where they hoped to undo the Supreme Court ruling by scuppering the EHRC’s consultation on associated further revisions to the then draft Code of Practice, and by otherwise making a legal nuisance of themselves.
However, despite having since crowdfunded a combined total of more than £892,600 from the ‘trans community’ and its allies to fund their thrilling road trips to Nowhere, none of them have got very far. And, from tomorrow, the revised Code of Practice is statutory guidance. So, game over.
Except that … having failed to scupper the EHRC’s consultation on and delivery of a revised Code of Practice, at least some of the pro-trans pressure groups now seem set on trying to bring a legal challenge to the statutory guidance. And first out of the blocks were TransLucent, who have already crowdfunded almost £39,000 in support of their nascent attempt to seek a judicial review in the High Court.
TransLucent’s solicitors, the law firm Russell-Cooke, sent a letter before action to both the EHRC and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson on 3 July. However, at the time of writing TransLucent have not yet published either that letter or any response, so it is questionable whether the more than 700 donors to the crowdfunder have been provided with the material information they would have needed to make an informed decision about whether or not to donate (and, if so, how much).
Meanwhile, since 14 July, when Bridget Phillipson signed the commencement order that brings the revised Code of Practice into force as statutory guidance tomorrow, the Good Law Project have been able to sit back and enjoy that clear setback for ‘trans rights’ generating a new wave of more than 1,000 donations, totalling some £26,700, to their crowdfunder in support of their attempt to appeal the legal kicking they were given by the High Court in February. For the GLP, it seems, every setback has a silver lining.
Indeed, the twin setbacks to the stated legal objectives of the GLP’s original, crowdfunded High Court challenge to the EHRC’s consultation process and Interim Update – the first on 21 May, when Phillipson finally laid the revised Code of Practice in Parliament, and the second on 14 July, when she signed the commencement order – have boosted their appeal crowdfunder from a relatively modest £55,878 on 21 May, to £105,778. Ker-ching!
Anatomy of a GLP crowdfunder: How two significant setbacks, on 21 May and 14 July, to the stated legal objectives of the original ‘EHRC Interim Update’ crowdfunder boosted the appeal crowdfunder from £55,878 on 21 May, to £105,778 today
Anyway, if you are a midwit looking for an easy way to dispose of your spare cash, stand by for the next traffic update from the Road to Nowhere. Because, these days, crowdfunders in support of transgenderism-related lawfare are like the proverbial buses, and there will most likely be another two or three along in a minute.
Update, 5 August: Well, as anticipated, this morning the Good Law Project launched their new crowdfunder in support of a similarly nascent attempt to seek a judicial review of the statutory guidance in the High Court. Acting on behalf of the GLP, the law firm Leigh Day sent a letter before action to both the EHRC and Angela Rayner, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 28 July. And, unlike TransLucent, the GLP have published that letter.
Meanwhile, TransLucent have labelled today The Labour Party’s Day of Shame:
Anyway, spare a thought for all the midwits who support trans, as they now have to decide whether to donate to the GLP’s crowdfunder in support of their attempt to appeal to the Court of Appeal, or TransLucent’s crowdfunder in support of their attempt to seek a judicial review of the new EHRC statutory guidance in the High Court, or the GLP’s crowdfunder in support of their attempt to seek a judicial review of the new EHRC statutory guidance in the High Court. Or to all three!
In case it’s any help, here’s my updated table, showing these and other donating options (both TransLucent and the GLP have two other open crowdfunders in support of their attempt to undo the Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland.) Just take care the next time you’re at the cinema in Godalming on a wet Tuesday evening.
Update, 9 August: In an update to their crowdfunder, TransLucent say that they have now received responses to their letter before action from both the EHRC and equalities minister Bridget Phillipson, and that they expect to file their claim in the High Court “in the coming weeks”. However, being TransLucent, not TransParent, they haven’t (yet) published those responses.
Meanwhile, the total sum crowdfunded by the pro-trans pressure groups in support of their efforts to demonstrate that they, not the judges of the Supreme Court, know the law best is now just short of £920,000, and seems set to pass £1 million long before the proposed litigation concludes.
So, some 120 UK-based millionaires – including football pundit Gary Lineker, crime writer Val McDermid, screenwriter/director Richard Curtis and at least 100 people you’ve never heard of – have generously written to newbie prime minister Andy Burnham, urging him to tax them more. And they claim to represent 75% of the UK’s millionaires (even though by most estimates there are between two and three million millionaires living in the UK – a lot depends on how you define ‘millionaire’).
Which is nice of them. Even if we can only guess how and why most of these 120 generous souls became a millionaire in the first place. Though, by their own account, not one of them gets up and goes to work for their income every day.
Unfortunately, the ‘Proud to Pay’ millionaires don’t say how – or by how much – Andy Burnham should tax them more. And, as noted previously on this blog, we know that wealth taxes are problematic.
But I have a proposal. I suggest Andy Burnham creates a voluntary wealth tax, for patriotic millionaires and billionaires who believe they should pay more tax. This would avoid the (significant) problems of asset valuation, collection and enforcement associated with most wealth tax proposals. And it would be quick and easy to set up, as the Treasury already has a voluntary donation facility All that Andy Burnham would need to do is establish a system for publishing the amount of extra tax voluntarily donated via that facility by Gary Lineker and each of his fellow ‘Proud to Pay’ millionaires, and then the public could see just how ‘proud to pay’ they really are.
Gary and his mates say they can afford to pay more tax. The mechanism for them to do so already exists (though, strangely, few if any of them are using it). After 14 years of Tory austerity and misrule, our public services really, really need that extra tax. And, as Gary and his mates say they would be ‘proud to pay’ more tax, there really can’t be any objection to us knowing how much more tax they voluntarily pay under my proposal. So, let’s allow the self-declared patriotic “super rich” to put their tax returns where their mouths are.
[First published on 13 July, this post was updated on 15 July.]
With the 40-day period for Parliament to review the revised EHRC Code of Practice for services, public functions and associations that Bridget ‘moral midget’ Phillipson finally laid before Parliament on 21 May having expired last week, Phillipson is now expected to shortly issue the necessary commencement order indicating when the Code of Practice will come into force. So it’s time for another traffic update from the Road to Nowhere.
[Update: Bridget Phillipson signed the commencement order on 14 July, and the new Code of Practice is now set to come into force as statutory guidance on 5 August, when the existing (2011) Code of Practice/statutory guidance will be revoked.]
As noted in previous traffic updates, following the Supreme Court’s momentous April 2025 ruling in the case of For Women Scotland, four transactivist groups – the Good Law Project, TransLucent, Liberty and the Trans Legal Clinic – jumped into their clown cars to race down the road to Nowhere, where they hoped to undo the ruling by scuppering the EHRC’s consultation on the draft Code of Practice, and otherwise making a legal nuisance of themselves. But, despite crowdfunding a total of more than £825,000 from the ‘trans community’ and its allies to fund their road trips, they haven’t got very far.
Last summer, the once respected Liberty didn’t even get to Junction 2 on the Road to Nowhere before their road trip was brought to an end by the High Court and Court of Appeal, and they were ordered to hand all but £638 of the £20,638 they had crowdfunded to the EHRC. And, 15 months on from the Supreme Court ruling, TransLucent are still yet to do anything at all with the £36,672 they have raised to date.
Literally no one has donated to the first of TransLucent’s two crowfunders since July last year, and the crowdfunder’s text has never been updated, yet it remains open to new donations from any passing midwits. And pretty much the only people still donating to the second – launched that month in support of an attempt to intervene in legal action brought by Sex Matters that is now set to be heard by the High Court in early November – are trans-identifying business owner Simona Berry, who donates £50 every month, and trans activist Daniel Hibbs-Woodings, who donates £5 every month.
As for the Trans Legal Clinic, led by fashion icon Olivia Campbell-Cavendish and instagram celebrity Mx Oscar ‘dying swan‘ Davies of Garden Court Chambers, they are still marooned in the gateway services, waiting to hear whether their clown car has permission from the European Court of Human Rights to even set out on the Road to Nowhere. And last month, without explanation, they closed their in-house crowdfunder, despite having raised less than 20% of their target of £150,000. Maybe their clown car has failed its MoT.
In June 2025, the Trans Legal Clinic was awarded a grant of £225,000 for ‘premises costs’ by the Three Guineas Trust, one of the Sainsbury Family Charitable Trusts, and in August 2025 it was awarded a further grant of £445,000 for ‘core costs’ by the same Trust. Yet neither of these grants appears in the Trans Legal Clinic’s accounts and trustees’ annual report for the year ending 31 August 2025, submitted to and published by the Charity Commission on 30 June, which reports total income of £140,998 (seemingly including an unrestricted grant of £10,000 from the Three Guineas Trust in April 2025), and total expenditure of £14,238.
Furthermore, despite these Three Guineas Trust grants (totalling £680,000) in April, June and August 2025, as well as a £5,000 donation from the Good Law Project in September 2025, and funding from the Kings Community Fund (a student-led initiative administered by the King’s College London Students Union), the ‘Get Help’ section of the Trans Legal Clinic’s website has, since May 2025, stated that the Clinic is, well, unable to offer any legal help to anyone it wasn’t already helping at the time of the April 2025 Supreme Court ruling in For Women Scotland. Increasingly steep incline, innit.
The ‘Get Help’ section of the Trans Legal Clinic’s website, as of 13 July 2026
Maybe the Trans Legal Clinic hasn’t yet actually received those Three Guineas Trust grants of £225,000 and £445,000. However, given that, as of 31 August 2025, they were sitting on a tidy surplus of £126,760 – almost nine times their total expenditure of just £14,238 over the previous 12 months – you’d think they might have found a way to make their legal help available to at least some of those in need of it since then. Or maybe they’ve just forgotten to update the ‘Get Help’ section of their website.
[Update: It seems the Trans Legal Clinic is finally going to start putting those whopping great Three Guineas Trust grants to good use, starting with a (sparkly) black-tie Grand Opening party on 8 August, at their flashy new rented office space on the Strand. The Trans+ Liberation is back on, and Olivia and the team are very excited.]
Meanwhile, the Good Law Project, led by the Bar’s greatest free speech champion and turd polisher, Jolyon Maugham KC, have now raised more than £740,000 from their four crowdfunders in support of their road trip. And three of those crowdfunders – including the most recent, launched in February – remain open to new donations. But all that they have achieved with that moolah (so far) is a legal spanking by the High Court in February, and a £300,000 bill from the EHRC for legal costs.
In total, then, the Good Law Project, TransLucent, Liberty and the Trans Legal Clinic have so far crowdfunded more than £825,000 from the ‘trans community’ and its allies to fund their no doubt thrilling but so far utterly pointless road race to Nowhere. Well, if you don’t support trans, you are a monster.
T-shirts on sale in the GLP’s online merch shop, early on 14 July 2026. Later the same day, along with the entire ‘Monsters’ website and billboard campaign, the T-shirts were binned.
Six years ago, in a comment piece headed “Is crowdfunding the next mis-selling scandal?“, Maugham himself highlighted two fundamental problems with activist lawyers crowdfunding their own lawfare: “the lack of a client interest to act as counterweight to that of the lawyers, and the success of the exercise being contingent on a thriving crowdfunding page”. And he warned:
The [crowdfunders] that succeed are typically those which most closely align what are said to be their legal objectives with the policy ambitions of a particular audience. This creates a clear moral hazard around mis-selling litigation or over-promising on prospects. Who protects the interests of donors? Who keeps the lawyers honest?
Given the news from the Road to Nowhere, Maugham seems to have had a point.
They can tell you what to do But they’ll make a fool of you It’s not alright, baby, it’s not alright
Since the beginning of 2024, Jolyon Maugham KC and his Good Law Project have been busy holding people and organisations they don’t like to account, standing against hate, and bringing hope. Or something. And, to support this transformational activity, they have launched no fewer than 34 crowdfunders (one every month, on average). Well, holding power to account doesn’t come cheap.
So much for legal action being the remedy of last resort, eh?
Those 34 crowdfunders have (so far) raised a combined total of £1,358,434. Of which a stonking £880,560 (65%) has been raised via the 11 crowdfunders in support of Maugham’s ‘Angry Dad’ lawfare on Transgenderism. And one of those 11 crowdfunders – that in support of the GLP’s doomed legal challenge to the EHRC’s April 2025 Interim Update, dismissed by the High Court in February this year – has raised a mahoosive £489,487, making it the GLP’s most lucrative crowdfunder … EVER! What’s more, it’s still open and still receiving new donations. Ker-ching!
Whether or not the so-called ‘trans community’ and its allies consider themselves to be getting value for money from Maugham and the GLP is now an open question, but their remarkable generosity in handing over their spare cash is plain to see from the following chart. Since 1 January 2024, the average donation to the GLP’s crowfunders in support of lawfare to ‘hold power to account’ or ‘fight the far right’ has rarely been more than £19. But, with few exceptions – such as the GLP’s trivial claim against the US law firm Morrison Foerster, and their latest crowdfunder in support of malevolent legal action against Ofcom – the average donation to the GLP’s crowdfunders on transgenderism is generally close to twice that amount.
Note that the average donation to the short-lived GLP crowdfunder in support of their attempt to intervene in the case of the EHRC office protest ban in June 2025 was not £50, as the chart suggests, but £833, as there were only ever 19 donations and one of them – made by the professional activist Patsy Stevenson – was for some £15,000. Ker-ching!
So, whatever happens in court over the next few months – and the GLP’s crowdfunded application to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal the kicking they were given by the High Court in February is currently with a Lord/Lady Justice for a judicial decision on the papers – it seems likely that Maugham and the GLP will continue to beg money from the so-called ‘trans community’ and its allies.
Last week, a column by the liberal, pro-European journalist Hugo Rifkind about the 2016 Referendum reminded me that, of the two charlatan-led political parties currently hoovering up votes from the Labour Party on account of its ostrich-like stance on Brexit – Reform UK from the right, and the Green Party from the left – only one actually voted in Parliament to hold the stupendously stupid plebiscite. And it wasn’t Reform UK.
In his column in the Times, Rifkind noted that the mind-bogglingly stupid 2016 Referendum has since “bound successive governments to a mandate they don’t believe in”:
When Andy Burnham becomes our seventh [prime minister] since the Brexit vote, he will be the fifth one of them who didn’t vote for it. This has not been some Establishment stitch-up. Rather, it has been the direct consequence of divorcing our choice of action from our choice of actor; of demanding economics opposed by economists, diplomacy opposed by diplomats, and ultimately governance opposed by anyone we might actually choose to govern.
Voters aren’t to blame for this. Offer them a stark choice between A and B, as David Cameron did, and they will reasonably, if wrongly, infer the existence of unseen mechanisms capable of delivering [either A or B]. Mainstream politicians, no matter that they didn’t want this mandate in the first place, are now doomed if they ever say so out loud, and so by default begin to talk absolute transparent bollocks.
As a result, honesty appears to become the preserve of a wholly new breed of politicians – basically activists – utterly unconstrained by the dull, practical compromises required to actually deliver anything.
This is where that Referendum left us. Not just with Reform UK, but with the Greens too. And with shrieking promises from politicians who are fully aware that the moment they actually win [an election], their first task will be to figure out how to break them.
All of which is absolutely spot-on. And, of course, the only reason Reform UK didn’t vote in Parliament for the EU Referendum in 2015 is that they didn’t yet exist – and so didn’t have any MPs or peers in Parliament at the time. But the Green Party did. And they – the supposedly cerebral Caroline Lucas MP and the certainly less cerebral (and at that point pro-Brexit) Baroness Jenny Jones – not only actively campaigned to have a stupendously stupid EU Referendum, but voted with their supposed arch-enemies – the Tories – to pass the latter’s stupendously stupid European Union Referendum Act 2015.
As early as October 2011, at which point she’d been an MP for all of 18 months, Caroline Lucas actively supported and then voted for a Commons motion tabled by the rabidly anti-EU Tory MP David Nuttall, calling for a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU. And she did so because … “I am pro-democracy”.
The pro-democracy David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Miliband, Dominic Grieve, Chuka Umunna, Anna Soubry, Jo Swinson and even Michael Gove all voted against the nutty Nuttall’s nutty motion. But Lucas happily waltzed through the ‘yes’ lobby with avowed Brexiteers Steve Baker, Andrew Bridgen, Douglas Carswell, Bill Cash, Nadine Dorries, Kate Hoey, Andrea Leadsom, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Gisela Stuart. Cerebral? I think not.
Green Party press release, October 2011
Then, ahead of the General Election in May 2015, the Green Party campaigned on a manifesto pledge to “prioritise local self-reliance rather than the EU’s unsustainable economics of free trade and growth”. Which I think means ‘we’ll make you grow your own turnips’. And, one month later, the ‘pro-democracy’ Lucas abstained on an SNP motion to deny the new Tory Government’s stupendously stupid European Union Referendum Bill its Second Reading (not least because “the Bill does not give the right to vote to 16 and 17 year olds or most EU nationals living in the UK”).
The SNP motion was defeated by 338 votes to 59. Evidently, the ‘pro-democracy’ and comfortably off Lucas was more interested in having a Brexit referendum than she was in enfranchising the 16 and 17 year olds who – unlike her – would have to live with the economic and social consequences of the result for the entirety of their adult lives.
Then, in September that year, the ‘pro-democracy’ Lucas once again waltzed through the ‘yes’ lobby with the lovely Baker, Bridgen, Cash, Leadsom and Rees-Mogg – as well as Liam Fox, Mark Francois and Liz Truss – to give the Cameron-led Government’s EU Referendum Bill its Third Reading and send it on to the House of Lords, through which it sailed without a single vote. Well done, Caroline Lucas, Baroness Jenny Jones and the Green Party!
However, as you may recall, the ‘pro-democracy’ Lucas didn’t like the result of the stupendously stupid EU Referendum she had stupidly campaigned for and voted to hold without the participation of 16 and 17 year olds. So in April 2018 she teamed up with Chuka Umunna (Labour), Anna Soubry (Tory) and Layla Moran (Fib Dem) to launch the People’s Vote campaign, with a view to having a second go at getting ‘the people’ to vote the way she wanted. However, as I noted on this blog at the time, the Fab Four were never able to say what options would actually be on any ‘People’s Vote’ ballot paper, and in any case there simply wasn’t time for a re-run of the 2016 fiasco.
By August 2019, with the stupendously stupid People’s Vote campaign having inevitably hit the buffers, the supposedly inclusive Lucas moved on to proposing an all-white Cabinet of women – including Nicola Sturgeon, whose then husband has just been convicted of embezzling £400K from the SNP – to somehow sort Brexit. Unsurprisingly, that batshit crazy idea didn’t fly, so the ‘pro-democracy’ Lucas doubled-down by admitting she wouldn’t accept the result of any People’s Vote/second referendum if ‘the people’ didn’t vote the way she wanted. Democracy the Green way, innit.
Fast forward to 2026 and, needless to say, the Green Party would like everyone to forget its stupendously stupid encouragement and facilitation of arguably the most damaging political decision in modern British history. As the Party’s new, populist leader David Paulden/Zack Polanski now says, Brexit was “one of the most catastrophic decisions this country has ever made”. It’s almost as if Paulden/Polanski is as cerebral as Caroline Lucas.
