It is now nearly five years since I wrote for the Critic about “Zersetzung” (“decomposition” or “biodegradation”), the favoured tactic of the Stasi which was used to destroy the psychological integrity of an individual, by gathering information to damage their reputation and their personal relationships. This is part of the broad totalitarian aim, to make people afraid to speak; save money on bullets or bricks by making people their own jailers and censors.
Back in November 2000 my opponent was the police, which was frightening. But following Harry Miller’s Court of Appeal victory in 2021 about the unlawfulness of the current “Non Crime Hate Incidents” regime, they backed down, deleted unlawfully recorded information about me and paid my legal costs. The recent confirmation by the High Court that the police need to be mindful of their statutory obligations of impartiality, particularly when dancing with Progress Pride flags, have hopefully now brought the police at least to heel.
In 2025 however, another organisation has eagerly picked up the totalitarian baton. It is of course both easy and fun to laugh at the Good Law Project, and its near perfect record of failed court applications, handily set out in the Labour Pains blog. However, one should always take care not to allow mirth to obscure the concerning indications that despite its buffoonish ineptitude when it comes to legal submissions, the GLP potentially has the power to cause significant harm to individuals and even the rule of law itself.
The GLP presumably wish to tarnish my reputation in light of my forthcoming judicial review of Wiltshire Police
After one battering too many in court over issues relating to sex versus gender, Jolyon Maugham initially declared that the GLP would steer clear in the current “transphobic” climate. However, the decision of the Supreme Court in April 2025 that “sex” means biological reality rather than an individual choice of gender identity, revitalised the GLP to raise a staggering sum of money to “challenge” the Supreme Court — £1,158,501 at last count. The precise nature of the challenges of course were not particularised to their many donors because to “challenge” the decision of our apex appellate court is not a thing that can be done outside of fresh legislation from Parliament.
The GLP are attempting to challenge an “interim update” from the EHRC following the “transphobic” Supreme Court judgment.This provoked a wonderfully exasperated response in the EHRC skeleton argument that it was difficult to discern the nature of the GLP argument and it appeared to be floundering about for a “cause” to which to attach its donations. The High Court has given the GLP until November to identity its legal arguments and I await the eventual judgment with interest.
I appear to have become the latest target of the GLP’s search for a cause. They are now assisting a trans identifying man to have a third go at complaining about me to my regulator. His initial complaint in March 2024 failed, his request for review of that complaint also failed so I can only assume its third time lucky with the backing of the GLP.
According to the complainant, in 2024 my behaviour in publicly commenting that he is a man and that I objected to his depiction of “womanhood” where he appeared naked from the waist up with clothes pegs on his nipples, moved him to tears. By 2025 my behaviour has apparently escalated to a full blown campaign of hate in which I urge others to attack him and drive him to suicide.
The complainant is curiously susceptible to the impact of the words of others, given how he chooses to describe women who don’t accept his female gender identity as variously “Nazis” the “KKK” and “fucking terrorists” who should be stripped of protection at law. A particularly revealing video published on 19 April 2025 in the aftermath of the Supreme Court judgment shows him urging a crowd to defecate on the author JK Rowling as she was a “heinous creepy old bitch”.
Regardless of this behaviour, the GLP have decided that he is a worthy complainant. Mindful of his self declared vulnerability, they helpfully decided to publish his complaint anonymously on their website via their new “in house investigative journalist” whose reporting showed with dreadful clarity how being employed “in house” is rather a muzzle on those investigative instincts.
It is rather curious, given the gravity of my alleged behaviour, the terrible consequences that it is supposed to have had and the masses of money the GLP has sloshing about, that they do not assist the complainant in getting an injunction against me or initiate a private prosecution. Instead they go for the easy and cost free route of abuse of the regulatory process and by publicising that they have done so. Presumably this is with a view to have immediate consequences upon my professional reputation and my mental health — or if it doesn’t stop me (it won’t) it will send a message to others that the price of free speech is too high to pay.
I regret to inform the GLP that my fear of Zersetzung, along with my compassion for the alleged plight of the complainant has dissipated to almost nothing over the years of threats and authoritarian overreach of the community that claims “be kind” is their guiding star.
The GLP presumably wish to tarnish my reputation in light of my forthcoming judicial review of Wiltshire Police for unlawfully flouting the High Court ruling re police impartiality. The GLP wishes to “intervene” in that action as an interested party. I have told my solicitors that I welcome their intervention, if only for the amusement it will bring on reading their submissions.
But while I am laughing, I won’t forget that to solicit money from a vulnerable cohort on false promises of legal victory and to weaponize fragile claimants to silence opponents, is not remotely funny. And I will be hoping the wheels fall off the GLP bus very soon.
