English courts could soon stop requiring barristers to wear wigs due to ‘cultural insensitivity’ claims. The Telegraph has the details.
The judiciary is poised to update its court dress code following complaints by some barristers that the traditional headpieces discriminate against those with Afro-Caribbean hair.
Judges are currently reviewing proposals made by the Bar Council, which represents barristers in England and Wales, with changes expected to be made this autumn at the earliest. No decisions have been made.
It follows widespread criticism from several black barristers who have called for compulsory wigs to be scrapped.
The potential changes come after Michael Etienne, a barrister who is black and has an afro hairstyle, sparked a public debate in 2022 after being ordered to wear a wig in court or face disciplinary action.
He branded the policy as hair discrimination, a form of racism.
A Bar Council spokesman said: “Following questions from barristers about wigs and hair discrimination, the Bar Council set up a working group to consider court dress in the context of all protected characteristics.
“The findings of the working group are currently being discussed with the judiciary as part of our regular dialogue on equality and diversity matters.”
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We can but hope and it gives us something to look forward in these dark days.
A lot of us might think that the word ‘earn’ is misinformation. Earn suggests merit while just being paid is more accurate for a bunch of Far Left censorship and propaganda nobodies.
roughly half of whom earn over £60,000 a year
Paid for jobs with no wealth creating output, paid for my money taken from those who do create wealth (a dwindling number in “democracies”) = parasites.
Games of Kings.
What they don’t know is that – down here – WE are the kings.
As someone mentioned, Soros will probably ride to the rescue of their Globalist project. I bet you will find their footprints in Ukraine too.
We might begin to find out that Soros is fronting USAID money along with others and not his own.
To borrow from the occasionally funny Jon Stewart, they’re getting rid of this censorship organisation leaving … nobody knows exactly how many more of these censorship organisations.
I do hope so.
Upwards of £60K a year to work for the Foreign Verify Desk of the British Broadcasting Commentariat – world-leading peddlers of mis-, dis- and malinformation, and barefaced climate claptrap lies.
Nice money of you can get it. Bad luck, the DOGE has rumbled you. Couldn’t happen to a more duplicitous bunch of Gates and States-funded charlatans.
“Will BBC Media Action, Auntie’s International, Pro-Censorship Charity, go Bust Now That Elon Musk Has Turned off the USAID Tap?”
I bloody well hope so. Most probably the license fee will go up or the charge will be made universal.
Some years ago I was working in Mali, where USAAID had funded, of all things, an experimental fish farm in the semidesert Sahel. Located on the border of the River Niger Inland Delta, the channel of the nearest minor tributary was over a kilometre away and, in that season, utterly dry. So, for a good part of each year, the farm was not exactly in the best position to rear fish. This is not an encouraging situation for investing in a fish farming demonstration project.
At the time of my visit, only two of the dozen or so small ponds held water, and even they were only partially full – like, with less than a foot or so deep. Inconveniently, a nearby damp wetland area had been designated as a Conservation Area for an impressive population of large protected birds, with a marked disposition to consume fish. I noticed a certain conflict of interest between the armed guards there and the fish farm operators.
But the gallant fish farmers did manage to produce a few kilograms of Tilapia each year, which they sold in the local market. I asked how much USAID had invested in this heroic attempt to bring the wonders of modern food production to this benighted arid region. From their replies I estimated that the American taxpayers had invested about US$3,000 in order for the demo project to produce each kilo of fish, rather less than they fetched in the local outlet. The Wall Street Journal had a field day with this information, proving that the Main Stream Media really do take interest in particularly interesting enterprises.
Until we eventually escaped, my colleague and I were held hostage by the irate Director of Fisheries, in an effort to force us to authorize another such seminal project. This confirms just how essential is USAID funding for the provision of Technical Assistance to deprived communities in the less developed areas of the world.
All very interesting but why no names of the “85 London employees (roughly half of whom earn over £60,000 a year) [who] appear to be able to flit from the charity to the broadcaster and vice versa”?
If a Private School cannot be a charity because it’s a business … how come a Media Propaganda Unit is registered as one? There’s nothing charitable about it.
The good news just continues to flow, I wonder if the BBC will put this under its ‘uplifting’ news section?