The nice thing about being disabled and currently undergoing frequent blood tests to see how I can tolerate a chemotherapy drug, is that I have to take frequent days off work for my appointments. I get to enjoy a coffee and a trip to my local bookshop where I bought this book and can sit in a sunny garden and try to put my rage in order.
Of course, not working means I won’t earn anything and won’t be able to pay my mortgage or buy food to eat – but of course, in this Brave New World of inclusivity and equality I will be okay, won’t I? Or will I find that if my needs are more than can be met by a lanyard and a flag, will I be left to fend pretty much for myself or rely on the kindness of strangers?
This is of course a rhetorical question. I am fucked. My own fault of course for not saving more money when I was younger or persuading a rich man to marry me. The poor and the disabled know better than anyone else what the ‘arc of history’ is telling them.
So what has enraged me this time? Last night I was sent a link to a new consultation by the Bar Standards Board, my professional regulator. I enjoyed a two year tussle with it recently, when it took it six months to draft a charge sheet of my online publications which it wished to investigate as offending against Core Duty 5 – not to bring the profession into disrepute. It withdrew in the light of Jon Holbrook’s successful appeal against the breach of his article 10 ECHR rights and I – naïvely – assumed sanity had been restored.
I was wrong. The consultation is seeking views on a proposed new Core Duty:
We propose to replace the current Core Duty 8 (You must not discriminate unlawfully against any person) with a new duty: You must act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion, which expands on the current Core Duty not to discriminate unlawfully. This will apply to all barristers when practising or otherwise providing legal services. We also propose to amend outcome oC8 to reflect the new breadth of the duty and to remove the current rule rC12 which states that “you must not discriminate unlawfully against, victimise or harass…” (as this restates what is already required by law and in any case the Equality Rules specify that barristers must not discriminate, harass, bully or victimise).
So a perfectly sensible and necessary duty to not discriminate, harass, bully or victimise will be placed by a positive obligation to “act in a way” that “advances equality, diversity and inclusion”. You will note that (of course) there is no attempt to identify what these terms mean or what happens when two protected characteristics clash. Who then takes priority? The most obvious example and close to my heart is the clash between those who think ‘gender identity’ should take priority at all times and those who think sex is the proper organising category in certain situations where the safety and dignity of women is at stake.
Both these views are lawful, both are worthy of respect in a democratic society but in certain situations – who competes in what sport? Who gets sent to what prison? Who gets to decide if lesbians can have a book club for women only? – one view must prevail. There will have to be a winner and a loser. Someone is going to be excluded.
Where the BSB went badly wrong pre Holbrook is that it appeared to have very little understanding of the importance of protecting political speech pursuant to article 10 ECHR, and hence diversity of thought and opinion. I struggle to see how this proposed new Core Duty is going to do anything other than take it down a path it has already trodden, and which led to expensive and embarrassing defeat in the courts. Why are we wasting our time in this way?
But it isn’t simply a waste of time and it isn’t good enough to say that this obvious nonsense won’t survive a court challenge. It is part of embedding into our very culture a contempt for the rule of law – or worse, a belief that we have a moral obligation to dismiss it, should it dare stand in the way of what we believe subjectively to be ‘right’.
I was shocked to learn that solicitors are already subject to a version of this duty. And we can see from this blog its immediate and corrosive power. Professor Stephen Vaughan is very excited about this duty.
Imagine a client comes to a lawyer based in England and Wales and asks for their help with the permitting of new coal-fired powered plants in a country where such development is legal and encouraged. Given the lawyer knows, or should know, about how climate harms globally impact women and people of colour much worse than other groups (plus the inter-generational impacts on young people, and the impacts on those with a disability etc. etc.), are they encouraging equality, diversity, and inclusion when they give life to their client’s instructions?
Read that again. Let it sink in. Professor Vaughan is saying that a lawyer’s ‘duty’ to promote equality etc. is more important that his or her client’s rights before the law to enforce or claim a right that the law permits him or her to have. These are laws in the main created by a democratically elected Parliament which has consulted and refined the drafting, which has enacted the law as something important and necessary for society as a whole. But to Professor Vaughan, this is of little importance when set against a individual lawyer’s moral obligation to stress test any law against his or her own internal set of beliefs as to how well it meets the needs of young disabled people of colour.
Of course I don’t pretend that all laws are automatically necessary and good. I agree we have a positive obligation to challenge laws we consider to be harmful. But if we are practising lawyers we do this outside of the conference or the court room. We do not presume to act as judge, jury and executioner with regard to any law that offends our sensibilities with regard to “equality, diversity and inclusion”. We have a duty to act professionally within the confines of the law unless and until it is overturned.
Maybe Professor Vaughan is unaware of the barristers other Core Duties. I would however have hoped the BSB was vaguely aware of them. Core Duties 2 and 4 are particularly relevant. I must act independently and I must act in the best interests of my client. I had – possibly naïvely – always interpreted this to mean that I advanced my client’s case fearlessly and in accordance with the law and the facts before me.
Jolyon Maugham and some other King’s Counsel issued a declaration in March 2023 to say that they would not act for “oil companies” and they would not prosecute those who were charged with offences against them. Of course, Mr. Maugham is not a criminal barrister so it might be suggested that this is simply more of his performative signalling to his tribe. I disagree. It shows fundamental contempt for the heart of what it means to be a barrister – you take the instructions given to you and you do your duty to your client and the court, provided you are paid properly of course. I said then and I say now, any barrister who commits to refusing to represent a particular person or category of people should be disbarred.
So what happens if this new Core Duty is imposed on me? Lets say I am acting for a father in a dispute over contact and he says something a bit racist or misogynistic. Or lets say I am acting for a mother – as I did only a few months ago – and she says she doesn’t want her child taking hormones to ‘transition’, she thinks it is harmful and abusive. What do I do? Do I stop representing these clients because I fear by so doing I am advancing a case that others may see as not promoting “equality, diversity and inclusion”. Do I report myself for a possible breach of the Core Duty? Will it depend on whether or not my client wins his or her case?
This isn’t just irrelevant raging on my part. I am reminded of the family case where a father who was a member of UKIP had restrictions placed on his contact with his children because of his political views which were likely to “harm” them. On appeal this appalling judgment was rightly struck down. But if the new Core Duty comes into force, will the father find any barrister willing to represent him at all? Rotherham Council meanwhile allowed a decades long child sex trafficking ring to operate in its locality, but was quick to remove foster children from carers who were members of UKIP, so that’s all good.
My case where the mother objects to the provision of hormones to her child was rejected at first instance but will now proceed to the Court of Appeal, who agreed she had a compelling argument. But if the mother wins, then her child may be denied the right to medically transition until she is an adult. Is pursuing this case an affront to a positive obligation to ‘include’ the child who wishes to medically transition? If transgender lobby groups claim this case is offensive to diversity, is that an argument to stop the case? Or allow barristers to refuse to act?
Who knows! Because it is nonsense. All of it. The law is about balancing competing rights. It is about putting the interests of your client ahead of your own personal belief or prejudice. It is about fearless protection of the rule of law. You do not discriminate and you do not harass but you damn well don’t set yourself up with more power than Parliament. If you do that, you cannot kid yourself you are part of any kind of functioning legal system – you are no better than a petty tyrant, and when the boot is on the other foot and it is your views that are deemed unacceptable by those in power, you will be the first to shriek and cry about it.
I don’t think the ‘arc of history’ exists. I now think we are on a perpetual wheel. What matters is power. We now have a group which has glossed over its power grab with sickly mantras about ‘being kind’, but there is nothing ‘kind’ about the world these people want to create. They want power. And power corrupts.
I can’t put it better than Robert Bolt so I won’t try. Please if you are a barrister, respond to this consultation and stand up for the rule of law. If you are not a barrister, please take notice and understand how serious this is and what’s at stake.
“William Roper: “So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
William Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
Sir Thomas More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ’round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!”
First published on Sarah’s Substack page. Subscribe here.
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.
“ Kemi Badenoch said that it was “no time for a reality TV star””
As opposed to the party that brought you lockdowns, covid “vaccines”, the biggest lie in history. OK Kemi. Pull the other one.
Says the gaptoothed Nigerian WEF Young Leadership acolyte.
From Churchill to that.
I have my doubts about Farage and Tice but this is good news if the sheeple are starting to wake up.
You really summed her up perfectly in four words:
“From Churchill to that.”
“Farage is weaker on being a “divisive figure”, his closeness to Donald Trump and whether the party has the intellectual depth to actually form a government.”
LMFAO what you mean like the “intellectual depth” of the current government, or the May/Johnson/Sunak adminstrations? Perhaps you have to go back to Blair and Cameron son of Blair to find intellectual depth, employed in destroying our nation.
What did Sunak actually believe in, apart from Technocracy and CBDCs. He was a spineless little cretin.
Money.
Cameron, intellectual skill?! You gotta be joking.
Yeah, perhaps not. He carried on where Blair left off. Maybe he was just a useful idiot.
Well c’mon, be fair everybody has intellectual skill – some like Cameron just not much.
Blair’s intellectual depth was Campbell.
I think Trump is a positive thing for America, and I suspect he has now sussed what an a***hole Farage is and will distance himself from him.
I agree Trump is positive. Safe bet that Farage would be better than Starmer, though that’s a low bar.
No safe bets where Farage is concerned. He’s betrayed so many already
Trump isn’t a divisive figure, he is a disruptor. Good.
The division credited to him occurred before him, particularly during the reign of His Eminence St Barry of Obama and years of poison dripping out of the Democrat slander machine, and was what created the Trump MAGA movement.
Farage isn’t divisive, that division has been created by successive Governments since the war, first along class lines now ethnic multi-culti lines. “Diversity” means apart, different, unlike.
Farage, like Trump is a creation of that, but I don’t think he is a disruptor – pity.
Yes I generally agree. Politics is about differences of opinion, sometimes strong. We need proper opposition, not a Uniparty.
I would say Trump is more “divisive” than Farage because he’s less polished and DGAF in his manner and attitude. I would also say that Farage played a big part in the “disruption” that was the Brexit referendum.
Trump 2.0 has been better than 1.0, though this is concerning: Hey, At Least We Bombed Somebody – Ann Coulter
Where Trump scores over Farage is that the US seems to have much more vigorous opposition to state overreach.
“Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind”
Is that really something to boast about, the most hated PM only one point behind!
Some good news here too, though it does just say ”delay”, not ”cancel”;
”The Sentencing Council is to delay the introduction of its two-tier guidance after being threatened with emergency legislation to block it by the Government.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/03/31/sentencing-council-suspends-two-tier-guidelines-backlash/
But if that’s the case, does that mean this no longer applies?
”Transgender and ethnic minority people are being given priority for bail under new guidelines drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.
Judges and magistrates are being told to prioritise those groups because they may be at ‘disproportionately higher risk’ if they are held in custody.
The guidelines asks judges to consider that some defendants may have experienced trauma through racism and discrimination.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14553135/ethnic-minority-suspects-priority-bail.html
He just scrapes past Starmer. Says it all.
What are we to make of those who complain about Reform and Farage.
They are not satisfied that a party relaunched in the face of opposition by the elites and MSM has broken through the support levels of the old parties in under a year.
They query or condemn Farage because he does not exclusively champion their pet issue or does not use language they want – divisive, vote losing language and likely illegal in today’s authoritarian Britain.
Are they elite party agents. Are they determined to be defeated in glory. They have certainly not thought through the way to victory.
For me the jury is out and I will take stock when I need to – at the next General Election. They probably deserve a chance but have not always inspired my confidence. Bear in mind that those of us who are on the political right have been burned and betrayed by Tories who talk a good fight. I do not doubt for a minute your sincerity nor the sincerity of many at grass roots level.
Regarding the “divisive, vote losing language” – Trump got away with it. But perhaps the US is different.
Nonsense. We were all foolish enough to believe in Farage and Reform, even though he had “previous” in destroying two other successful “patriot parties” he set up, until he clearly showed his hand:
He’s going to pull another “Bait & Switch”, called Tommy Robinson “scum” while feigning concern for British children, allowed Yet Another Pakistani Muslim to buy the Reform party, rewrite its rules to allow the Muslim to be elected as Reform party leader in the future by flooding the party with new Muslim members, unjustly “vetted” and banned true patriots for criticising the Invading Muslim Army or Pakistani Muslim Child Rapists, and supported the Muslim and two female “plants” in falsely accusing Rupert Lowe for being too popular with the public.
A Vote for Reform is a Vote for the Caliphate.
My question is can he head a team rather than antagonise anyone who tries to work with him?
That would be a resounding NO. Take a look at Andrew Eborn’s interview of the journalist Martin Jay
https://youtu.be/KFYghpe5OpQ?feature=shared
MJ knows Farage well, and has done for years and even appears to have a bit of a soft spot for him but if even he condemns the man…… Farage is incapable of working with anyone who may prove to be cleverer or more popular that he is, he has to be top dog at all times. You cannot put together a decent team with an attitude like that. The Rupert Lowe saga reveals that it is impossible to sort things out with Farage behind closed doors and RL has been forced to go public. Rupert Lowe’s fate was sealed the moment that Elon Musk declared that he would make a better leader of Reform than Farage and that the latter just wasn’t up to the job. I wonder what Trump thinks of him now? It would be very interesting to know
If you’d had direct experience of working for Reform, you wouldn’t have to ask that question. Yusuf & Farage are also fans of the WEF so beware sheep in wolves’ clothing
No sane person can be fan of the WEF,,,it is run by lunatics.
I think it’s likely Reform will get more votes than any other party at the next general election but if they finish second in a large number of constituencies they might not be the largest party in the next parliament. Even if Reform are the largest party Farage’s chances of becoming the next PM could be pretty slim if the other parties form an “anti populist” coalition as has happened in Germany and Austria.
Given how low the turnout was at the last election Reform needs to put a huge amount of effort into convincing the millions of people that are totally disillusioned with politics/the uniparty that they are sufficiently different that it’s worth voting for them, even if people have never voted before/not voted for a long time.
I cancelled my Reform membership this morning. Letter below …
Can you please cancel my membership.
I believe Nigel Farage to be the most effective political figure since Margaret Thatcher.
So why the resignation? Two reasons.
1. We now have 109 thousand illegal immigrants, the majority of whom are military age Muslim men. By the time of the next election this figure will multiply many times.
2. Rupert Lowe rightly stated they must be detained and deported. Mr Farage has rejected this, further adding he can’t confront Islam. For no reason I can justify, he appointed a Muslim CEO to Reform. I don’t hate Muslims, but Islam, by definition, means ‘submission’. I can no longer be party to a movement led by a Muslim. If this changes, I’ll consider rejoining.
I’d be happy to speak to you further if this helps. I’m sure you’re aware many, if not most of your members feel the same way.
Sincerely
Hats off to you, Neil of Watford, for telling the truth, and backing it up by real action!
Indeed Neil, well said. I resigned from the party a couple of weeks ago – and my goodness don’t they make it difficult! I’ve now put in a Subject Access Request with which they have a month to comply. Since they are now so keen on GDPR and NDAs I thought I’d give them a taste of their own medicine. I’ve also demanded confirmation that their ‘membership’ ticker has been adjusted and my instructions have been followed. I too would be willing to rejoin if Yusuf either resigns or is removed but Farage has proved just how untrustworthy he is too so I’d prefer the ‘party’ to be led by someone else – but of course, since it is still a plc with Farage & Yusuf as the two directors, this seems unlikely. They were supposed to democratise the ‘party’ but merely made it Reform UK (2025) Ltd and as such they don’t have members, they just have subscribers. Weasels the pair of them
Nigel topped the poll, conducted by the French polling company Ipsos, as “best prime minister”, from which Rupert Lowe’s name was excluded, and the article celebrating this was written by Yet Another Muslim, Kamal Ahmed, whose English mother is from Rotherham, World’s First Children’s Capital of Culture (??!!), and Ethnic African Muslim father is from Sudan, one of the countries famous for slaughtering Christians and burning down their churches.
A VOTE FOR REFORM is a VOTE FOR THE CALIPHATE.
Farage is a despicable, dishonourable, lying, egomaniacal, self-serving politician. Surely there is enough information about him now for everyone to realise that, and not vote for any party he and his equally unpleasant co-owner Yusef are involved in. There are other Polls that put Farage at 7% even that is far higher than he should be.
Well what a pity the man is a charlatan and will never cross the finishing line. He’s shown by his treatment of his hitherto greatest asset – Rupert Lowe – that he’s as shallow as a puddle after the sun’s been out for a couple of hours and that he’s incapable of building a team around him. Who on earth would he have in his cabinet? Let’s hope we have some time for an alternative to emerge before the next GE. Ask yourselves why they would want to bring in NDAs for branch officials? What are they trying to hide? I’m sure you’ve seen me post on here previously that I was a branch Treasurer for Reform but I won’t vote for them now whilst Farage & Yusuf are at the helm. I’d rather vote Monster Raving Loony Party or spoil my ballot paper.
Good for you…..it was his behaviour towards Tommy, that damned him, for me.
“Ipsos reveals that when asked who would do a “good job as Prime Minister”, Farage comes out on top on 28%. Keir Starmer is 1% behind,”
Keir Starmer is just 1% behind? That’s not reassuring. Who are these mindless blobs who think Starmer is doing a “good job”?
I despair.
Government employees and SS benefit winners.