The barrister Jon Holbrook has written an excellent piece for the Critic questioning the rationale behind the Bar Standards Board proposed rule change which would impose a duty on barristers to “advance equality, diversity and inclusion”. The BSB says it wants to bring about “demographic change in the profession”, but in fact it’s already extremely diverse, as Jon points out.
In 2021 a BSB ‘think-piece’ written by its board member Leslie Thomas KC foreshadowed this proposal. He argued that a lack of action on the Bar’s demography will add “truth and weight to the view, held by many, that the profession is “White, stale and male, antiquated, exclusionary, isolating, and a place where prejudices not only exist but, in my view thrive”.
These are strong words and suggest that the Bar, a profession of about 18,000 practising and mostly self-employed barristers, is dominated by elderly white men who spend their days lamenting the demise of Victorian values. Fortunately, the BSB’s own facts don’t support Thomas’s characterisation.
For a start, there was 16.9% of black and minority ethnic (BME) barristers at the Bar was in December 2023. Comparisons with the “norm” are tricky but in much of its data the BSB treats the working age population of England and Wales as an appropriate norm. On this basis BME barristers are slightly over-represented at the bar, since BME individuals comprise only 16.7% of the norm. Also, when it comes to the direction of travel the BSB notes that the per centage of BME barristers has increased by 0.5% each year since its first Diversity at the Bar Report in 2015. As for BME pupils (trainee barristers) — who indicate what the future Bar may look like — they comprise a disproportionately high 24.9%.
Women also fare well in the profession despite Thomas’s view that it’s a place where prejudices thrive. In December 2023 they comprised 41 per cent of the Bar, so less than the norm of 50%. But why, and does it matter? BSB data for 2023 shows that women are over-represented as pupils (60%) but that their per centage falls with seniority. This is hardly surprising since women who remain in practice are nearly twice as likely as men (41 vs 23%) to have primary caring responsibility for children. So, this disparity, far from being a product of prejudice, is a consequence of decisions made by free-thinking men and women about how to arrange their family and professional lives.
Norms regarding sexuality may be unreliable since when asked this question nearly 42% of barristers declined to say, no doubt because, as with much of the BSB’s monitoring, they consider it none of the BSB’s business. Nevertheless, on the basis of those the BSB does know about, it concludes that the LGBTQ community is 12.6% of pupils, 7.2% of junior barristers and 5.3% of senior barristers (Kings counsel, KC). This the BSB says “compares to an estimate of 4.0% of the UK population aged 16 and over”. So the Bar seems to have a disproportionately high number of those who are LGBTQ. One can only marvel at their persistence in the face of a profession that Thomas described as “antiquated, exclusionary and isolating”.
The BSB’s rationale for seeking demographic change in the profession is that it “must ensure” — words that highlight its campaigning zeal — “that the profession is truly representative of those it serves”. But how “truly representative”? The Bar serves a disproportionately high number of criminals, divorcees and illegal migrants. Yet the BSB is presumably not going to gird its loins to increase representation of these groups at the expense of the law-abiding and happily married who didn’t arrive on small boats.
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.
Even if masks worked so many people wear them improperly – but no-one calls them out.
I’ve seen people wear the mask under their nose, poorly fitted with big gaps at the sides, and over bushy beards. No-one calls them out because most people don’t believe they work. They are only a sign of social compliance.
I was in Paris towards the end of the pandemic when it was still compulsory to wear a mask on the metro.
My usual sunflower lanyard trick was clearly no use in France so I carried a mask that I slid over my chin after boarding a carriage. My mouth and nose was completely uncovered.
Nobody ever said anything.
The whole thing was a joke.
So many countries were bought and paid for, France being one of them.
They are also a sign of fear of the unknown, because we have all been lied to by the medical experts we depend on to keep us safe. Birx, and Tony to name two. I am sure the Uk has its own “medical experts” who delivered misinformation to their fellow countrymen/women.
Dr Craig should point out that there was NO PANDEMIC, it was unleashed for other nefarious purposes. It had nothing to do with health. It was killing and compliance. Oh and directing money to the elites from taxpayers.
It was a plandemic. And boy did it cause a tsunami.
I remember thinking and writing at the time that the logical next step would be to treat other respiratory illnesses like “covid”. Another conspiracy theory.
Let’s face it. We just don’t know how these diseases spread. Too many variables.
From.the moment that they are incapable of explaining why some people get sick and others don’t when seemingly subjected to very similar exposure/conditions, they don’t know anything.
It’s all speculation.
I’m not sure that’s right. Everyone has a unique immune system based on their age, general health and their previous exposure to infection. Two people exposed to a virus in the same circumstances may react differently according the ability of the immune system to mount a defence.
Remember the ‘Diamond Princess’ cruise ship placed in quarantine, despite equal exposure on board to SCov2 a good percentage of people remained well even though they must have been exposed to the virus. Their immune systems were already primed by previous corona virus infections.
The entire reason why some and infected and some are not is probably entirely controlled by vitamin D levels and the immune response. Almost everyone in Britain has very low Vit. D levels in winter, and lowish the rest of the year because we don’t have enough sunlight this far North. People I know and I, who take 1000 iu supplement every day simply do not get ill, at least very rarely. Many others who do not get ill often. Why the Government do not give supplements to everyone is odd, it would save the NHS billions at very low cost. If they had Covid would have been very minor, perhaps that is why!
A lot it is managerial syllogism; “something must be done”, etc. Not based on real evidence, and exploiting the lack of proper education for many of us, unfortunately. A good job, well done, Care!
And the self important waste of space that is Bridget Phillipson is aiming to ensure a lack of proper education will be enshrined in law…. Thank F**k I have no grandchildren.
John
Sadly our politicians are exponents of”not based on real evidence”.
This present government are masters of the art of opinion not based on fact or understanding.
Don’t give them any credit, they are simply thick as mince and brain dead with it!
As the mask mandate came in I went to a haberdashery and bought some gauze and elastic to make my own cloth mask.
Why?
This sort of statement just kills me.
The modern obsession with “making the world better” is nauseating Everyone seems to have a grand scheme of how to make the world a better place and more often than not it involves telling others what to do.
If you really want to make the world a better place I’ve got the perfect formula. It’s not easy but with effort it can be achieved. It’s simple but hard: don’t be an asshole. That’s it. Every day, as you get on with your life avoid being an asshole. Look after yourself, do what’s best for you and your friends and family but do it without being an asshole to someone else.
If everyone did that, big if, we’d have a great world.
Meanwhile, big schemes to make the world better typically end up causing misery. Not always but often.
If the resources wasted on covid along with that being wasted on global warming had not been stolen from the people and businesses in taxes everyone would have been able to spend it themselves much better.
So true
Money wasn’t wasted on the C1984 and global warming they were the excuses. Huge sums were diverted to the elites via big corporations and especially the pharmaceuticals. The reasons given for the expenditure are irrelevant – PPE, Track and Trace, “vaccines”, covid marshalls etc etc. Spend, spend, spend was the order of the day. The intention was to generate debt, so much debt that we are where we are now. And the solution is to carry on wasting money but now we have to believe that we are responsible and must repay all the borrowing.
As clear as day we are being manoeuvred to the point where the country has to declare bankruptcy and at that point it will be a case of fight or submit – Kneel before Kneel.
The 1689 Bill of Rights is on similar lines regarding a small state and only when causing other people harm, should the Law intervene. Real harm, not the implied hurt feelings in today’s “be kind” fascism.
Also what was with all those TOK-TOK dancing nurses, if they want to portray C19 as a deadly pandemic then faffing around empty wards doesn’t garner confidence.
I always asked mask fanatics “if you’re wearing your magic mask, why does it matter that I’m not – unless masks don’t actually work?” I never received a credible answer.
Masks were just symbols of fear, control and compliance.
Hence that silly argument that masks were worn to protect people other than the wearer. It nudged the hesitant into compliance, just in case the argument was valid.
Dr.Craig, thank you for your words of wisdom. You have worked so hard these past four years in presenting the truth. It is very much appreciated.