by F. Gibbons
I’ve just noticed the comment some way above by suedenimon, which strikes me as extremely bizarre indeed.
‘…I find it very difficult to square the logic that ANY barrister can actually lay claim to being a libertarian unless it is done in the same way as wearing a fashion item like a Prada handbag to proclaim ones credentials to be in ‘the’ set!, for barristers are almost to a person inclined heavily towards the conservative, though I do allow that singularly unsuccessful ones who are unable to put forward cogent arguments and thus fail miserably to impress ‘chambers’ into giving them work may pretend to be libertarian to impress others who do not take the time or trouble to think for themselves.’
This is a completely outdated and cartoonish view of the Bar that is undoubtedly shaped by nothing more than fantasy and watching far too many period dramas. I, for one, know many members of the Bar (and of my own Chambers) who range from everything from conservatives, to liberals, to socialists, to communists and beyond. There are some sets that are completely dedicated to left-wing law and politics: take a look at leading chambers Garden Court (http://www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk/) and Doughty Street (http://www.doughtystreet.co.uk/) and their members’ profiles if you don’t believe me. Loads of chambers have dedicated asylum, immigration and human rights teams that are far from conservative, and some chambers are almost entirely dedicated to the practise of such law (for appellants as opposed to the state). Yes, many sets are conservative too, but the strength of your statement above is an extreme exaggeration to the point of absurdity.
‘If Mr Gibbons were to hand such rubbish in at court he would be disbarred and thrown out of the Law Society pretty damn sharpish I would think, if not slung into the cells for contempt (disturbing the proceedings of the court).’
Please. This doesn’t even make sense. Barristers aren’t even regulated by the Law Society.
In my initial comments, where I sought to warn laymen off copying Mr Barry’s behaviour in the video, I expressed a genuine view that such behaviour was likely to see people convicted of contempt of court. I can see that some supporters of the FoL movement have taken this as some sort of insult as opposed to the genuine, practical experience of someone who practises in these courts regularly and knows how judges apply the law there. As such, on both threads, I’ve been met with quite some venom as well as personal insults, which I hasten to add I have not made against anyone else on either of these threads.
That said, if some people are simply approaching this debate from the childish viewpoint that all barristers are ultra-conservative monsters incapable of independent thought, purely by virtue of their profession, I suppose there is little chance of any actual discussion, sans name calling and insults.