The Barristers (on TV)

Johnny Utah

There's a new documentary following the exploits of young barristers at the English Bar. The first in the series is on tonight. Should be interesting.



Friday, 9pm, BBC2









(I decided to put this thread in legal discussion, rather than the television forum, as I thought it would be more relevant here in legal discussion.)

Our man in Havana

Indeed.

DOCUMENTARY: The Barristers
On: BBC 2 Northern Ireland
Date: Friday 14th November 2008 (starting in 3 hours and 55 minutes)
Time: 21:00 to 22:00 (1 hour long)

The Bar is one of the most powerful professions in the country, producing prime ministers, millionaires, campaigners and the judges who shape our law. It is a glamorous world which attracts thousands of would-be barristers every year, but just one in five students will ever get to present a case in court; only the brightest and the very best survive.
(Stereo, Widescreen, Followed By Weather, Subtitles)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt taken from DigiGuide - the world's best TV guide available from http://www.getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=242710

Copyright (c) GipsyMedia Limited.

johnnyskeleton

I wonder will babybarrista make an appearance?

It'll probably be a hatchet job like the legal eagles show on rte.

Stumbled across this show this evening, I quite enjoyed it...

Johnny Utah

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder will babybarrista make an appearance?

It'll probably be a hatchet job like the legal eagles show on rte.

From what I remember, I thought that show was quite good. You didn't like it?

johnnyskeleton

Johnny Utah wrote: »

From what I remember, I thought that show was quite good. You didn't like it?

The Irish show was intended to display the bar as the preserve of the rich, and they chose one young barrister who came from a very wealthy background and someone who wanted to be a barrister but decided not to for financial reasons. They could easily have shown any number of average joe barristers or some of them who managed to balance a busy practice with a young family, but that wouldn't have been part of the agenda.

a-ha

Who appeared on the rte programme and who didn't is not necessarily down to an agenda. The producers had difficulty finding people who wanted to be on the programme not surprising given the grief that many who appeared on it got. There's nothing dishonest in showing a person from a wealthy background starting out at the bar, it's very common. Nor is their anything wrong with interviewing someone who doesn't practise because they can't afford it. Why should that person be marginalized or silenced because their experience doesn't suit your worldview. Now that's what I'd call an agenda.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Who appeared on the rte programme and who didn't is not necessarily down to an agenda.

From the tone of the piece, I'm entitled to suggest that they had set out with the intention of showing the bar in a certain light, and that light was not favourable.

a-ha wrote: »

The producers had difficulty finding people who wanted to be on the programme not surprising given the grief that many who appeared on it got. There's nothing dishonest in showing a person from a wealthy background starting out at the bar, it's very common. Nor is their anything wrong with interviewing someone who doesn't practise because they can't afford it.

Are you suggesting that if someone takes two unorthodox examples and uses them in a way which suggests that they are indicative of the profession at large that it isn't an unfair representation.

a-ha wrote: »

Why should that person be marginalized or silenced because their experience doesn't suit your worldview. Now that's what I'd call an agenda.

I don't think they should be silenced, I just don't think they should have a disproportionate amount of air time. I never said they should be silenced, I just don't think they are representative. And as for marginalizing them, do you really think that a poster on an anonymous internet v-bulletin board has the wherewithal to marginalise anybody?

a-ha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From the tone of the piece, I'm entitled to suggest that they had set out with the intention of showing the bar in a certain light, and that light was not favourable.



Are you suggesting that if someone takes two unorthodox examples and uses them in a way which suggests that they are indicative of the profession at large that it isn't an unfair representation.



I don't think they should be silenced, I just don't think they should have a disproportionate amount of air time. I never said they should be silenced, I just don't think they are representative. And as for marginalizing them, do you really think that a poster on an anonymous internet v-bulletin board has the wherewithal to marginalise anybody?

Hardly two "unorthodox examples". Most people starting out fall into two groups. Those who can afford it or are well connected and those who barely scrape by or drop out altogether because of financial pressure.

Showing a guy with a wife and young kids, scrambling around not earning much of a living, or working for somebody else for no pay, would hardly have created a very positive impression of the bar either.

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Hardly two "unorthodox examples". Most people starting out fall into two groups. Those who can afford it or are well connected and those who barely scrape by or drop out altogether because of financial pressure.

Again, do you have any proof to back up your assertions. Because if you don't your anecdotes are no more valid than mine or anyone else's. Notwithstanding that, the people who barely scrape by or drop out would be more representative than someone who never entered the profession at all.

a-ha wrote: »

Showing a guy with a wife and young kids, scrambling around not earning much of a living, or working for somebody else for no pay, would hardly have created a very positive impression of the bar either.

But showing a guy with a wife and young kids, earning enough to live off from doing a job he enjoys and is good at and perhaps supplementing his income with lecturing/writing or a part time job would be much more representative.

Planxty

johnnyskeleton, you appear to be quite the petulant poster don't you?

Talking about people who are 'representative of the bar', I would deem it a reasonable assumption that you were the overly studious and hopelessly friendless student in the King's Inns. The result of this (as well as your earlier years) has created an argumentative petty 'academic' who gets his kicks and feelings of importance by relentlessly 'duking it out' behing a computer screen.

For any mods reading this, my post is not a personal attack on johnnyskeleton, but rather a long overdue opinion on his posting which I feel only tarnishes this message board.

Tom Young

See this actually is a personal attack.

Planxty

Tom Young wrote: »

See this actually is a personal attack.

My apologies if it is. I don't intend to cause offense but I do believe that the majority of posters would concur.

Dliodoir

Planxty, seconded, though perhaps I wouldn't have put it in those terms; A-ha, I think although some of what you have said on the situation in this thread and the other I might phrase slightly differently, I am with you on 95% of it...slightly pessimistic perhaps, but a lot closer to realism than Mr Skeleton, Esq., who lives in a dream world.

johnnyskeleton

Planxty wrote: »

johnnyskeleton, you appear to be quite the petulant poster don't you?

Talking about people who are 'representative of the bar', I would deem it a reasonable assumption that you were the overly studious and hopelessly friendless student in the King's Inns. The result of this (as well as your earlier years) has created an argumentative petty 'academic' who gets his kicks and feelings of importance by relentlessly 'duking it out' behing a computer screen.

For any mods reading this, my post is not a personal attack on johnnyskeleton, but rather a long overdue opinion on his posting which I feel only tarnishes this message board.

Do you have anything substantive to say? Because if not I don't see how calling me petulant furthers the argument. Am I not entitled to disagree with someone who I do not agree with?

Planxty wrote:

I don't intend to cause offense

So what exactly was your intent then? If it was to disagree with me, what do you not agree with?

a-ha

Thanks,I am sorry about the pessimism. It's the January blues. It takes a lot of mental strength to face an empty pigeon hole every day. I feel as though i lack the power to change my own circumstances. Last term was tough, bit of burn out, too many nixers, big bills, though somehow I am managing. You never know I might pull this off. Here's to hope! I think there is something to be said for not shirking from a challenge. To know what you are made of, to push yourself hard and still not forget what really matters. That is one special thing about the bar, we are all individuals, many of us courageous.

johnnyskeleton

Dliodoir wrote: »

Planxty, seconded, though perhaps I wouldn't have put it in those terms; A-ha, I think although some of what you have said on the situation in this thread and the other I might phrase slightly differently, I am with you on 95% of it...slightly pessimistic perhaps, but a lot closer to realism than Mr Skeleton, Esq., who lives in a dream world.

How exactly am I in a dream world? What is it that I have said that you think is so far detached from reality that you refuse to comment directly on it and instead resort to suggesting that I live in a dreamworld?

Tom Young

a-ha wrote: »

Thanks,I am sorry about the pessimism. It's the January blues. It takes a lot of mental strength to face an empty pigeon hole every day. I feel as though i lack the power to change my own circumstances. Last term was tough, bit of burn out, too many nixers, big bills, though somehow I am managing. You never know I might pull this off. Here's to hope! I think there is something to be said for not shirking from a challenge. To know what you are made of, to push yourself hard and still not forget what really matters. That is one special thing about the bar, we are all individuals, many of us courageous.

Jokingly: This is possibly your most positive post on the subject.

Seriously: There's the spirit - 'suck it up'. I am too! You will pull this off, hope and perservering no shirking! you are not alone.

You/we could be solicitors - one advantage of the Bar, can't sack yourself!

johnnyskeleton

a-ha wrote: »

Thanks,I am sorry about the pessimism. It's the January blues. It takes a lot of mental strength to face an empty pigeon hole every day. I feel as though i lack the power to change my own circumstances. Last term was tough, bit of burn out, too many nixers, big bills, though somehow I am managing. You never know I might pull this off. Here's to hope! I think there is something to be said for not shirking from a challenge. To know what you are made of, to push yourself hard and still not forget what really matters. That is one special thing about the bar, we are all individuals, many of us courageous.

That's it; if you want it bad enough, you'll be prepared to take the risk.

sh_o

a-ha wrote: »

Thanks,I am sorry about the pessimism. It's the January blues. It takes a lot of mental strength to face an empty pigeon hole every day. I feel as though i lack the power to change my own circumstances. Last term was tough, bit of burn out, too many nixers, big bills, though somehow I am managing. You never know I might pull this off. Here's to hope! I think there is something to be said for not shirking from a challenge. To know what you are made of, to push yourself hard and still not forget what really matters. That is one special thing about the bar, we are all individuals, many of us courageous.

Year 3 as a BL is notoriously difficult. It is generally the first time that the reality of trying to get your own work kicks in. While deviling at least you are busy (if not earning money). It gets easier - stick at it if you can.

Jo King

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How exactly am I in a dream world? What is it that I have said that you think is so far detached from reality that you refuse to comment directly on it and instead resort to suggesting that I live in a dreamworld?

From another thread by johnny :-

You are asserting things as true, but when I assert something to be true, you ignore it. Then you say that it is I who is ignoring your post. I will say it again - you can make an income in your first few years - if you get one JR, one trial on indictment or one junior brief in the HC/SC, you will make more money than your fees and your other practise expenses. You won't make much but it is an income, however inferior it may seem to you.


Johnny refuses to say how many JRs, trials on indictment and Junior briefs in the HC/Sc he has had since starting at the bar.

johnnyskeleton

Who said that I was at the bar?

As I've said before, I don't think people should base their arguments on asserting, for example, "I am a solicitor of X years standing, therefore my views are better than yours". Each point should stand or fall on its own merits, do you not think?

I can debate matters of opinion with a-ha, but at the end of the day, that's all they are - opinions.

Jo King

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who said that I was at the bar?

You have made it known yourself through many posts.

So how many JRs, Trials on indictment. HC and SC briefs since you started at the bar?
You are telling other people to produce evidence but do not produce any of your own.

johnnyskeleton

Jo King wrote: »

You are telling other people to produce evidence but do not produce any of your own.

If you take the time to actually read my posts and the other threads you will see that my point was that unless someone can point to some empirical evidence, statistics, or some other reputable source, my anecdotal evidence is no better than any one else's.

Again, if I were to answer you it could neither be verified, nor would it make the points I made any more or less valid. But I don't expect that will deter you.

You seem very angry at something. Would you care to share?

Jo King

Stick to the facts.
When you were a student you made a statement about earning capacity at the bar. Maybe it was valid by your criteria since no one could produce evidence to disprove it. You have refused to say how you have fared now that you are actually at the bar. You had no idea when you were a student how much business of the kind you described would be picked up by you at the bar. You blithely offered this as a "valid" position since no one could disprove it on the forum. You wonder why people say you are living in a fantasy world?
A-ha claims that it is virtually impossible to succeed at the bar without connections and or independent means. You say otherwise. You have produced as much evidence to substantiate your claims as as A-Ha has to substantiate his. None. Yet you are claiming the higher moral ground.

Amazotheamazing

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You seem very angry at something. Would you care to share?

The problem is a lot of people are backing up their opinions with their experience. You are just flinging out opinions with nothing to back them up, it's hardly surprising you come across as a joker.

Dliodoir

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Who said that I was at the bar?

As I've said before, I don't think people should base their arguments on asserting, for example, "I am a solicitor of X years standing, therefore my views are better than yours". Each point should stand or fall on its own merits, do you not think?

I can debate matters of opinion with a-ha, but at the end of the day, that's all they are - opinions.

I left the forum in frustration the last time I came across you - I am pleased to see that it's not just me.

The point is, these are NOT matters of opinion. If you say "I'm a priest, and my opinion is there is a God" and A-ha says "I'm a doctor, and my opinion is there isn't" then yes, fair enough, it doesn't matter what you do or who you are, these are two opinions.

However, if you say "page 5 of the Bible contains this sentence - I'm not telling you how I know, but it does" and A-ha says "I have the same edition of the Bible in front of me and I have read page 5 hundreds of times and it does not contain that sentence" then that is a question of fact, and I am more inclined to believe A-ha as he gives me more reason to believe him. This is especially so if I have loads and loads of friends who have been telling me about the sentence on page 5, I have seen the sentence on page 5 myself and I have never met someone who ever suggested it was not on page 5.

So to me your anecdotes are NOT as worthy of value as A-ha's, or those of most of the others on these forums. You wreck my head. You say you want to keep your identity secret, fine, whatever, but you have to realise that as such you come across like a smug outsider throwing missiles from his lofty tower.