Barrister's attire

234

Love nor Money wrote: »

Oh I see, it's not just a job like other people's. It's war. Bit of a soldier fetish going on there.

Yep, that's not the exact opposite of what hullaballoo at all. Not at all...

Wildlife Actor

234 wrote: »

Yep, that's not the exact opposite of what hullaballoo at all. Not at all...

Wat?

pedroeibar1

Yorky wrote: »

This Barrister was different - his sartorial style and personal grooming were flawless and had a healthy athletic build. Possibly quite proficient too as he was representing IBRC. It was just the jaunty gown that gave me the impression of inverted preening vanity.

@ AnnaStezia - yes, Horace.

A jaunty gown indeed! Jaunty angles are an old cinema technique to show a sense of unease or disorientation. Sometimes used to represent madness, disorientation and psychosis (All quite possible in this case as your learned friend was representing IBRC!) Much use is made of the jaunty angle in “The Third Man”, so much so that the crew gave the director a spirit level when filming was over as a hint to use more traditional shooting angles.

Perhaps a roll of Velcro would be an appropriate gift?

One eyed Jack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is in honour of Justitia, the symbol of the courts. She is a statue of a woman blindfolded with scales in one hand, a knife in the other and she is bare chested. The blindfold represents impartiality, the scales balance, the dagger punishment and the bare chestedness is a traditional symbol of honesty in classical art.

By wearing the gown around their waist, the barrister is exposing their chest in a signal to the judge that they are telling the truth at that particular point. As they move onto shakier ground, they tug the gown up to signify that they are about to commence the untrue/legally sketchy part of the submission.

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

Uno my Uno.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

100% true, do normal people not know this?

I think that the older members of the Law Library like to present themselves as being slightly shabby to show that they are simply far too focused on their work to concern themselves with trifles such as personal appearance. Although I can think of one or two extreme examples who either don't know where to draw the line or actually are completely unaware of their appearance.

I have noticed in recent years however that the trend in younger barristers is quite the opposite. Now members of both genders arrive at court looking as though they have stepped directly off the pages of a fashion magazine, primped and preened within an inch of their lives. Of course this means that wearing ones Gown off your shoulders is the only way to let people know that you are way too busy to notice such things and that you are way to cool for school.

Claw Hammer

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Why do you find that ridiculous?

For the same reason I would find it ridiculuos to see an army officer go into battle in his tunic and sam browne.

Claw Hammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

Fatigues are worn going into battle. As a matter of fact.

Fatigues are not worn going into battle as a matter of fact. Combats are worn!

hullaballoo

"Combats" is short for "combat fatigues" as a matter of fact.

Claw Hammer

hullaballoo wrote: »

"Combats" is short for "combat fatigues" as a matter of fact.

No it is not. There are two distinct uniforms. A combat uniform and a fatigue uniform. There is also a No 1 uniform and a dress uniform. Combats and fatigues are not the same thing as a matter of fact.

hullaballoo

Right so.

conorh91

Most passive aggressive thread ever.

Uno my Uno.

conorh91 wrote: »

Most passive aggressive thread ever.

As a matter of Fact.

johnnyskeleton

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Is your gown up or down right now because I actually cannot tell if this may be true or false. It's one of those explanations that are plausible but couldn't possibly be for real!

Would it surprise you to know that i am not, in fact, wearing any tie.



I mean gown.

Wildlife Actor

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Would it surprise you to know that i am not, in fact, wearing any tie.

I mean gown.

Oh don't start me on those amish neckties....

endacl

Love nor Money wrote: »

Oh don't start me on those amish neckties....

Combat Amish neckties? Or fatigued?

:pac:

impr0v

People repeatedly demonstrate that, despite enforced uniformity of dress, they will still seek to communicate their differences.

People repeatedly project their latent inverted preening vanity on to others.

Barristers, like all people, come in all flavours of vanity.

(Some people specialise in generalities.)

Grolschevik

impr0v wrote: »

People repeatedly demonstrate that, despite enforced uniformity of dress, they will still seek to communicate their differences.

People repeatedly project their latent inverted preening vanity on to others.

Barristers, like all people, come in all flavours of vanity.

(Some people specialise in generalities.)

I read that like it was bad modern poetry.

conorh91

impr0v wrote: »

latent inverted preening vanity

That doesn't even compute. People get tired. Their gowns come down. Who cares.

Most legal representatives have far more important things to be worried about, such as the Client's personal liberty and good name, and mundane issues like being audibly heard in Court, to care about how they look from behind. Get up the yard with this 'latent inverted preening vanity' lark.

Perhaps all the people saying court attire doesn't matter should in that case simply ignore others' attire.

Tom Young

If Amal Clooney can do it, well shut up y'all.

Ede & Ravenscroft is what I'm wearing.

MarkAnthony

conorh91 wrote: »

That doesn't even compute. People get tired. Their gowns come down. Who cares.

Most legal representatives have far more important things to be worried about, such as the Client's personal liberty and good name, and mundane issues like being audibly heard in Court, to care about how they look from behind. Get up the yard with this 'latent inverted preening vanity' lark.

Perhaps all the people saying court attire doesn't matter should in that case simply ignore others' attire.

Given that I only ever get to sit at the back now I'm not interning anymore I have to say there are some barristers, generally devils that look pretty fecking good from the back.

FreudianSlippers

Tom Young wrote: »

If Amal Clooney can do it, well shut up y'all.

Ede & Ravenscroft is what I'm wearing.

When I heard that my respect for her went from like 99% to about a billion %

NoQuarter

conorh91 wrote: »

That doesn't even compute. People get tired. Their gowns come down. Who cares.

Ah no to be fair some people do it on purpose as a "fashion" statement. Mostly devils. It's ridiculous. Deliberately wearing it around your elbows to look "cool". Seriously?