Second time in three months...

[biggbn]

For those who say there is not a problem within our system...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/19/court-...

[KrissKross]

biggbn said:

For those who say there is not a problem within our system...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/19/court-...

What's the ratio of defendants that appear in court, black v white?

[biggbn]

KrissKross said:

biggbn said:

For those who say there is not a problem within our system...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/19/court-...

What's the ratio of defendants that appear in court, black v white?

Spurious argument. This man is dressed in a suit in a court, carrying a laptop, asks officials questions about the court order and they automatically assume he is a defendant. Twice. Your comment would hold water had they even asked, sorry, may I ask why you want to know that, or can I ask what position you hold, but no, they assumed because of his colour alone he was a defendant. The court service has issued an apology which is a start, unless you are saying they shouldn't have?

[Bigends]

KrissKross said:

biggbn said:

For those who say there is not a problem within our system...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/19/court-...

What's the ratio of defendants that appear in court, black v white?

Why should that matter?

[biggbn]

Bigends said:

KrissKross said:

biggbn said:

For those who say there is not a problem within our system...

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/dec/19/court-...

What's the ratio of defendants that appear in court, black v white?

Why should that matter?

Sadly, for some it clearly does, which identifies the very problem they seem to deny exists.

[Troubleatmill]

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

[Teddy Lop]

What about this makes you conclude it's a fault with the "system" rather than an individual?

[sim72]

Teddy Lop said:

What about this makes you conclude it's a fault with the "system" rather than an individual?

The fact that, in this case, it was two different individuals within a couple of minutes may suggest a systemic issue, yes.

[Bigends]

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

Probably staff or ushers employed by the courts service

[biggbn]

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

I never suggested it was anything to do with privilege. If you read my post that way I would be grateful if you could show me where you think I implied that?

[Troubleatmill]

biggbn said:

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

I never suggested it was anything to do with privilege. If you read my post that way I would be grateful if you could show me where you think I implied that?

I didn't read it that way at all. Nothing to do with your post.


It is just how the media report it, and what the first things brings to mind in the public.

I'm just curious if it is the < £12 an hour security guard or the stenographer, Judges etc that are making the bad calls.

[Bigends]

Troubleatmill said:

biggbn said:

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

I never suggested it was anything to do with privilege. If you read my post that way I would be grateful if you could show me where you think I implied that?

I didn't read it that way at all. Nothing to do with your post.


It is just how the media report it, and what the first things brings to mind in the public.

I'm just curious if it is the < £12 an hour security guard or the stenographer, Judges etc that are making the bad calls.

Thoughtlessness - pure and simple

[biggbn]

Troubleatmill said:

biggbn said:

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

I never suggested it was anything to do with privilege. If you read my post that way I would be grateful if you could show me where you think I implied that?

I didn't read it that way at all. Nothing to do with your post.


It is just how the media report it, and what the first things brings to mind in the public.

I'm just curious if it is the < £12 an hour security guard or the stenographer, Judges etc that are making the bad calls.

cheers man. Gotcha

[SlimJim16v]

How many young, white barristers have had the same happen? I bet it's not zero.

[biggbn]

Bigends said:

Troubleatmill said:

biggbn said:

Troubleatmill said:

Exactly what was the job title of the people that have questioned whether the solicitor/ barrister was the defendent?

Were they people of £150K +

Or on minimum wage + £5 per hour?



There is an immediate thought process that says - "It's those bloody privileged ....... yada yada yada"

Is it?

I never suggested it was anything to do with privilege. If you read my post that way I would be grateful if you could show me where you think I implied that?

I didn't read it that way at all. Nothing to do with your post.


It is just how the media report it, and what the first things brings to mind in the public.

I'm just curious if it is the < £12 an hour security guard or the stenographer, Judges etc that are making the bad calls.

Thoughtlessness - pure and simple

But surely we need to address the problem that brings about that kind of thoughtlessness. Whilst such a stereotypical judgement would once almost have been a culturally acceptable trope, well, when Jim Davidson and Co were stand up 'comedians', we have surely moved on as a society and culture to a point where the colour of one's skin does not generate such lazy prejudice?

[anonymous-user]

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was some subconscious bias at play here.

However, I'd be interested to know if there's an age aspect to this, too, and if any young white barristers have been mistaken for the defendant? Any? Or some we don't know about?

[biggbn]

La Liga said:

It certainly wouldn't surprise me if there was some subconscious bias at play here.

However, I'd be interested to know if there's an age aspect to this, too, and if any young white barristers have been mistaken for the defendant? Any? Or some we don't know about?

Fair point and it would be an intersting comparison.

[Red 4]

Non story IMO.

Point 1 - The barrister was asked if he was the defendant by the first member of staff.
No assumptions appear to have been made.

Point 2 - The barrister was asked if he had been sent a summons when making enquiries with the second member of court staff. Yes, there's an assumption there but it's possibly a reasonable one depending on how the barrister asked the question and/ or how he presented himself.

Point 3 - Not everyone attends Mags wearing a tracksuit and trainers. It isn't just barristers who wear suits and carry laptops.

Point of order - he isn't a barrister yet. He's a pupil.

Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 19th December 23:47

[biggbn]

Red 4 said:

Non story IMO.

Point 1 - The barrister was asked if he was the defendant by the first member of staff.
No assumptions appear to have been made.

Point 2 - The barrister was asked if he had been sent a summons when making enquiries with the second member of court staff. Yes, there's an assumption there but it's possibly a reasonable one depending on how the barrister asked the question and/ or how he presented himself.

Point 3 - Not everyone attends Mags wearing a tracksuit and trainers. It isn't just barristers who wear suits and carry laptops.

Point of order - he isn't a barrister yet. He's a pupil.

Edited by Red 4 on Saturday 19th December 23:47

Thats an intersting take. Perhaps if he had been asked WHO he was, or WHAT capacity he was attending court that day I would agree there was no judgement made, but he was asked if he was the defendant. An assumption was therefore made surely, an assumption then further impacted upon by the second member of staff.

[Pesty]

Wonder how many white barristers have been asked that and not made a fuss.