Barrister Jon Holbrook has parted company with his chambers after a tweet responding to an equality case about a primary school girl's hairstyle.
www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/tweeting-barrister-holbrook-parts-company-with-chambers/5107243.article?
Justified or at least justifiable, or his he a victim?
|
In the version I read his chambers asked him to remove the tweet, he chose not to so it was his decision.
They can't punish you for your thoughts, but what did he hope to gain by tweeting it? Right or wrong, if he couldn't see trouble coming from that one I wouldn't want him as my barrister.
|
Muppet.
Someone who is so irresponsible, as Manatee says, who would want him as their barrister?
|
"undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager of colour"
From a bigotry, or even legal point of view I can see no issue with it.
His Chambers asking him to remove it is presumably because they didn't want potential attention from some of the more rabid and illogical witch hunters out there.
He is a little bit of an idiot for posting it, quite the dick for not removing it when asked and a total dick for climbing on his soapbox over it.
If they kicked him out of Chambers solely over that tweet and his refusal to move it then that seems wrong.
I certainly don't believe he is a victim.
|
>> "undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager of colour"
>>
>> From a bigotry, or even legal point of view I can see no issue with
>> it.
I'm surprised you miss the legal point.
Ignoring whether or not a school, still less a primary school, needs a policy on haircuts it seems to me self evident that such a policy must allow for African/Caribbean hair which grows differently from that of European or Asian people.
That's not to deny that equalities legislation cannot be abused to undermine discipline. At that point those in 'authority' need to step back and think and not plough on in the cause of their righteousness.
Messages in the legal press etc suggest this was not a 'first offence'.
|
.
>>
>> Messages in the legal press etc suggest this was not a 'first offence'.
That's hugely surprising...
|
I thought it would amaze me that a school would be forcing a kid to change their NATURAL style to something that conforms, then I remembered an evil teacher I had a school who laid into a 13 year old black lad with a sharp workshop tool because the lad complained about being called a "N word" for the umpteenth time.
Despite a class full of witnesses the teacher got no punishment.
|
>> I thought it would amaze me that a school would be forcing a kid to
>> change their NATURAL style to something that conforms, then I remembered an evil teacher I
>> had a school who laid into a 13 year old black lad with a sharp
>> workshop tool because the lad complained about being called a "N word" for the umpteenth
>> time.
Thats shocking. I am so pleased I went to an enlightened school with no racism. We ALL got attacked by evil teachers.
|
>> >> "undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager of colour"
>> >>
>> >> From a bigotry, or even legal point of view I can see no issue
>> with
>> >> it.
>>
>> I'm surprised you miss the legal point.
I didn't miss any legal point, there isn't one.
His opinion was neither illegal nor bigoted and in fact may well have been accurate in this particular case but is most certainly accurate in some cases.
You didn't mention any other comments, nor did I check for any.
|
I'm sure in normal times all over the country the local rags have stories of children, normally those that identify as female, who have been challenged or sent home for breaches of uniform dress codes. Normally accompanied with a picture of mother and daughter sat with compensation faces.
I think that the phrase 'undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager' sums the situation up quite nicely.
|
>> I think that the phrase 'undermines school discipline by empowering the stroppy teenager' sums the
>> situation up quite nicely.
I think the issue in this case was the potentially discriminatory nature of the dress code vis a vis a girl with natural African hair. That puts in a different category to hitching up their skirt until it's nowt but a fanny belt.
The professional offence of learned counsel, at least so far as his Chambers and its reputation are concerned, was to include 'of colour' in his message.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 15:28
|
|
Agreed. What we don't know is to the extent to which her natural African hair has been changed by 'styling'. Which may be the underlying issue.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 16:00
|
|
But of course that's a different issue to the words he has used. Whereby the point he was probably trying to make has been lost in the magnitude of what he did say.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 16:07
|
In the early 90's I worked with a black lady who became a minor TV celebrity for a while and a writer of newspaper articles (not a journalist though).
She was absolutely charming as well as beautiful. One Monday she came in with hair like the girl connected to this story when the trains to London were not working and she couldn't get her hair done professionally. It was certainly her natural hair.
She was spending most of her wages on her hair do at the time!
|
>> She was absolutely charming as well as beautiful. One Monday she came in with hair
>> like the girl connected to this story when the trains to London were not working
>> and she couldn't get her hair done professionally. It was certainly her natural hair.
The Guardian journalist Afua Hirsch who is of mixed Ghanaian/European Jewish heritage has written a book Brit(ish?) on her experience as a child. She has quite a bit to say about some white people's ability, at all levels, to deal with African hair.
|
In the early 90's I worked with a black lady who became a clothes model, minor TV celebrity for a while and wrote for the Times.
She was absolutely charming as well as stunningly beautiful. One Monday she came in with hair like the girl connected to this story when the trains to London were not working and she couldn't get her hair done professionally. It was certainly her natural hair.
She was spending most of her wages on her hair do at the time!
|
>> I think the issue in this case was the potentially discriminatory nature of the dress
>> code vis a vis a girl with natural African hair.
No, that was the issue in the actual court case. That wasn't the issue with the matter of his stated opinion.
>> The professional offence of learned counsel, at least so far as his Chambers and its
>> reputation are concerned, was to include 'of colour' in his message.
Why? How was that an offence in any way at all, or offensive for that matter?
His target was the act and the way it is used. Given that "of colour" was a key fact in his statement, not a value judgement.
Clearly his Chambers were rather more concerned about the baying Daily Mail lemmings then they were about any actual offence.
|
>> Why? How was that an offence in any way at all, or offensive for that
>> matter?
>>
>> His target was the act and the way it is used. Given that "of colour"
>> was a key fact in his statement, not a value judgement.
>>
>> Clearly his Chambers were rather more concerned about the baying Daily Mail lemmings then they
>> were about any actual offence.
I think the point about 'of colour' was that it was used, or could be read as being used, pejoratively. There might also be an inference that children of colour were pre-disposed to stroppiness.
I suspect chambers were more concerned with their reputation with their professional colleagues providing instructions. He might also have been a PITA around chambers and somebody saw their opportunity to get rid.
|
>>I think the point about 'of colour' was that it was used, or could be read as being used, pejoratively. There might also be an inference that children of colour were pre-disposed to stroppiness.
That is really stretching the point, I think. It's about as offensive as the bit that said "teenager".
Such a ridiculous inference says far more about the infer-er.
This whole thing is based upon the Chambers' fear of baying virtue signallers being publicised in crap such as The Daily Mail.
>>He might also have been a PITA around chambers and somebody saw their opportunity to get rid.
I am sure that played a large part in the proceedings.
|
>> Such a ridiculous inference says far more about the infer-er.
>>
>> This whole thing is based upon the Chambers' fear of baying virtue signallers being publicised
>> in crap such as The Daily Mail.
I can understand it being seen that way and not just by 'virtue signallers' (which is of course a pejorative term in its own right).
I wonder which way the Mail would swing on this? Is the girl or the offended white man more valuable as click bait?
|
>> 'virtue signallers' (which is of course a pejorative term in its own right).
That's why I use it. And if you can think of more demeaning and insulting term for those people I will happily switch to it.
>> I wonder which way the Mail would swing on this? Is the girl or the
>> offended white man more valuable as click bait?
The Daily Mail will only care about which way the wind blows. They will decide which their virtue signalling lemmings would prefer to be outraged by and go with that.
|
Yes a neat phrase. Perhaps that was his motivation, showing off his facility with words.
But if it undermined school discipline, perhaps the school should have given its hair code more thought. The school management was asking for trouble banning hairstyles essentially specific to one ethnic group. Why create problems over something like this? It looks a lot like indirect discrimination to me (which is a thing under the Equality Act, I haven't made it up).
The barrister wasn't involved at all, didn't need to be, was just making trouble and being nasty - terrible judgement on his part and quite possibly put the chambers in a bad light.
He set about ridiculing or shaming a young person he didn't know. The mark of an unpleasant man. If he had a point to make about the Equality Act he didn't need to make an obvious reference to an identifiable person in an insulting way.
|
>> The barrister wasn't involved at all, didn't need to be, was just making trouble and
>> being nasty - terrible judgement on his part and quite possibly put the chambers in
>> a bad light.
>>
>> He set about ridiculing or shaming a young person he didn't know.
No he didn't. Not with that statement, anyway.
>> The mark of an unpleasant man. If he had a point to make about the Equality Act he
>> didn't need to make an obvious reference to an identifiable person in an insulting way.
>>in an insulting way
How was it insulting? Because he said "stroppy"? Really? How delicate have we become that being called "stroppy" becomes a matter of national concern?
I am quite sure he is an unpleasant man but I still don't see the legal or offensive issue with his statement.
|
We disagree then, no problem.
There may be more to it but on the face of it she had been repeatedly discriminated against and took action using a law designed for the purpose. I think publicly referring to her as a "stroppy teenager of colour" belittles her and trivialises the discrimination. Whether it is insulting to somebody who has simply been injured and legitimately complained about it might be a matter of opinion but I think it is.
Belittling people for using equality laws to bring a case against racial discrimination also sounds racist to me. Unlike some, I think there are degrees of this stuff and perhaps this is borderline, but he's a barrister, he probably thought he knew exactly how far he could go but if he persists with this point of view I think there's a good chance he will tangle with the law.
|
Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is an a*** and probably deserves all he gets. I just don't think his comment was racist (or similar). Trying to label it as such devalues the judgement across the board on those occasions where it really is a racist comment.
>>Belittling people for using equality laws to bring a case against racial discrimination also sounds racist to me.
How is it racist? I don't even see where it was belittling.
I guess if the student was very delicate they could say they were insulted by the "stroppy" bit, but where was the race-based value judgement in "teenager of colour"?
Insofar as the school rules were concerned they were quite stupid, and doubly so for trying to enforce them. But that's not my point with barrister$idiot.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 20:41
|
>> >> I'm surprised you miss the legal point.
>>
>> I didn't miss any legal point, there isn't one.
I misread your message and thought you were talking about the legality of the school's treatment of its pupil.
|
If anyone is interested in the hairstyle.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094
|
>> If anyone is interested in the hairstyle.
>>
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-45521094
Why on earth would ANY of the styles shown there cause a problem at school unless the school was making a point.
|
Not really following NoFM2R's logic on this one.
Adding the suffix "of colour" (or indeed the prefix "black" if preferred) to teenager is unnecessary to whatever the learned barrister was trying to say.
The "of colour" is inextricably linked to the noun "teenager", making it part of the preceding adjective.
Pretty sure if I called a patient/colleague a "stupid black person" I'd get roasted, whereas "stupid person" I'd probably be right....
You don't have to break the law to breach professional standards.
And I have to agree none of the photos appear particularly strange - assume straight hair to mid-back is also banned in that school?
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 20:43
|
I know I am not explaining well. Sorry.
The factual description of the child is "teenager of colour". The "of colour" is relevant because the subject about the use of the "Equality Act", and the teenager" is relevant because it is commenting on school discipline. As opposed to the stroppy new headmaster, the stroppy gay teacher, the stroppy transgender janitor or whatever.
The two potentially negative bits are "stroppy" and "undermines". The "teenager of colour" isn't.
If someone had written "The Education Act allows a stroppy teacher to mistreat a teenager of colour" then where would we be? Still think it's racist?
This is aside from the fact that it would seem the school is at best naive and probably utterly stupid.
|
>>You don't have to break the law to breach professional standards.
I never said he didn't breach professional standards, I said it was neither illegal nor bigoted. Judged on that comment/article alone.
|
Sorry for multiple posts...
"Pretty sure if I called a patient/colleague a "stupid black person" I'd get roasted, whereas "stupid person" I'd probably be right...."
And that is totally wrong. Calling someone stupid in your profession is wrong, whatever their colour. Calling someone a black person is not necessarily so.
Obviously saying "black people are stupid" would be totally wrong, totally bigoted and total racist.
|
Ok, following now thanks.
The addition of a "protected characteristic" really needs to add something to the discussion which, as you say, can often be the case.
Still not sold on the construction of "stroppy teenager of colour" without making it unambiguous that their colour is nothing to do with them being stroppy.
Perhaps I'm not explaining well in return!
|
>>Still not sold on the construction of "stroppy teenager of colour"
Well, in truth we don't know why he said it or what specifically he meant. But going by that comment alone the implication that it is a " stroppy person of colour" seeking to mistreat the Equality Act" perhaps tells you more about the accusation.
One could imagine it would be equally as relevant that a religious person was doing it, a disabled person, or a white, able-bodied person was doing it etc. etc.
I don't much care about the girl, who could be anything from one of life's mistreated innocents through to a stroppy little git ganging up with her Mother on the system seeking advantage or the Barrister who could be anything from a lawyer championing what he feels is a failing in the system through to a nasty racist little b******.
My concern is different and threefold;
- the speed with which we throw accusations of racism because it used a descriptor
- the speed with which we fire people for anything we think the Daily Mail and its lemmings won't like
- our willingness to believe that being offensive should necessarily be illegal and managed by the law.
And the question that started this thread was not about the case, it was about the lawyer's tweet.
|
I'll go out on a limb here.
We know that her hair will grow and have its own styling as it does because of her African heritage.
However seeing it, shall we say, uncontained, it does look a bit extreme and to contain it requires some management.
Now I'm no hairdresser but could it not be cut a little shorter and hence be easier to style and manage? Perhaps she lets it all go at school?
Perhaps she wants to have that look, but we cant always have what we want and that maybe is where the confrontation starts. She wants what she wants and is exploiting her race when really it has no proper connection in this set of circumstances.
Hence the link to stroppy teenager and colour.
|
I remember reading about one about two years ago where the boys were going on strike because they weren't allowed to wear shorts so turned up in skirts with enthusiastic 'support' from their attention seeking parents.
These are kids, ffs, as we were. That level of protest comes from the parents. On their own teenagers hate everything and do nothing about any of it.
I'd err on the side of thinking that the school was in the wrong, but I'd want to see how the rules were enforced for other groups before deciding for sure.
If nothing else it's crap management somewhere, either the school or the parents. Perhaps both.
|
>> I remember reading about one about two years ago where the boys were going on
>> strike because they weren't allowed to wear shorts so turned up in skirts with enthusiastic
>> 'support' from their attention seeking parents.
>>
I know a few junior doctors who did the same at a south coast hospital when it became unbearably hot and they were told no shorts.
Rules for rules sake are pointless, especially when people effected by the rule see another group in the same situation not being impacted by the same rule or have some advantage or are not impacted by it. Bit like segregated facilities in the southern states of the USA. Everything was supposed to be separate but equal, but it clearly wasn't.
|
>> We know that her hair will grow and have its own styling as it does
>> because of her African heritage.
>>
>> However seeing it, shall we say, uncontained, it does look a bit extreme and to
>> contain it requires some management.
The question I'd ask is why, as a school, do we think it requires some management?
If you're in a practical science session with burners or in the gym it might need a scarf or something to mitigate risk.
Why more than that?
|
Was it a State school or a Private school?
I'd guess it depends on your attitude towards school uniform generally and your understanding as to it's purpose or value.
>>Why more than that?
Do we know that it *was* more than that?
|
>> Was it a State school or a Private school?
I've seen nothing to suggest it was anything other than the state school which the girl attended based on address etc. If it was a private (ie fee paying) school I'd expect that to be have been explicit; it's not.
I'm agnostic about uniform in general provided it's not prescriptive as to supplier and therefore price. Uniform/dress codes including hair cuts need to respect the culture of the students.
If they're saying uncontained 'Afro' hair is unnaceptable then that goes beyond mitigating lab/gym risks.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 22:53
|
Perhaps hair is part of a school dress code which the pupils should adhere to?
We don't know. And that the issue with these stories. We are never privy to the full facts as often they don't support or mitigate the headline.
And I bet its a struggle to see the chalk board sat behind her if her hair is unrestricted..
Last edited by: Fullchat on Tue 2 Feb 21 at 22:54
|
>> Perhaps hair is part of a school dress code which the pupils should adhere to?
There may be reasons why hair length needs to be part of a dress code but, and this is an aspect of the move to academies etc, the school needs to explain WHY hair is an issue and respect the diversity of their intake.
In 1973 I struggled to see the blackboard over the head of pupil Allanson as he (a) came before me in the alphabet and (b) was 6 foot at thirteen. Should he have been decapitated for my convenience?
|
And that is the kind of ridiculous comparison that helps these issues get so stupid. Respecting differences has gone too far. It is not a nation of 69million independent individuals, it is a society.
You're talking with apparent knowledge of this incident that I don't have not have any interest in gaining.
It is inappropriate to go into something like this knowing what you want the truth to.be.
|
>> And that is the kind of ridiculous comparison that helps these issues get so stupid.
>> Respecting differences has gone too far. It is not a nation of 69million independent individuals,
>> it is a society
A somewhat reactionary point of view. Even, for the purposes of this discussion accepting it, then respecting people's physical characteristics seems to me to be at a pretty basic level. The idea that big hair might stop another child seeing the front of the calls sounds very much like a made up reason/post hoc justification.
>> You're talking with apparent knowledge of this incident that I don't have not have any
>> interest in gaining.
>>
>> It is inappropriate to go into something like this knowing what you want the truth
In relation to this girl, now young woman, I only know what's been in the media.
As regards English schools and some of the tinpot dictators that academization has brought to the fore I'll plead personal knowledge re my own kids and what my OH, a former teacher now Education researcher tells me.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 3 Feb 21 at 09:01
|
>> Should he have been decapitated for my convenience?
>>
Yes
|
Muppet or Victim of Cancel Culture? - Manatee
