Free Speech Victory! Barristers’ Regulator Ditches New Diversity Duty
The Bar Standards Board has scrapped plans to impose a new diversity and inclusion duty on the profession. The Law Society Gazettehas the details:
The Bar Standards Board said today that following feedback, the proposal for a core duty to “act in a way that advances equality, diversity and inclusion” will not be taken forward.
"Recent proposals to force barristers to 'advance' EDI would be an absolute nightmare. Will we be told we can't represent Right-wingers or gender-critical women? A lawyer's duty is to the court and their client – not any ideology."@SVPhillimore on the Sceptic.
The BSB Handbook states that barristers “must not discriminate unlawfully”, but regulators wanted to bring the duty into line with that of the solicitors’ profession. But the proposals triggered a backlash from representative body the Bar Council, which warned that such a duty would be counter-productive and “probably unlawful”. …
The BSB consulted last September on how best to promote equality of opportunity in the profession. It said there were barriers to entry, retention and progression for women, minority ethnic groups and people with a disability who are all underrepresented at the bar. Female and minority ethnic barristers also earn less on average than their white male counterparts.
But the proposed core duty to advance equality, diversity and inclusion attracted criticism for being too prescriptive and creating uncertainty about what constitutes advancement of equality.
The BSB admitted that responses to its consultation provided an opportunity to “reflect on our objectives and how best to achieve them in the most proportionate manner”. It pledged to work “collaboratively” in future with the profession to address barriers to equality.
Significant progress, it concluded, can be achieved within the existing framework and by setting expectations for the next five years. The BSB will publish a plan for monitoring progress and evaluating impact, with a commitment to revisit rules and guidance where necessary.
🚨 FREE SPEECH VICTORY! We’re delighted the Bar Standards Board (BSB) has dropped its proposal to impose a duty on barristers to “promote” equality, diversity and inclusion.
The FSU wasn’t the only organisation to raise concerns, but we played a central role. We wrote to the BSB… pic.twitter.com/MP9WaikbsQ
— The Free Speech Union (@SpeechUnion) May 27, 2025
“It said there were barriers to entry, retention and progression for women, minority ethnic groups and people with a disability who are all underrepresented at the bar.”
What imagined barriers are those I wonder? Please be specific.
Under representation does not automatically equal discrimination or that ‘barriers’ are in place. Until this logic is applied equally across all levels of employment e.g construction, dangerous jobs, sewage works, manufacturing etc huge amounts of resources will be wasted.
No amount of legislation, policy and/or education can solve the natural societal disparities simply due to individual differences, gender differences and freedom of choice.
😃 Exactly the part that jumped out at me and what I was going to post.👍
If these particular people are “underrepresented”, surely we can assume it’s because candidates from those groups weren’t good enough OR there were just less of them applying in the first place. Yes, I’d like to know what they mean by “barriers” too. Doesn’t everybody just have to meet the same criteria/pass the same exams, for instance?🤔
It would be very ironic if the legal professions were breaking the law and discriminating against certain individuals based on characteristics that are supposed to be protected by the law.
Jordon Peterson did an excellent take-down of ‘positive discrimination’ in professions, eg women engineers. If they don’t want to be, you can’t force them. If they want to be, they *can* be equally as good as men, but that’s not to be assumed. No mandates, policies, aka: interference required.
It comes down to this, I find: there are patterns related to race. Yes I believe “race” exists, albeit it’s a tiny bit fuzzy, like the world. The same people that tell you race is a “social construct” will point out there are not many black lawyers or whatever, and they will say “because racism”. You will say “well, they didn’t pass the exam” and they will say “what, are you saying black people are stupid?”. Then you’ll have to try to persuade them that arbitrarily classifying people by “race” is daft (which it is). But people have been conditioned to shy away from this argument.
Jabby Mcstiff
10 months ago
It is important to bear in mind that in England the way you speak has the greatest bearing on your success simply because speech is the best class marker. You can tell with certainty within a few seconds. I read a study in a legal journal a few years ago which affirmed this. Basically if you have working class argot and accent then how can the legal profession accept you? Just look at the naming of legal firms, they tend to use three rather frenchy silly unenglish names. Doesn’t matter if you went to Oxford or Harvard and got a 1st if you still sound like a scrote. Shed your accent or piss off.
Heretic
10 months ago
More good news today— well done to the DS & Free Speech Union!
Jabby Mcstiff
10 months ago
In a country that has produced so much beauty in terms of language and speech there should be an affirmation of this. This would root out the chancers in an instant. Our lives will always consist in dealing with the scabby people. A true appraisal of our own nature. They don’t want that.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
“It said there were barriers to entry, retention and progression for women, minority ethnic groups and people with a disability who are all underrepresented at the bar.”
What imagined barriers are those I wonder? Please be specific.
Under representation does not automatically equal discrimination or that ‘barriers’ are in place. Until this logic is applied equally across all levels of employment e.g construction, dangerous jobs, sewage works, manufacturing etc huge amounts of resources will be wasted.
No amount of legislation, policy and/or education can solve the natural societal disparities simply due to individual differences, gender differences and freedom of choice.
😃 Exactly the part that jumped out at me and what I was going to post.👍
If these particular people are “underrepresented”, surely we can assume it’s because candidates from those groups weren’t good enough OR there were just less of them applying in the first place. Yes, I’d like to know what they mean by “barriers” too. Doesn’t everybody just have to meet the same criteria/pass the same exams, for instance?🤔
It would be very ironic if the legal professions were breaking the law and discriminating against certain individuals based on characteristics that are supposed to be protected by the law.
Jordon Peterson did an excellent take-down of ‘positive discrimination’ in professions, eg women engineers. If they don’t want to be, you can’t force them. If they want to be, they *can* be equally as good as men, but that’s not to be assumed. No mandates, policies, aka: interference required.
It comes down to this, I find: there are patterns related to race. Yes I believe “race” exists, albeit it’s a tiny bit fuzzy, like the world. The same people that tell you race is a “social construct” will point out there are not many black lawyers or whatever, and they will say “because racism”. You will say “well, they didn’t pass the exam” and they will say “what, are you saying black people are stupid?”. Then you’ll have to try to persuade them that arbitrarily classifying people by “race” is daft (which it is). But people have been conditioned to shy away from this argument.
It is important to bear in mind that in England the way you speak has the greatest bearing on your success simply because speech is the best class marker. You can tell with certainty within a few seconds. I read a study in a legal journal a few years ago which affirmed this. Basically if you have working class argot and accent then how can the legal profession accept you? Just look at the naming of legal firms, they tend to use three rather frenchy silly unenglish names. Doesn’t matter if you went to Oxford or Harvard and got a 1st if you still sound like a scrote. Shed your accent or piss off.
More good news today— well done to the DS & Free Speech Union!
In a country that has produced so much beauty in terms of language and speech there should be an affirmation of this. This would root out the chancers in an instant. Our lives will always consist in dealing with the scabby people. A true appraisal of our own nature. They don’t want that.