‘Inaccuracies About the Legal Profession Make Me Cross': BBC Drama Silk Returns To Torment Lawyers

Silk returned for its second series last night, enraging the country’s more pedantic legal professionals – many of whom took to Twitter to vent their spleen at the show with outbursts along the lines of:

But there’s no such thing as female robing rooms!?

How dare they suggest our ethics could be compromised by the legal aid cuts!?

Judges can’t tell juries to find people guilty, god dammit!

We would never, ever use a euphemism like “swimming in the ladies pond”!

Meanwhile, there has been a huge spike in LLB, GDL, LPC and BPTC applications as a generation of youngsters aspire “to be the next Martha Costello”.


As viewers mourned the murder of Costello’s poor client in a horrific revenge attack in last night’s closing scene, College of Law and BPP Law School bosses Nigel Savage and Peter Crisp were spotted high fiving each other in delight at the popularity of the show among Britain’s impressionable youth.

6 Responses to “‘Inaccuracies About the Legal Profession Make Me Cross': BBC Drama Silk Returns To Torment Lawyers”

  1. No Hiding

    There was no reference to a female robing room. “This is the Silks’ robing room” and in the background was a man…your sources need to listen and look more.

  2. Brian

    One of the countries more pedantic clients of legal professionals here. Having watched all of Silk I’m also frequently enraged by what seem like inaccuracies.

    The most glaring plot issue with the last episode was that apparently no-one predicted that Brendan would be at serious risk from the Farr family after giving evidence, when it should have been obvious to everyone in court. Why wasn’t he put in the witness protection programme?

    • Mr Fantastic

      17 years as a criminal barrister in London and she didn’t see it coming?

      The brains to become a QC but couldn’t predict that a man who sought to have someone’s eyes, ears, nose, tongue and fingers removed because they tapped on his car window and asked him to move would react badly to being accused of a crime?

      The only person who won in this was Costello. A man blinded for life got no justice. A 6’7 mental infant (who would have been looked after in prison/care had he been convicted) was tortured to death. The Farrs got off scot-free.

      This episode was almost as robust in its lunacy as the one that featured Nick stealing his gown and wig.

      • Lydzatwit

        I agree so much with this commenter. I was liking this show under the Brendan Kaye episode. I was just aghast when Costello turns to Brendan, beaming, and says “you’re free!” And then can’t contain her glee for HER winning? Brendan only testified because Costello told him Jamie Farr couldn’t hear the testimony – a blatant lie of gross omission. Martha Costello should have been prosecuted for procuring Brendan Kaye’s death just to further her career. WHAT were these scriptwriters smoking?

  3. Anonymous

    It’s not inaccuracy that makes people angry, it’s that the show is a load of smug twaddle.