News

Incredible BPTC handbook advises students to wear ‘double breasted’ jackets in their advocacy exam — and says they’ll be marked down for wearing ‘kinky boots’

By on
97

Points also deducted for drinking from water bottles

An incredible list of advocacy assessment dos and don’ts issued to Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) students shows barrister hopefuls can lose points for turning up to exams wearing “colourful socks”, “kinky boots” or having their “jacket undone”.

The guide, for students at BPP Law School, reveals wannabe barristers could be deducted between one and three points for committing “offences of professional conduct” in their advocacy assessment. Students on the vocational course must complete two witness-handling exercises, one in examination-in-chief and the other in cross-examination.

An extract from the advocacy assessment guidance

The penalty system (pictured above and below) explains students face deductions of one mark for turning up to the exam with bright socks on or their jacket undone. “Ideally, men’s jackets should be DOUBLE BREASTED or 3-PIECE,” the handbook says. Students are also told “kinky boots”, “non-black shoes for men” and “open toes” could all result in a two-point deduction.

An extract from the advocacy assessment guidance

The top fashion tips don’t stop there. The guidance, which stresses students can be penalised for more than one offence, warns that three points will be lost if their “bra shows”. It continues: “Shirts should be predominantly done UP. Cleavage should not be on show.”

Less specifically, students can also lose points if their appearance is “generally poor”, for example if their hair is “scruffy” or their clothes “dirty”. And don’t draw attention to yourself, the guidance says, with “inappropriate” jewellery.

The 2018 BPTC Most List

Fashion advice aside, the handbook says water and cups will most likely be available during the assessment. So, if students are caught “swigging from bottles” they could incur a penalty of between two and three points.

An extract from the advocacy assessment guidance

A mobile phone going off during the examination may result in a three-point deduction, as could having your hands in your pockets. On the latter offence, the guidance notes:

“Severity here is determined by how long the hand is in the pocket, and whether it is one or both hands.”

Just one week ago, a BPTC student launched a public campaign calling on the Bar Standards Board (BSB) to re-think its “draconian” assessment process. The unnamed aspiring barrister wants both civil and criminal litigation exams to be sat open-book. BPTC students are, as things stand, not allowed to bring practitioners’ texts (such as the White Book or Blackstone’s Criminal Practice) into these exams.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub

97 Comments

Anonymous

Oh god, double-breasted jackets and theee piece suits… why do some barristers think they have to dress and act like it’s 1959 in order to be taken seriously? So tedious. Sounds like they are training exclusively fogeyish chancery types (except they obviously all sport ‘fun’ pink socks).

(52)(15)

An Barrister

This was in our BVC professional conduct manual a decade ago.

Most young counsel tend to go 3 piece nowadays.

(19)(4)

mc123

I don’ t entirely agree. Although Chancery is possibly still the most lucrative section of the Bar, it isn’t particularly fogeyish. For example, I’ve never come across a company/insolvency barrister wearing anything remotely resembling a three-piece suit.

(10)(3)

Rasputin

Doesn’t a two-piece suit remotely resemble a three-piece suit?

(44)(1)

An Barrister

Ah, I’m from the lowly subterranean world of the criminal Bar…

(8)(1)

Scouser of Counsel

Shouldn’t the real debate be about whether we should be having to wear the wig and gown?

I can see the point at the RCJ, Old Bailey etc but in a modern Crown Court building, working from a laptop and presenting exhibits digitally via clickshare we just look out of place with the fancy dress.

A 3-piece, (perhaps with the collar and bands?) should suffice.

(12)(11)

Anonymous

There’s a world of difference (culturally and in terms of work done) between ‘traditional chancery’ and ‘commercial chancery’ practitioners. The former are the fogeys.

(7)(2)

Anonymous

This post has been removed because it breached Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(2)(1)

You know who

As I’m sure he will every Saturday night in soho, once this website malarkey fails to pay the bills

(3)(2)

Mumsy

As do I constantly, working the graveyard shift in a subway, but do I complain? No !! I’m too deranged and senile !!

(2)(1)

JDP

The dress code is somewhat different at our firm.

(30)(1)

Anonymous

that’s why its a firm not chambers

(26)(3)

JDP

Trust me, it is very firm.

(27)(2)

JDP

But we see lots of chambers.

(0)(0)

UCL grad.

So it’s okay if a man wears kinky boots then? o_O (I’m male by the way).

(27)(4)

JDP

You sound perfect for us. Fancy a TC?

(41)(2)

Anonymous

This dress code is nothing new. It’s been around for years. Equally, it reflects the professional standards expected in practice (even if they are not always observed). Barristers should be well presented, like any professional. The BPTC should prepare you for practice and, in this regard at least, it spot on.

(58)(12)

Anonymous

I think you’re missing the point. Nobody is disagreeing about the need to be well-presented and professionally dressed, but the guidance regarding e.g. 3 piece suits is badly out of date and does not reflect contemporary practice or expectations at the Bar

(7)(3)

Anonymous

Amazingly this story has been picked up by the Times…

(0)(0)

Pupillage committee member

It is frankly amazing how poorly dressed some candidates are when they turn up for first round interviews. Skirts too high and ties not done properly are common offences. The guy who turned up with brown shoes may as well stood up half way through the interview and taking out his k**b.

If you haven’t worked out that you are not meant to stand out for your dress at this stage in your professional career as a lawyer, then you are too immature to do the job or simply have poor judgment.

If you want your clothes to reflect your extrovert personality then join the creative sector. That is not to say that you can’t be a sharp dresser later in your career at the Bar.

I also completely disagree that you need to wear a double breasted suit or three piece suit. You will look like a tw** at the interview unless you intend to do traditional chancery work.

(51)(14)

london barrister

Three piece suits are more the feature of the Bar outside London…. read into that what you like….

(16)(10)

Anonymous

Bar jackets when in court then, and single breasted outside? Or single breasted under the gown?

(5)(2)

London barrister

I can’t speak for crime but you are completely fine if you are wearing single breasted suit all the time as a junior barrister.

(23)(0)

Junior criminal barrister

Single breasted in fine under the gown – with/without a waistcoat. You’d look like a fool if you turned up with a bar jacket if you’re any less than about ten years’ call.

(12)(0)

Mr. Charles

“The guy who turned up with brown shoes may as well stood up half way through the interview and taking out his k**b.”

Loved this. It really grinds my gears.

(27)(1)

Rasputin

“The guy who turned up with brown shoes may as well stood up half way through the interview and taking out his k**b.”

How did you end up on a pupillage committee unable to write English properly?

(28)(7)

Pupillage committee member

Wow. Such an original comment on these pages. Sorry, next time i’ll triple check my comment prior to uploading my anonymous post. Take the advice or leave it.

(25)(26)

Troll Hunter

Bullcrap. I wore a blue suit, brown shoes, and skinny tie whilst sporting a top knot and facial hair. Got pupillage at first time pf trying at what Legal Cheek would describe as a ‘top’ London set. It’s all about your personality, the ethos of chambers, and what you bring.

(11)(7)

Anonymous

Yeah mate. I believe you. A fu**ing top knot.

(14)(0)

Anonymous

Everyone knows that LC calls every set a “top” set.

(4)(0)

Troll Hunter

Believe it. Look out for me in court 🙂

(2)(3)

Anonymous

Never seen a top knot barrister in the Rolls Building or the RCJ. Sorry, if I missed you doing a plea in mit @ Slough Mags

(11)(0)

Not Amused

I thought we had abolished the 3 piece suit or double breasted rule?

Perhaps someone who knows could enlighten us?

(2)(5)

Not Amused

Right, so the June 2009 Guidance from Des Brown says business suit and:

“”business suit” means dark-coloured, formal non-court dress as appropriate”

And FAOD, court dress means “wigs, gowns, wing collars and bands and collarettes”

So to require 3 piece or double breasted is definitely wrong. The rules state “ideally” so they are woolly and of little real use. I think BPP needs to clarify because if a candidate has lost marks over not wearing a double breasted or 3 piece then that is wrong.

I remain, once again, amazed that on a website for lawyers no one else could be bothered to actually look this up.

(16)(4)

Anonymous

This guidance is just that – guidance. It’s not a practice direction and therefore does not have any bearing on what the courts may or may not ‘require’. This is clear from the fact that what kind of suit is “appropriate” and “formal” in a business context clearly varies over time. The letter of the guidance does not preclude the wearing of a brown, dark green or burgundy suit – but clearly a court would be unimpressed by this, because it does not reflect contemporary norms. So this letter doesn’t prove the policy is wrong: the policy is wrong because contemporary formal business wear does not mandate a three piece suit or double breasted jacket (indeed these are probably LESS correct in a business context) and it’s not the norm in a courtroom setting, not because this letter doesn’t specifically require this.

(6)(1)

Anonymous

When I did the course it was clarified that a two piece suit with the jacket fastened, would sufficie.

(5)(1)

Eittworth

Did you do the course at Northumberland, perchance?

(0)(5)

Anonymous

Why is this dress code so unnecessarily gendered? It’s apparently ok for women to wear coloured socks but not men? Ridiculous.

(13)(4)

Anonymous

But men may wear kinky boots so long as they are black?

(9)(0)

Anonymous

Some of the things seem quite reasonable. Ie not having your phone go off (I’ve seen judges go mad at that.) Incorrectly addressing a judge – at that point in your studies, you shouldn’t really be doing that.

The dress code seems a bit draconian, yet if the guidance was just “inappropriate dress may lead to a deduction in marks”, BPP would probably be asked for more clarity. At least you know with this how to avoid losing easy marks!

(5)(0)

Lord Harley of Counsel

Students should make sure they wear their medals.

(108)(0)

Anonymous

NEWSFLASH – the only men who wear double breasted suits in 2018 are Jacob Rees f*****g Mogg, fat men, and little Lord fauntleroy types who wish it was still 1930, that we were appeasing German re-arming, and that the class system was still fully established.

Likewise in all my time as a barrister I have never seen anyone wear a three piece suit, but then I don’t practise at the criminal bar where I understand these are maybe more common.

It’s a simple fact that you look unusual, as a male barrister, if you are not wearing a simple 2 piece. Heck, I often try to push the boundaries of that by not even wearing a ‘dark’ suit – sometimes a light grey – and I have a colleague who always has a rather dashing patterned or striped suit.

In the same way, a circuit judge who actually makes you robe in a civil case these days looks a bit odd.

Time for the bptc to get with the times. I remember all this crap from when I was doing the bptc and I can only assume the problem is that none of these bptc tutors have stepped in a court for 10 years.

I imagine if they stepped into the even less formal employment tribunal or the like they’d have a nose bleed.

(7)(15)

Anonymous

If jacob Rees-Mogg is a standard then everyone in England should be wearing double-breasted suit jackets.

(3)(2)

An Barrister

Criminal Bar is definitely 3 piece territory.

You occasionally even see morning trousers on the Midlands circuit.

(15)(0)

Junior Criminal Barrister

I’ve seen morning trousers worn at Reading and Harrow.

Not much anywhere else in the South East though…

(5)(0)

Not. Guiltay.

You should get a job in recruitment.

(3)(2)

Mr. Charles

Dress code is all part of the legal education, for some aspring barristers from non-traditional backgrounds they may not know what is and isn’t appropriate court dress. A guide, with penalties marking severity ensures yoi don’t have to be a silver spoon muncher to know what you are doing.

(16)(1)

Anonymous

It doesn’t help someone from a ‘non traditional’ background to tel them they need to wear a 3 piece or double breasted – it just makes them stick out like a sore thumb when all the privately educated, connected kids proceed to wear a 2 piece, 2 button suit regardless.

(13)(5)

An actual barrister

I wear bright socks to court all the time. Judges love it. BPP can go fu*k itself.

(44)(1)

Charlotte Proudperson

I wear a tea caddy on my head. And what.

(15)(1)

Charlotte Proudperson

And a nappy in my bum!

(1)(4)

Anonymous

“in” your bum? That must be uncomfortable.

(6)(0)

Junior criminal barrister

I’m sitting in a Crown Court right now. Skirt a couple of inches above my knee, hair pretty unkempt (surely what the wig is for), stiletto heels. Both male barristers I can see have brightly coloured socks on and one looks as though his gown’s been through a shredder. I have never had a single comment about my court attire. This is bullshit.

Also, men: NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, looks decent in a double breasted jacket. They are HORRIBLE. It’s all about the three piece and red braces.

(28)(1)

Very amused

I started reading this and thought it was going somewhere very interesting indeed!

‘’m sitting in a Crown Court right now. Skirt a couple of inches above my knee, hair pretty unkempt (surely what the wig is for), stiletto heels’ …. ….

(15)(0)

Gus the Snedger

“I’m sitting in a Crown Court right now. Skirt a couple of inches above my knee, hair pretty unkempt (surely what the wig is for), stiletto heels…”

With an intro like that I’d be tempted to ask questions about your undergarments, but shall resist the temptation to do so…

(8)(3)

Junior criminal barrister

Oh yeah. Sorry, I got distracted and missed the end bit. Then, of course, we all went back to the robing room and cast our briefs around on the floor. My hair looked even less kempt by the end of the luncheon adjournment.

(7)(0)

Solicitor on the wrong forum

Hahaha brilliant

(0)(0)

Very amused

Bertie Wooster looked decent in a double breasted jacket.

(8)(1)

Anonymous

This is old hat. I was at BPP ten years ago and lost a mark in my negotiation mock for having a hole in my sock!

(3)(0)

Dr Schwartz

A hole in your sock or your cock?

(5)(0)

Anonymous

Sock. I’m a girl.

(4)(0)

Anonymous

A mole in my sock

(1)(0)

Anonymous

A dole in my mock

(4)(0)

Anonymous

Double breasted? Three piece suit? Will you also get deducted points for bringing a penny-farthing?

(19)(1)

Very amused

Triple breasted is better overall.

(15)(0)

Repeat after me: your tie should be darker than your shirt

There is a difference between a sartorial opinion and a sartorial error. I sometimes see people in ties or suit styles that are not to my personal tastes, but their dress still serves to project the professionalism it is supposed to.

This is not the same as wearing a pocket square which matches your tie, wearing a brown belt with black shoes or having your shirt cuffs entirely hidden by your suit sleeves, which are sartorial errors that make you look inept.

(10)(0)

Very amused

What if your shirt if black?

(1)(1)

Corbyn. Sympathiser

Ask Trumpenkreig. He probably has personal experience in wearing black shirts.

(7)(1)

Anonymous

Wow. I appear in the civil courts most weekdays, and it turns out I’m always at least three marks down before I even open my mouth.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

On Wednesdays, we wear pink.

(23)(0)

Another barrister

Has anyone recently been told by a judge that he (it will be a “he”) that you’re showing “too much white”? Or heard of any judge saying that in the last 10 years or so?

(3)(2)

Anononon

Yup. Bollocked by a recorder for doing just that on the hottest day of last summer. >:-(

(2)(0)

Anonymous

Yep. A judge at Isleworth had a go at me for not doing my jacket up not long ago. Since then I’ve tended to go for a 3-piece in the crown court. Getting a bollocking from the judge about your dress doesn’t fill clients with confidence. And it’s always going to be safest to dress in a way that will keep even the most conservative bench-dweller happy.

So I don’t think this guidance is missing the mark, at least on suits.

(2)(0)

Not. Guiltay.

My tie is always sozzled.

(0)(0)

Trainee sol

Whatever. The amount of, dare I say, larger women Counsel who rock up to court in old tatty cardigans.

I may only be a humble trainee solicitor but I make sure I invest in a nice suit so I look the part if nothing else.

(8)(0)

Miss Helga Baggins of Counsel

Silence, minion!

(13)(0)

Bored of the Bar

Fuck the classism and snobbery of the Bar.

What matters is how we look to members of the public not to members of our profession.

Clean, smart and neutral. That’s all you need to go by.

(13)(0)

A London Barrister

Double breasted, no… just no… unless you’re in silk, or over 50, but that’s just my opinion. I don’t think I could pull it off, ever.

For chaps (and that’s all I can speak on) Either wear a three-piece, and use that for Court and conferences, and drop the waistcoat when you’re in Chambers. Get some good white shirts and matching pocket swatches and ties if you’re going to jazz it up

Double breasted is kind of cool, but just a bit pretentious. Maybe it will come back in soon…

I always viewed the BPTC (or BVC when I did it) as playing “dress up barrister”. The world of work is completely different and it’s sad to see such a superficial and subjective marking criterion which provides power to teachers to negatively impact pupils careers for such a frivolous reason, or boost up those they want to promote.

I think though that presentation is relevant as to how you dress and it is important. its just comical to score in his way, as though we all work round judging and scoring our opponents with a little scorecard… Maybe there is an App for that?

(4)(0)

Leeds QC (ie London Junior Equivalent)

Those kinky boots! Where have they got to – I lost mine whilst doing a kinky egg and spoon race in Amsterdam.

Shame, my clerk loved me in them. So did my pupil. Oh and so did my wife’s sister.

Never showed the wife though.

(10)(0)

Mr (Optional)

Loving the “Well, I turned up to my pupillage interview in a bin bag with my hair in a green mohican” anecdotes, which as a pupillage committee member, I can tell you should be filed alongside the “My granny smoked 50 Benson & Hedges a day from the age of 7 and she lived until she was 90, so smoking can’t be that bad for you” type claims.

Look the part, be the part etc. The time for letting standards slip a little or making risky sartorial choices is once you are settled into tenancy and NOT at the beginning of your career when chambers and then solicitors are trying to assess whether or not you are likely to be a safe pair of hands or a bit of a loose cannon. Once in pupillage or practice there is also the matter of the first impression you project when meeting clients. Much as pupils and baby barristers try to project an air of confidence and experience, “frequent flyer” clients can see through them like a window, so why make the job of winning their trust and confidence even harder by rocking up to court looking like a sales rep or a footballer?

By all means pitch up to a pupillage interview wearing a sharkskin Top Man skinny fit suit, with your trousers at half mast, but be prepared for people to mistake you for Alfie the ABH defendant rather than a prospective member of chambers.

The BPTC rules are actually useful in that they give a very clear indication of how you will be expected to present yourself at interviews and then in pupillage, advice which comes in very handy if mummy isn’t a silk and daddy a High Court judge…..

(30)(5)

Anonymous

Anyone marking this down is not a barrister. Every word is true.

(16)(1)

Anonymous

The picture decorating this article is very obviously a graphical reference to Tom and Katie.

I know this because, like the Tom Hanks character in The Da Vinci Code, I am a Professor of Symbology.

(6)(0)

Anonymous

Hahahhaah. Great comment.

(0)(0)

Gegenbeispiel

BPTC needs to be penalised 50 points for writing “calling the judge by the wrong name” when what it meant was “addressing the judge using the wrong title or honorific”. In addition, it must wear a short skirt with kinky boots for the next 60 days.

(5)(0)

NPB

Yes we all know court dress is outdated but this article is being reported in the Guardian in a way to lead to readers to believe that this is a form of conservative oppression limiting people from expressing themselves as they want, rather than some clunky rules designed to provide trainee barristers with some guidance about how they’re expected to dress (yes double-breasted suits look awful). The Guardian has reported this in the following terms “A handbook at the BPP university law school warns students that they may lose points if they do not adopt an extremely conservative dress code in their advocacy assessments”. It’s presented in such catastrophic over-the-top terms that it undermines any salient criticism that you could reasonably make about court dress. And predictable some attention seeking shit-stirrer will pretend to get outraged by this and extract an apology of the BPTC who’ll be forced to capitulate to the whims of this minority and replace the advice with “your dress code should reflect you as an individual. You’re a peacock you gotta fly”. (Kids get off my lawn)

(5)(2)

Mr (Optional)

^^^^ This

“You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake”.

You are trying to break into an profession which, more or less, has a uniform. Despite the obvious somewhat narcissistic character traits which barristers often display, one of the first and most important lessons to be learned about advocacy is that it is not about you. If you are wearing clothing which is for whatever reason distracting, or you are swigging from a water bottle while holding it like a squirrel (a la Trump), then once again, it is distracting and if the jury or a judge are paying attention to those things, then they are not listening to the honeyed words of wisdom issuing forth from your mouth. It is often cited that one of the principle reasons for retaining wigs and gowns is that they tend to anonymise the wearer and render them relatively homogenous (in terms of their dress) so that the jury concentrate on the advocacy and not the apparel. I tend to agree with that view.

All those who are whining and criticising BPP for publishing these “rules” should be thankful that at least they are being transparent about the assessment process, rather than marking candidates down (consciously or subconsciously) for reasons which may not be immediately apparent to the student.

Finally, those who think these roolz is stoopid and they curtail their right to self-expression and self-determination might want to have a rethink about whether a profession in which wearing brown shoes can mark someone out as a dangerous non-conformist is really for them (Lolz)

(13)(3)

Ms. Susan Oliphaunt-Fountlebury

Now, I’m getting just a tad confused here – silly me. Can any of you boys out there help me, pretty please? My pupillage is due up in a few weeks and I STILL haven’t got a thing to wear – well, I do of course, butchoo know what I mean, yeh? Like do I have to wear silk briefs, or not wear silk briefs? And if I wear a wide belt (thats what Dad used to call it anyway) instead of a ‘proper’ skirt (bor-in’) will I get marks for showing too much white over the stocking tops? I could wear suspender tights – y’know the ones with sussies an’ tops weaved into the pattern? – if that would help? I got some lovely shoes from me last job – patent red platforms – or perhaps the leopard print ones, they got quite a lot of black in ’em. An’ I never wear a bra anyway (these implants are BRILLIANT) so I should be alright with 3 shirtbuttons undone? Oh, an’ how am I sposed to know what to call the Judge? I usually say ‘luv’ or ‘bro’ or summat, until we get into chambers and discuss settlement. Huh, they never tole me it’d be this complicated down the Job Centre! Anways, must rush … txt me if can help. Sooz xx

(1)(7)

RealWorldRunny

Are you trying to channel an outrageous toff here or a chav? Weird mix of both going on it appears…

(5)(0)

Sir Ponsonby Smythe-Smallpiece

New money…

(6)(1)

Very amused

Not having anything to wear is fine with me.

(1)(1)

Ms. Susan Oliphaunt-Fountlebury

Sorree, I wuz in Court – soliciting again, dontcha know. Lolz.

(1)(0)

Anonymous

Somebody should show up in a buttoned up Nehru jacketed suit just to see what happens. If points are deducted, I would argue that since the stomach is not showing, the attire is considered appropriate under the black letter guidelines even though it might not be the norm in a courtroom outside South Asia and the Caribbean. Bonus points if said student is from one of these locales because a point deduction under these circumstances could amount to accusations of xenophobia.

(2)(1)

Herbie Frog

The modern, off the peg, three-piece suit is almost always a sartorial disaster because it invariably includes trousers with a normal height waistband which leave a triangle of shirt between waistcoat and waistband, and makes the wearer looks like a 1970s car dealer or a waiter. The triangle looks even worse if it includes a belt. The only trousers that work with a waistcoat extend up inside the waistcoat beyond the waist and therefore have to be held up by braces.

The off-the-peg double breasted suit is almost always a sartorial disaster because a double-breasted suit needs to fit very well to look smart and we are all different shapes.

The modern off-the-peg single breasted suit is almost always a sartorial disaster because it is fashionable for jackets to be too short, making the wearer look like a schoolboy who has outgrown his uniform.

Suits are also a sartorial disaster unless the wearer matches the size and shape of his shirt collar to the suit collar and he matches the size and shape of his tie and its knot to the shirt collar.

This seems to be a minefield for all but the most privileged barristers. Either barristers need more sartorial guidance, or the courts need to be more tolerant.

(1)(1)

Herbie Frog

Or they need to be issued with uniform boiler suits.

(0)(0)

Mr (Optional)

Don’t you know that any counsel worth their salt (especially fat cat, legal aid criminal barristers) have their own tailor, duh? #rolleyes.

Seriously though, “proper” 3 piece suits (that is, with a high-ish waistband, braces buttons and waist adjusters) can be had from the likes of Lipmans and Roderick Charles for a reasonable price. One doesn’t have to buy from Savile Row or even Thieved & Ripmeoff to be correctly attired. And there’s always fleaBay.

(2)(0)

Dame Vera Gwynne

Dress sense says more about an individual than just about anything. The most slovenly advocates create an appalling impression to their clients and to the profession.
Many of the contributors above appear to resent traditions and the maintenance of high standards and a smart dress code – many would be happy if one could strut around in jeans, T shirt and flip flops. They seem to think that being smartly dressed reflects the ruling classes and tory middle Englanders – they would prefer if all were as scruffy as Corbyn or the late Michael Foot (he of the Duffle coat)
I would guess that many of the contributors are on the wrong side of 40 and resent the values and class (as in style not the other) of their seniors. They probably hold their knife and forks incorrectly (yes, there is a right and wrong way dudes) and wish that mummy or daddy had directed then to social work or art school as opposed to law. They are really rebelling against mumsy et al.
Long may we maintain high standards and traditions.
I speak as a working class barrister who was brought up on a Council estate. I am proud to have achieved one of my ambitions in the wake of inverted snobbery and loutish attitudes of morons

(2)(0)

Justin Le Shortun

Well said Dame VG!

A good summing up of the situation

(0)(0)

Comments are closed.

Related Stories