An old boys club

retroactive

Every now and then you hear the throw away line "The law library is just a old boys club."

I guess the 'old' aspect of this can be justified it takes a significant amount of time to develop your practice, although this is tapered by the fact there are some immensely talented JC's.

But what of the idea that it is a 'boys club'? Is there any truth to such a claim?

johnnyskeleton

There are lady barristers, yes. The current chief justice, although no longer a member of the law library, is an sc and a bencher of kings inns.

Brother Psychosis

even the old part is no longer relevant, as almost half the bar are under ten years qualified and around a third are five years or less. in the past few years, more women have been qualifying, with the result that the young bar is now 50 50 but the 'upper echelons' is still majority male but that wont last

Hippo

mitzicat wrote: »

It is still alive, though not as blatant. Here's my theory:

You meet a potential business associate, it's a man in a suit. You think, this is a man in a suit, like any other man in a suit, he must be competent and intelligent. The man gets a pass until he is so obviously not able that others in his circle realize this and stop giving him business. Or, as other men, they feel a sense of camaraderie and still give him work, compensating for his ineptitude themselves.

You meet a potential business associate, it's a woman in a suit. You wait for her to prove her ability. Only if she is exceptional will she garner any notice.

I feel my theory is proven by looking at the male morons in the dail.

As someone once said, women will have achieved equality when a female idiot is treated the same as a male idiot.

Do you really think anyone still thinks like that? I don't see what the composition of the Dail has to do with this either.

johnnyskeleton

mitzicat wrote: »

It is still alive, though not as blatant. Here's my theory:

You meet a potential business associate, it's a man in a suit. You think, this is a man in a suit, like any other man in a suit, he must be competent and intelligent. The man gets a pass until he is so obviously not able that others in his circle realize this and stop giving him business. Or, as other men, they feel a sense of camaraderie and still give him work, compensating for his ineptitude themselves.

You meet a potential business associate, it's a woman in a suit. You wait for her to prove her ability. Only if she is exceptional will she garner any notice.

I feel my theory is proven by looking at the male morons in the dail.

As someone once said, women will have achieved equality when a female idiot is treated the same as a male idiot.

Aside from the fact that it is almost universally accepted that women will judge other women far harsher than men will, there are bluffers of both gender and competent people of both genders.

The same false analogy could be used about people of different skin colour, or people who are have no relations in the legal industry, or pretty much any other perception bias imagineable.

The fact is that good people will usually stand out, bad people will be found out and if people want to do business with incompetent people because they are male, or white, or went to a fee paying school, that's their business.

Thr women in thr dail are also a bunch of also rans, see for example Mary coughlan and so forth.

Of course, a female idiot will never be the same as a male idiot because a male idiot will accet their lot in life while a female idiot will accuse the world of being anti-feminist etc. A mature person will realise that they stand or fall on their actions and ability, not because of their gender or racial traits etc

BornToKill

"If you're a solicitor, I'm Boy George".

Fr Dougal in Grant unto Him Eternal Rest.

johnnyskeleton

mitzicat wrote: »

Mary Coughlan...sorry, can you name a second female politician who's a moron? I can certainly name quite a few male idiots there.

Mary Harney, Mary Hanafin, Mary O'Rouke, Mary Lou McDonald (that's a lot of Marys), Sile De Valera, Bevery Cooper Flynn, Joan Burton, Clare Daly, Liz O'Donnell etc. I'm not however suggesting that female TDs are morons, I'm simply pointing out that you can showmany bad female politicians. In any event, this is to miss the point - you haven't demonstrated that male incompetence is tolerated more than female incompetence is.

If you think that people give everyone else a blank slate upon meeting them and do not form instantaneous opinions about them, sub-consciously and consciously, you are very naive.

I don't think that at all. I never suggested that I did. However, I don't think people will gloss over any perceived flaws in a business person because they are male, or highlight those flaws because they are female. Having met a few barristers, I can honestly say that I have never judged a female barrister less favourably because of her gender, or a male more favourably because of it.

On the odd occasion where someone does express such a view it is noteworthy because it is so unusual rather than because it represents a true picture. There is perhaps the old school idea that criminal law is for male barristers and family law is for female barristers, but there is a healthy mix of both genders in both areas so such an idea is clearly no hindrance. So, whatever the preconceptions, the reality does not bear out any systemic discrimination.

Again, you haven't answered my point that of the few people who do judge women harsher, these tend to be other women.

If you think male idiots so graciously accepted their "lot in life" you've had your head up your arse during the past three years as the male developers/banking idiots who ruined the country certainly did not bow down to those with an iota of common sense. Who pays millions of euro for a piece of flooded farm land valued at 40,000?

This is so irrelevant I don't know how to begin, but perhaps the simplest way to counter it is to say that there are a number of female commentators, investors and businesswomen who also fell for the property madness and made very poor decisions. It is not a male/female thing. But in any event, most of those male developers once their poor decisions were exposed accepted responsibility. A few tried to blame the banks, planning decisions etc, but those few are no different than the woman who blames her poor deicisions on an asserted bias against women.

Your comment about feminists ranting just shows you are already a sexist. I wasn't ranting, I was just outlining my own personal experiences, as a businesswoman myself, who had to work darn hard to be considered up to scratch.

I didn't say anythign about feminists ranting - you chose to put words in my mouth there. I pointed out that a lot of these theories are nothing more than a way of explaining away failure. Saying "I didn't make it at the bar because I'm a woman" is a lot easier than saying "I didn't make it at the bar because I wasn't good enough" and is not that different to saying "I didn't make it at the bar because I'm not related to a judge" or whatever. In the latter two, the existence of successful female and non-judge-related barristers disprove the suggestions.

But it is a very weak response to accuse me of being sexist merely because I don't like your theory and don't think it is correct. It is a distraction. It is kind of like saying that anyone who doesn't think Tiger Woods is the best golf player in the world is a racist.

As to your comments about being a female business woman, do you think it is easy for men to set up their businesses and get ahead? No, it's hard, and the difficulties faced by you are the same difficulties faced by them. Don't sell yourself short. But more importantly, don't sell the skills and talents of many successful female barristers short either.

Dandelion6

Surely the main barrier with the Law Library isn't a gender one but a class one. It's still very difficult to enter the profession if you're from a disadvantaged background, not least because of the requirement that you give away your labour for free for a year. That's what would prevent me becoming a barrister, not the fact that I'm a woman.

page1

I have heard those comments too, but am happy to report that from my experience of KI so far they seem unfounded. Granted I am only an external student on the diploma course but many of my fellow students plan on going on to the degree course and then the Law Library.

What struck me most is the camaraderie, everyone is genuinely willing to help each other along. I thought as an external student entering the class on its second year when firm friendships are developed, that I would struggle to become part of the class but that hasnt been the case.

To respond first to Dandelion6's post, and again I am only speaking from my experience of the diploma course, most of the people will be going on to the modular course (2 yr part time) and will continue working to fund it.

Many have families and mortgages and while it will be a struggle, it isnt a bar. I am a woman with 3 small children (4,2,1) and I have 2 mortgages but I will manage it because its what I want to do.
Im sure on the degree course there will be young adults with rich parents funding their way through this, but they wont make up the full contingent by any means.

As regards sexism, in any industry there will be men who think women arent up to the job. In my experience they are the minority and are usually older men whose wives gave up work when they got married or a few younger ones whose sexist comments are an attempt to mask the fact that they are the incompetent ones.

I have worked in business for 8 years and have never found it to be a problem. If you are good at your job you will get work, I dont believe that people will hand out work to someone who is incompetent simply because they are male.
I do think men are better at "talking the talk" than women and maybe that gets them in the door more often but incompetence is discovered quickly.

Actually last year I went for a job in the motor industry (very male dominated). I was 8 months pregnant on my third child going for the interview. Every other candidate was male, so not only was I the only female but I was heavily pregnant. I was offered the job. Even if I wasnt I wouldnt have thought it was because I was female, I would have assumed they had a better candidate.
If you are good it will shine through and anybody worth their salt will see this and choose you for that reason.

I would say to anyone considering this route dont let perceived notions of elitism and sexism put you off.

johnnyskeleton

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Surely the main barrier with the Law Library isn't a gender one but a class one. It's still very difficult to enter the profession if you're from a disadvantaged background, not least because of the requirement that you give away your labour for free for a year. That's what would prevent me becoming a barrister, not the fact that I'm a woman.

I think page1 has given a very good answer to this point but I suppose to be fair to you, the traditional way in which the lack of income for the first years is overcome is by working a part time job or lecturing or building up a warchest from work before coming down. This is probably harder to do during a recession but it is the way that it is done.

So the devilling year is not a barrier so much as an obstacle. If you need an income but are not prepared to work more than 9-5 then I can see how the bar would be difficult.

BornToKill

retroactive wrote: »

Every now and then you hear the throw away line "The law library is just a old boys club."

I guess the 'old' aspect of this can be justified it takes a significant amount of time to develop your practice, although this is tapered by the fact there are some immensely talented JC's.

But what of the idea that it is a 'boys club'? Is there any truth to such a claim?

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I have always understood 'old boys club' or 'old boys network' to refer to the past pupils of a small number of expensive fee-paying schools. The implication is that they look out for and favour each other. The 'old' part in the expression does not iterally mean old; rather it means former pupil.

There are many reasons why the leading members of any given profession might have almost all attended the same few schools. People often like to send their children to a school they themselves attended. They often encourage children to take up the profession or may arrange work-placement from school with a friend in the same business area. That said, it is true that the members of the judiciary are currently drawn from a very small pool of schools. As others have said already though there have been changes in recent years and these can be expected to feed through in time.

Milk & Honey

BornToKill wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong about this but I have always understood 'old boys club' or 'old boys network' to refer to the past pupils of a small number of expensive fee-paying schools. The implication is that they look out for and favour each other. The 'old' part in the expression does not iterally mean old; rather it means former pupil.

There are many reasons why the leading members of any given profession might have almost all attended the same few schools. People often like to send their children to a school they themselves attended. They often encourage children to take up the profession or may arrange work-placement from school with a friend in the same business area. That said, it is true that the members of the judiciary are currently drawn from a very small pool of schools. As others have said already though there have been changes in recent years and these can be expected to feed through in time.

Most judges of the Superior Courts were in school in the 50s and 60s before there was free education. Only a small percentage of teenagers sat for the Leaving Cert and an even smaller percentage went to University. There were only four Universities in Ireland in the 60s. Not surprisingly therefore the judges of the superior courts have similar social and educational backgrounds.
The whole contacts thing is heavily overblown.Many solicitors do not like instructing a barrister from the same gene pool. It can be a pain when something goes wrong. Hard work and ability will always win at the end of the day.

Avatargh

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Many solicitors do not like instructing a barrister from the same gene pool.

It is strange how all the top work never seems to go "the same gene pool".

Oh wait...

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The fact is that good people will usually stand out, bad people will be found out and if people want to do business with incompetent people because they are male, or white, or went to a fee paying school, that's their business.

That's kind of a naive view of the world. If you stand out, there's a good chance you'll get a knife in your back.

Bad people are not always found out. And if they are, they can be going a very long time before they are caught out.

Senior levels in many Irish businesses can be occupied by people who are shockingly incompetent. They can get their position through attending fee paying schools, being from one of the right kind of families. Having the right demeanour. Being a good "fit" for the job. If they mess up, it's brushed up and hushed up.

It doesn't need to be explicitly spelt out. Just look at the country....Did the bad people get caught out....Or did we get caught out.

Milk & Honey

krd wrote: »

That's kind of a naive view of the world. If you stand out, there's a good chance you'll get a knife in your back.

Bad people are not always found out. And if they are, they can be going a very long time before they are caught out.

Senior levels in many Irish businesses can be occupied by people who are shockingly incompetent. They can get their position through attending fee paying schools, being from one of the right kind of families. Having the right demeanour. Being a good "fit" for the job. If they mess up, it's brushed up and hushed up.

It doesn't need to be explicitly spelt out. Just look at the country....Did the bad people get caught out....Or did we get caught out.

None of that is relevant to the Law Library. It is a meritocracy. Solicitors are not going to keep briefing counsel who are not delivering the goods. Judges often complain about stupid arguments and badly run cases. This is done in public. No solicitor is going to laugh it off when the client gets a massive bill of costs in what counsel advised was a sure fire case only for the judge to throw a wobbly. A solicitor who wants to send his or her own children to private school will not be able to afford it if he briefs counsel purely on the basis of their educational background.

krd

Milk & Honey wrote: »

None of that is relevant to the Law Library. It is a meritocracy. Solicitors are not going to keep briefing counsel who are not delivering the goods. Judges often complain about stupid arguments and badly run cases. This is done in public.

I wasn't levelling an accusations at the Law Library. And it probably is cleaner, because so much of the activity is in public. Where there isn't much room to hide.

There is a paranoia in Ireland regarding anything that can be considered to be the establishment. The paranoia is not really all that groundless.

I would also be careful in the use of the word meritocratic, in terms of the Law Library. Yes, it may be a meritocracy, once you get there - but in terms of getting there, it's as meritocratic as much of the rest of Irish life.


If I had the money, and if I had the children, I probably would send them to a fee paying school. Not because I would believe it would make them better people - in fact I would believe the opposite. But it would give them a much better chance in life. Snobbery in Ireland is probably worse than it's ever been. It's just the way it is.

Milk & Honey

krd wrote: »

I wasn't levelling an accusations at the Law Library. And it probably is cleaner, because so much of the activity is in public. Where there isn't much room to hide.

There is a paranoia in Ireland regarding anything that can be considered to be the establishment. The paranoia is not really all that groundless.

I would also be careful in the use of the word meritocratic, in terms of the Law Library. Yes, it may be a meritocracy, once you get there - but in terms of getting there, it's as meritocratic as much of the rest of Irish life.

This is a discussion about the old boys network in the law library. A rant about the rest of Irish society is off topic. For what it is worth most of the problems were caused by elected politicians who were elected by non fee paying voters.

krd

Milk & Honey wrote: »

This is a discussion about the old boys network in the law library.

Yes, and I was responding to something Johnny Skelton said, that was along the lines of good will always triumph over evil. Which, unfortunately, is just not the case.

A rant about the rest of Irish society is off topic.

How uncouth of me. Alas, I wasn't privileged the benefit of elocution lessons. I will try and hold my tongue, and remember my station. But, yet again, that is a difficulty for me, myself being of the ignorant classes and low birth.

For what it is worth most of the problems were caused by elected politicians who were elected by non fee paying voters.

I would not disagree with you, for one moment, that the electorate of Ireland, are anything but stupid. They are a simple folk. They insist on learning everything the hard way.

Brian Lenihan, and Brian Cowen, both went to socially exclusive fee paying schools (schools with a fee large enough to exclude the children of the lower classes). They got to where they were in life, not because of some innate talents. It was their families and what social class they were from. Now, there may have been a little meritocracy to how they climbed the heights, but only in as much so as being the least mediocre of a very limited and mediocre pool. The two Brians. Groomed for "leadership". The farmers of men.

Brian Lenihan, called to the bar at Kings Inn. Brian Cowen a solicitor for the Incorporated Law Society of Ireland.

Well, well, well, well........The plot thickens as they say, don't they say.

Or what does a barrister say in court when they drop a bomb like that. A little squint to the judge, a head tilt, and a nod to the jury. And no accusation needs to be voiced - the cloying stench of absolute and undeniable guilt hangs in the air.

Tom Young

Please behave. Last post is more of a rant and effort at self flagellation than a bona fide reply. What M&H said about being somewhat off topic was correct.

Milk & Honey

krd wrote: »

Brian Lenihan, and Brian Cowen, both went to socially exclusive fee paying schools (schools with a fee large enough to exclude the children of the lower classes).

The damage was done long before they got into power. The real damage occurred thirty and forty years ago. The mandarins who were bred in the Civil Service traditions of secrecy and cheerleading for whatever stupid policy the minister wanted to pursue led to most of the trouble. The Governor of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator were both former secretaries general of the Dept of Finance. Does anybody reach that position without being seen as a safe pair of hands i.e. (won't upset any of our friends in {insert name of industry}by the government .
Nobody bothered to stop the banks letting a credit bubble blow up the size of Mount Everest. Why not!
Very few of the culprits were privately educated. It was mostly the noveau riche and lickspittle public servants chasing perks and promotions.

BornToKill

Milk & Honey wrote: »

The damage was done long before they got into power. The real damage occurred thirty and forty years ago. The mandarins who were bred in the Civil Service traditions of secrecy and cheerleading for whatever stupid policy the minister wanted to pursue led to most of the trouble. The Governor of the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator were both former secretaries general of the Dept of Finance. Does anybody reach that position without being seen as a safe pair of hands i.e. (won't upset any of our friends in {insert name of industry}by the government .
Nobody bothered to stop the banks letting a credit bubble blow up the size of Mount Everest. Why not!
Very few of the culprits were privately educated. It was mostly the noveau riche and lickspittle public servants chasing perks and promotions.

This is a very simplistic analysis of the economic crisis which is not supported by either the Holohon or the Regling & Watson reports. It also implies that the economic crisis is confined to Ireland and that similiar situations are not to be found in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. It also seems stange that you would post this having earlier complained of off-topic rants on the state of Irish society.

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

I would also be careful in the use of the word meritocratic, in terms of the Law Library. Yes, it may be a meritocracy, once you get there - but in terms of getting there, it's as meritocratic as much of the rest of Irish life.

it is as meritocratic as it can be to get there. It's open to anyone to do the exams get the degree and start practising. As far as I'm aware, anyone who wants to devil can get a master

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

it is as meritocratic as it can be to get there. It's open to anyone to do the exams get the degree and start practising. As far as I'm aware, anyone who wants to devil can get a master

Well. The same thing is said about Oxford and Cambridge, and I've heard it said about the IV League. That once you're in, they're the most meritocratic places in the world.

I would say, there would be many reasons why the Law Library would be far more meritocratic now, than say, 1973, or even 83.

mitzicat

krd wrote: »

Well. The same thing is said about Oxford and Cambridge, and I've heard it said about the IV League. That once you're in, they're the most meritocratic places in the world.

I would say, there would be many reasons why the Law Library would be far more meritocratic now, than say, 1973, or even 83.

It's not hard to get in to the Kings Inns - you just pass the exams.

Milk & Honey

BornToKill wrote: »

This is a very simplistic analysis of the economic crisis which is not supported by either the Holohon or the Regling & Watson reports. It also implies that the economic crisis is confined to Ireland and that similiar situations are not to be found in Greece, Portugal, Spain, etc. It also seems stange that you would post this having earlier complained of off-topic rants on the state of Irish society.

As a matter of fact similar problems and worse are the result of similar behaviour by the government and public services in those countries. One thing all of the problem states have in common is poor public administration.

Brother Psychosis

krd wrote: »

Brian Lenihan, and Brian Cowen, both went to socially exclusive fee paying schools (schools with a fee large enough to exclude the children of the lower classes). They got to where they were in life, not because of some innate talents. It was their families and what social class they were from.

saying someone got to where they are on the basis of what school they went to is small minded arrogance and an insult to anyone else who went to a fee paying school

krd

mitzicat wrote: »

It's not hard to get in to the Kings Inns - you just pass the exams.

That is meritocratic. I think we do have a better system for education here than in England. For Oxbridge, you need to do interviews. Where they're as much as concerned about your "personality" and how you'll "fit in" than your academic attainments. The number of people attending Oxbridge from non-fee paying schools has been precipitously dropping off in recent years.

Tony Benn, visited the Soviet Union one time in the 60s. He was given a tour of a school for gifted children. Special resources etc. Ben asked one of his guides "so these children are exceptionally gifted?"...The guide gave him a jaded look, and dryly replied "No....their parents are"

krd

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

saying someone got to where they are on the basis of what school they went to is small minded arrogance and an insult to anyone else who went to a fee paying school

I am small minded and arrogant. You can blame it on my edumacation - or just blame it on my poor character, poor class, whatever you like.

I'm sure there are a few people who went to fee paying schools, who are nice people. People who wouldn't be pompous, unbearable sneering snobs, with a revolting sense of superiority. I'm sure there were a few.


Brian Lehihan Jnr, Belevedere, law UCD, Barrister Kings Inn, Teaching Law Trinity, worst finance minister in Europe. Got to where he did in life, because he was Brian Lehihan Snr's son. Brian Lenhihan snr, Law UCD, Barrister Kings Inn, various ministerial posts where he help run the country into the ground.

RandolphEsq

krd wrote: »

I am small minded and arrogant. You can blame it on my edumacation - or just blame it on my poor character, poor class, whatever you like.

I'm sure there are a few people who went to fee paying schools, who are nice people. People who wouldn't be pompous, unbearable sneering snobs, with a revolting sense of superiority. I'm sure there were a few.


Brian Lehihan Jnr, Belevedere, law UCD, Barrister Kings Inn, Teaching Law Trinity, worst finance minister in Europe. Got to where he did in life, because he was Brian Lehihan Snr's son. Brian Lenhihan snr, Law UCD, Barrister Kings Inn, various ministerial posts where he help run the country into the ground.

Belvo or Brian Senior, which got him to where he got to in politics?

krd

Milk & Honey wrote: »

As a matter of fact similar problems and worse are the result of similar behaviour by the government and public services in those countries. One thing all of the problem states have in common is poor public administration.

M&H......Were junior civil service clerks running the banks?

The "leaders" of government were only as guilty as riding the hog the same as the rest of their ,

<snip>

And neither were all the solicitors who made millins through property deals. Michael Lynn was not a civil servant.

M&H.....You've got your guns pointed the wrong way.

Look at the evidence......

It would make you think. When they say Mountjoy is university for crime. Those crimes are mostly only petty. For the major hoists, you need to get your education elsewhere.

krd

RandolphEsq wrote: »

Belvo or Brian Senior, which got him to where he got to in politics?

Eggs do not lay chickens.


I really do not know. Maybe the "born to rule" mentality inculcated in the students of Belevedere, had some part to play.

Brian's wiki entry is always good for a laugh.

Lenihan is a member of a famous Irish political dynasty. His father Brian Lenihan, Snr, first elected in 1957, was a cabinet minister for over twenty-five years,[citation needed] Tánaiste, MEP,and a candidate for President in the 1990 election. His grandfather was Patrick Lenihan who followed his son into the Dáil from 1965 until 1970.Lenihan's aunt Mary O'Rourke was first elected as a TD in 1982, served for a time in the Senate, and is also a former cabinet minister.His brother Conor was a TD from 1997 to 2011 and served as a Minister of State. Despite these facts Lenihan has said that he resents any implication that he is a member of the political establishment.


Baron Munchausen like, he insists that he pulled himself from the swamp by the scruff of his own neck. Neck, indeed.

Tom Young

Just one more baseless rant and this thread dies.

krd

Tom Young wrote: »

Just one more baseless rant and this thread dies.

Tom, I'm not going to keep this going. Unpleasant, ugly and unfortunate truths, indeed. Baseless. I'm afraid the facts are simply the facts.

I'm a little puzzled by that <snip> you did on my comment - struck from the record. All that was stated, was, the name of one of our giants of "wealth creation", where he studied, what he was qualified as, and that he was not a civil servant at any time - though that could be argued, that since the public purse funded his lifestyle, and that on some level, he was/is a civil servant.


Not even the slightest hint of liable, Tom. Nothing even derogatory, or intemperate.

Tom Young

It wasn't the person in question, but his partner who was a graduate of King's Inns.

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

it is as meritocratic as it can be to get there. It's open to anyone to do the exams get the degree and start practising. As far as I'm aware, anyone who wants to devil can get a master

Well. The same thing is said about Oxford and Cambridge, and I've heard it said about the IV League. That once you're in, they're the most meritocratic places in the world.

I would say, there would be many reasons why the Law Library would be far more meritocratic now, than say, 1973, or even 83.

I'm sorry but you can't go around making allegations about things being unmeritocratic and then when challenged making vague references to irrelevant matters. There is no impediment that ican see to someone entering the law library, other than not getting the exams, not being able to pay the fees and not having any serious criminal convictions etc. Thus, it is as meritocratic as can be, I can't see how it could be more opened up.

BornToKill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is no impediment that ican see to someone entering the law library, other than not getting the exams, not being able to pay the fees and not having any serious criminal convictions etc.

One would hope that not having any serious ciminal convictions would not serve as an impediment to entering the law library. I think we know what you meant though.

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm sorry but you can't go around making allegations about things being unmeritocratic and then when challenged making vague references to irrelevant matters.

I don't know. Maybe I didn't make myself all that clear - I'm not always sarcastic.

I'll take your word for it. There was once a public perception the place was a bastion of the elites. If that has changed, that has changed.

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

I don't know. Maybe I didn't make myself all that clear - I'm not always sarcastic.

I'll take your word for it. There was once a public perception the place was a bastion of the elites. If that has changed, that has changed.

Well, there probably is such a perception, but that doesn't make it true. I suppose people want to believe in a ruling elite that they cannot access because that suits their world view. It also means that they don't have to take the hard road towards becoming a barrister and can instead grumble on the sidelines.

Ultimately it doesn't help anyone for this assumption to be repeated as though repetition could make it true.

retroactive

...Well this went from slightly of topic and veered into a firestorm of angst - from feminism to political cronyism and nepotism.

It seems the answer to my OP has been found - not so much a throw away comment as a indicator that someone has a chip on their shoulder, whether it takes the form of a percieved disadvantage from being a woman or not coming from a fee paying school.

Tom Young

Pretty much. Pity really, sorry about that. Seems some posters harbour all of the elements you mention and feel the need to violently spew same all over various threads from time to time.

My view re. OP, that may be the perception, but the stark reality is somewhat different. The profession requires a level of collegiality and awareness like no other. This unfortunately can be misconstrued, either by the odd rotten egg, or by negative perceptions.

All barristers are sole traders in Ireland (not shoe makers mind!), trading on your reputation requires a number of carefully weighted talents.

That's my view.

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, there probably is such a perception, but that doesn't make it true.

No...But it makes it a perception.

I suppose people want to believe in a ruling elite that they cannot access because that suits their world view.

But you see, it's not a paranoid fantasy. What were all those tribunals about? And you could make a list of events as long as your arm. Are you choosing to bury your head in the sand, to suit your world view?

It also means that they don't have to take the hard road towards becoming a barrister and can instead grumble on the sidelines.

Not everyone wants to become a barrister. There are many reasons why everyone else might be concerned about the make up of the profession.

Ultimately it doesn't help anyone for this assumption to be repeated as though repetition could make it true.

You're blaming me now, for starting something that has been a cultural perception since before the foundation of the state.

FreudianSlippers

krd wrote: »

But you see, it's not a paranoid fantasy. What were all those tribunals about? And you could make a list of events as long as your arm. Are you choosing to bury your head in the sand, to suit your world view?

This is exactly the point that hurts your arguments the most and makes it look like you have that chip on your shoulder. "Tribunal barristers" (for lack of a better phrase) represent an exceptionally small percentage of the population of barristers as a whole and I'm not quite sure how easily one transitions back into a career as a "normal barrister" after being out of the game for so long - it is, after all, the type of job where you rely on people knowing you and using you. Being off at a tribunal for years hardly helps.

Not everyone wants to become a barrister. There are many reasons why everyone else might be concerned about the make up of the profession.

Such as? If it's equality in gender you're looking for, it's there at the moment IMO.

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Well, there probably is such a perception, but that doesn't make it true.

No...But it makes it a perception.

this is a thread about the op asking whether the perception is true or not. So repeating the perception even though you now appearto accept that it is untrue is not relevant.

But you see, it's not a paranoid fantasy. What were all those tribunals about? And you could make a list of events as long as your arm. Are you choosing to bury your head in the sand, to suit your world view?

again, this is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. People might not have liked the way the tribunal lawyers were paid, there might be a suggestion that they were politically connected, there might be lots wrong with that. But this thread is about whether the law library excludes people who are not from a certain background. That has been shown not to be the case, you have not disputed that, but instead want to rant about any and every problem you see about the law library, as though that is evidence of it being unmeritocratic.

Not everyone wants to become a barrister. There are many reasons why everyone else might be concerned about the make up of the profession.

sure, although I don't see many people complaining about it being exclusionary or eliteist unless they have looked into becoming a barrister and decided against it because it was too hard and then wanted something to blame.

Take the op for example. He/she presumably is someone who is iterested to know how true the perception is. He/she has no axe to grind so has no interest in conspiracy theories or anything like that and now that answers have been given about, in particular the increasing change in demographics in the law library, his/her curiosity is satisfied.

You're blaming me now, for starting something that has been a cultural perception since before the foundation of the state.

I'm not blaming you for starting it, i'm sayin you should stop repeating it on this thread because it is not true and not relevant.

krd

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

This is exactly the point that hurts your arguments the most and makes it look like you have that chip on your shoulder. "Tribunal barristers"

Maybe I failed to make myself clear enough. Or maybe you failed to understand me. I was not talking about Tribunal Barristers pay packets. To put them in context, they now look quite modest.

I'll explain. Before the tribunals and the revelations. There was perception in the country, that what you could call the higher echelons of Irish society were deeply corrupt. This perception was dismissed as paranoia, Irish begrudgery, and people with chips on their shoulders.

Of course, now we know, the paranoid and the begrudgers, and the people with chips on their shoulders, were in fact correct. .....This did not relieve the paranoids - if anything it made them worse.

It wasn't just guess work. Haughey was well known to be deeply corrupt since the 60s. People had had experiences with him. He was living a lifestyle that could not be explained by his visible means of income.

The tribunals only gave us a glimpse of what had been going on. If somehow we had a way of revealing Haughey's entire career you would see a villain walking around with a swag bag. He wasn't acting alone. His behaviour, and their behaviour became normalised.

Why wasn't Haughey or any of the others stopped earlier in their criminal careers.

The "chips on the shoulder" brigade, would say, "Aw sure weren't they all in it together" . Were they all in it together?

Such as? If it's equality in gender you're looking for, it's there at the moment IMO.

That may be true. I knew a girl who qualified in the 90s. She had a mixed experience - not all bad. There were two major Irish law characters she had experiences with - I won't repeat what they were. Just to say these guys had a pretty ante deluvian ideas about gender etc.

Jowls

Brother Psychosis wrote: »

saying someone got to where they are on the basis of what school they went to is small minded arrogance and an insult to anyone else who went to a fee paying school

That's over-reacting a little I think?

The Law Library can be meritocratic in that people without connections can do well but there are also a lot of people who do well because of the connections. A lot of very bright people without connections fall by the wayside.

And there is an old school network in operation. What good it does people is impossible to quantify. But Ive heard from several successful juniors that they are asked on a surprisingly regular basis by more senior colleagues what school they went to, usually phrased as a 'did you go to X/Y/Z?' fee-paying school.

I dont know why that's relevant but it seems to be important to some.

krd

Jowls wrote: »

And there is an old school network in operation. What good it does people is impossible to quantify.

I will tell you, it does more for you, with people who didn't go to the old schools, than with people who did.

But Ive heard from several successful juniors that they are asked on a surprisingly regular basis by more senior colleagues what school they went to, usually phrased as a 'did you go to X/Y/Z?' fee-paying school.

It's actually asked as a snide backhanded insult. Like being asked, if you've ever been to Gstaad for the skiing - you really must.

I dont know why that's relevant but it seems to be important to some.

It can open some doors. I'll tell you something though. I went to a Christian Brothers. And what was common, was for people with a little money (and I do mean a little money) to let their kids do as much as 5 years in the CBS, and then pay the fees for their final year - see....Now the kids can put a fancy looking fee paying school on their CV...

At senior levels in business, the CVs can be incredibly short. But they'll always have the fee-paying school on it. They'll even put their prep school on it too.

johnnyskeleton

krd wrote: »

I will tell you, it does more for you, with people who didn't go to the old schools, than with people who did.

It's actually asked as a snide backhanded insult. Like being asked, if you've ever been to Gstaad for the skiing - you really must.

The thing about this type of this thing is that the people who are ostensibly excluded from this elite seem to know so much about it. It does sound a bit crazy to me because, while I can see how someone you went to school with might want to help you out if they can, the idea that total strangers would speculatively ask if you went to their old school to know whether to help you or not is just alien to me. To be honest, I can see being a Liverpool supporter being of much assistance to someones career than their old school.

It can open some doors. I'll tell you something though. I went to a Christian Brothers. And what was common, was for people with a little money (and I do mean a little money) to let their kids do as much as 5 years in the CBS, and then pay the fees for their final year - see....Now the kids can put a fancy looking fee paying school on their CV...

At senior levels in business, the CVs can be incredibly short. But they'll always have the fee-paying school on it. They'll even put their prep school on it too.

Prep school? Are you sure you're talking about ireland? In any event, a cv is of no usefor barristerring so your comments in that regard are hardly on point.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The thing about this type of this thing is that the people who are ostensibly excluded from this elite seem to know so much about it. It does sound a bit crazy to me because, while I can see how someone you went to school with might want to help you out if they can, the idea that total strangers would speculatively ask if you went to their old school to know whether to help you or not is just alien to me. To be honest, I can see being a Liverpool supporter being of much assistance to someones career than their old school.



Prep school? Are you sure you're talking about ireland? In any event, a cv is of no usefor barristerring so your comments in that regard are hardly on point.

Judge Peter Kelly went to a CBS

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Judge Peter Kelly went to a CBS

I'm confused. Does that make him part of the old boy net or someone who succeeded from outside it?

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm confused. Does that make him part of the old boy net or someone who succeeded from outside it?

The latter surely?

krd

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I'm confused.

Ah, Johnny, would yah ever drop the supercilious wide-eyed faux confusion.


And if really, you're that confused, why don't just shut up.

Does that make him part of the old boy net or someone who succeeded from outside it?

No....It means he is a person more worthy of respect than some others. A man who has struggled against the odds, the school ties, the funny handshakes, the nods and winks. Someone, who has succeed in life, against adversity, and on their merit alone.