In the year 2000 the average woman barrister earned 61% of the earnings of the average male barrister. In the year 2020 the equivalent figure was still 61% (barcouncil.org.uk/uploads/assets…).
The reasons for this include: women being pushed into lower earning areas of practice, the average women barrister being more junior than the average man (because the Bar is poor at retaining women after they have children)...
(theoretically) more women working part time (although I can't imagine the effects are significant), a client led preference for men, and a failure on the part of some Chambers to take a sufficient interest in what their clerking produces.
When I sat on the Retention (of Women) Sub-Committee of the Equality and Diversity Committee of the Bar Council back in the day there was a real reluctance to publish these figures. So there has been progress on that at least - but there is so much more to do.
(For the avoidance of doubt, the reluctance, as I recall, was an institutional reluctance not one of the Committee or Sub-Committee.)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
You'd think a £100m transaction at a c.£45m overvalue where the Accounting Officer was misled and there were payments of £16m to a politically connected bagman and Priti Patel was falling over herself to help would merit a passing glance? Wouldn't you, @UKSFO?
I referred the above to @UKSFO - with all the evidence in writing - more than three months ago. Have they called? Have they emailed? Reader, they have not. Ghosted.
So Priti Patel has announced an Inquiry following the tragic murder of Sarah Everard. THREAD
It won't initially be a statutory inquiry - apparently for reasons of urgency - but can be converted into one. I don't find that rationale that persuasive but what you call it is less important than who Chairs it and what its powers and terms of reference are.
The Chair will be confirmed in due course. So will the terms of reference although we have something of a steer...
I see Nick Cohen is again complaining in one of his newspaper columns about the cancellation of transphobes.
Barely a day passes in which one national newspaper or another does not carry a piece decrying how trans people have rendered voiceless the writer or their friends.
Meanwhile, when @GoodLawProject brings litigation asserting that trans people too are entitled to benefit from the foundational NHS promise of universal healthcare there is literally not one national newspaper we trust to carry the story fairly.
"The pandemic was lucky for some – even those supplying facemasks the NHS couldn't use. One can only guess how large a fortune Andrew Mills made – he has changed the status of his companies so that we can't see how much public money went into his pocket.” opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-…
A reminder that civil servants were worried about the consequences of not giving Andrew Mills a contract because he was an advisor to @trussliz.
A reminder that the Department of Health didn't consider conflicts of interest before giving Ayanda a £252m contract. nao.org.uk/press-release/…
Rosie Duffield is here, at best ignorantly and at worst dishonestly, spreading harmful falsehoods about trans healthcare. No one "so young" gets surgery. You can't have it in the UK as a child.
Twitter is a hostile place for all and women suffer more than men. I don't invite threats against anyone. But this gross misrepresentation of reality causes real harm to a beseiged and vulnerable community. It has to be described clearly as what is: a harmful falsehood.
You can't pretend to be a good faith participant in this discussion, you can't pretend to care about the lives of trans people, and stand by silently whilst someone in a position of notional authority, an MP, actively spreads damaging falsehoods.