armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 10:28 am https://www.legalfutures.co.uk/latest-n ... royal-baby

A barrister gets suspended for joking about the royal baby’s name. Hilarious.

Ms Toch responded to a tweet from controversial writer Julie Burchill, who described the name of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex’s new baby, Lilibet Diana, as “a missed opportunity”. Referring to George Floyd, she said: “They could’ve called it Georgina Floydina!”

Ms Toch replied: “No Doria? Don’t black names matter?” Doria Ragland is Meghan Markle’s mother.

Ms Burchill answered that she “was hoping for Doria Oprah, the racist rotters”, to which Ms Toch responded: “Doprah?”

What a miserable and oppressive working environment has been created in the UK by this endless march towards PC/woke/equality utopia. People are being silenced and fearful of saying anything that could be construed as 'off message', and woe betide anyone who attempts any humour or satire over such matters. The woke army takes itself very seriously and has no sense of humour whatsoever.,

Just listen to this utter bullshit outpouring that is now hard wired into all PR departments. There was no attempt to play it down, put it into perspective and dismiss it for what is was - a flippant piece of levity. NO, they must come out all guns blazing and denounce her actions in the most fulminating way and force a grovelling and humiliating apology.

In a statement posted on Twitter yesterday, the board of the Family Law Café said it has suspended Joanna Toch “with immediate effect pending an internal review into her recent comments on Twitter”.

It continued: “FLC considers her comments as offensive, unacceptable and highly contradictory to the inclusive manner in which FLC has always and will continue to work with members of all communities in managing the challenges of matrimonial and family disputes.”

Followed by:

Ms Toch wrote later on Twitter: “I am very sorry for the comment and what I saw as a joke. I’ve fought during my professional life against racism which is abhorrent. I’m not a judge [some Twitter users had said she was] and I have children of colour and I apologise unreservedly.”

In a later tweet, she added: “It was a joke and I’m sorry if I upset you.”

Her Twitter account has now been deleted, as has Ms Burchill’s.

(Good. More people should dump that crap)

Even the Family Lar Bar Association weighed in with it's own condemnation, before the Bar Standards Board has even looked at the matter.

The Family Law Bar Association tweeted today: “Comments on Twitter about the Sussex’s newborn baby have been brought to our attention. As one of the individuals is a member of the Family Bar we have written to the individual and are referring the exchanges to the BSB, the Bar Council and other relevant bodies.

That ought to have been enough, especially from an organisation the has the concept of due process as part of it's raison d'être. But no, it come right out to judgement and hanged their member, of very long standing, out to dry. Pathetic spineless cowards.

“We make it clear that FLBA condemns the comments by the individual which are completely inappropriate and have no place in our society. Racism of any kind cannot be tolerated and cannot be justified as a ‘joke’.”

What, exactly, is racist about it? They (Toch and Burchill) were taking the piss, and the Sussex's are in deep need of a reality check. Apparently, this can cost you your career now.

There is a principle at stake here. It now seems to be accepted that if you cause offence it is: (1) your fault and (2) you must apologise. Intention to offend is no longer required; if offence is caused then you are guilty. This is wrong.

You have no right to not be offended. You never had had such a right. People find people offensive all the time. (I might be offending people right now.)

If we accept the former you will always have people getting offended, usually by people who are self appointed activists, on behalf of others, and making a career out of being offended. It will never end. It will just get worse.

As a 59 year old lawyer she could of taken a stand and defended herself a bit better. But she just caved in. That should tell you something.

You are quite correct @Doc67 as it seems no one can make any sort of remark lest someone be offended. That lawyer will now be at best blacklisted from working in the legal field again I would think as her name and that of her friend will always be known due to a casual and I found quite funny remark. So now that one quip between friends has cost them their jobs. Well done to those who make the complaint.
Recently we had one of the British railway lines apologising because one, yes just one, person was offended as the station announcement was made to reflect ladies and gentlemen and this person was confused about their own sex hence he called himself gender neutral binary (I think that's the term that is used) but that one person was enough for the company to make a grovelling apology and send off all the staff (which must have numbered in the thousands) to more presentations about the woke generation that see offence in everything.
I have nothing wrong with people calling themselves gender fluid etc but do not force it down my throat. Same as for the cultural misappropriation, cancelling history if it doesn't fit the narrative, calling out people in mainstream society because it upsets you.
The world is changing and not for the better in some respects.

This is the reason why ALL the England team take the knee. Anybody refuses who disagrees with it would lose their place in the team and have to face the twitter mob and then get called a racist, facsist etc The mob are winning at the moment

Is this a spoof ? you decide.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10 ... 1211008507

Kahuna wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:00 pm That lawyer will now be at best blacklisted from working in the legal field again

Oi, careful with your language or you'll get banned.

Kahuna wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:00 pm You are quite correct @Doc67 as it seems no one can make any sort of remark lest someone be offended. That lawyer will now be at best blacklisted from working in the legal field again I would think as her name and that of her friend will always be known due to a casual and I found quite funny remark. So now that one quip between friends has cost them their jobs. Well done to those who make the complaint.
Recently we had one of the British railway lines apologising because one, yes just one, person was offended as the station announcement was made to reflect ladies and gentlemen and this person was confused about their own sex hence he called himself gender neutral binary (I think that's the term that is used) but that one person was enough for the company to make a grovelling apology and send off all the staff (which must have numbered in the thousands) to more presentations about the woke generation that see offence in everything.
I have nothing wrong with people calling themselves gender fluid etc but do not force it down my throat. Same as for the cultural misappropriation, cancelling history if it doesn't fit the narrative, calling out people in mainstream society because it upsets you.
The world is changing and not for the better in some respects.

And the person complaining was:

The “non-binary” passenger, who reportedly serves as the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union’s LGBT rep, tweeted to the London North Eastern Railway (LNER), “‘Good afternoon ladies and gentleman, boys and girls …’ so as a non binary person this announcement doesn’t actually apply to me so I won’t listen

So, his job is working for the railway union to find trouble about LGBT issues.

And we are supposed to give a shit about him being offended because he is non-binary (whatever that is supposed to mean? I don't, and nor to the vast majority of people in the UK.

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 1:56 pm

Kahuna wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 12:00 pm That lawyer will now be at best blacklisted from working in the legal field again

Oi, careful with your language or you'll get banned.

quite right AC, black is so binary.

Doc67 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:26 am
There is a principle at stake here. It now seems to be accepted that if you cause offence it is: (1) your fault and (2) you must apologise. Intention to offend is no longer required; if offence is caused then you are guilty. This is wrong.

You have no right to not be offended. You never had had such a right. People find people offensive all the time. (I might be offending people right now.)

If we accept the former you will always have people getting offended, usually by people who are self appointed activists, on behalf of others, and making a career out of being offended. It will never end. It will just get worse.

As a 59 year old lawyer she could of taken a stand and defended herself a bit better. But she just caved in. That should tell you something.

Still going back to the UK Doc?

A new anti-woke news service is being launched in the UK, the Grauniad reports. Giving up on a vain attempt to present this news impartially, it concludes thus:

Contrary to popular belief, there is no legal requirement for British broadcasters to give equal time to both sides of a political debate. (Yes, I think we gathered that from reading The Grauniad) Instead, GB News will simply have to ensure its broadcasts meet Ofcom’s standards of due impartiality. This would enable a host to express a strong opinion on a culture war topic as long as viewers are later exposed to alternative viewpoints.

Stop Funding Hate, the Twitter-centric campaign group that puts pressure on rightwing news outlets by targeting their advertisers, has already launched a campaign against the channel. “GB News may now be trying to shake off the Fox News label – but if to be ‘woke’ is to be anti-racist, then by branding themselves an ‘anti-woke’ TV channel, they seem to be making their intentions quite clear,” it said.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/ ... tv-news-uk

armchairlawyer wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 2:07 pm

Doc67 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 12, 2021 11:26 am
There is a principle at stake here. It now seems to be accepted that if you cause offence it is: (1) your fault and (2) you must apologise. Intention to offend is no longer required; if offence is caused then you are guilty. This is wrong.

You have no right to not be offended. You never had had such a right. People find people offensive all the time. (I might be offending people right now.)

If we accept the former you will always have people getting offended, usually by people who are self appointed activists, on behalf of others, and making a career out of being offended. It will never end. It will just get worse.

As a 59 year old lawyer she could of taken a stand and defended herself a bit better. But she just caved in. That should tell you something.

Still going back to the UK Doc?

Surely just a vaccination layover??