Supreme Court president backs move away from traditional courtroom attire By Margaret Taylor 21 November 2011 16:00 17 December 2015 14:08 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer val 22 November 2011 at 01:19 Why do barristers love drag? Banana #1: I might not look like much now, but you should see me in my wig and gown. Banana #2: Oh, are you a barrister? Banana #1: No, a transvestite. Omnes: Boom boom. Kindly leave the robing room. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 13:43 What is the world coming to? What will be next?Jeans and trainers? Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 14:10 Given it’s our highest court and now televised surely robes should be worn, if only to remind the watching world we have the oldest and most respected legal system. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 14:40 why not go the whole hog and offer the Courtroom naming rights to Sports Direct? Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 14:41 How does the wearing of wigs have anything with the environment to discuss legal issues? And accessibility? Every time an argument has tenuous connections with hard facts, ‘accessibility’ is trotted out. Oh that’s all right then. Ridiculous. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 14:55 Wigs and gowns do serve at least one purpose for those who are not used to the court process as it helps them at least to pick out which people are counsel Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 15:48 We should keep wigs and gowns. And what’s more, we should only allow submissions to be made in Elizabethan English (or, perhaps, Victorian English). People who want to keep wigs and gowns but talk in modern English are too half-hearted for me – where’s their commitment to traditionalism? Reply Link Rural bliss 22 November 2011 at 18:49 There are few things more embarrassing and irritating than members of an elite attempting to make themselves look like ordinary plebs. It’s just Patronising with a capital `P’. Don’t they realise that in this drab and depressing world ordinary people – the very ones they are trying to pander to – actually enjoy and respect tradition? Yes, there’s probably a large element of nostalgia, but so what? We need some consolations in life. By failing to appreciate this, and by failing to respect or even understand such plebeian views they are, ironically, simply emphasising the gulf between ‘them’ and ‘us’. And since when were the intellectual meanderings of a Supreme Court judgment `accessible’ even to most lawyers? So what possible point is there to this pathetic show of false modesty? There are precious few reminders left of what a brilliant country this was at one time, and these idiots are determined to erase even the last few traces. So to hell with them and the drab uniformity that they wish to impose on everything and everyone. Reply Link Anonymous 22 November 2011 at 21:39 Any barrister who wants to wear a wig and gown should be allowed to do so on the condition that he (or she) wears suspendors and stockings too. Reply Link Anonymous 2 December 2011 at 12:33 I agree with Rural Bliss. For a number of years I have been asking clients their viewa on this matter and have found nothing less than total support for the wearing of wigs and gowns. It seems most of them gain cofidence from this and feel that they really are being properly represented by real advocates. Reply Link Kate 8 February 2012 at 12:30 While I understand some people have reservations about wigs and gowns, claiming they are outdated, the entire purpose of the gown and wig is a sense of annonimity. As counsel you are suppose to represent without prejudice and with fairness and the robe and wig allows counsels and clients alike to recognise this. Where is the argument against that to get rid of them? Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.