I think that’s right. I also thought it was an interesting piece of information for a different reason - it seems to show that he has chosen to earn a crust through means other than providing legal services. Some might say that this is a significant moment in the context of consumer protection.
Yes, unregistered barristers are still subject to BSB regulation (although with a high bar for Article 10 freedom to criticise the judiciary). Without a practising certificate his lawyerly work must be limited and I imagine he generates income from his substack and social media instead
I find Barrett’s attack on Bean (disclosure - I don’t know the latter personally) very concerning, because it’s really a broader attack on the judicial status quo: the structures of appointment, listing, conduct investigation all in the firing line for a largely legally illiterate audience
Even with a growing and receptive audience Barrett is an inconsequential figure, but if his attack is taken up by Jenrick or other politicians, then it becomes more serious. At what point then, if ever, does Barrett’s conduct in all this risk “gravely damaging” the judiciary?
Indeed: but for his conduct, would others, who are more consequential than Barrett, act to damage the judiciary? He’s an arsonist in the house of democracy.
An excellent metaphor which I hope you won’t mind me plagiarising. All of this (as with his Southport postings last year) is being said in the proximity of threats of violent protest and disorder and is potentially inflammatory to it. That is very concerning
No need to plagiarise - I hereby grant you an irrevocable, non-exclusive license to use as you please!
Many thanks!