TCLA Vacation Scheme Applications Discussion Thread 2022-23

[Abii]

The difference is that we are having, or I assume we are having an argument in good faith here so I didn't think there was a need to be pedantic about the language. By 'normal' you obviously know given the context of the issue that I am referring to candidates without disabilities.

I don't think I am being pedantic - I think calling someone out for ableist use of language is important and the more it's called out the less it will happen. I don't want to log into a forum where I offer advice and try and help people to be called not a normal candidate because I am disabled. It would have taken less than a second for you to write non-disabled instead of normal yet you chose not to do that.

 

[NotLord Denning]

I don't think I am being pedantic - I think calling someone out for ableist use of language is important and the more it's called out the less it will happen. I don't want to log into a forum where I offer advice and try and help people to be called not a normal candidate because I am disabled. It would have taken less than a second for you to write non-disabled instead of normal yet you chose not to do that.

yes, because I assume that if people are offended by something the first thing they would do is come to me and ask me to clarify what I meant instead of straight jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to cause offence.

 

[daisy_yawn]

I refuse to continue a discussion with someone so ill-informed, ignorant, and blatantly uneducated on the struggles of minority ethnics. Goodluck with whatever you got going on. Hope you get a TC and all of that stuff x

They have responded in a civil, logical manner, in accordance with their beliefs, experiences, and current knowledge. It's a debate. People have different opinions, it's the essence of a debate. Yet you respond emotionally and rather rudely with a string of petty insults and a sarcastic end comment? Says a lot about how well educated you are.

 

[Riya20000]

hi for the baker mckenzie video interview, what type of questions are they? Competency? Motivation? Scenario-based? ))

 

[traineedreamer]

Do you want me to rap anyone, lift the mood a bit? 😬😬😬

 

[CorpLawyer00]

this is so sadge and has descended into ad hominem drivel

 

[bhbuygu]

Been quite out of the loop so I don’t know specifically what’s been said but this is a forum where we should all be supportive of each other. Diversity is and always will be a good thing. Not quite sure what about this needs to be debated or challenged. Also, I would be extremely mindful of what you are saying on a public forum - how is a disabled/minority candidate supposed to feel confident in their abilities if people on the forum are saying they’re getting interviews solely because they’re a minority? Do not undermine the hard work and challenges to get to that stage. Use the forum to be kind, inspire, and uplift others

 

[NotLord Denning]

Do you want me to rap anyone, lift the mood a bit? 😬😬😬 View attachment 4752

Please do. Something uplifting like how HG will respond with a congrats you've progressed to the next step remark

 

[Jessica Booker]

Speaking of the Shearman merger, does anyone know what would happen to TCs if they merge? Would people work within the new firm, or could Hogan cancel Sherman's training contracts altogether?

Most likely would be merged offers. I haven’t known a merged firm to cancel TCs before anyway.

 

[lawapplicant]

They have responded in a civil, logical manner, in accordance with their beliefs, experiences, and current knowledge. It's a debate. People have different opinions, it's the essence of a debate. Yet you respond emotionally and rather rudely with a string of petty insults and a sarcastic end comment? Says a lot about how well educated you are.

These are what 95% of the people at law firms are gonna be like ffs. Never gonna make any mates there

 

[NotLord Denning]

Been quite out of the loop so I don’t know specifically what’s been said but this is a forum where we should all be supportive of each other. Diversity is and always will be a good thing. Not quite sure what about this needs to be debated or challenged. Also, I would be extremely mindful of what you are saying on a public forum - how is a disabled/minority candidate supposed to feel confident in their abilities if people on the forum are saying they’re getting interviews solely because they’re a minority? Do not undermine the hard work and challenges it takes to get to that stage. Use the forum to be kind, inspire, and uplift others

I mean I never said disabled candidates weren't smart or worthy or whatever of their TCs or VSes or whatever. I'm merely asking about a policy that I find questionable

 

[LordDenning]

Do you want me to rap anyone, lift the mood a bit? 😬😬😬 View attachment 4752

The Court will not hear any of this "rap" nonsense or "mood lifting". Should this abhorrence continue, mark my words, you shall be held in contempt.

 

[bhbuygu]

I mean I never said disabled candidates weren't smart or worthy or whatever of their TCs or VSes or whatever. I'm merely asking about a policy that I find questionable

As I said, I haven’t read what’s been said exactly but just a reminder. Also, my post was aimed at no-one in particular

 

[Jessica Booker]

Thank you for the reports on several posts in this thread. I am currently looking into this matter and will come back to individual reports and the thread more generally in due course once I have managed to read everything.

Please can everyone remain civil during such conversations.

 

[sxw517]

The Court will not hear any of this "rap" nonsense or "mood lifting". Should this abhorrence continue, mark my words, you shall be held in contempt.

Too many commas and not enough full stops for Denning, I smell a rat...

 

[Abii]

yes, because I assume that if people are offended by something the first thing they would do is come to me and ask me to clarify what I meant instead of straight jumping to the conclusion that I'm trying to cause offence.

I am struggling to see where I suggested that your intention was to cause offence. I don't think you intended to do so at all. However, regardless of your intention your choice of language could have been better, it came across in a negative and ableist manner and in a legal career the language you actually use is important!

 

[HLL]

i find it v interesting to watch someone claim to be of a minority group but deny that there would be people in the same/other minority group who have more hurdles to jump. there would ofc be those not as well-off as you, cannot afford the same education resources you had access to, went to universities less 'prestigious' and have fewer connections in the industry to gather proper information of what the process is about and how to ace the process...empathy shouldn't be that difficult

 

[Seven]

They have responded in a civil, logical manner, in accordance with their beliefs, experiences, and current knowledge. It's a debate. People have different opinions, it's the essence of a debate. Yet you respond emotionally and rather rudely with a string of petty insults and a sarcastic end comment? Says a lot about how well educated you are.

In regards to your comment about the essence of a debate, it is important to consider the larger context and the impact that these debates can have on real people and their experiences. Racism and inequality have been debated for centuries, and while discussions and debates are a crucial part of the process of creating change, they must also be informed by a deep understanding of the history and the ongoing effects of these issues.

In my view, it is not appropriate to dismiss the experiences and perspectives of minority groups and their advocates as simply a matter of opinion. Racism is a systemic issue that has real and lasting effects on the lives of millions of people, and it is important to approach these conversations with empathy and a commitment to finding solutions.

I am not being sarcastic or petty at all. I definitely hope he gets a TC, but I will simply not waste my time continuing or tolerating the conversation. There is no "civil, logical manner" about asking us how minorities have "fought tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity". That's blatantly disrespectful to those who have lead the way for us. And don't tell me that it was a genuine question, because everyone knows who Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther, or Rosa Parks is.

 

[NotLord Denning]

I am struggling to see where I suggested that your intention was to cause offence. I don't think you intended to do so at all. However, regardless of your intention your choice of language could have been better, it came across in a negative and ableist manner and in a legal career the language you actually use is important!

regardless, this isn't a legal situation. It's a debate held in good faith and I think a more prudent way to settle things would literally just be to ask what I meant instead of demanding I change the language I use

 

[NotLord Denning]

In regards to your comment about the essence of a debate, it is important to consider the larger context and the impact that these debates can have on real people and their experiences. Racism and inequality have been debated for centuries, and while discussions and debates are a crucial part of the process of creating change, they must also be informed by a deep understanding of the history and the ongoing effects of these issues.

In my view, it is not appropriate to dismiss the experiences and perspectives of minority groups and their advocates as simply a matter of opinion. Racism is a systemic issue that has real and lasting effects on the lives of millions of people, and it is important to approach these conversations with empathy and a commitment to finding solutions.

I am not being sarcastic or petty at all. I definitely hope he gets a TC, but I will simply not waste my time continuing or tolerating the conversation. There is no "civil, logical manner" about asking us how minorities have "fought tooth and nail to be given equality of opportunity". That's blatantly disrespectful to those who have lead the way for us. And don't tell me that it was a genuine question, because everyone knows who Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther, or Rosa Parks is.

You are literally engaging in viewpoint discrimination that is antithetical to the most basic of free speech principles. Just because you personally think an idea is untouchable does not mean that is the reality. Every idea is up for debate. If it is so iron-clad then you should be able to defend it. And that still doesn't excuse your rudeness