- Long hair was all the rage, and premature balding was a dead giveaway that someone had contracted syphilis.
WHY DO BRITISH LAWYERS STILL WEAR WIGS?
WRITTEN BY LAURIE L. DOVE
- Wigs, when not used to cover syphilis-related hair loss, were a big help for those who had lice.
- Long hair was all the rage, and premature balding was a dead giveaway that someone had contracted syphilis.
But when was the last time you saw lawyer or judge wearing a powdered wig?
Lawyers in Hong Kong still wear garb that calls back to their days as a colony.
Barristers must wear a wig slightly frizzed at the crown, with horizontal curls on the sides and back.
In the 17th century, only the elite wore powdered wigs made of horsehair.
Wigs began to catch on in the late 16th century when an increasing number of people in Europe were contracting the STD. Without widespread treatment with antibiotics (Sir Alexander Fleming didn't discover penicillin, the treatment for syphilis, until 1928),
When it comes to trend-starters, no one had a bigger
Although aristocrats and those who wished to remain in good social standing were quick to adopt the practice of
Over time, wigs fell out of fashion with society as a whole. During the reign of England's King George III, from 1760 to 1820, wigs were worn by only a few — namely bishops, coachmen and those in the legal profession.
In 2007, though, new dress rules did away with barrister wigs — for the most part.
Wigs, however, remain in use in criminal cases.
The habit persists, though. "It is a little bit odd when you think of it, but I think this phenomenon has a symbolic aspect to it,"
More from Law
1/ After a good night's sleep, I have a few thoughts on the impending Ripple lawsuit.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
Less schadenfreude, more "what now?" https://t.co/a0oTwblBHB
BREAKING: The @SEC_News intends to sue @ripple over its sale of XRP, alleging the cryptocurrency is an unregistered security according to @bgarlinghouse.@nikhileshde reportshttps://t.co/7Z3KSWk7dn
— CoinDesk (@CoinDesk) December 22, 2020
2/ First of all, the USG is going to lose.
I don't even need to read the complaint. They might force a settlement, but they're outclassed on legal.
Remember Ripple engaged former SEC Chair Mary Jo White in a civil matter in 2018. A hint of their
3/ Second, the USG should lose.
The SEC restrictions on non-accredited investors; the ridiculous Howey test; 80 year old securities law like the "40 Act" all need to die in fire. They are un-American and completely outdated.
I hope Ripple wins. (WUT?)
4/ Third, it's incumbent upon industry to self-police and hold the moral high ground.
I give certain individuals A's and others F's, but as a whole, the most powerful people and companies generally take a Swiss neutrality stance on assets.
So we're effectively in this together.
5/ We're "in this together" to draw lines of regulatory demarcation.
XRP as a "security" further hurts the U.S. businesses while global comps will continue to make these markets.
XRP as a security also means other assets will meet the same fate. At least Ripple has $ to fight.
How to avoid (successful) accusations of defamation on Twitter. A few thoughts from someone who is NOT a libel lawyer, but does say very critical things about named individuals. 1/
1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact. https://t.co/1PkiI4olib
2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.
Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/
I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/
1. Facts are different from opinions. But stating an opinion can imply a fact. https://t.co/1PkiI4olib
2. When I tweet I aim to be sure A. I show the *facts* I am basing my *opinion* on. B. I have good reason to believe the *facts* are true. C. My opinion is reasonable based on the facts.
Here I am calling Arron Banks a racist (opinion). Pointing out this is because he called for mosques to be demolished (fact). 4/
Reminder: https://t.co/KpWzq0aF8C is run by Arron Banks who called for British mosques to be demolished. They\u2019ve always been openly racist. https://t.co/n8uppHUqQ5
— Simon Cox (@SimonFRCox) October 9, 2019
I can prove this fact - and others - about what Banks has said. And I can justify why in my opinion that shows he’s a racist. 5/