Garrick Club

assuming more of a reflection of certain behaviors rather than religious affiliation. huge assumption but i presume none of these gentlemen join in an effort to be harassed by annoying fellow members. i'm envisioning the process tends to lend itself to people of similar personalities; discrete and trustworthy in a boys club kind of way. anyone known to be poor at handling their liquor or in your face loud and annoying might not pass the vetting process.

I didn’t get that from his article but given the number of senior Jewish judges who have been members (Lord Brown, Lord Neuberger for eg) I’d say that’s disgraceful of him to say unless he has evidence. I’m no fan of the Garrick but seriously that’s an appalling accusation to make without concrete evidence.

@CurlsnSunshinetime4tea the food is very good. (It used to be notoriously terrible.)

I believe that all members have to agree and that someone can be turned down on the basis of one rejection.

Separately, the journalist Giles Coren appears to have suggested, writing in the Times about the Garrick recently, that he was possibly blackballed (is that the term?) on the basis of his Jewishness. He drew an analogy with the rejection of Oliver Letwin some years before, if I remember correctly. Shocking if correct.

@Dexysmidnightstroller but if your wealthy and successful and vetted by 100? No clue as to the size or number who need to agree. You’re not in need of a career boost (or much of one).
No clue if the food is good, but probably a quiet refuge if doing something in London.

The word “invidious” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. I assume she isn’t trying to ban BME associations or women’s networking, so who decides what’s acceptable?

We all want a fairer world, but I’m struggling to see how you could justify interfering with some clubs but not all.

The Lady chief justice didn’t seem to agree with you.

And Helena Kennedy has argued for a US-style system that would bar judges from joining the Garrick. The US federal code of conduct for judges says they “should not hold membership in any organisation that practises invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin”, adding that such membership “gives rise to perceptions that the judge’s partiality is impaired”.

A small number of already wealthy and successful women will join I expect, but if anyone thinks a large number will join and gain a career boost from all the networking I suspect we will be disappointed.

Assuming that the Garrick is all fine now, however, that leaves the other clubs and the question I posed earlier about how anyone could regulate to end any perceived or real unfairness.

But @Dexysmidnightstroller with the membership voting for women, some of the members will push and begin the process. You may not want to trust the process but certainly worth giving them 1yr.
Due to confidentiality though it may not be made public.

Yes, which doesn’t mean any or certainly not many will be able to join, as there’s no obligation on the club to accept any application.

Which leaves the basic problem unanswered. How do you develop a law which bans single sex clubs you don’t like (The Savage Club in London for eg still excludes women, and has some barristers / judges as members), but allows women-only networks and clubs?

Yes, they did once the negative publicity started, much like the actors et al who suddenly discovered after 30 years of membership it was unconscionable. (Or David Walliams and his damascene conversion about hosting the presidents club).

But @Dexysmidnightstroller the vote has passed. Women will now be allowed, via the complex admission process.

‘At least four judges resign from men-only Garrick Club after backlash’
Guardian, 25 March 2024

Wasn’t just because of the Garrick, it was because the father (it was a domestic abuse case) was also a member. Same would have applied if they both belonged to another club. Charlotte Proudman made a lot of noise about the Garrick but doesn’t always help her own cause nor that of women generally.

‘High Court judge removed from overseeing rape case over Garrick Club membership’
The Independent, 15 April 2024

Nor would I, but that doesn’t mean the Garrick has to be banned. Even now women are being admitted, the vast majority of lawyers male and female won’t become members. The ones I know who are members dismiss its importance on the basis networking is frowned upon, the club is about escapism not more work.

Having said that, I agree appearance of bias is important, but so is freedom of association.

If I was a bloke and belonged to the Garrick I’d think it was not right that it’s closed to women when it’s such an influential place. So I wouldn’t be a member. I don’t necessarily think it’s the place of law to correct this - it’s very disappointing that so many of the patriarchy at this club think it’s ok. They need to take a good look at themselves.

I don’t think it was any secret that many senior judges et al belonged. And mere membership wasn’t enough to exclude them from cases, it would have to be where there was a clear risk of bias eg if a judge had proposed a litigant for membership.

I don’t believe anyone is suggesting a change to the law. What actually happened was that the Garrick membership list was leaked to the media, which showed that many in the British establishment were members, the King, the Cabinet Secretary, the heads of MI5/6, the Deputy PM, many of the most senior judges, etc, etc.

This led some members to resign, as they couldn’t be seen to be members of a club that excluded women, particularly those in the public sector. And some judges were forced to recuse themselves from some cases, as it was suggested that as members of a female excluding club they could not impartially judge certain cases.

I believe the club has now voted to admit women, as so many prominent members were threatening to leave. Any women who are proposed by a sitting member (it might have to be by two) will still have to be voted in by the entire membership.

This doesn’t affect most of us, but is merely illustrative of how women are still often excluded from the very male establishment.

Meaning what exactly? Obviously no one who belongs to the Garrick or any other club thinks it’s a bad thing. The question is what change to the Equality Act or anything else would bring about the result you’re hoping for.

Well it’s basic morality, really. Look at your club and see if it is something to be proud of and trumpet. If it’s not you’re doing something wrong.

I’m not being disingenuous, just pointing out that it isn’t easy to ban something without banning a lot of other things as well. You’re presumably not suggesting an Act of Parliament saying “The Garrick is banned but other clubs all fine”. So, what is your criteria for allowing some clubs/organisations but not others?

Ah don’t be so disingenuous we are discussing the Garrick FFS

But how do you decide which clubs are allowed to exist and which aren’t? Monitoring memberships until a percentage of important people join then close it down?

Oh that women's clubs were stuffed to the same extent with MPs, judges etc.

And you think people who go there behave like they’re at some insufferable corporate meet and greet? Even if it was true you’d also have to close women’s networks and every support group by the same logic