it is a newspaper magazine and a “serious” in most part (political stories, economy etc)!!!if you saw our “hello” and “ok” etc you would see the exact same “overkill”!!! 😉
I found this article in “the Independent”. To me it sounds, that AC is a highprofile lawyer:
Friday 13 February 2015
If Amal Clooney wins the ‘Hooded Man’ case, the embarrassment for the UK would be huge
The human rights lawyer is fighting on behalf of a group of Irish men who claim to have been beaten, starved and thrown from helicopters by British forces.
Amal Clooney is about to take on one of her biggest legal challenges yet – accusing the British government of committing torture in Troubles-era Northern Ireland, then then lying about it to the European Court of Human Rights.
The accusations will be levelled in a high-profile case due to come before the Strasbourg Court. The outcome could rewrite the law books and help to combat the use of torture globally.
Here’s what happened. In August 1971 the UK authorities arrested and interned hundreds of men in Northern Ireland. Fourteen were selected for “special treatment” in a specially-built interrogation centre at a British Army camp.
The men claim they were subjected to “five techniques” of hooding, stress positions, white noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and water – combined with brutal beatings and death threats. Some were also reportedly thrown from helicopters while their heads were covered with hoods.
Allegations soon emerged of abuse. In the same year, Amnesty International sent its first ever research mission to the UK to investigate, interviewing the men and finding some of them still black and blue with bruises.
What Amal Clooney – who has just joined the legal team representing the surviving men – must prove, is that the abuse amounted to torture, rather than the lesser category of “inhuman and degrading treatment”. The distinction is crucial.
The original case was brought by the Irish government on behalf of the men, the first time one European state had brought another before the Strasbourg court. In 1978 the court concluded that the “five techniques” inflicted on the men constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but not torture.
The judgment has since become a cornerstone of international human rights law. So much so, that when lawyers in the United States Attorney General’s office prepared legal advice to pave the way for the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation programme”, they reached for the Ireland v UK case, arguing that its judgment allowed “an aggressive interpretation as to what amounts to torture”.
With the publication in December of the Senate Committee’s summary Torture Report, the world has seen where that legal reasoning led: the brutal torture of detainees around the world and irreparable damage to the reputation of the US.
All this came to pass, it is now alleged, because the British government of the time decided to withhold documents from the European Court of Human Rights, rather than be reviled internationally for the torture of its own citizens in Northern Ireland. Twelve of the original Twelve of the original “hooded men” who are being represented by Amal Clooney
The “hooded men” case is now being brought back to court by Ireland’s government after material was uncovered in the British national archives revealing that the UK withheld crucial evidence from the European Court during the original hearing.
The files show that the British government considered the “special treatment” as torture and yet senior Ministers sanctioned its use in Northern Ireland, both of which they had denied before the European Court.
Amal Clooney and the rest of the hooded men’s legal team now must show that the UK only succeeded in persuading the court to absolve it of torturing its own citizens by actively misleading judges.
More serious charges could scarcely be made: torture, and lying to the European Court. If Ireland, the hooded men and Amal Clooney succeed with this case, the implications are potentially huge.
Success in Strasbourg would be very embarrassing for the UK government. But thanks to Amal Clooney, it could also set a new legal precedent which would hinder the use of such torture techniques in the future, and after all these decades, such a precedent couldn’t be more welcome……..
The critical question to ask is this: would Amal Clooney, a junior, be highlighted in this way were it not for her marriage to George Clooney? If the answer is no, then she does not have the profile you claim.
“To me it sounds, that AC is a highprofile lawyer”.
Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to sound. It’s been written to give that impression. There is no mention of the number of lawyers on the team, their roles or their names.
Even the identities and names of the “hooded men” aren’t mentioned. Thus, the focus of this article is the heroine named AC and the hooded men, are merely faceless, nameless people whose importance to the case is secondary.
Now read the article again and see if you can notice the journalistic slant and overinflation of AC’s contribution.
This is not to demean her qualifications. It’s to alert the younger readers here as to how far reaching Amal’s PR machine is.
While the PR machine may improve AC’s public profile and win her (and her boss) more clients, I’m afraid it may not win her much respect from her colleagues, who see her contribution inflated at the expense of others’. This is especially so if they have to work long hours while AC spends time on haute couture fittings. It’s not easy to find a balance.
It really seems unfortunate to me that you two – jon231 and esr – seem totally and, again, predictably, so intent on being iconoclasts on the subject of amal clooney and her career. Why do you keep insisting that it is her or George Clooney’s “PR machine” working overtime to make her look more qualified or important than she may be? Shouldn’t it be obvious to two such erudite and sophisticated posters as you hold yourselves out to be that the certainty with which you put all this negativity out puts you in the same category as all those tabloid commenters who simply don’t realize that it is the MEDIA that initiates, distorts and then relentlessly repeats these exaggerations and not the human being you are keep insisting on putting down? So far as I understand, Amal Clooney has never publicly said or done anything to warrant all your assumptions. Perhaps I may be among only a few who have been following Nati’s blog since its beginning and are increasingly put off by your constant criticism, but somehow i doubt it.
Am I the only one who finds it astounding – to say the least – that a lady who decided to live in Great Britain and make a living in that country frequently seems to accepts cases that makes this very country look bad?
Like in: GB has allegedly ‘stolen’ the Elgin Marbles, GB has allegedly mistreated the ‘hooded men’ … i am curious to learn about future cases.
There are certainly cases dealing with humanitarian issues where Amal and the law-firm employing her might work FOR instead of AGAINST her country of choice!
I don’t see any issue with this. That’s the entire point of the justice system. One takes cases with complete independence, regardless of who the other side is. If we only advocated for those we felt some loyalty to, there would be no rule of law to speak of. Besides, Doughty Street hardly takes on government work, they have a mantra which is to represent the voiceless and vulnerable – and the government is neither. If they elected to do government work, they would be better paid and have more financial security in current times, so it is commendable that they continue to take on cases that challenge the big guns. It exemplifies the best quality of the bar – independence.
Susanna – Please identify exactly where I have said that Amal’s “PR” machine makes her seem more qualified than she is? Please explain where I have ever said that she is responsible for misleading the public about her reputation? If you are to critique me, please do so with some degree of precision.
There is nothing uncontroversial about commenting on the fact that, sans marriage, she would not enjoy such a profile. Her qualifications, as commendable as they are, do not alone make her a “high profile” barrister – were that the case, 80% of the Bar would be equally, if not more, high profile. I come to this blog with a degree of measure, tempering the ill-informed ravings of the mass media. Should you prefer to read such ravings, you are welcome to ignore my posts.
I’ve been reading your comments of late and have found them very informative, ESR. As an academic scientist, I have no idea what the work of a barrister entails. I do realize, however, that a lot of the PR about Amal is mere hype. That’s been obvious from the start. The public didn’t know who Amal was before George Clooney came along and dated her.
I am sure that Amal didn’t marry for anything more than money and fame. She seems content to let her career go, and her employer appears to enjoy the fame (at least for now for certain cases). Maybe she even loves George, too. Her family seems eager to cash in on the fame as well.
Does this make me hate her? No, even though at first I had very mixed feelings about her and her work. I just view her as another celebrity, another trophy wife in the making. Therefore, my expectations have been adjusted, I don’t bother considering the hype, and I focus solely on the fashion.
Between Amal and George, that is true love and a beautiful love story. It is only my perception. Your reflection reminds me the hate campaign againt the Middleton. There are advantages, but not only.
Hi Nati,
Not sure who you’re responding to, but there’s nothing wrong with marrying for fame or money, if the person admits that that is what he/she wanted. If George was a janitor cleaning toilets in hotels, I’m pretty sure Amal wouldn’t have married him, no matter what his appearance or sense of humor do to his ability to attract members of the opposite sex. Same with Kate Middleton and her spouse.
But, look at it another way: George wouldn’t have married Amal if she looked like “Mama June.” Neither would William have married Kate. So, the deal is, once again, nothing more than an exchange for a young, attractive woman (still of child-bearing age) and money and power. An alien who just landed on Earth from outer space would likely point this obvious truth to all of us.
If they admit that’s what they did, then more power to them. I’m all for people taking an honest assessment of their motives and actions and living their truths. To portray their actions as something else – more “noble” or “grand” – is what bothers me.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone wasting their time and energy on hating celebrities, though. My advice: take it as it is and ignore the press (both the good and the bad). The photos give us something to talk about and fashion to critique, and Amal is beautiful, regardless of what she wear (honestly, I don’t know what anyone sees in George, though – he’s SO not my cup of tea; travel anywhere on the Mediterranean, walk into any coffee or tea shop, and I guarantee you that you will find at least one dude sitting there who looks and acts like he could be George Clooney’s brother). Actually, I also like to check out Kate Middleton’s wardrobe from time-to-time, too (but don’t participate in any discussions about her online; I might just leave this one, too).
Amal Clooney is a junior part of a team which has Geoffrey Robertson, a decades-long human rights advocate at its helm. He is the guiding force. Read this – from 2005 – http://www.geoffreyrobertson.com/tortureforeward.html
I really wish this need to elevate Amal beyond what she is would stop. (a) it’s so insulting to the other people who are working on this and other h/r cases and (b) it takes attention away from the people whose rights are being defended. THEY are who matter, not the people presenting their case.
Why is it not enough that she’s part of the team? Surely that in itself is worthy enough? Why does she have to be presented and be seen as the lead and the hero?
I agree with Morna. There is nothing inadequate in Amal being part of the team. Her role will be a contribution to the total effort but to keep talking as if she is the lead is insulting to the others in the team, embarrassing to Amal herself, and totally unnecessary. She is OK as she is in the professional role she has. It bewilders me, this need of some to turn her into something she is not. She’s smart, almost certainly good at her job, so why is this not enough?
Geoffrey didn’t do too bad with his marriage BTW. He married Kathy Lette and I have no doubt Kathy’s reading this blog and physically restraining herself from contributing!! Now Kathy’s an incisive mind if I ever saw one – would love to know Kathy’s real views on Amal as she is now, not the PR version Kathy offered before Amal’s wedding!
Thank you Morna and ESR. It is within Amal’s capacity to amend this misrepresentation and one must wonder at the ethical and moralistic reasons why she chooses not to.
I thank you Morna for providing the link to Geoffrey Robertson’s article – in it, he highlights the following:
“……For the purposes of the European Convention, the distinction between “torture” and “inhuman treatment” does not matter other than to calculation of damages. Both techniques are prohibited.”
‘….the calculation of damages…’….and there it is again – money – so, no one is pursuing this case for the good of mankind, even though this will be the guise presented.
‘Calculation of damages’ is just a legal term used to assess an individual’s right to compensation. In any case, it’s an unreasonable expectation that lawyers should work for nothing. It’s a business, same as any other profession. There’s a perfectly decent middle ground where paid and pro-bono cases sit happily side by side, and they do at Doughty St Chambers. Geoffrey Robertson is a powerhouse of commitment to civil liberties and if anyone doubts that, have a browse through the essays at the link I gave in my earlier post.
Anyway, back to Amal, the problem, as I see it, is that while she has no control over her new celebrity status (that’s just a fact, she’s married to a very high profile celeb, and the media interest is part and parcel of that), she does have control over how she deals with it and, most importantly, how she uses this new visibility, most particularly in the way it impacts on her professional life.
Her Chambers are using, with her willing consent, this new elevated ‘Clooney’ profile to bring international attention to their cases. And that would be fine, except for the fact that it’s backfiring badly because it’s the tabloid ‘Clooney Celebrity’ profile that’s getting all the attention, with the cause getting lost in the gossipy world of her willingess to feed that profile (the endless fashion shows, the relentless PR push, the OTT endless and relentless blatherings of her husband). Amal has to take responsibility for that.
It lessens her, and lessens the causes she champions.
I like her and really hope she figures out a way of balancing her celebrity profile with her professional life.
I completely agree with you, Morna. I don’t know how it works in show business but I don’t get it either. On the one hand it’s good that these cases come to the attention of the public and bring some sort of awareness but on the other hand, it’s a bit unfair to all the other people who are working hard on these cases too. Maybe George wants to make her a star and that’s why he doesn’t shut up about her in interviews. 🙂 Or the press just wants a new hero. Who knows? But I do think that journalists should at least acknowledge that other lawyers are involved too. Although I am not underestimating her intelligence and capability.
If I were Amal, I wouldn’t want all of this attention to my work. It would make me uncomfortable but maybe she likes it. Again, who knows?
Good Morning Ladies,
thank YOU very much for your answers. I would not feel good being Amal, when the other persons of that staff aren’t mentioned in the newspapers, while working perhaps even harder on These cases? Do you think, that the others do not complain, because the boss says Publicity is the best advertising for our company?
Hopefully you understand my strange English.
I really don’t think her colleagues care. As I’ve said, it is far better for counsel NOT to receive publicity. If you’re good, you don’t need media attention to get cases. In fact, it can be a hindrance.
Another lesson to be learned from all this is how pandering and petty the press can be. Why do journalists so shamelessly inflate Amal’s profile, whether or not she and GC are waging a concerted PR campaign? After all, they’re supposed to check facts and seek other perspectives on a story, right? Because she is currently the celebrity de jour, and making her the “hook” for a story like the hooded men gets more clicks, and more clicks equal more money. The downside of this, from a celebrity’s point of view, is that journalists can and will turn on a dime and begin to attack the same celebrity they have helped put on a pedestal. And so now we see stories with headlines like “Amal Clooney sent packing after she sticks her lawyer nose into Elgin Marbles row,” “Greece snubs Amal Clooney over Elgin Marbles,” or this double whammy, “Greece WON’T pursue Elgin Marbles through courts after rejecting advice of George Clooney’s wife Amal.”
Of course. And this is precisely why barristers have, for hundreds of years, been as understated and deliberately low-profile as they can be. Clients want discretion, the case should never be about the advocate. The advocate, in my view, is nothing more than an advisor and a mouthpiece for their client. However, there are other barristers who believe in being more than this – they see their role as what some academics call a ‘friend’, one who campaigns on behalf of their client. When one does this, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the client and their counsel. At this point, the entire arrangement can become highly personal.
Yes, ESR, but surely “understated” and “deliberately low-profile” aren’t adjectives you would use to describe Geoffrey Roberston? Don’t you think he has successfully used the media to raise his own profile as well as those of his cases? Amal wears GV, Roberston has been called “a knight in shining Armani.” Amal is married to the world’s most lusted-over former bachelor, Roberston’s wife is a a famous “clit-lit” novelist. I know very little about the world of human rights barristers in the U.K., but perhaps Amal is just following in her mentor’s footsteps?
Janet – Robertson is not quite as straightforward. I would say this. Robertson is, first and foremost, an exceptional barrister. There is nothing to detract from that. His record is impeccable. The profile of his cases has absolutely no bearing on his abilities – he has done plenty of work under the radar, and – like all barristers – cut their teeth in empty courtrooms. That is the first material difference. Robertson can afford to be a campaigner and court the media when he fancies it, because he has a proven track record of real substance. He has something to say.
The next thing is, like it or not, Robertson is not a woman married to a movie star. And, in our shallow society, this does matter. The media will do anything to reduce a woman to the bare fundamentals – and some of the “controversy” this blog sparks by even trying to discuss Amal’s career rather than just her “style” is an indication of that. I had no idea Robertson was called “A Knight in Shining Armani”, and I can’t say I have noticed him wearing anything but the same suits everyone else wears. It is his reputation, not his clothing choices, that precedes him.
I can’t say that GR has “used” the media to raise his own profile. There is a difference between a brilliant advocate attracting attention because he has the standing to lead on controversial and high profile cases, and an advocate whose cases *become* high profile because they have taken them. GR is the former, Amal the latter.
You won’t find every case GR taking splashed across the headlines, you won’t see GR’s wife talking about his work in the press, you won’t have him photographed every time he enters a court room, and you won’t see most people talking about what he wears. So yes, I would say that he is understated and low profile. Certainly not as much as your typical Chancery barrister, but understated enough to get on with his job without his clients saying they fear the case becoming a “circus” (Amal’s Irish client’s quip).
I can see that Amal is trying to keep her private and professional life separate, she probably tries not to think of herself as a celebrity for her own sanity. Unfortunately, she now is a celebrity, and trying to keep her lives separate is proving problematic.
Thanks ESR. I get the difference. I only know what I read in the press about Geoffrey Robertson, and we all know how reliable that can be. So what I’ve read has focused not only on his legal brilliance, but also his TV show and the “human minestrone” parties his wife throws, which include everyone from Salman Rushdie to her hairdresser (she sounds like quite a character).
And yes, as a woman Amal is, as you say, “reduced to the fundamentals.” On the other hand, she does nothing to discourage this — in fact, she exacerbates it with her super vampy shoes and her pricey designer threads. Among American feminists, there are two trains of thought about this. Women like Camille Paglia would say that Amal should use the image of her sexuality to increase her personal and professional power. In our shallow culture, as you say, this is playing with fire. I dislike Amal’s materialism and the greed it represents, but it will be fascinating to how she continues to craft her image, and whether she is able to combine sexuality, celebrity and professionalism for some greater good.
Well – I learn something new every day. I won’t be able to see GR the same way again!
As for Amal… well said. I am inclined to agree with you that she gives plenty of fodder to those seeking to reduce her to the bare fundamentals. I have no doubt that this is not her intention – she is probably just being herself and enjoying new found love/wealth – but these things have a way of trickling down and affecting areas of one’s professional life. I believe another commentator noted that George said in an interview “We get papped all the time…she needs to stop being so fashionable!” And there is wisdom in that. I expected, pre-marriage, that the only way she would manage to juggle the different areas of her life would be by maintaining a low profile and some normality. But the excesses of the wedding and everything thereafter put paid to that expectation! It will be interesting to see how things unfold.
One more small thing, but very much related to Amal getting/accepting centre stage on the various ongoing cases she and her chamber are involved with. The Greeks have decided not to pursue the return of the marbles, for the moment. And it’s being reported as a rejection of Amal Clooney’s advice. The reality is, time and place, and not a priority for a country desperately trying to turn its economy around, but the media message is Amal Clooney has failed.
As I said earlier, it’s for this reason that she needs to take a step back. By letting her Chamber use her to attract attention, she’s also opening herself up to being the face of failure.
I agree with your comments. The “publicity” thing is backfiring. As ESR also mentioned, it is better is she worked on her cases in a more low key manner. On the other hand, maybe she can use the fame she has to publicize the human rights cases she works on AFTER they are done. the public needs to be aware of what’s happening around them because these cases affect us all.
A question for ESR (or anyone else who knows the answer!) – is it usual for barristers to wear their English court robes to the European Court of Human Rights? George Clooney mentioned being so proud of Amal wearing her robes in court and I just remembered that I was wondering about this!
There is no requirement to wear robes at the ECtHR (just like at the UK Supreme Court), it is up to the advocate. In all my years, I have not seen a barrister opt to wear robes when they have the option not to. Robes are uncomfortable, are always slipping down at the shoulders, and are easy to trip over because they get in the way. When one has the option not to wear them, one doesn’t! It’s like turning up at school in your uniform on a non-uniform day.
Geoffrey Robertson QC frequently appears before the Supreme Court unrobed, so I was very surprised to see him opt for legal robes at the ECtHR with Ms Clooney. And then of course, if one is to wear robes where is the wig? Or did they decide against the wig because wigs just make one look a little silly? And so what is the point of appearing at a European Court, ‘half-dressed’ in English robes (sans wigs) when no other advocates bother? Well, far beyond me to speculate on why anyone would do such a thing.
What on earth does it matter? She felt like wearing her robe that day without the wig so she did that. Is it required to wear both a robe and a wig? I’m from a civil law country so I didn’t notice it. And I do think a wig looks a bit silly. Why the UK holds on to this custom, I don’t know… A robe suffices in my opinion.
Esra – if you wear a robe, you wear a wig. It is part of the get up (yes, yes, very archaic, that’s another discussion). I am not the only one to notice this – Britain’s foremost legal commentator, and lawyer, Joshua Rozenberg, also tweeted that it was very odd to turn up a) wearing robes, and b) robed and not wigged. Made many people in the profession suspect that the robes were worn more for the photographers than the Court.
Why does it matter? Well, in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. But it may tell you something of the mindset. Or maybe both AC and GR are just such chic trendsetters that this extends to their legal wear too! Anyway – hope that answers your question Jane.
Seriously, ESR…your comments are such a joy to read.
I’m soon gonna start a blog about you!!
Either that, or I’m going to commit a crime just to have you defend me 😉
I read this morning, that J. Roberts is a big Fan of her, too. AC is smart, has a great sense of humor, is beautiful and has a fantastic figure. Some pounds more on her would even look better. Above all, she seems to be caring and is still in love with her husband.
I agree with those commentators, who prefer the pre wedding Style, e.g. Paule Ka.
ESR i am extremely happy to have ur presence on this blog. I truely hope ur comments are never censored. I am a doctor and know nothing about the legal world and honestly have learnt soo much from ur comments. I often look forward to your comments. While i tend to agree with almost everything u write i also learn a lot from u.
Nati, i looove ur work. Gets more through the day to check ur blog.
Kaykay….I agree completely.
She (and I’m making an assumption here as I don’t know anyone’s gender) makes a fantastic contribution to this blog.
Soon we’ll have to put ESR on retainer 🙂
What i think is that, even though all these so long comments may contain “information” shared by these consumed commentators, such as ESR, jon321( who, btw, seems to be here 24/7 hahaha) may be interesting, i also find it way too looooooong! I wish Nati would limit the comments to less words, because it is becoming a court room here and it is taking away the fun of this blog, which i thought to be a refreshing and light outlook on Amal’s fashion and news (not a total judgement of her persona, her life and career, based on media speculations) to let people, who are her fans to get updates on her. All these writers of such long speeches needs to get a REAL job and stop making a case of her every move! It is hard to admire the ones who come across as so brilliant here, when at the same time it is strange how they find the time to be here wasting their brilliance in judging Amal? Jon321, you are so obsessed with your conspiracy theory of an Amal’s “PR Machine”, but i wonder… maybe YOU are a PR machine against Amal? Just keep in mind that, while you are wasting so much time being here speculating so deep into her life, she is living it, and living it good! It makes me wonder.. do you get paid to be here building up a case against her? All this serious discussions is pretty BORING!! One cannot even concentrate on the fun and sweet and light superficiality that this blog intends, because one is dragged into such deep lingering speculations. No mater how much you try to bring on your “facts”, it is still only assumptions. To come here and enjoy Nati’s pictures and IDs are all fun and THANK YOU Nati! YOU ROCK!! But to come here to read a whole lecture on complex legal subject is inadequate. I think ESR, jon321, should create their own Amal forum geared towards “dissecting” Amal. There you can write 100 pages briefs on her profession and on what you assume is the truth. I strongly believe you are misplaced here and it is taking the easy-going fun of this blog. It is becoming YOUR blog now? One is coming here to read you?? Not what i intended. I come here when i want to break away from serious topics and just have a little light fun. If i wanted to dig into dissecting a human being, i would go to a science lab 🙂
Even though your comment didn’t refer to me…I have to comment that….do you think you set a good example with your “short” comment? We have a saying in Greece that goes sth like: “Priechers who priech….”
And to any who think answers from ESR/IB/JON321 etc…think its too long or offensive or anything…no one is making you read them or reply to them. I enjoy reading them and I want to continue reading them cause I find them interesting!!!!If comments like that don’t suit you, you are more than welcome not to engage, just look at the pictures and ID’s and move on….commenting and answering isn’t mandatory!!!!
If you want a one-dimensional picture of Amal, perhaps you should stick to just looking at pics of her. 🙂
This thread is about her work since there’s not much to say about a pic of her on the cover of a magazine. If you’re not interested in her work, why not just stick to the threads that revolve around what she’s wearing and how she looks and let those of us who like a little substance with our style carry on our conversation. 🙂
Sweet lemon
1. is there a problem if someone is here 24/7
2. why do you think that this blog intends superficiality?
3. Why is it wrong to doubt if someone has a PR campaign behind it all?
4. Are you serious when you’re taking about how Nati should decide to put a word count limit?Did you check out how long is your comment? 😀
”Never worry about what I’m doing. Only worry about why you’re worried about what I’m doing” (cit.).
First of all, let me say ‘hi’ as I don’t recall ever seeing your comments
before (if you have, my apologies as I didn’t notice the name).
Welcome to all the fun!
Secondly, I find it very funny that you complain that some posts are too ‘looooooong’, yet you write a very ‘looooooong’ comment to say so. I appreciate the irony in that – thanks for the chuckle this morning. Good thing Nati didn’t take your advice or we’d never know what you were trying to say. 😉
I notice you made the comment ‘All these writers of such long speeches needs [sic] to get a REAL job…’ You may have missed my post a while back but I was saying that I surmise that we have, on this blog, a doctor, a lawyer, a psychiatrist/mental health professional, a medical academic (perhaps a PhD), a writer, an architect, and a therapist….among others (I obviously don’t know who everyone is). These seem like ‘real’ jobs to me but maybe you have a different definition for ‘real’?
You make it quite clear in your comment that you do not want to read ‘a whole lecture on complex legal subject’ and that you don’t want to be ‘dragged into such deep lingering speculations’.
If you feel this way then I whole heartedly agree with and support you. That is YOUR right.
You should definitely ignore the comments of ESR and Jon321 and others who type long emails that you don’t like to read or you deem are too deep with speculation. This will take care of your problem once and for all.
HOWEVER, please don’t punish those of us who actually like to think….and ponder…and question…and wonder….and learn….and push back….and muse….and delve deeper into a topic. That is MY right. If we were to do as you suggest, and ‘concentrate on the fun and sweet and light superficiality’ only, I wouldn’t be here. I can only comment on the color of someone’s lipstick so many times.
Personally, I LOVE Jon321’s comments. She is articulate, bright, funny, quick, rational, and she comes at this topic from a divergent viewpoint. She provokes us to think…and is willing to defend everything she says. I really look forward to reading her comments. SHE is one of the reasons why I come to this blog. ESR is another. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with either of them ….you are missing the point. It’s about getting a different, well presented, intelligent perspective…one that makes us think and grow. They raise the bar here (no pun intended) and we are very fortunate to have both of them contribute. There are other women on this blog that add a lot as well but as you only mentioned ESR and Jon321, I will limit my comments to them.
So, to answer your question – yes, I AM here to read Jon321 & ESR’s comments…and all the comments of the other people here as well. I enjoy them all. Variety is the spice of life!
As a side note: In an earlier post, I believe Jon321 has made her reasons for being on this blog very clear. You may have overlooked that one as it was a long post.
The beauty of this blog is that we can both get what we want out of it. You can look at the pictures and the IDs and stop there….and I will do the same but I will also scroll down further for all the comments. See, we can both be happy here.
Hopefully you’ll read this reply but maybe not…. I’m probably over my word limit 😉
I am sure you enjoy these commentators so much…BECAUSE.. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!! haha Busted!! hahaha you are at least 4 people on this blog, just changing names. I am sure of that! No wonder you indulge so much into your OWN self! Don’t overdose though haha Enjoy yourSELVES…i’ve got better things to do with my time than to be here zing-zaRgguing with you.
Italian Bird, I am sure you enjoy these commentators you mentioned so much…BECAUSE.. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!! haha Busted!! hahaha you are at least 4 people on this blog, just changing names. I am sure of that! No wonder you indulge so much into your OWN self! Don’t overdose though haha Enjoy yourSELVES…i’ve got better things to do with my time than to be here zing-zaRgguing with you.
Nadia…
In an earlier reply to you I said that you were a delight.
I was wrong.
You are FANTASTIC!
I literally burst out laughing when I read your comment.
Jaysus, I needed that laugh. Thanks.
I can tell you honestly that I am not 4 people on this blog…if I were, between this and Facebook, I’d never get out of the house. 🙂
However, again I’m flattered that you think I could be them.
BTW, who are the other people that I’m supposed to be….you said I was at least 4 people?
I know you mean ESR and Jon321 but who are the others?
Interesting, SWEET-LEMON, because many of us value the discussion, which makes Nati’s blog unique. How many opportunities are there to chat with a group of intelligent and opinionated and witty women from around the world? I suggest you just skip the comments that offend your sense of fashion fun.
Yes, Sweet Lemon complained about the length of posts but she has the longest post on this thread! (Aside from phvdh who just quoted a news article). Somewhat ironic.
I find it funny that people who claim to admire Amal for her intellect are the same people who tell others to shut up for being too academic for this blog. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I for one enjoy ESR’s posts. Amal is a lawyer, you would expect other lawyers to have a view. And actually I think ESR is very fair – he/she always provides evidence for the points he/she makes, and is always careful to say when he/she is guessing or not sure. I know I’d hire them to be my lawyer!
I’m actually a law student so I am interested in Amal,but I’ve learned loads from reading ESR’s posts.
Hi everybody. I’ve been following this lovely blog more and more obsessively for a long time now. First I loved to be among other working girls that loved the idea of GC being totally taken by that brainy, cool, uniquely stylish woman (so far for the projection) and by admiration for Nati’s devotion to that blog (I really hope, you won’t stop – and that nobody tries to make you stop). Now I’m mainly here for the conversation.
That must be unique: a style-blog that discusses the ethics the Hollywood-world and its media is trying to impose on us. We love some parts of it – that’s what has brought us here, but now we question it and we are trying to make up our minds about what to think (at least that’s what I’m trying to do). I personally doubt that Amal ever had the time (or did not take that time) to ask herself all those questions and find some clarity about her thoughts and standpoint.
I love the controversy of the discussion and the openness. Please don’t stop!
Thank you Nati for supplying all those pics and IDs that trigger all those daring, critical and funny thoughts we share.
Amal Clooney Style 
From what I can see it’s an issue from February
LikeLike
I really loved that Channel look!!!!Fav of all times!!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s a very nice picture of her.
I know it’s photo-shopped but not near the overkill that some American magazines do on their cover shots.
LikeLiked by 1 person
it is a newspaper magazine and a “serious” in most part (political stories, economy etc)!!!if you saw our “hello” and “ok” etc you would see the exact same “overkill”!!! 😉
LikeLike
Ha, ha….I hear ya, Anna.
LikeLike
I found this article in “the Independent”. To me it sounds, that AC is a highprofile lawyer:
Friday 13 February 2015
If Amal Clooney wins the ‘Hooded Man’ case, the embarrassment for the UK would be huge
The human rights lawyer is fighting on behalf of a group of Irish men who claim to have been beaten, starved and thrown from helicopters by British forces.
Amal Clooney is about to take on one of her biggest legal challenges yet – accusing the British government of committing torture in Troubles-era Northern Ireland, then then lying about it to the European Court of Human Rights.
The accusations will be levelled in a high-profile case due to come before the Strasbourg Court. The outcome could rewrite the law books and help to combat the use of torture globally.
Here’s what happened. In August 1971 the UK authorities arrested and interned hundreds of men in Northern Ireland. Fourteen were selected for “special treatment” in a specially-built interrogation centre at a British Army camp.
The men claim they were subjected to “five techniques” of hooding, stress positions, white noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and water – combined with brutal beatings and death threats. Some were also reportedly thrown from helicopters while their heads were covered with hoods.
Allegations soon emerged of abuse. In the same year, Amnesty International sent its first ever research mission to the UK to investigate, interviewing the men and finding some of them still black and blue with bruises.
What Amal Clooney – who has just joined the legal team representing the surviving men – must prove, is that the abuse amounted to torture, rather than the lesser category of “inhuman and degrading treatment”. The distinction is crucial.
The original case was brought by the Irish government on behalf of the men, the first time one European state had brought another before the Strasbourg court. In 1978 the court concluded that the “five techniques” inflicted on the men constituted inhuman and degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights, but not torture.
The judgment has since become a cornerstone of international human rights law. So much so, that when lawyers in the United States Attorney General’s office prepared legal advice to pave the way for the CIA’s “enhanced interrogation programme”, they reached for the Ireland v UK case, arguing that its judgment allowed “an aggressive interpretation as to what amounts to torture”.
With the publication in December of the Senate Committee’s summary Torture Report, the world has seen where that legal reasoning led: the brutal torture of detainees around the world and irreparable damage to the reputation of the US.
All this came to pass, it is now alleged, because the British government of the time decided to withhold documents from the European Court of Human Rights, rather than be reviled internationally for the torture of its own citizens in Northern Ireland. Twelve of the original Twelve of the original “hooded men” who are being represented by Amal Clooney
The “hooded men” case is now being brought back to court by Ireland’s government after material was uncovered in the British national archives revealing that the UK withheld crucial evidence from the European Court during the original hearing.
The files show that the British government considered the “special treatment” as torture and yet senior Ministers sanctioned its use in Northern Ireland, both of which they had denied before the European Court.
Amal Clooney and the rest of the hooded men’s legal team now must show that the UK only succeeded in persuading the court to absolve it of torturing its own citizens by actively misleading judges.
More serious charges could scarcely be made: torture, and lying to the European Court. If Ireland, the hooded men and Amal Clooney succeed with this case, the implications are potentially huge.
Success in Strasbourg would be very embarrassing for the UK government. But thanks to Amal Clooney, it could also set a new legal precedent which would hinder the use of such torture techniques in the future, and after all these decades, such a precedent couldn’t be more welcome……..
LikeLike
The critical question to ask is this: would Amal Clooney, a junior, be highlighted in this way were it not for her marriage to George Clooney? If the answer is no, then she does not have the profile you claim.
LikeLike
Phvdh,
“To me it sounds, that AC is a highprofile lawyer”.
Yes, that’s how it’s supposed to sound. It’s been written to give that impression. There is no mention of the number of lawyers on the team, their roles or their names.
Even the identities and names of the “hooded men” aren’t mentioned. Thus, the focus of this article is the heroine named AC and the hooded men, are merely faceless, nameless people whose importance to the case is secondary.
Now read the article again and see if you can notice the journalistic slant and overinflation of AC’s contribution.
This is not to demean her qualifications. It’s to alert the younger readers here as to how far reaching Amal’s PR machine is.
LikeLike
While the PR machine may improve AC’s public profile and win her (and her boss) more clients, I’m afraid it may not win her much respect from her colleagues, who see her contribution inflated at the expense of others’. This is especially so if they have to work long hours while AC spends time on haute couture fittings. It’s not easy to find a balance.
LikeLike
It really seems unfortunate to me that you two – jon231 and esr – seem totally and, again, predictably, so intent on being iconoclasts on the subject of amal clooney and her career. Why do you keep insisting that it is her or George Clooney’s “PR machine” working overtime to make her look more qualified or important than she may be? Shouldn’t it be obvious to two such erudite and sophisticated posters as you hold yourselves out to be that the certainty with which you put all this negativity out puts you in the same category as all those tabloid commenters who simply don’t realize that it is the MEDIA that initiates, distorts and then relentlessly repeats these exaggerations and not the human being you are keep insisting on putting down? So far as I understand, Amal Clooney has never publicly said or done anything to warrant all your assumptions. Perhaps I may be among only a few who have been following Nati’s blog since its beginning and are increasingly put off by your constant criticism, but somehow i doubt it.
LikeLike
Susannahortego – you’re right. Amal has never published her case letters and George has never spoken about her work in interviews.
The *MEDIA* made all that up too.
LikeLike
Am I the only one who finds it astounding – to say the least – that a lady who decided to live in Great Britain and make a living in that country frequently seems to accepts cases that makes this very country look bad?
Like in: GB has allegedly ‘stolen’ the Elgin Marbles, GB has allegedly mistreated the ‘hooded men’ … i am curious to learn about future cases.
There are certainly cases dealing with humanitarian issues where Amal and the law-firm employing her might work FOR instead of AGAINST her country of choice!
LikeLike
I don’t see any issue with this. That’s the entire point of the justice system. One takes cases with complete independence, regardless of who the other side is. If we only advocated for those we felt some loyalty to, there would be no rule of law to speak of. Besides, Doughty Street hardly takes on government work, they have a mantra which is to represent the voiceless and vulnerable – and the government is neither. If they elected to do government work, they would be better paid and have more financial security in current times, so it is commendable that they continue to take on cases that challenge the big guns. It exemplifies the best quality of the bar – independence.
LikeLike
Susanna – Please identify exactly where I have said that Amal’s “PR” machine makes her seem more qualified than she is? Please explain where I have ever said that she is responsible for misleading the public about her reputation? If you are to critique me, please do so with some degree of precision.
There is nothing uncontroversial about commenting on the fact that, sans marriage, she would not enjoy such a profile. Her qualifications, as commendable as they are, do not alone make her a “high profile” barrister – were that the case, 80% of the Bar would be equally, if not more, high profile. I come to this blog with a degree of measure, tempering the ill-informed ravings of the mass media. Should you prefer to read such ravings, you are welcome to ignore my posts.
LikeLike
Sorry ESR. She’s mixing you up with me. My apologies.
LikeLike
And P.S…. Oops, I think that was Amal!!! 😬
LikeLike
I’ve been reading your comments of late and have found them very informative, ESR. As an academic scientist, I have no idea what the work of a barrister entails. I do realize, however, that a lot of the PR about Amal is mere hype. That’s been obvious from the start. The public didn’t know who Amal was before George Clooney came along and dated her.
I am sure that Amal didn’t marry for anything more than money and fame. She seems content to let her career go, and her employer appears to enjoy the fame (at least for now for certain cases). Maybe she even loves George, too. Her family seems eager to cash in on the fame as well.
Does this make me hate her? No, even though at first I had very mixed feelings about her and her work. I just view her as another celebrity, another trophy wife in the making. Therefore, my expectations have been adjusted, I don’t bother considering the hype, and I focus solely on the fashion.
LikeLike
Between Amal and George, that is true love and a beautiful love story. It is only my perception. Your reflection reminds me the hate campaign againt the Middleton. There are advantages, but not only.
LikeLike
Hi Nati,
Not sure who you’re responding to, but there’s nothing wrong with marrying for fame or money, if the person admits that that is what he/she wanted. If George was a janitor cleaning toilets in hotels, I’m pretty sure Amal wouldn’t have married him, no matter what his appearance or sense of humor do to his ability to attract members of the opposite sex. Same with Kate Middleton and her spouse.
But, look at it another way: George wouldn’t have married Amal if she looked like “Mama June.” Neither would William have married Kate. So, the deal is, once again, nothing more than an exchange for a young, attractive woman (still of child-bearing age) and money and power. An alien who just landed on Earth from outer space would likely point this obvious truth to all of us.
If they admit that’s what they did, then more power to them. I’m all for people taking an honest assessment of their motives and actions and living their truths. To portray their actions as something else – more “noble” or “grand” – is what bothers me.
I wouldn’t recommend anyone wasting their time and energy on hating celebrities, though. My advice: take it as it is and ignore the press (both the good and the bad). The photos give us something to talk about and fashion to critique, and Amal is beautiful, regardless of what she wear (honestly, I don’t know what anyone sees in George, though – he’s SO not my cup of tea; travel anywhere on the Mediterranean, walk into any coffee or tea shop, and I guarantee you that you will find at least one dude sitting there who looks and acts like he could be George Clooney’s brother). Actually, I also like to check out Kate Middleton’s wardrobe from time-to-time, too (but don’t participate in any discussions about her online; I might just leave this one, too).
LikeLike
Amal Clooney is a junior part of a team which has Geoffrey Robertson, a decades-long human rights advocate at its helm. He is the guiding force. Read this – from 2005 – http://www.geoffreyrobertson.com/tortureforeward.html
I really wish this need to elevate Amal beyond what she is would stop. (a) it’s so insulting to the other people who are working on this and other h/r cases and (b) it takes attention away from the people whose rights are being defended. THEY are who matter, not the people presenting their case.
Why is it not enough that she’s part of the team? Surely that in itself is worthy enough? Why does she have to be presented and be seen as the lead and the hero?
LikeLike
I agree with Morna. There is nothing inadequate in Amal being part of the team. Her role will be a contribution to the total effort but to keep talking as if she is the lead is insulting to the others in the team, embarrassing to Amal herself, and totally unnecessary. She is OK as she is in the professional role she has. It bewilders me, this need of some to turn her into something she is not. She’s smart, almost certainly good at her job, so why is this not enough?
LikeLike
Imagine how much publicity and good Geoffrey Robertson would have have/done if he had married GC!
LikeLike
That’s a cracker!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
Geoffrey didn’t do too bad with his marriage BTW. He married Kathy Lette and I have no doubt Kathy’s reading this blog and physically restraining herself from contributing!! Now Kathy’s an incisive mind if I ever saw one – would love to know Kathy’s real views on Amal as she is now, not the PR version Kathy offered before Amal’s wedding!
LikeLike
I have to laugh. The imagination is funny. These two guys in Venice”…..”……….ß
LikeLike
Yes! Imagine GR or GC in that GV wedding dress!!!
LikeLike
from 2005 to today it has been 10 years and I guess over the years you will have learned a lot ……..
Nobody is born knowing
LikeLike
Thank you Morna and ESR. It is within Amal’s capacity to amend this misrepresentation and one must wonder at the ethical and moralistic reasons why she chooses not to.
I thank you Morna for providing the link to Geoffrey Robertson’s article – in it, he highlights the following:
“……For the purposes of the European Convention, the distinction between “torture” and “inhuman treatment” does not matter other than to calculation of damages. Both techniques are prohibited.”
‘….the calculation of damages…’….and there it is again – money – so, no one is pursuing this case for the good of mankind, even though this will be the guise presented.
LikeLike
‘Calculation of damages’ is just a legal term used to assess an individual’s right to compensation. In any case, it’s an unreasonable expectation that lawyers should work for nothing. It’s a business, same as any other profession. There’s a perfectly decent middle ground where paid and pro-bono cases sit happily side by side, and they do at Doughty St Chambers. Geoffrey Robertson is a powerhouse of commitment to civil liberties and if anyone doubts that, have a browse through the essays at the link I gave in my earlier post.
Anyway, back to Amal, the problem, as I see it, is that while she has no control over her new celebrity status (that’s just a fact, she’s married to a very high profile celeb, and the media interest is part and parcel of that), she does have control over how she deals with it and, most importantly, how she uses this new visibility, most particularly in the way it impacts on her professional life.
Her Chambers are using, with her willing consent, this new elevated ‘Clooney’ profile to bring international attention to their cases. And that would be fine, except for the fact that it’s backfiring badly because it’s the tabloid ‘Clooney Celebrity’ profile that’s getting all the attention, with the cause getting lost in the gossipy world of her willingess to feed that profile (the endless fashion shows, the relentless PR push, the OTT endless and relentless blatherings of her husband). Amal has to take responsibility for that.
It lessens her, and lessens the causes she champions.
I like her and really hope she figures out a way of balancing her celebrity profile with her professional life.
LikeLike
I completely agree with you, Morna. I don’t know how it works in show business but I don’t get it either. On the one hand it’s good that these cases come to the attention of the public and bring some sort of awareness but on the other hand, it’s a bit unfair to all the other people who are working hard on these cases too. Maybe George wants to make her a star and that’s why he doesn’t shut up about her in interviews. 🙂 Or the press just wants a new hero. Who knows? But I do think that journalists should at least acknowledge that other lawyers are involved too. Although I am not underestimating her intelligence and capability.
If I were Amal, I wouldn’t want all of this attention to my work. It would make me uncomfortable but maybe she likes it. Again, who knows?
LikeLike
Good Morning Ladies,
thank YOU very much for your answers. I would not feel good being Amal, when the other persons of that staff aren’t mentioned in the newspapers, while working perhaps even harder on These cases? Do you think, that the others do not complain, because the boss says Publicity is the best advertising for our company?
Hopefully you understand my strange English.
LikeLike
I really don’t think her colleagues care. As I’ve said, it is far better for counsel NOT to receive publicity. If you’re good, you don’t need media attention to get cases. In fact, it can be a hindrance.
LikeLike
Another lesson to be learned from all this is how pandering and petty the press can be. Why do journalists so shamelessly inflate Amal’s profile, whether or not she and GC are waging a concerted PR campaign? After all, they’re supposed to check facts and seek other perspectives on a story, right? Because she is currently the celebrity de jour, and making her the “hook” for a story like the hooded men gets more clicks, and more clicks equal more money. The downside of this, from a celebrity’s point of view, is that journalists can and will turn on a dime and begin to attack the same celebrity they have helped put on a pedestal. And so now we see stories with headlines like “Amal Clooney sent packing after she sticks her lawyer nose into Elgin Marbles row,” “Greece snubs Amal Clooney over Elgin Marbles,” or this double whammy, “Greece WON’T pursue Elgin Marbles through courts after rejecting advice of George Clooney’s wife Amal.”
LikeLike
Of course. And this is precisely why barristers have, for hundreds of years, been as understated and deliberately low-profile as they can be. Clients want discretion, the case should never be about the advocate. The advocate, in my view, is nothing more than an advisor and a mouthpiece for their client. However, there are other barristers who believe in being more than this – they see their role as what some academics call a ‘friend’, one who campaigns on behalf of their client. When one does this, it becomes difficult to differentiate between the client and their counsel. At this point, the entire arrangement can become highly personal.
LikeLike
Yes, ESR, but surely “understated” and “deliberately low-profile” aren’t adjectives you would use to describe Geoffrey Roberston? Don’t you think he has successfully used the media to raise his own profile as well as those of his cases? Amal wears GV, Roberston has been called “a knight in shining Armani.” Amal is married to the world’s most lusted-over former bachelor, Roberston’s wife is a a famous “clit-lit” novelist. I know very little about the world of human rights barristers in the U.K., but perhaps Amal is just following in her mentor’s footsteps?
LikeLike
Janet….
“Clit-lit” – love it! I’ve never heard that before. 🙂
LikeLike
Janet – Robertson is not quite as straightforward. I would say this. Robertson is, first and foremost, an exceptional barrister. There is nothing to detract from that. His record is impeccable. The profile of his cases has absolutely no bearing on his abilities – he has done plenty of work under the radar, and – like all barristers – cut their teeth in empty courtrooms. That is the first material difference. Robertson can afford to be a campaigner and court the media when he fancies it, because he has a proven track record of real substance. He has something to say.
The next thing is, like it or not, Robertson is not a woman married to a movie star. And, in our shallow society, this does matter. The media will do anything to reduce a woman to the bare fundamentals – and some of the “controversy” this blog sparks by even trying to discuss Amal’s career rather than just her “style” is an indication of that. I had no idea Robertson was called “A Knight in Shining Armani”, and I can’t say I have noticed him wearing anything but the same suits everyone else wears. It is his reputation, not his clothing choices, that precedes him.
I can’t say that GR has “used” the media to raise his own profile. There is a difference between a brilliant advocate attracting attention because he has the standing to lead on controversial and high profile cases, and an advocate whose cases *become* high profile because they have taken them. GR is the former, Amal the latter.
You won’t find every case GR taking splashed across the headlines, you won’t see GR’s wife talking about his work in the press, you won’t have him photographed every time he enters a court room, and you won’t see most people talking about what he wears. So yes, I would say that he is understated and low profile. Certainly not as much as your typical Chancery barrister, but understated enough to get on with his job without his clients saying they fear the case becoming a “circus” (Amal’s Irish client’s quip).
I can see that Amal is trying to keep her private and professional life separate, she probably tries not to think of herself as a celebrity for her own sanity. Unfortunately, she now is a celebrity, and trying to keep her lives separate is proving problematic.
LikeLike
Thanks ESR. I get the difference. I only know what I read in the press about Geoffrey Robertson, and we all know how reliable that can be. So what I’ve read has focused not only on his legal brilliance, but also his TV show and the “human minestrone” parties his wife throws, which include everyone from Salman Rushdie to her hairdresser (she sounds like quite a character).
And yes, as a woman Amal is, as you say, “reduced to the fundamentals.” On the other hand, she does nothing to discourage this — in fact, she exacerbates it with her super vampy shoes and her pricey designer threads. Among American feminists, there are two trains of thought about this. Women like Camille Paglia would say that Amal should use the image of her sexuality to increase her personal and professional power. In our shallow culture, as you say, this is playing with fire. I dislike Amal’s materialism and the greed it represents, but it will be fascinating to how she continues to craft her image, and whether she is able to combine sexuality, celebrity and professionalism for some greater good.
LikeLike
Hi Janet,
Well – I learn something new every day. I won’t be able to see GR the same way again!
As for Amal… well said. I am inclined to agree with you that she gives plenty of fodder to those seeking to reduce her to the bare fundamentals. I have no doubt that this is not her intention – she is probably just being herself and enjoying new found love/wealth – but these things have a way of trickling down and affecting areas of one’s professional life. I believe another commentator noted that George said in an interview “We get papped all the time…she needs to stop being so fashionable!” And there is wisdom in that. I expected, pre-marriage, that the only way she would manage to juggle the different areas of her life would be by maintaining a low profile and some normality. But the excesses of the wedding and everything thereafter put paid to that expectation! It will be interesting to see how things unfold.
LikeLike
One more small thing, but very much related to Amal getting/accepting centre stage on the various ongoing cases she and her chamber are involved with. The Greeks have decided not to pursue the return of the marbles, for the moment. And it’s being reported as a rejection of Amal Clooney’s advice. The reality is, time and place, and not a priority for a country desperately trying to turn its economy around, but the media message is Amal Clooney has failed.
As I said earlier, it’s for this reason that she needs to take a step back. By letting her Chamber use her to attract attention, she’s also opening herself up to being the face of failure.
LikeLike
I agree with your comments. The “publicity” thing is backfiring. As ESR also mentioned, it is better is she worked on her cases in a more low key manner. On the other hand, maybe she can use the fame she has to publicize the human rights cases she works on AFTER they are done. the public needs to be aware of what’s happening around them because these cases affect us all.
LikeLike
A question for ESR (or anyone else who knows the answer!) – is it usual for barristers to wear their English court robes to the European Court of Human Rights? George Clooney mentioned being so proud of Amal wearing her robes in court and I just remembered that I was wondering about this!
LikeLike
There is no requirement to wear robes at the ECtHR (just like at the UK Supreme Court), it is up to the advocate. In all my years, I have not seen a barrister opt to wear robes when they have the option not to. Robes are uncomfortable, are always slipping down at the shoulders, and are easy to trip over because they get in the way. When one has the option not to wear them, one doesn’t! It’s like turning up at school in your uniform on a non-uniform day.
Geoffrey Robertson QC frequently appears before the Supreme Court unrobed, so I was very surprised to see him opt for legal robes at the ECtHR with Ms Clooney. And then of course, if one is to wear robes where is the wig? Or did they decide against the wig because wigs just make one look a little silly? And so what is the point of appearing at a European Court, ‘half-dressed’ in English robes (sans wigs) when no other advocates bother? Well, far beyond me to speculate on why anyone would do such a thing.
LikeLike
I’ll speculate…. it was for PR reasons…..but it’s also possible the *MEDIA* made them do it..
LikeLike
What on earth does it matter? She felt like wearing her robe that day without the wig so she did that. Is it required to wear both a robe and a wig? I’m from a civil law country so I didn’t notice it. And I do think a wig looks a bit silly. Why the UK holds on to this custom, I don’t know… A robe suffices in my opinion.
LikeLike
That’s v. Interesting, ESR. I know the direction my speculation is headed… and it involves cameras, lights, action… 😉
LikeLike
ESR – Well, wow…THAT, I didn’t know. Thanks for explaining.
Jane – good question.
LikeLike
Esra – if you wear a robe, you wear a wig. It is part of the get up (yes, yes, very archaic, that’s another discussion). I am not the only one to notice this – Britain’s foremost legal commentator, and lawyer, Joshua Rozenberg, also tweeted that it was very odd to turn up a) wearing robes, and b) robed and not wigged. Made many people in the profession suspect that the robes were worn more for the photographers than the Court.
Why does it matter? Well, in the grand scheme of things it does not matter. But it may tell you something of the mindset. Or maybe both AC and GR are just such chic trendsetters that this extends to their legal wear too! Anyway – hope that answers your question Jane.
LikeLike
Seriously, ESR…your comments are such a joy to read.
I’m soon gonna start a blog about you!!
Either that, or I’m going to commit a crime just to have you defend me 😉
LikeLike
Thank you! That was way more interesting an answer than I expected. We really do appreciate your presence on this blog – what an insight.
LikeLike
She is really beautiful. What a face. Great.
I read this morning, that J. Roberts is a big Fan of her, too. AC is smart, has a great sense of humor, is beautiful and has a fantastic figure. Some pounds more on her would even look better. Above all, she seems to be caring and is still in love with her husband.
I agree with those commentators, who prefer the pre wedding Style, e.g. Paule Ka.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ESR i am extremely happy to have ur presence on this blog. I truely hope ur comments are never censored. I am a doctor and know nothing about the legal world and honestly have learnt soo much from ur comments. I often look forward to your comments. While i tend to agree with almost everything u write i also learn a lot from u.
Nati, i looove ur work. Gets more through the day to check ur blog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Kaykay….I agree completely.
She (and I’m making an assumption here as I don’t know anyone’s gender) makes a fantastic contribution to this blog.
Soon we’ll have to put ESR on retainer 🙂
LikeLike
I agree KK and IB!
BTW, I’m totally flattered people mix ESR and myself up – but I feel bad for you ESR whenever that happens! Sorry!
LikeLike
What i think is that, even though all these so long comments may contain “information” shared by these consumed commentators, such as ESR, jon321( who, btw, seems to be here 24/7 hahaha) may be interesting, i also find it way too looooooong! I wish Nati would limit the comments to less words, because it is becoming a court room here and it is taking away the fun of this blog, which i thought to be a refreshing and light outlook on Amal’s fashion and news (not a total judgement of her persona, her life and career, based on media speculations) to let people, who are her fans to get updates on her. All these writers of such long speeches needs to get a REAL job and stop making a case of her every move! It is hard to admire the ones who come across as so brilliant here, when at the same time it is strange how they find the time to be here wasting their brilliance in judging Amal? Jon321, you are so obsessed with your conspiracy theory of an Amal’s “PR Machine”, but i wonder… maybe YOU are a PR machine against Amal? Just keep in mind that, while you are wasting so much time being here speculating so deep into her life, she is living it, and living it good! It makes me wonder.. do you get paid to be here building up a case against her? All this serious discussions is pretty BORING!! One cannot even concentrate on the fun and sweet and light superficiality that this blog intends, because one is dragged into such deep lingering speculations. No mater how much you try to bring on your “facts”, it is still only assumptions. To come here and enjoy Nati’s pictures and IDs are all fun and THANK YOU Nati! YOU ROCK!! But to come here to read a whole lecture on complex legal subject is inadequate. I think ESR, jon321, should create their own Amal forum geared towards “dissecting” Amal. There you can write 100 pages briefs on her profession and on what you assume is the truth. I strongly believe you are misplaced here and it is taking the easy-going fun of this blog. It is becoming YOUR blog now? One is coming here to read you?? Not what i intended. I come here when i want to break away from serious topics and just have a little light fun. If i wanted to dig into dissecting a human being, i would go to a science lab 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Even though your comment didn’t refer to me…I have to comment that….do you think you set a good example with your “short” comment? We have a saying in Greece that goes sth like: “Priechers who priech….”
And to any who think answers from ESR/IB/JON321 etc…think its too long or offensive or anything…no one is making you read them or reply to them. I enjoy reading them and I want to continue reading them cause I find them interesting!!!!If comments like that don’t suit you, you are more than welcome not to engage, just look at the pictures and ID’s and move on….commenting and answering isn’t mandatory!!!!
LikeLike
If you want a one-dimensional picture of Amal, perhaps you should stick to just looking at pics of her. 🙂
This thread is about her work since there’s not much to say about a pic of her on the cover of a magazine. If you’re not interested in her work, why not just stick to the threads that revolve around what she’s wearing and how she looks and let those of us who like a little substance with our style carry on our conversation. 🙂
LikeLike
Sweet lemon
1. is there a problem if someone is here 24/7
2. why do you think that this blog intends superficiality?
3. Why is it wrong to doubt if someone has a PR campaign behind it all?
4. Are you serious when you’re taking about how Nati should decide to put a word count limit?Did you check out how long is your comment? 😀
”Never worry about what I’m doing. Only worry about why you’re worried about what I’m doing” (cit.).
LikeLike
Sweet-Lemon,
First of all, let me say ‘hi’ as I don’t recall ever seeing your comments
before (if you have, my apologies as I didn’t notice the name).
Welcome to all the fun!
Secondly, I find it very funny that you complain that some posts are too ‘looooooong’, yet you write a very ‘looooooong’ comment to say so. I appreciate the irony in that – thanks for the chuckle this morning. Good thing Nati didn’t take your advice or we’d never know what you were trying to say. 😉
I notice you made the comment ‘All these writers of such long speeches needs [sic] to get a REAL job…’ You may have missed my post a while back but I was saying that I surmise that we have, on this blog, a doctor, a lawyer, a psychiatrist/mental health professional, a medical academic (perhaps a PhD), a writer, an architect, and a therapist….among others (I obviously don’t know who everyone is). These seem like ‘real’ jobs to me but maybe you have a different definition for ‘real’?
You make it quite clear in your comment that you do not want to read ‘a whole lecture on complex legal subject’ and that you don’t want to be ‘dragged into such deep lingering speculations’.
If you feel this way then I whole heartedly agree with and support you. That is YOUR right.
You should definitely ignore the comments of ESR and Jon321 and others who type long emails that you don’t like to read or you deem are too deep with speculation. This will take care of your problem once and for all.
HOWEVER, please don’t punish those of us who actually like to think….and ponder…and question…and wonder….and learn….and push back….and muse….and delve deeper into a topic. That is MY right. If we were to do as you suggest, and ‘concentrate on the fun and sweet and light superficiality’ only, I wouldn’t be here. I can only comment on the color of someone’s lipstick so many times.
Personally, I LOVE Jon321’s comments. She is articulate, bright, funny, quick, rational, and she comes at this topic from a divergent viewpoint. She provokes us to think…and is willing to defend everything she says. I really look forward to reading her comments. SHE is one of the reasons why I come to this blog. ESR is another. It is not about agreeing or disagreeing with either of them ….you are missing the point. It’s about getting a different, well presented, intelligent perspective…one that makes us think and grow. They raise the bar here (no pun intended) and we are very fortunate to have both of them contribute. There are other women on this blog that add a lot as well but as you only mentioned ESR and Jon321, I will limit my comments to them.
So, to answer your question – yes, I AM here to read Jon321 & ESR’s comments…and all the comments of the other people here as well. I enjoy them all. Variety is the spice of life!
As a side note: In an earlier post, I believe Jon321 has made her reasons for being on this blog very clear. You may have overlooked that one as it was a long post.
The beauty of this blog is that we can both get what we want out of it. You can look at the pictures and the IDs and stop there….and I will do the same but I will also scroll down further for all the comments. See, we can both be happy here.
Hopefully you’ll read this reply but maybe not…. I’m probably over my word limit 😉
LikeLike
I am sure you enjoy these commentators so much…BECAUSE.. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!! haha Busted!! hahaha you are at least 4 people on this blog, just changing names. I am sure of that! No wonder you indulge so much into your OWN self! Don’t overdose though haha Enjoy yourSELVES…i’ve got better things to do with my time than to be here zing-zaRgguing with you.
LikeLike
Italian Bird, I am sure you enjoy these commentators you mentioned so much…BECAUSE.. YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON!! haha Busted!! hahaha you are at least 4 people on this blog, just changing names. I am sure of that! No wonder you indulge so much into your OWN self! Don’t overdose though haha Enjoy yourSELVES…i’ve got better things to do with my time than to be here zing-zaRgguing with you.
LikeLike
Nadia…
In an earlier reply to you I said that you were a delight.
I was wrong.
You are FANTASTIC!
I literally burst out laughing when I read your comment.
Jaysus, I needed that laugh. Thanks.
I can tell you honestly that I am not 4 people on this blog…if I were, between this and Facebook, I’d never get out of the house. 🙂
However, again I’m flattered that you think I could be them.
BTW, who are the other people that I’m supposed to be….you said I was at least 4 people?
I know you mean ESR and Jon321 but who are the others?
LikeLike
Gosh, that was a long post with no paragraph breaks!
LikeLike
Interesting, SWEET-LEMON, because many of us value the discussion, which makes Nati’s blog unique. How many opportunities are there to chat with a group of intelligent and opinionated and witty women from around the world? I suggest you just skip the comments that offend your sense of fashion fun.
LikeLike
Yes, Sweet Lemon complained about the length of posts but she has the longest post on this thread! (Aside from phvdh who just quoted a news article). Somewhat ironic.
I find it funny that people who claim to admire Amal for her intellect are the same people who tell others to shut up for being too academic for this blog. If you don’t like it, don’t read it. I for one enjoy ESR’s posts. Amal is a lawyer, you would expect other lawyers to have a view. And actually I think ESR is very fair – he/she always provides evidence for the points he/she makes, and is always careful to say when he/she is guessing or not sure. I know I’d hire them to be my lawyer!
I’m actually a law student so I am interested in Amal,but I’ve learned loads from reading ESR’s posts.
LikeLike
Hi everybody. I’ve been following this lovely blog more and more obsessively for a long time now. First I loved to be among other working girls that loved the idea of GC being totally taken by that brainy, cool, uniquely stylish woman (so far for the projection) and by admiration for Nati’s devotion to that blog (I really hope, you won’t stop – and that nobody tries to make you stop). Now I’m mainly here for the conversation.
That must be unique: a style-blog that discusses the ethics the Hollywood-world and its media is trying to impose on us. We love some parts of it – that’s what has brought us here, but now we question it and we are trying to make up our minds about what to think (at least that’s what I’m trying to do). I personally doubt that Amal ever had the time (or did not take that time) to ask herself all those questions and find some clarity about her thoughts and standpoint.
I love the controversy of the discussion and the openness. Please don’t stop!
Thank you Nati for supplying all those pics and IDs that trigger all those daring, critical and funny thoughts we share.
LikeLike