Feminist barrister tweets screenshot of senior male solicitor’s ‘sexist’ LinkedIn message

Well, this is embarrassing

large

A senior partner at the London office of Brown Rudnick has been shamed on Twitter after sending a private LinkedIn message to a barrister praising her “stunning” profile photo.

Rather than respond with, as perhaps was hoped, a coquettish smiley face to Alexander Carter-Silk’s note, Charlotte Proudman — who describes herself as a “fearless feminist” in her Twitter bio — took a screenshot of the correspondence and yesterday evening posted it on Twitter for all the world to see.

The five-year call family law specialist at the Chambers of Michael Mansfield QC also included her non-plussed response in which she brands Carter-Silk’s message “offensive”, “sexist” and “misogynistic”.

Proudman has received messages of support on Twitter for her actions exposing what some have dubbed “disgusting” behaviour. Meanwhile, Carter-Silk, who leads his firm’s European intellectual property division, has issued this statement via City law messageboard RollOnFriday:

Most people post pretty unprofessional pictures on Linked in, my comment was aimed at the professional quality of the presentation on linked in which was unfortunately misinterpreted. Ms Proudman is clearly highly respected and I was pleased to receive her request to linkup and very happy to instruct her on matters which [are] relevant to her expertise that remains the position.

278 Comments

Anon

So she would rather have been called ugly? Feminists, always looking for a reason to be angry…

(355)(147)
Anonymous

Have you deliberately missed the point? What she wants is to be contacted because of her legal credentials and advocacy ability, not to be contacted about her looks. Obviously. Too many female lawyers are judged by their looks- she wants that to change.

(167)(92)
Anonymous

Reading the article it appears that she contacted him first, rather than the other way around.

(107)(23)
Anonymous

youre an idiot. do you not know how email threads work?

(30)(7)
Anonymous

That is the way the site works. You ask to become a contact with people in the same field of business as yourself. It is a business network, not a dating service!

(17)(19)
Anon

C’est le vie? Mayhaps she should just suck it up and get on with her laugh rather than throw a tantrum in an attempt to assert her moral superiority as a “fearless feminist” (whatever that means, I rather suspect it means being constantly annoyed and outraged at the world and the ‘patriarchy’).

(138)(63)
Anonymous

You sound like a Meninist. Who complain when Women don’t want to treated like a piece of meat first, rather than their credentials

(33)(52)
Anonymous

if that means being treated like a piece of meat I can only assume you are untouched by men

(12)(2)
Peter

I tend to agree. Had the comment come from a virile twenty or thirty something male, there would have been no fuss. Personally I think comments of the nature made have no place on Linked in, and whilst I have sympathy for both parties, it should have been dealt with privately through LinkedIn.

(5)(0)
Anonymous

So if she doesn’t want her looks to have influence, why doesn’t she do what many do and not post a picture? Such obvious hypocrisy.

If the situation was reversed and a woman replied with that to me on linked in I would be flattered, and then continue business as normal. Honestly its not even that inappropriate and is pretty much just a nice compliment.

If you want us to take us seriously in businesses stop purposely getting offended over nothing!

(117)(46)
Sue

The point that she’s a ball busing bitch you mean? That’s the only point I see her making

(21)(5)
Anonymous

His reply might not be 100% PC, and is a bit strange, but I fear it was young lady who has approached him, so saying “My partner gets messages asking if he wants a job at hedge funds, I get propositions from men asking me out. I want a public apology. I want people to know that’s not acceptable. It’s important we call this out.” is a tiny tad of an overreaction.

(79)(11)
Anonymous

So she linked into him or vice versa seems to make a difference here. His comments about her obviously styled profile pic ring true if she linked him?

(6)(1)
Anonymous

So linked has a search function that enables a search for “hot female barrister types” I guess??? That must be how he found her photo

(4)(2)
Anonymous

I also want to be Santa Claus. In life people give what they feel like giving you, not what you demand. I can only wish her that no man ever will contact her for anything else than proffessional stuff.

(8)(4)
Anonymous

She needs to grow up. Ironic how she gobbed it off on Twitter about his sexist behaviour, whilst behaving worse herself on FB ogling guys and making oooohhh aaaahhh comments. This was sexist but it seems Feminists think sexism only works one way – hypocrite.

(8)(2)
Sue

She was NOT “contacted” for her looks. She was contacted and thanked for the connection on LinkedIn and then the comment on her looks were an afterthought. But did anyone see the article that showed how SHE commented on pictures all over Facebook? HOTTIE, YUM, OOOH LA LA and on and on. Talk about objectifying and sexism.

(4)(1)
Anonymous

Which must be why she put a professionally taken picture of herself up.

(3)(0)
Anonymous

Comments like these make me lose all hope in the future for the legal industry.

Lawyers CANT be this stupid…

(26)(5)
Anonymous

A typically over the top response to a somewhat banal compliment. Your response dearie was rude and objectionable – you need to grow up and develop a thicker skin. Pathetic!

(37)(13)
Anonymous

No, they’d just rather their looks weren’t commented on at all. It’s not a difficult concept to comprehend.

(13)(14)
Anonymous

There’s nothing against the law to say someone has a nice picture, if it offends her, she should withdraw her request to connect.

(117)(8)
Anonymous

Because LinkedIn tells you that profiles with pics get X% more views and therefore offers of work etc. It’s a professional forum, not a dating site.

(9)(9)
Sue

And that warrants publicly shaming some guy? It’s one thing to be considered a “feminist” but it’s when it crosses the line to “bally busting bitch” there’s a problem. She crossed that line here.

She couldn’t just be professional about it and reply to the guy that she didn’t appreciate the compliment? I doubt she gets that many anyway

(10)(4)
Francesca

Does nobody here actually read…..the guy said “that is a stunning picture….you definitely win the prize for the best LinkedIn picture” at no point did he say that SHE was stunningly good looking. Her response seems a little over the top given the content of his REPLY to her initial request to connect. He was a bit daft for sure too, however i suspect he is simply a victim of a woman waiting for an inappropriate remark from a peer so that she could espouse her own values.
As a lawyer, she should probably get a bit more into the detail of what EXACTLy was said before going off on one again

(8)(3)
Anonymous

Why would making a comment about the quality of her photo be considered Politically Incorrect?

(4)(0)
Anonymous

Would he have posted the same comment if the she was a he. I think he would never comment on a man’s appearance therefore the comment is sexist.

(5)(7)
Anonymous

Quite simply nobody knows the answer to whether or not he would have made a similar comment on a man’s appearance and neither did Ms Proudman. While he may (or may not) have made such a comment to a man in the past or future neither you nor Ms Proudman know. Maybe his comment was intended as a compliment or maybe a coded come on stating that he found her sexually attractive in the hope she would reciprocate? Quite simply his reply is open to different interpreatation and only he knows what he really meant. Clearly his comment was unwelcomed by Ms Proudman as she interpretted his response in a certain way. This does not in itself mean her interpretation is correct. Does this justify Ms Proudman publishing his response and his name and and e-mail address in the public domain when she could have dealt with the matter directly with him (by e-mailing him and educating him by suggesting his response was not appropriate) and also directly with his firm, which I suggested would have been the more professional option. This is especially the case as one of Ms Proudman’s complaints is that he breached professional convention as Linked in is a professional site for business. However Ms Proudman then “called him out” in the public domain in addition to dealing with this purely on a professional basis with his firm and the Solicitors Regulation Authority. I also note that Ms Proudman has written an article on cyber bulling stating, “Men can use revenge porn as a way to punish women – simply for behaving in ways that they do not approve of”. Ms Proudman’s article also quotes another human rights barrister who states, “Publicly humiliated women often experience serious and irreparable damage. That’s the intention” While any revenge porn (either by male or female) is disgraceful and I do not draw a direct distinction with the issue at hand, I do agree with the sentiment that using the internet (e.g. Twitter) to shame and PUBLICLY humiliate is wrong simply on the basis you do not approve of what was written in a private e-mail to you and potentially has devastating effects on the person shamed. Perhaps Ms Proudman should have re-read her own article before deciding (acting as judge and jury) her interpretation of what he wrote was so seriously wrong that it “justified” trumping his right to privacy (the defence she has raised in response to why she made his name public). She is a “human rights” barrister after all and could have simply published the content of his e-mail without naming and shaming him with the clear (and hypocritical) intent of humiliating him and ultimately his family. While he has in my opiniom excercised very poor judgment in his e-mail to Ms Proudman her actions of publically naming and shaming him are much more punishing, controlling and intentionally humiliating.

(9)(1)
Anonymous

It’s only sexist if it’s discriminatory, which it wasn’t. Just because it is something that would be done to a woman and not a man does not make it sexist. Otherwise you could argue that a smear test or gynaecological inspection are sexist.

(0)(1)
Anonymous

It doesn’t have to be aimed at a woman to be sexist. Men can also be subject to sexism

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Count your blessings and make your blessings count. Maybe the ridiculous attention hungry lady should be dismissed using Sec. 19-24, frivolous and hard to prove.

Seems to me the lady lawyer should go back to being a useful article student!

(2)(1)
Dante

Firstly, she makes a very poor generalization of men and secondly I feel her reaction to this was completely disproportionate when she could have ignored/blocked him/reported him, sent him a personal message requesting an apology-my point being, there were other ways of resolving this rather than turning it into a new story for the press to feed off, right? So did she have to go out of her way and potentially ruin this man’s career to prove her point? I don’t think so…I think she is irrational, acted via her emotions and didn’t quite think this one through so I wouldn’t be surprised if people in her profession avoid working with her.

(5)(1)
John

what a twisted sick woman if I was given a compliment I would be happy not annoyed. This poor chap only gave this so called woman a compliment in fact he did her a favour I would consider her a miss fatty what a sick twisted so called woman .Wemon out there beware of this new breed of female she brings down your beautiful womanhood , God help who ever she marries or lives with they would have to be of an exceptional caliber or as TWISTED as this SICKO

(3)(1)
Anonymous

Perhaps all men and women should be segregated away from each other never to make contact with the opposite sex ever again just in case one or the other offends the other, the feminists in society seem to be pushing it to be that way, they clearly hate men so much, the male of the species should just completely to never have any dealings with females ever again.

(1)(0)
Klaus

The most horrifying part of Carter-Silk’s message is his use of multiple exclamation marks and misspelling of ‘understand’.

(119)(6)
Bystander

His post-hoc excuse doesn’t stand up. If it was an “innocent” comment on the professionalism of the mugshot, then he wouldn’t have described his comment as ‘horrendously politically incorrect’.

His comment was wrong when he made it, he knew it was wrong, but thought he would get away with it because the sexist idiot didn’t think that a woman would dare stand up for herself.

He needs to actually apologise, not give some lame-ass excuse which makes him look like even more of a prat.

(105)(133)
Anonymous

Yes he needs to apologise. So should she, publicly.

Screenshot? Twitter? I get that even fleeting instants of sexism should be brought to light (the expendable ones are often insidious), but where’s the bloody professionalism? Either she’s chosen to blazon her feminist virtues over keeping professional decorum, or, perhaps in what appears to be a spasmodic moment of rage, she’s consigned professional codes to the waste bin.

A wonderful demonstration, kids, of how not to behave. Shame on all y’all.

(67)(20)
Anonymous

Have you not read the recent report of the Bar Council around the rampant sexism faced by female members of the bar? She was right to do what she did.

(23)(66)
Anonymous

That doesn’t matter. If somebody offends me, then I let them know privately. This was a horribly unprofessional way of dealing with this. This WILL hurt her reputation almost as much as his. If he made a comment that was bad enough to be an actual danger to her, then she should have contacted the police. He didn’t. So she should have privately messages him. This was a gross overreaction. She just wanted to ‘stick one to the man’. After seeing her overreact to this, imagine if she learned information from a client that was offensive to her. Would she publicly shame this client? I think she would, tbh. That would possibly bring legal actions depending on what it was. This woman seems like a hotheaded idiot right now. Good luck to her finding a job anywhere now. No one will dare link up with her now, lol.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Doesn’t ms p also need to apologize for the negative connotation of “half your age” sexism is wrong but so is ageism

(28)(0)
Anonymous

How can complimenting a photo be interpreted as mysoginistic? And the ageism thing – is she implying that it’s particularly bad because he is a generation older than her? So a similar comment from someone her own age would be ok?

(0)(0)
Losing the will to live

Leaving the question of sexism aside….this reaction, whether from a woman or a man, indicates a personality that is so far up her/his own backside that the return journey back would be perilous indeed…….

(16)(1)
Jon

I completely agree with this comment.
Also, women in this profession struggle to be recognised for their skills as a lawyer & not her looks.

Yes she’s pretty, she’s going to look presentable in court. She doesn’t need a dirty 57 old married pervert with kids chatting her up thinking it’s the way of things in the law profession.

She hit the roof a bit in her reply & it may be slightly over-reacting but… I’m glad she stuck up for herself.

(6)(14)
Anonymous

‘a dirty 57 old married pervert with kids’ ….. sorry, but why is he perverted?

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Dull….. The woman is a hypocrite. Commenting on men on FB in the same way she criticises. Typical – one rule for one……..

(4)(0)
trickydicky

you need rehabilitation into the human race ‘bystander’!

(0)(0)
Sabrina

Her reaction is completely over the top and unnecessary. What does she gain from posting this? Many of us have to face REAL sexism and objectification on a daily basis. This reeks of attention seeking.

(140)(37)
Quo Vadis

A minor faux pas is not worth a public monstering, whatever the circumstances.

(79)(17)
Anonymous

Her response was wonderful, but I wouldn’t have shamed him online. HOWEVER, if women do not highlight such behaviour then many men (and some women) are allowed to continue thinking that sexism/harassment is simply an isolated, one-off incident that happens to girls in mini-skirts only.

The reality is women are disrespected and harassed on a daily basis. You’d be hard pressed to find a woman who hasn’t experienced some form of sexism/harassment/touching in public – and this is the UK for god’s sake. Whilst I feel sorry for this man in that he was shamed online, unless we start doing this every time, people will continue to think that sexual harassment of women etc is just a one-off. If people, especially men, understood the degree to which women are disrespected let alone harassed, perhaps it would change their behaviour. As far as I’m aware, ‘campaigns’ don’t do the trick, but things like this unfortunately do.

(35)(32)
Anon

It’s true, women are harassed on a daily basis.

Similarly, over a lifetime, 80% of a man’s earnings, be they direct taxation, indirect taxes, or downright unfair charges, are basically directed in a massive, one way, never ending, ever increasing amount to women who don’t fund their own existence, but men have no way of complaining, and in fact the state actively helps women get the money. It doesn’t attempt to stop them.

So who has it harder? A woman who has to endure a wolf whistle from the builders who die 20 years younger because of their “equal pay for equal work” or the men who pay their child benefit, maternity pay, early pensions, ad nauseum and die at 67 after 5 years on the sick?

Feminism has succeeded in its task, which was equal rights, protection under the law, and so on. What we have now is a legal system that oppresses men so badly in their relations with women, that a dozen a year crack under the injustice and kill their own children on a Sunday visit.

I’m afraid the infrastructure which was rightly put in to fight sexism, now that its been done, has nothing to do, and so it’s spending its time teaching women to treat men as untermenschen, In my opinion, her response was not one of justice, it was contempt for a man she felt completely at ease at attempting to destroy because she felt completely justified that he shouldn’t be allowed to consider himself worthy of speaking to her. This is the problem with modern feminism in my option. It’s a hate movement with supremacy on its mind, no longer a justice movement with equality.

While he should have looked at her profile and seen social justice warrior all over it, I’ve seen several women like this in my long life. They behave like dreadful egocentric people who’ve lived in such blissful ignorance all their life of the sacrifices of the men who died early, or just died, making their world a clean, safe, healthy place.

They remind me of the piles of people who’ve lived in the microcosm of western civilisation, provided so well by our security services for so long, that they think the world is a lovely place made bad elsewhere by the security services rather than the world being innately awful and the security services have made it good in their little area of the world.

I find people like her, entirely offensive, and wonder just how men are supposed to make a first move. It’s no wonder men are abandoning marriage and society’s in collapse outside of the Temple.

I don’t believe there’s a man reading this who doesn’t know someone who was violently rejected by a woman because she thought herself way above him, and doesn’t believe that same woman wouldn’t jump straight into bed, if Mark Zuckerberg tried the same thing on.

Men are no angels. We commit much more crime, much more violence, and cause much more hurt, but there are some dreadful women too. I’m glad I’ll never have cause to meet her, because I think she’s one of them.

(12)(6)
Anonymous

Just wanted to say you hit the nail on the head with that comment. I just wanted to add that not all women are despicable people like this person. Also not all women want to work. Some women actually enjoy being stay at home moms. Just like some dads do now. My wife in particular finds these women particularly awful. They will openly attack her because she isn’t working and wants me to care for her. It’s what she has worked very hard at all her life, and she enjoys it. Isn’t feminism supposed to be about equality and pursuing happiness? Well no, it isn’t actually, but that was the original intent. I find people like this despicable. Femism and men’s rights activist are the worst kind of people. They attack anyone who doesn’t fall in line with their own paradigm of their gender. They also sound so many false alarms that the average person can’t relate to them. I hope this type of behavior continues. It will be the downfall of both movements. Maybe after that happens, we can finally live peacefully and coexist without hateful people demeaning the other gender. Also she ogles men on Facebook all the time. Typical double standard that these women’s/men’s rights activist have. The old do as I say, not as I do routine…

(0)(0)
Anonymous

It’s almost like these ‘extreme’ feminists are only after the attention their positions bring them rather than enacting any real change. I’ve stopped showing any open support for any feminist ideals, because all it does is open me to attack and criticism from feminists. How DARE a man attempt to show solidarity and support, you’ll never understand what we go through, your response is a ‘not all men’ response, etc. etc. ad-freaking-nauseam, and you’ll end up being accused of something or other, and are expected to apologise for the actions of the rest of mankind everywhere. Even though I deeply believe in gender equality, I don’t bother commenting or taking a public position on these things anymore – I’ll just get attacked by the people I’m trying to support. As far as I’m concerned they’ve lost an ally in their struggle.

(34)(16)
Anonymous

Oops, time to look for a new career!!
(Daily Mail,10/9/15,page 9, Sarah Vine)

(6)(1)
Anonymous

Ha ha ha, Daily Mail,11/09/15,p10-13.
Well and truly caught out!
Hypocritical, sanctimonious cow!

Live by the sword……..

(4)(0)
Anonymous

Yes, she needs to get over herself and grow up. She has probably burnt all her bridges, without thinking. Nothing but a little upstart.

(73)(1)
Anonymous

Well said , she is an absolute disgrace. I am embarrassed to be a female with this pathetic attitude, Proud man , needs to get a grip and get over her self. It’s ridiculous that this got media attention. I hope the profession can see beyond this woman’s insecurities and not think we are all the same to get our knickers in a twist over a passing comment from a fellow professional. Maybe she will be boycotted now for her imature ridiculous way that she sees life . Debbie

(4)(0)
Anonymous

I think he should pay his optometrist a visit. Professional skills or none, she still looks like a Lego man.

(110)(23)
Rushdy

Indeed, first rule of hair as an outward indicator of character:

Straight ‘helmet-style’ fringe = huge level of suppressed anger = danger.

(65)(13)
Dr Bonham

I totally accept that what the solicitor did was somewhat unprofessional, in particular the comment about’winning the prize’ was totally overboard. Yet her reaction is unfortunate; a sincere compliment is not misogyny and the age of the person is irrelevant and the reference to it demonstrates ageist thinking about relationships.

(88)(13)
Anonymous

Good on her. SO many female barristers and solicitors are judged by their looks and are told they look ‘fuckable’ or told to dress more sexily etc. sexism is rife and it needs to change.

(41)(78)
Double Standards Board

She could easily have accepted it as flattery, said it was inappropriate and say that she’s not willing to stay in touch.

Who gave her the right to speak for all of womankind anyway?

(73)(28)
Anonymous

She isn’t – she is just speaking for herself. Just as other women are free to criticise her, so she is free to say what she thinks. That’s the POINT of feminism, not the idea that all women have to think the same.

(22)(26)
Double Standards Board

She could have expressed her opinion without invading Poland.

It’s called being an individual, not victimising herself.

(30)(7)
Anonymous

But not to publish it for all to read as one would do so only if they are insecure and wish to ask the audience for their view.

(21)(0)
Anonymous

I’m glad that she did what she did and I most certainly would not have taken it as flattery
So I praise her for representing womankind even if some women don’t agree…people completely missed the point with what she did and sexists pigs like him should be bought to light
For the women who don’t agree…you’ll appreciate it at some point in your lives what she did

(5)(38)
Anonymous

Completely unprofessional way to deal with this. She’s sadly shown the true agenda on her mind at the potential cost of her career. Pathetic.

(36)(1)
Quo Vadis

Sending a message like that was unprofessional. Disseminating private correspondence because you dislike its content is even worse. If you believe a solicitor has acted in a disreputable fashion, you go to the SRA – not Twitter.

(102)(11)
Anonymous

Wait. So when women complement men, or eroticise them, on their looks, is that also exercising power? What power?

(42)(11)
Bazza McBallsack

Poor little Mr Carter-Silk, he’s probably just love-starved and lonely, spending countless hours on Pornhub, leaving him with calloused hands and loath for the dustbin he has to call his wife.

If only dear Charlotte would have accepted a night of sweaty, panting passion delivered my Mr Carter-Silk’s meaty shaft, she would have thought twice about such nasty tweets.

Can’t we all just get along?

(47)(36)
Female Lawyer

I am a woman and a lawyer – but find her behaviour VERY unprofessional! Yes, his move was very unprofessional (dumb and of questionable mind, also, Has he seen many women?)

She could have responded to him directly and not opted for “shaming” him publicly! She did so because she is trying to get attention to her profile. I suspect less instructions on the horizon.

(85)(14)
Salmon Act 1986, s.32

“I suspect *fewer* instructions on the horizon.”

FTFY

(63)(3)
Pedant

Use of capitals in the middle of a sentence too (see first paragraph).

(5)(5)
Anonymous

Agree. Both have behaved irresponsibly. I note no one has mentioned her agist comment as if his age made his behaviour worse.

(25)(0)
Anonymous

Perhaps it even reveals something to the offender about himself (yes, I’m going for a philosophical angle here). So much of the time throw-away, seemingly trivial comments are made, the real-world meaning behind which only comes to light when someone is called out on it. He probably thought nothing of it. I’ll just say it cuz the mood has caught me. Inconsequential right?

In a word…busted!

But her response is ageist. Also, I agree with Quo Vadis. Thoroughly unprofessional, regardless of its content.

A loss on both sides.

(22)(7)
From Nigeria

I am a [male] photographer: if our Ms. Proudman had been a green-skinned, googly-eyed, multiple-nostrilled [sic] pus-oozing alien twit in a burkha, I would have still complemented the PICTURE!
Mr. Carter-Silk complimented the PICTURE! Which is stunning. But definitely not her!
It is the lighting, the contrasts and the hues and the composition… If it had been a picture of a pile of sh… manure… It could still be a nice picture!

(2)(3)
Anon

I’m not a male photographer. I’m of the opinion he ultimately wanted to get it on.

But so what? She could have politely said, “Thanks for the offer, but I find you repulsive, so I’ll refuse your kind request.”

Then in a few years time, when she’s got a husband rather than a “partner” and has a baby on the way, he could say exactly the same thing, when she asked for tax to pay for her NHS 12 week scan.

(0)(3)
Anonymous

This comment is a pile of sh…manure…. He was referring to her appearance!

(1)(0)
Dr Friend

I can understand her being a bit peeved, but her reaction says more about her emotional state than it does about feminism or the guy’s inept email.

The anger and venom that comes pouring out in the email from her is extraordinary. She may find that a chat with a psychologist to be of help. Clearly she needs to exorcise a good deal of anger and she’s maybe targeting it at the wrong people (though the man made himself a target).

I could guess as to root trauma(s) that led to this, e.g. sexual abuse by male family member etc, but perhaps it’s best shared with someone with patient privilege.

(40)(11)
Chill Pill

Good lord, he may be a pig (but it is arguable, it was a private mail) but she is a NUTTER! What’s with the rage and explosion? This looks bad for her, more than for him.

…. and honey, get over yourself, the way you look – you should be happy someone sees you as “good” looking, even if it is from an old man (as she calls it).

(60)(12)
MrShineHimDiamond

Again. Women should be flattered by sexism is not an argument.

(20)(11)
Anon

It’s all relative. I suspect virtually all the women in Ferryhill, County Durham would have taken him up on it, even the married ones – with the money he’s got. For my opinion, she just thinks she’s worth more.

It’s the old (probably) apocryphal Winston Churchill bout with Lady Astor, “Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?” “Why yes I suppose!” “What about two and six?” “What kind of woman do you think I am? “We’ve already established the kind of woman. Now we’re haggling.”

Of the millions of women I’ve known, all but one were just after a series of big zigazigahs, and being treated like the privilege bestowed upon a princess. I’ve not seen anything that makes me believe her different other than the violence with which she reacts when she thinks someone else acts as if she doesn’t deserve it.

That said, if women want money without putting out, men want sex without paying. She can perhaps represent his wife at the divorce, to teach him a lesson.

(0)(1)
Anonymous

Wow. Shocked at this post. I’m no supporter of either party in this frankly lame story where both parties Should have handled themselves better – SHE should have kept it succinct and accurate and stated that his comments re physical appearance are inappropriate, spoke to her head of chambers and posssibly the solictors firm. No way publish on twitter. HE should not have sent in first place, “horrendously politically incorrect” in his own words.

this isnt that complicated, not rocket science – do these people not know how to use emails properly?? either of them? the mind boggles.

however, your response is one i find shocking: completely INVENT / IMAGINE a previous history of sexual abuse is a low blow, scraping the barrel…..and seriously NOT an appropriate response when someone (rightly) complains that they have been offended, even when their response seems to be disproportionate

(5)(1)
Anon

Wow. Shocked at this post. I’m no supporter of either party in this frankly lame story where both parties Should have handled themselves better – SHE should have kept it succinct and accurate and stated that his comments re physical appearance are inappropriate, spoke to her head of chambers and posssibly the solictors firm. No way publish on twitter. HE should not have sent in first place, “horrendously politically incorrect” in his own words.

this isnt that complicated, not rocket science – do these people not know how to use emails properly?? either of them? the mind boggles.

however, your response is one i find shocking: completely INVENT / IMAGINE a previous history of sexual abuse is a low blow, scraping the barrel…..and seriously NOT an appropriate response when someone (rightly) complains that they have been offended, even when their response seems to be disproportionate

(1)(1)
Knee and Ertle

That hairdo looks like a Wehrmacht helmet. Looks are important. Everyone knows it. Why pretend otherwise? Men do a hard enough job in law. What’s wrong with the girls making a bit of an effort ??

(31)(14)
Lord Harley of Bollocks

Ok, let’s look at this logically

1. Barrister sends linkedin connection request to solicitor

2. Solicitor accepts, comments positively on linkedin picture and ends on professional note.

3. Barrister goes ape shit, tears him a new one, posts his private message on twitter and contacts his firm?

Yeah, she’s insane and outright looking for a fight. Modern feminism in a nutshell.

(61)(10)
Anonymous

This is NOT modern feminsim – I am a woman and I will say this: she is a bit on the mental side. She is only looking for some media/public attention, did not manage to hook up with an actor, so…

(42)(9)
Anonymous

Absolutely….modern feminism….. a very unhealthy trait in some women.

A woman recently got sarcastic with me because I stood up as she entered the room ! What is wrong with these feminists?

(22)(3)
trickydicky

I daren’t say whats wrong with feminism – climate of fear!

(0)(0)
Lord Harley of Counsel

Mine is a big one. What would she make of that ?

I am referring to my LinkedIn profile of course.

(23)(3)
Captain Skinboat

What a foul creature, she ought to be flattered for any attention she gets!

Say goodbye to getting any future instructions darling, after this sharade I’d imagine firms will think twice about ever contacting her again. She might consider the tone of their voice too forward and accuse them of being naughty sexists as well!

(61)(10)
Anonymous

The only thing i’d instruct her for is to make me a sandwich

(50)(9)
Anonymous

I am deeply disappointed to find people on this website, of all places, who genuinely think this woman’s response was full of rage… OR that this woman is the sole representative of feminism. What those comments reflect is a DEEP unease with a woman standing up for herself – and you can admire and respect that, even if you disagree with the fact that she shamed him online (which I think was a bit much.) What is really pathetic is that if a guy did such a thing, he wouldn’t be called ‘mental’ or any such word. It’s similar to a strong boss who is a man being called a ‘leader’ but the woman is apparently a ‘bitch’.

You can all think what you like, but be aware when you react this way you’re demonstrating your own ignorance and sexism. Disgaree with what someone says or does, but doing so in some of the comments above really makes one fear for humanity.

(21)(51)
Quiet call to arms

Standing up for herself? Perhaps. But she seems to espouse the same sort of repugnant ignorance which she here protests. She’s clearly ageist. She’s done herself no favours publicising this. None whatsoever. But will she receive the same treatment as our sexist friend? The hell she will. Because she’s the victim. she’s the downtrodden in this narrative. And he’s a middle-aged white man who holds all the power.

He was sexist. Yes. He is rightly called out on that and should be justly reprimanded. But where is the vitriol for her ageist stance? And tweeting the screenshot…how will she be penalised for this flagrant breach of professional ethics?

(27)(10)
Emmy

I think she was well within her right to state that she was offended by the remarks and that it was inappropriate a doctor place. That was 100 per cent a valid point.

Some may say that she has unfortunately undermined her own case by going about it in the wrong way – publishing the correspondence on twitter may not have been the best way of correcting the situation. HOWEVER: it is a sharp elbow in the ribs to any other male in the legal industry who thinks about conducting himself in such a way towards females who are simply trying to get on with their day job. It will make others think twice. I admit, publishing the correspondence on twitter was outlandish, brave bordering on a total lack of self regard. But – ultimately, she has done everyone a favour (males and females) by demonstrating that unwanted behaviour / harassment is not tolerated, and secondly that you can be publicly outed at any time.

(6)(23)
Not Amused

Calling this harassment is both wrong in law (harassment is a course of conduct) and deeply insulting to genuine victims of harassment.

As indeed it is sexist to pretend that this was sexist.

These wrongs are then compounded by her ageism.

It was a compliment, a flirtation. She felt it was inappropriate. Well that’s her choice. I disagree. As there is no case law or statute determining what is or is not appropriate in this circumstance her view and mine must remain equally valid. However she went further and set about trying to publicly hurt a fellow human being – she feels that is valid, again I find that she and I disagree.

What we are discussing is her feelings, her opinion, versus mine or the opinion of others. Entirely subjective and personal matters. Do not attempt to dignify that or aggrandise it by attaching it to objective concepts – that simply won’t work. Sexist, harassment, discrimination, objectification these all have objective definitions. The only term open to those who agree with her is “inappropriate” and that is because the word “inappropriate” is itself insufficiently defined either in law or in society in general. It itself is a subjective term and it adds no additional validity to any subjective opinion.

When two adults in our society have differing opinions that is perfectly fine. What can not be acceptable is the way any adult seeks to enforce their opinion on or over others. Just as we would condemn any political party who used violence (even if we agreed with the politics) we must look very closely at the actions human beings take to enforce their opinions. The internet is incredibly bad at this. It encourages the worst of human behaviour. We should be teaching our children how to behave when they encounter an opinion which disagrees with their own – because currently, what I see is a lot of unacceptable behaviour were people actively seek to cause hurt to others simply to prove they are right.

(30)(3)
Emmy

I agree. I stand corrected: This is not harassment by any stretch. My mistake there. I shouldn’t play fast and loose with legal concepts / basic factual concepts there.

However, his message is inappropriate and sexist. This is plainly stated. Why is he commenting on her physical appearance: “stunning picture” / “best linked in picture i have ever seen”.

This is not a case of subjective interpretation leading to the female taking offence. I think it is objectively, some silly and inappropriate remarks. You forget that he himself acknowledges this when he says this is “horrendously politically incorrect”.

She is not ageist. Stating that she is half is age is merely stating a fact. It also alludes to the fact that someone of his experience should probably know better.

His explanation in his response is just pure cringe, as if he was complimenting the professionalism of the picture / composition and lighting of the picture!! Tosh. Having said that, it’s probably the best chance he has of creatively producing an “innocent explanation”.

I agree with you, that Internet publication is probably not sensible. Better sorted out in private. But, she has made an important point about acceptable standards of behaviour, even if it is one that harms herself in the process. I also agree that the Internet is very harsh in exposing a moments madness – the solicitor bashing out a silly, inappropriate response which he probably did not give much thought to, and above all, his family. It must be hurtful for them, and that is not nice.

(6)(9)
Not Amused

I am impressed with your civility. Genuinely.

I think the problem you have is that ‘inappropriate behaviour’ is not itself a defined term. Now, do we want it to be? I’m a libertarian and therefore I am very uncomfortable with the idea. But societies have sought to regulate flirtation/courtship before. If you want to regulate courtship then are you willing to say that no user of linked in can send a private e-mail complimenting another user for their appearance?

See I’m a bit of a hypocrite myself because I loathe the barrister boyfriend site. The whole reason I created ‘Not Amused’ was because I was, like a certain historical figure, not amused by their objectification and trivialisation of both genders. I saw it as bullying and mean. But as a libertarian ought I?

These matters are very complicated. That is why I would personally avoid any declaratory statement about what this conduct “was”. It can’t be objectively ‘inappropriate’ because we don’t have an agreed definition of the word (and few commentators even go so far as to seek to apply their own professed view in a consistent way). It can’t be sexist because it is not discrimination or prejudice based on gender. As I have said I’m sure lots of men do message other men and hit on them – it’s pretty close to being homophobic to imagine that that isn’t going on. I imagine lots of women hit on other women and on men. Like my heroine, I just don’t expect to be told about it. She could claim it was discriminatory because he is heterosexual – but we don’t actually even know that. If he turns around and says, “I am bisexual, here is a message I sent to a man last week” then the whole “this was sexist” argument will instantly collapse. It is itself predicated upon a sexist idea that women are always weaker and inferior to men – I simply reject that. That’s why that argument isn’t real.

So all we are left with, after millions of words, is two conflicting opinions. Either can be right because society does not (yet) regulate this activity. In those circumstances I sort of regret showing a view on the initial activity – because what I really care about is the behaviour afterwards. I do not think the public shaming is acceptable, I think it is mean. I accept that we don’t regulate the activity of publicly shaming people either. So my view is again subjective. What I can say is that I think the actions taken to publicly shame him make me feel deeply saddened for my fellow human beings – man’s inhumanity to man.

(40)(2)
Anonymous

I see where you are coming from.

This is quite the debacle, and seems to have taken on a life of its own!! Although, by tomorrow it will be forgotten, I’m sure.

I went back to re – read each word of their message exchange, and I really think that now, after considering it, both parties come off quite badly.

On a pure practical note, if I was in her shoes, I would have handled it differently.

(I) yes, she has every right to say she objects to his response and the reasons for it. To that end, the first 2 lines of her message was sufficient. It should have stopped there. — the golden rule of advocacy is to make your point and then stop. Carrying on after, tests the limits a bit.
(II) The theoretical discussion about the eroticisation of women, while generally true, was misplaced here and out of proportion.
(III) To reply to him privately would have been proportionate.
(IV) To publish on twitter was disproportionate, people may question whether this was necessary or a mature approach.

Above all, this calls into question the judgment of both lawyers. Isn’t that the most damaging thing of all for a lawyer? – to have your professional judgement called into question, so publicly? (Him: for communicating such stupid remarks in the first place. People now have a negative view on how he regards women, which may or may not be true. Her: for the disproportionate elements of her response, and the way it was handled).

Both have poor judgment, and that is pretty damning. Purely from a practical viewpoint, I would not instruct either if i was a client and had done a basic google search.

Poor judgement as a lawyer is fatal. They are both guilty of that. This has become an issue now, affecting both quite badly on a personal and professional level, I’m sure. It did not have to go this far. Their job is the law (and managing relationships / boundaries in a responsible manner), not drama.

But that’s my practical reading of this.

(7)(0)
Anon

A sharp nudge in the ribs?

No I don’t think so.

Every militant feminist action is just one more man who won’t bother marrying.

(0)(1)
Anonymous

Her response pompous but reasonable. Maybe ok to complain to his managing partner, at a push to the SRA but to go public with total disregard for the pain caused to his wife and family shocking and insensitive.

(3)(1)
Anonymous

Yawn……. poor defenceless girlie attacked by half naked man? Eeerrrr no. He liked her photo – he is a clumsy, tacky dickhead. Her response however is over the top and typical of the politically correct, tree hugging, leftie thin skinned (I’m offended) brigade.

(0)(0)
Lincoln Hudson

I wonder how some people manage to climb out of bed in the morning!

(4)(4)
Shep Bush

I still don’t get what’s so sexist about it – I genuinely don’t.

If anything, his words strike me as a genuine, if somewhat clumsy, attempt to flatter her. Admittedly, a LinkedIn message is not the appropriate medium for such conversations to take place, but surely it didn’t come across as offensive or sexist in any way? He didn’t comment on her body, salaciously appraising her backside or bosom, did he? He merely expressed admiration over her professional photo – a comment so innocuous no sane person could take offence for.

Her response strikes me as everything that’s wrong with our current politically correct status quo. It highlights her as a potentially unstable, hateful and perhaps frigid individual, who relishes shaming men who somehow manage to fall through her ridiculous standards.

I dread to think what would she do if someone complimented her in person when out in some City local. Would she glass him for the kindness?

(44)(8)
Quo Vadis

This faux-naivety is distasteful. Unless they are close friends (which I doubt), the message is clearly inappropriate. He even acknowledges it himself – the message being “probably horrendously politically incorrect”. The rule of thumb in such cases should be whether one would be happy to read the message out loud, and in company. Here, the answer is no.

(13)(11)
Anonymous

Come on – describing a woman as ‘stunning’ whom you don’t know outside a professional context (if he knew her at all) is deeply inappropriate however you slice it.

You don’t need to comment on someone’s backside to be objectifying them.

I say all this as a man, and one who wouldn’t self-identify as a ‘feminist’…

(15)(33)
Anonymous

I feel sorry for anyone who wants to start a relationship with this ice maiden.
If she doesn’t like the look of you, you might end up in the Tower of London awaiting execution! (and yes she does look like a Lego character……lol)

(41)(1)
Anonymous

Rubbish. I was recently walking along a promenade with my wife when we saw a tall, elegant African lady. Her skin was jet black and her hair was immaculate. She was dressed in the most colourful traditional robes. I immediately described her as stunning and my wife agreed. I had never seen this lady before and we certainly had no professional connections. There was absolutely no sexual connotation in my use of the word stunning nor would I or my wife consider its use to be sexist in any way. This barrister needs to get a life.

(44)(0)
Anon

LinkedIn is as LinkedIn does.

It is not up to her to dictate how other people legally use the service.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Agreed. According to her “linkedin is like being in the workplace”. Fuck off.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Really she contacted him to linkup’ get a life and take the compliment or get a boyfriend or a girlfriend whichever is your preference

(26)(8)
Anonymous

We don’t know who added who…

Him thanking her for linking up could either have been the result of her adding him or her accepting his add.

(2)(2)
Anon

Absolutly right to be named and shamed for his sexsit comments. What gives him the right to belittle a professional approach in such a way? Arrogant, disgraceful and demeaning behaviour. Looking forward to seeing this on Roll On Friday and other legal mediums….. what a sad fool !

(8)(29)
Mr T

I pity the fools that keep using the word fool on this whackass website.

(13)(0)
Eegads!

Handbags at dawn! Place yer bets: Ms Meanie vs Mr Sleezee. Round 1 to MM whose vicious public nad clamp sees off MS’s tentative opening gambit…

(6)(0)
Anonymous

“Misogynistic”? Sheesh. Another silly girl with a desperate need for a dictionary.

(21)(7)
Not Amused

1) Is it sexist?

Well, if Alex Carter-Silk were gay and had sent that private message to a male family barrister then it seems hard to see how it would be described as sexist. If Alex Carter-Smith were a straight woman and sent that private message to a male barrister then it is hard to see how it is sexist.

2) Is it objectification?

Well, firstly it was private. You can’t really objectify someone in a private way. When a wife tells her husband how nice his bottom looks she isn’t really objectifying him. She is flirting and being complimentary. So, I find it difficult to say it is objectification. It’s a compliment.

3) What is the motive?

Well, I think we must presume it was a come on, a pass. Why else would an IP solicitor want to talk to a family barrister?

4) Is that unprofessional?

Firstly let’s try to establish some reason why a duty to be professional exists in this circumstance. This is more tricky. They don’t share a practice area. They don’t share a profession.

Secondly it is a private e-mail communication.

So in circumstances in which no direct duty is owed (colleague to colleague or supervisor to trainee) and where then can be no suggestion of improper influence (because 1) he can only offer IP work, which she doesn’t do and 2) his law firm does not do family work either) I find it difficult to describe this as unprofessional.

5) Can solicitors ever make passes at barristers?

It seems difficult to say they can’t.

6) Is there real objectification of lawyers (male and female)

Yes. See that awful blog. See the ‘hot 25 sols’ story.

7) Is it appropriate to publish a private communication?

Not obviously.

8) Is it ageist?

It does seem to reference his age in an unattractive way.

9) Is her behaviour sexist?

How would she have reacted to the same lines from a female solicitor? Only she can know.

I am having real difficulty explaining the level of vitriol being directed at Alex Carter-Silk. It is deeply unpleasant. I also think it is deeply unpleasant to make unfounded allegations of sexism. A desire to hurt other human beings, your fellow human beings, merely because you disagree with them or because they have upset you, is not I think beneficial to human beings all trying to get along in an equal society.

Broadly speaking I think the view I have is that neither has acted well. The public has no right (and, despite its desire to do so, it really is not in their interests to start) regulating private relationships between grown up adults and should stop.

(37)(4)
Anonymous

You can’t objectify someone in private – where’d you get that idea from? Also, the allusion to the married couple is bizarre (a) as they’re *married* and (b) because that’s still objectifying. One person’s compliment is another person’s treatment as a sexual object – not mutually exclusive.

(5)(30)
Not Amused

If we use your, wider, definition then objectification has no meaning because it is both a good thing and a bad thing depending on circumstance. Meaning it would be necessary to have ‘bad objectification’ and ‘good objectification’. Bad objectification would then be any attack upon or denial of autonomy.

In which case objectification done in private, like this, can’t be ‘bad objectification’ because there is no threat to autonomy (they do not know each other) and no threat or challenge to autonomy because it was inherently secret from her peers.

So bad private communications, being unable to be ‘bad objectification’, if wrong must be more likely to be wrong for some other reason – see lascivious or grotesque or threatening. This communication was not. So my point stands. Although you have just forced me to demonstrate why sociologists have a job.

(36)(3)
Anonymous

I said ‘one person’s compliment is another’s objectification’ – that is: what one person considers a nice thing for them to have said might be deemed inappropriate by the recipient. That doesn’t make the objectification good from one perspective and bad from the other, it’s just that one participant in the conversation is ignorant of how bad it is.

Re private objectification: the harm is lack of respect. Perhaps we differ on whether that matters.

(2)(21)
Not Amused

For you all objectification is wrong? Regardless of context? Well that is a consistent position but, I think, an impractical one. There is no harm in objectification if you use such a wide definition. By your definition the wife who compliments her husband is the same as the wolf whistling builder, and I think that must be wrong.

(20)(0)
Anonymous

It is certainly arguable that the wife’s comment is still objectification and is still bad even if the husband’s subjective reaction were positive. However, I do accept that this is rather abstruse.

In a similar way, free club entry for women is objectification because clubs do it to attract paying men. This makes a sexual product out of women. Yet I doubt that many women complain about the free entry.

(3)(18)
Anonymous

So next time I tell my girlfriend that she’s hot, I’m objectifying.

Shoot me now.

(8)(2)
Anonymous

Let me stalk her on LinkedIn, I’ll be the judge of that

(4)(0)
Anon

“Well, I think we must presume it was a come on, a pass. Why else would an IP solicitor want to talk to a family barrister?”

Perhaps he was getting a divorce, or maybe he was demonstrating the meaning of the phrase “self fulfilling prophecy” to a client.

(0)(0)
Anonymous

I say get a life – the world is messed up enough without this sort of crazy self promoting rubbish. Lets face it – she has now made a name for herself and will benefit as a result – I’m sure her damaged ego will be repaired after a sip of champagne paid for on the back of this self promoting act.

(5)(5)
Anonymous

She looks like Rodney’s wife Cassandra off Only fools & Horses. Hardly pretty….

(27)(4)
Uncle Albert

Oh, he’s got the right hump cos his trouble ‘n’ strife’s been venting her Mr Sheen on that Twitter fing cos she reckons some smarmy brief was tryin’ it on wiv her. Cor blimey, ‘ave a banana.

(7)(0)
Anonymous

I cannot believe some, actually most, of the comments on this feed. The message is clearly highly inappropriate and utterly sexist – whether or not he meant it to be is completely beside the point (a point that most have failed to grasp). There is a distinction to be drawn between a person being sleazy and sexual, and a person commenting on a female’s appearance (in their mind) innocently. One is more inappropriate than the other but BOTH are sexist and inappropriate (again, something that most have failed to grasp). The reason why a simple (intended) compliment on a woman’s appearance is inappropriate and sexist is because it devalues the role of women in society and places them in a weaker position in relation to men. The comment made actually says (even if he didn’t intend it to mean this) “…I am a man and thus in a dominant role in relation to you and therefore I feel it entirely appropriate to comment on your appearance regardless of the professional setting in which our exchange is taking place” (something which I am sure he would never dream of doing to a man). Secondly, he devalues her but commenting immediately on her appearance, not upon her achievements, views or work-related matters, suggesting (again, perhaps not intentionally) that her appearance is her most important asset or a very valuable one at least, and completely overlooks her professional status. These are views that should be consigned to the past, but unfortunately are not. I keep referring to the fact that whether or not he intended to communicate the above messages is irrelevant, because it is such an important point. These messages are perpetuated within society, largely unintentionally as product of our upbringing and societal influence, but that does not mean that making such comments is right or excusable or should be written of as “..he didn’t mean it in that way…” etc. People need to think very carefully about how they conduct themselves and about what they say actually means and how it contributes to the developments of society (because is does – society is a social construct which evolves through social action). Bringing this situation to the attention of the public challenges society’s traditional approach to women and contributes to the discourse that women should be valued by, amongst other things, what they do and not what they look like or what they wear etc. Only by doing this can we progress towards a society in which sexism doesn’t exist.

(14)(31)
Anonymous

When does the Law of attraction edge into sexism. If any male makes any form of forward comment does that constitute ‘sexism’?

I agree wholeheartedly that his conduct would appear inappropriate however to go ‘public’ on this is far more inappropriate and serves no purpose other to to damage the writers professional reputation.

A few stiff drinks in the Nags Head with Rodney Trotter should alleviate any tensions this unwanted attention may or may not have caused 😉

(9)(3)
Rodders

Why we always dahn the bleddin Nags Ead, I wanna go somewhere different! A place wif some proper sorts, not bookish lookin’ birds like this Prahdman one!

(4)(2)
Dr Umalke

@ anonymous 5:04 pm

You are undoubtedly the life and soul of all the parties that you are reluctantly invited to.

Bore off with you Femi-nazi dogma and perch yourself atop on a washing machine on spin cycle, to alleviate your pent up aggression and hatred to all those possessing a phallus.

(32)(11)
Anonymous

@anonymous 5.04pm.

What you’ve written may well be thoughtful and intelligent. But I’ll never know, because I can’t be arsed to read comments that long that contain no paragraph breaks.

(13)(0)
Anonymous

It’s just a man making a come on.

Ok, it’s a bloody awful attempt at a come on. He’s clearly short of practice. But it’s still a come on.

He isn’t a white van man shouting at a female victim on the street about how big her breasts are. He isn’t a strip club patron. He’s a man making a poor attempt at saying ‘how about it’ to a woman.

Making a pass at a woman is not sexist. Unless you believe that men shouldn’t ask our girls, kiss them in bars, or proposition them for one night stands.

(6)(4)
Anonymous

Injudicious, juvenile and ill informed response. If grand dad had made the same comment on the airbrushed picture would Ms P have applied the same remarks?

(18)(0)
Anon

Maybe someone at work went off with a woman old enough to be his daughter, and she’s angry about it?

(7)(0)
Anonymous

The day she stops receiving positive comments about her appearance will probably make her equally aggrieved.

His explanation was absolutely horseshit though. He should have just admitted to taking a punt and being publicly shamed in response.

(19)(2)
Viscount Dilhorne

Basically:

1. He’s sad and creepy.

2. She’s exceptionally shrill and silly.

Both will be laughed at – both publicly and behind their backs.

Why did she however want to link up to him in the first place?

(21)(2)
Bob

1/ poor judgment on the part of the solicitor, who, if he had taken a minute to skim the woman’s CV on LinkedIn or on her firm bio, would have spotted words like “Mansfield” “Fabian” “activist” “Labour” “sociology” – and many more – enough to alert him that this was hardly likely to be some bird that would be up for a pint in the Dog & Duck and a kebab home on the night bus

2/ A c*nt’s trick to throw this guy under the bus publicly – cringeworthy, and not something I would ever write to a woman, but not deserving of this shaming. The venom and spite is quite something. 99% of women would have brushed this off, and perhaps had a giggle with their mate the next time they were out. Jon Ronson writes brilliantly about this shaming phenomenon in his recent book – the willingness to try to destroy people’s lives for something so innocuous

3/ The barrister’s rant is like a satire – like some tiresome left wing nonsense some gobby student would have written at sixth form after reading John Pilger and Noam Chomsky (I guess Laurie Penny and Owen Jones for this generation) – almost like a caricature Millie Tant and the Modern Parents from Viz

4/ On a serious note, the most insidious aspect of this modern form of political correctness is that it one is judged entirely on the basis of a few words, with no thought to whether the target of the oppropbium is in fact sexist or racist or whatever. Most terrifyingly, it is justified on the basis of some sort of progressive fight against old-fashioned thinking. These people would have been quite at home in the Khmer Rouge and Castro’s revolution and in the Gulag

5/ I sincerely hope this backfires on the nasty cow

(50)(5)
Anonymous

Well I think he sent her a private message, maybe he liked her and wanted to pay her compliment. Is it his fault that he happens to be a barrister, so what now barristers aren’t allowed to network and make friends ??? Shall we just ask our partners to stop complimenting because we shouldn’t be bothered about what makes us attached to one another ??

(5)(3)
C

Neither look good

As a family solicitor I would one never instruct her. The whole point of counsel is an anonymous mouthpiece hence the wig business.

But she knows this and knows as a legal aid family barrister in a set who’s rep is not for family law she is flogging a dead horse and is looking for bigger and better things anyway hence the sabbatical and the act

(11)(2)
Anonymous

“As a family solicitor… The whole point of counsel is an anonymous mouthpiece hence the wig business”.

Horseshit.

(1)(7)
Anon

I’m bored of talking about this now…it really affects no one except her and him…..I really don’t think a feminist point has been made, everyone has pitched their tent on either side of the battle field and refused to move – just polarised and entrenched opinion (I) she was definitely right to do what she did, outrage, good on her, maybe not publish on twitter though cos thats immature n mean spirited OR (2) she’s a mad feminist and talks nonsense, all it was was a compliment, can’t say nuffin no more, totally innocent, not inappropriate, he said the lighting and composition was stunning not her, who does she think she is, politically correctness gone mad

WHO CARES? The surrounding debate doesn’t change anything

So bored of this sh*t, what a WASTE OF TIME

(1)(1)
Sir Viv

Christ, Ashley Madison now LinkedIn…where are the men to go now for their cheap thrills. Stay safe gents, just go to a stripclub….there are like 3 within 200 metres of the RCJ at least.

(7)(3)
Pervy Ken

Hmmm, yes I recommend Secrets; absolute TOP totty in there – the best in Gray’s Inn I dare say!!!! Oh yes, that’s the one for me……

(6)(1)
Anonymous

Life must be so, so bloody exhausting when you view everything through the feminism/patriarchy prism.

(6)(3)
Anonymous

Can I be the first to say, Charlotte can feel free to comment on my rugged male good looks any time she wishes.

So long as she doesn’t comment on my age.

(4)(1)
Tyrion

The guy made a naff remark, which he shouldn’t have said. However, whilst annoying, its not criminal. Her overreaction was not only in her response, but in making this all public. Very immature and silly and now has made her and her chambers look stupid too. There are channels to deal with this, rather than trying to have trial by twitter. Seriously should a lawyer working for justice really succumb to this nonsense trial by social media that is so popular these days.

She went to Keele though so it all makes sense, and she works at a rubbish lefty chambers where this sort of thing is tolerated.

(14)(3)
Feminazi

I was about to say – shite university and shite leftie chambers. The reaction was almost to be expected.

(7)(3)
Anon

The Chambers will be ok. It’s not like any of the partners have had any problem with women.

(0)(1)
Anonymous

Absolute stupidity. The bloke only said it was a stunning picture! He didnt say anything that is in anyway sexist. Complete over reaction.

(18)(3)
Anonymous

We aren’t allowed to use “stunning” apparently.

We are allowed to say that a picture is “pretty”, but only after complimenting a woman’s professional accomplishments in full.

(6)(2)
Anonymous

Anyhow, what are this wimmin’s professional achievements?

All she seems to have done is a never ending stream of pro bono for a bunch of painfully right-on Charidees and NGO’s, and write a load of articles for left-wing rags.

And for someone who does not want to be ‘objectified’ she went to a huge effort in her profile pic…

(10)(2)
Anonymous

Maybe if she should have a picture of her grades up rather than herself if she is going to be so childish about a compliment

(1)(3)
Anonymous

Sexist man

Ageist woman

2 wrongs and something about a right.

(4)(1)
Anonymous

The problem with this childish young woman is that she honestly thinks she’s fighting the good fight – socking it to the hideous man-dominated world.

In the old days, before the internet, this bloke would have said a slimy remark at the after-work drinks and she would have brushed it off, maybe told a friend.

Or, if she was the thin-skinned hyper-sensitive type, complained to HR.

These days, though, the left-wing echo chamber that is Twitter offers her a well of support, which makes her think she’s done the right thing.

She plays to her virtue-signalling tribespeople, which emboldens her.

Clearly publicly shaming this man for such a minor thing is a stupid thing to do by any measure – especially a lawyer.

She will look back and regret this.

(17)(3)
Noonan

No sh*t – especially now the story is in the Daily Mail. Even her clients are going to know about all this now. Oh dear.

(4)(0)
Anono-mee

She’s only 27, its still really young. Most of that time in education and not practice.

The inexperience and lack of maturity in handling email communication shows i guess, what is his excuse i wonder?

A recent study showed that even monkeys in the amazon rainforest when left with an ipad were able to send and receive messages without causing offence or overreacting, basically use email properly without embarrassing the monkey profession or their monkey families. Secondments ASAP for these two….

Both silly people.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Yet, she works for someone who cheated on his wife multiple times and is with a much younger lady while he is still seperated. And she draws the line at a compliment?

(9)(1)
Anon

“Yet, she works for someone who cheated on his wife multiple times and is with a much younger lady while he is still separated. And she draws the line at a compliment?”

Careful. You might get a slap for that.

(2)(0)
Anonymous

She’ll be changing surname to “Proudperson” forthwith.

(5)(0)
windymiller

I think most of us agree that his email was inappropriate. Whether it is offensive is subjective.

If any recipient receives an email/message they find offensive, it is perfectly rational for them to highlight this to the sender including the reasons why. Did she go too far by publicising him?

It would be useful to understand Ms Proudman’s motivations for what she did. If she wanted him to know that she was offended (and why) in the hope that he would think twice before doing it again, a private mail (like that she sent) would suffice. If she feels that this is an issue that needs to be highlighted and discussed in the public domain, she could have disclosed it and kept the sender anonymous.

The fact that she felt the need to name him shows a different motivation. What he did was not that awful that he needs to be personally publicly shamed. The issues relating to the email do not make that necessary. The fact that she has done so makes her look irrational, dramatic and spiteful. It will
reinforce the negative stereotypes associated by many with feminists. I would not want someone like that to represent me; it will be interesting to see if it has any impact on her instructions.

I also think that if you are in the public domain promoting equalities, you should not be making ageist comments!

(12)(1)
Anonymous

Charlotte’s response makes me seriously doubt whether she’s ever spent the night with anyone.

(15)(4)
Noonan

Daft comment by man.

Psychotic response from woman.

The story of modern life.

(12)(3)
Anonymous

And yet again, the word ‘daft’ is used for the man and ‘psychotic’ for the woman – and you lot think that there isn’t sexism going on here?! *shakes head*

(5)(13)
Dave

Perhaps it is just a suitable way to describe the two different interactions?

Or is everyone who calls a woman psychotic a sexist? Are we only allowed to use the same insult we give to a man, or a lesser insult?

This all goes back to the idea that women are fair maidens who are unable to cope with a verbal challenge. That idea is inherently sexist and discriminatory, something the white knights on here fail to understand.

(5)(2)
ffs

She is clearly unhinged. Psychotic is an apt description of the way he has gone about this.

Setting about orchestrating a very public shaming vendetta against someone, in her professional capacity is completely unacceptable.

No man is opressing her, if anything, the comment was empowering to her. No one is doubting her professional skills. She has made it as a barrister (although she is now milking academia which I think is a wise choice for her – less time spent with the public who could possibly inspire more pseudo-liberal blue stocking brigade dross, the better) and that in itself demonstrates her intellect.

The fact that someone on this planet knows she is clearly intelligent and thinks her attractive, at least before she opens her mouth, would be seen as more empowering, rather than as debasing her to a bowl-cut-fringe-sporting, 8 cat owning, daddy-didn’t-love-me piece of meat.

Also, i’d give her 3/10.

(27)(2)
Anonymous

“Sexism,racism and ageism” are political thought control words designed to intimidate or smear opponents.
As a German intellectual once said “Dominate the concepts”.
For decades people lived under Soviet ideology then the USSR collapsed and the
Berlin Wall fell.
Political correctness is already on the way out even if not everyone is aware of this fact.

(5)(1)
Anonymous

She was entitled to send an offended message privately in response to his message.

What she was not entitled to do was to publish and spin private correspondence for publicity purposes. This is particularly so in circumstances where she herself made ageist comments in response. Given the wider media coverage of this incident, Mr Proudman has, in my view, brought the profession into disrepute. Perhaps she would enjoy a BSB investigation?

(14)(1)
Anon

“What she was not entitled to do was to publish and spin private correspondence for publicity purposes”

Everything is allowed as a feminist. It’s the Patriarchy see? You owe them privilege because their great great grandfather oppressed your great great grandmother.

(0)(0)
Bobrob

Great for the “fearless feminists” who aspire to be like a well trained professional woman, but what about the vast majority of ordinary women (men too!) who are increasingly frightened of what they write and say for fear of being attacked for daring to say something which might upset somebody.

Far from improving the lot of all women in the workplace, I suspect this type of response will make the average “careful but cautious” worker even less inclined to break out and show what they rerally are made of.

(9)(0)
Anono-mee

Mate, you’re having a laugh…no one is “increasingly frightened” of sending an email…..dont go overboard….I don’t know anyone who breaks out in a cold sweat cos of this

Anyone with an ounce of common sense knows how to write a lame bit of communication to a colleague without causing offence, and most people know how to receive and not overreact…….

(0)(0)
A caring feminist-lover

The reason for her hairstyle is that it provides a perfectly fitted underlay for her barrister’s wig. By exactly modelling the contours of the scratchy old syrup, she maintains optimal comfort.

This, with her plain shoes, frumpy tan tights, big knickers, yellowing bra and untouched ladygarden, enables her to focus on her mission to become the next Harriet Harman. You go girl!

(30)(5)
Race commissioner

Cultural appropriation. An ultra-privileged Caucasian woman doing a PhD at Cambridge on FGM? It would be appropriate for a woman of colour, especially one from the relevant Horn of African or North African community, to be doing this work. I wonder if any WoC applied or were considered? I would regard her appointment as cultural appropriation of the worst kind.

(7)(3)
Quo Vadis

We’re fine with mutilating young people too – but only if they are male. (It’s the patriarchy, stupid…?)

(4)(0)
Anonymous

Mr Carter-Silk has shown spectacularly poor judgment in this matter.

She’s hideous.

(19)(2)
what's wrong with the world

This post has been removed because it breaches Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
Glen the Spanker

This post has been removed because it breaches Legal Cheek’s comments policy.

(0)(0)
RobertaRinder

Being a barrister is all about good judgement. She has exhibited terrible judgement. I would not instruct her after this incident and I imagine I am not alone. A lawyer sent her an inappropriate message and she decides to publicly shame him?? Proportionate? Reasonable? Kind? This story is now all across the media and tabloids, will she feel so smug if the poor bloke’s life is ruined? What if he does something stupid as a result (people have been known to commit suicide after similar incidents)?

It is hardly like the message was deeply offensive or explicit, just a bit stupid. I wouldn’t like to be a man ever trying to compliment a woman or god forbid ask her out these days…. I am a feminist and agree that there is an issue with sexism in law, but this has not raised the profile of the issue in any helpful way.

(12)(1)
me

Someone should send a copy of Jon Ronson’s ‘So You’ve been publicly shamed’ to her.

She should be ashamed of herself.

(2)(1)
Anonymous

I fail to see how the solicitor has been sexist in any way at all.

He’s an adult. She’s an adult. There is no professional relationship between them (to my knowledge) that would render a personal relationship inappropriate. For instance, to my knowledge, he hasn’t instructed her on any cases. He is thus perfectly entitled to an express an interest in her.

She, in turn, is perfectly entitled to be utterly disinterested in said interest. She is entitled to find him pathetic and unappealing. She is entitled to find him totally unattractive. She is entitled to find his age unattractive. She is even entitled to feel that she doesn’t like being spoken to in that way from someone she doesn’t know at all, to tell him so, and to have nothing more to do with him.

However, she is not entitled to act as if he has committed some great sin against all womankind. Nor is she entitled to make the private conversation public and trash his reputation.

Thus, while he comes across as silly and naive, she comes across as positively psychotic, and I pity her fellow tenants at Chambers, who must be cringing at this whole sorry affair.

(22)(3)
Anonymous

Jon Ronson’s book’s explores this shaming phenomenon in detail, for those who are interested/horrified by this cancer of our times.

This would make a great case study as its illustrate the depths of hysteria to which the shamers have sunk, because this man’s “crime” is so laughably minor that it barely compares to the various other transgressions that have destroyed the lives of otherwise decent people who happened to “offend” some baying online mob.

Ronson makes the point that traditionally in our culture the worst thing you could do to someone was to try to get them fired, and lose their job or professional standing.

Before there was a welfare state, that could mean destitution – the end of your life.

Even now it could mean your marriage breaking down, loss of contact with your children, alcohol, gambling.

It was simply something no-one would ever countenance – it was just not acceptable socially to set out to ruin someone’s life.

Now, our solicitor here has got a few quid, so he won’t starve, but the principle is same – all sorts of problems could flow from this.

In these times, it seems it is socially acceptable – even encouraged – to set out to destroy someone’s reputation.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why you would want to do that.

Furthermore, this silly woman is a lawyer – isn’t the point of a lawyer to be cool headed, calm, rational, exercise good judgement?

(9)(0)
Anonymous

I would disagree with your assertion that it is now socially acceptable – and encouraged – to set out to destroy someone’s reputation. The fact that the so-called ‘twitter mob’ like to run rampant on a story like this is not a basis for asserting that somehow it is now part of modern society to destroy someone’s reputation. I would also take issue with your point that this woma..

FUCK IT, I can’t be bothered anymore, you’re all a bunch of twats anyway.

GOODBYE!

(5)(1)
Not Amused's Doctor

Not Amused has taken his meds now and will come back when they have taken effect. Apologies for any offence caused.

(0)(0)
Not Amused

That wasn’t me. I had hoped people could tell. LC do often correct the name back when people think it is terribly witty to impersonate me – which is very kind of them. So all the impersonator achieves is making extra work for the site – which wants for gratitude given all the content is free.

As NA isn’t real, just an anonymous construct, I don’t really care. I chose to be anonymous so that people would feel free to challenge me, so I’m pretty sanguine. I suppose that if any one ever gets very upset by something a fake NA says then I will be upset. I think people should be nicer to people but my impersonator appears to disagree.

(0)(2)
Hack

Man hits on woman. Woman rejects him. This story is as old as mankind. LinkedIn is pitched as being for business purposes, but there is nothing in its terms and conditions that prohibits men from messaging women to tell them they are ‘stunning’. Men are hardwired to signal their interest in women and that is not illegal, nor should it be. How many people meet their future spouses in the workplace?

He did not use derogatory or threatening language. There was no need for her to publicise a private conversation or be derogatory about his age; there is nothing wrong with a man being involved with a woman half his age, as long as they are both consenting adults. She could have simply ignored him or dealt with it privately. By the way, I am a woman and an advocate of women’s rights but I disagree with her approach.

(10)(1)
Anonymous

She ought to be ashamed of herself – shes taken a remark to an extreme level under the guise of feminism. Feminism is not some woman whinging because a guy has hit on her (albeit in a truly uninspiring way). As for her comment regarding being on LinkedIn for professional reasons; she’s shown absolutely no professionalism whatsoever by plastering this all over social media. Hypocrite.

(4)(1)
Anon

Young women are being taught to hate men. It’s everywhere. Every advertisement shows men as dumbos. Every film shows women has having the idea that saves the day. Every female icon, actress, role model, etc. spouts “Of course I’m a feminist, I can do anything. Literally anyone could build a city, heat it, maintain it, make the roads, the buildings. But I’m an actress, it’s really really difficult. That’s why we are all beautiful”

Hermione Granger punched a man in the face on a film. Imagine had Draco Malfoy done the same?

(0)(0)
Anon

Well, he appeared to have stepped on a raging feminist’s foot…poor guy, wrong place at the wrong time. I’m sure he will think twice next time before he’s about to provide a compliment to someone.
It’s an over-regulated PC society we live in and it’s no surprise this have happened.

As for our Charlotte, she’s so deep into her feminist movement she’s turned into a borderline psycho case shrinks would have a field day with.

http://www.charlotteproudman.com/articles/feminism/
http://www.charlotteproudman.com/articles/feminism/

(6)(1)
Marion

Oh boy, you put it so well…love the ‘raging feminist’ comment and psycho comment. She really is a psycho, I wouldn’t employ such a person in my practice (we employ 2/3 female barristers, by the way) even if she wasn’t on a feminist crusade she seems to be obsessed with.

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Oh Charlotte, what happened to you in your childhood to make you this way?

(5)(1)
Cat among the pigeons

Ugly girl gets a compliment on her looks and wants the whole world to know about it. Case closed.

(16)(0)
Anonymous

How dare a man find a woman attractive !!
She must be really insecure about her practice if she feels a comment like that undermines her role as a barrister.

(5)(0)
Anonymous

She’s done a big interview in the standard tonight, complete with cover-shoot; Massage that ego, massage that ego…..oops, I’ve said massage – I hope that won’t be construed as untoward!

(3)(0)
Robert Adams

I, like any normal modern human being in western society staunchly oppose sexism on all levels! But here is a prime example of disciplinary overkill. What Mr Ms Proudman should have just sent the email and possibly notified LinkedIn as a first step. Let the punishment fit the offence!

(0)(0)
Anon (etc.)

What an awful lot of sexism is rife amongst these boards. No wonder she did what she did; about time it sees the light of day. Terribly sad to see this reaction, though.

(0)(4)
Sexist Man

So is it just me or is Charlotte Proudman not much to write home about. Not sure what he sees in her.

(3)(0)
Anon

Has a precedent been set?

Does this mean that politicians are no longer allowed to ask anyone out who works in politics?

(0)(0)
mir

Professionally I would never consider working with such a mean person. From my point of view her career would have ended here.

(0)(0)
Anon

I feel dumb myself for wasting my own time in reading ,commenting , and getting irate on such a dumb story -I will never get this 20minutes of my life back….

(1)(0)
Lord Harley of Rabbit

Today, the blaggards at the Mail have published Facebook comments from young Charlotte, whereby she has commented upon the physical appearance of young men, with such delightful remarks as “fwoooar “and “sexy” or such like. I dare say this was to highlight the perceived hypocrisy of her position visa vis the old fellow. However the aforesaid rag fails to distinguish between Linkedin being used for business purposes and the wholly fatuous and personal nature of facebook.

(0)(0)
trickydicky

Brilliant I love this but be careful melons are slang for female appendage – don’t want to cause offence now do we?

(0)(0)
Anonymous

Let me put an end to it all.

There is a time for play and a time for work. Thus the two shall not be blurred.!!!!

(0)(0)
Mike

I looked at my nearly 10,000 connections – my network is vast and the top 20 on my contact list are mainly females, i connected with them as their skills set were excellent, good or possibly useful in the future.

So i asked this question on LinkedIn – Do females use their looks to get better connected and if not – why do females on LinkedIn put on loads of makeup, have professional pictures taken, strike a pose that is both alluring and provocative and lastly either wear less clothing, sit in a suggestive way or have their asset’s protruding?
I had a few responses – Fact is my top 20 connections are 90% female and 10% males, so the answer is clear – or is it.
Remember a face will get you into a club or bar or interview that is either well groomed or attractive – we relate to beauty better than to an untidy or scruffy appearance…just saying

(1)(1)
Anonymous

if he is a misogynist ( woman hater ) when he never came anywhere near slating women then she is a misandrist (man hater) as she has derided men she is an hypocrite .

(0)(0)
Anonymous

So this makes it Ok for Charlotte to use age discrimination in her response to Alex…? And even though it is obvious that Alex is a man, why Charlotte makes an assumption he is not Gay – does that makes Charlotte sexist and hypocrite became if this very core assumption in the first place…? If Charlotte is a feminist would she not be sensitive to gender and open to a possibility that not all people are “straight”…?!? Charlotte – get a life!

(1)(0)
Anonymous

Quote from a legal blog:-

“The press have referred to the female barrister as a “human rights barrister”. In her LinkedIn profile she describes herself as:

“I am working towards a doctorate in Law and Sociology at the University of Cambridge researching the legal and policy approaches designed to combat female genital mutilation in England and Wales. Prior to commencing a PhD, I practised as a barrister in family law.

As an associate tenant at the Chambers of Michael Mansfield Q.C. I have a strong background in working with vulnerable women seeking legal support having undertaken pro bono work in the Middle East, Pakistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo where I helped establish the country’s first free legal advice centre.

I write for a range of publications including the Independent, and the Guardian on civil liberties violations, and often speak at public events.”

The solicitor she approached to link to her is Head of European Intellectual Property at a City firm.

Perhaps she thought her background in family law and female genital mutilation would be the perfect skillset that a City IP solicitor would be looking for when instructing a barrister. Perhaps she is looking to move into a totally different area of law and thought that linking up with random strangers via LinkedIn would be the best way to do this.”

The blog also usefully points out, that putting a picture on a Linkedin profile, is optional; and that many people have professional pictures taken specifically for the purpose of making themselves appear more attractive to others

(3)(0)
Eck

Newsnight car crash interview. Sadly came accross like a sixth form debate fresh person.
A female Owen what’s his plank. Make it go away. Pleaaaaaaaaassssseeee.

(1)(0)
John

I have never been able to see the use of Linkedin anyway. You might as well put a pin in the telephone directory. Who is this person who has asked to be ‘Linkedin’? Do I have to do ‘due diligence’ before I contact them? What a waste of time! It’s just as bad as networking meetings, where any random person shoves their business card in your hand and expects that you might contact them. Charlotte should have known better, and certainly so should Mr Carter-Silk: they should both spend their time more wisely.

(0)(0)
Trixi Knicker Knot

God help us all when the day comes that the News of the World hack my LinkedIn account. Full of bizarre requests involving PVC cat suits and Archbold Crown 2007.

(1)(0)

Comments are closed.