As ‘allegations’ emerge online the media world cuts ties with East Anglian Chambers junior barrister who became GQ’s political correspondent

By on

Cambridge grad Rupert Myers posted apology before appearing to delete his Twitter account

Well-known junior barrister and journalist Rupert Myers has been sacked by British GQ after “allegations” about his behaviour surfaced online.

Myers (pictured top) — a commercial law specialist at East Anglian Chambers, Norwich — was the magazine’s freelance political correspondent. A statement issued by British GQ last night read:

“Having been made aware of some allegations against Rupert Myers, GQ can confirm that it has terminated its freelance agreement with him, with immediate effect. He is no longer GQ’s Political Correspondent.”

Cambridge University graduate Myers, who was called to the bar in 2008, took to Twitter yesterday to apologise. It’s not clear whether the tweet was related to the termination of his GQ contract. His Twitter account and LinkedIn profile now appear to have been deactivated or deleted. Myers declined to comment when contacted by Legal Cheek.

Other publications and organisations which Myers has worked for in the past were quick to distance themselves too.

Daily political newsletter The Spoon confirmed in a statement yesterday that “following the allegations against Rupert Myers, he is no longer any part of The Spoon team.”

Meanwhile, Conservative think tank Bright Blue stated that the barrister was no longer an associate fellow of the research institute. A spokesperson said:

“The alleged behaviour is clearly unacceptable and wrong. Bright Blue is reviewing Rupert Myers’ long-term relationship with us, but in the meantime he is not an associate fellow of the organisation.”

Myers — who appeared on Legal Cheek last year after posting a string of satirical Supreme Court commentary tweets — has written for publications including The Independent, The Guardian and The Times.

His chambers’ profile shows that Myers joined East Anglian Chambers in 2009, and specialises in commercial disputes, employment law, insolvency and personal injury claims. East Anglian Chambers didn’t respond to Legal Cheek’s request for comment.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek's careers events:

Sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub



Nothing on the substance of the allegations? The trial by Twitter? His whole life is fucked now.

Dr Patel

He admitted to them on Twitter and apologised before deleting his account. Normally I’d agree with you but these allegations seem legit.


Those who live by the twitter sword…..

Die by the twitter sword….


Strange how “allegations” can get someone fired.

However, he does seem to admit to something happening as he apologises on twitter???

I guess he is just lucky that the substance of these allegations have not been published




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


Annoying guy but can’t help feel sorry for him


It strikes me that the best course of action isn’t to follow Weinstein and issue an apology before anything has been proven…


If shamelessly arse-covering yes. If you are a decent human being who has made a mistake, shows remorse and wishes to make a mends then immediately apologising seems the best course of action


Hi Rupert.


He was an a** in law school he is an a** now.


I would say, about 95% of people are arses in law school – insecure, conceited, arrogant loud mouths to cover for an inferiority complex…


And then they came for the virtue signallers…


Yes, it’s clearly virtue signalling to expose someone as having sexually harrassed you in the past.


You need to work on your reading comprehension. The virtue signaller being referred to is Rupert Myers himself.


The narrative being that similar historic virtue signalling has come to bite Rupert on the arse.

I think you need to work on your disingenuousness.


Trumpy, I know you struggle with meta concepts but virtue signalling is virtue signalling moosh..

I’m going to keep repeating this (you seem to like repetition from what I’ve observed).


*referencing virtual signalling is virtue signalling
(confound you missing edit feature)


No, this isn’t “coming for the virtue signallers”. It’s coming for the people who commit sexual harassment.

But obviously Myers’ politics are much more important to you than his appalling actions. Not at all surprising coming from someone who earnestly uses the phrase “virtue signalling”.


What’s wrong with the phrase ‘virtue signalling’?


It’s like garlic to a social justice vampire. Cuts right to the centre of their id, that’s why they don’t like it.

i dunno

hi Trumpenkrieg, what is an id?


6 upticks for a fatuous and superficial statement that said little (nothing even) that could be termed original, insightful, interesting or witty..?



It’s a rhetorical comfort blanket for the dumbest sector of the right. If they didn’t have it, they might be forced to confront the fact that people sincerely disagree with them, which wouldn’t do at all. Far better to pretend that everyone who disagrees with them is just pretending for brownie points, and stay cocooned in their fantasy land where they’re always right despite the ongoing collapse of their ideology into kneejerk, tribal incoherence.


ok…. i dont think that is the “dictionary definition” of id…

however, i do think that a lot of people cover up legitimate, non – illegal right wing or conservative views because they fear being misunderstood or being called a nazi….. having a concern about the numbers relating to EU / “free movement” immigration does not make you a racist for example….. i am an EU citizen myself. I happen to have studied here and now work, I pay taxes that justifies my use of public services.

However – I have concerns about EU immigration levels from those sections of the migrant population who choose not to work and simply claim benefits under EU entitlement rules. It is not sustainable for UK public services – NHS, housing benefits, especially in London cannot cope with a population that does not support itself.

If i was to raise this as a legitimate concern, I get labelled right wing or racist. Im actually a socialist by instinct. But i think this is not a political question, its just common sense.


No, indeed. I don’t think you should be labelled racist or rightwing. I think perhaps *wrong* would be more apposite given that the issue has been demonstrably gravely overstated by those wishing to rouse the rabble.


Your article is almost a word for word lift from Huffington Post UK…


It’s actually not, but as a wider point the media is clearly limited in what they can write about this story and are focusing on GQ’s response to the allegations rather than the allegations themselves.


I’ve been against him and he really is a stuck up arsehole.


I have known Rupert for 10 years. He is kind, generous and funny. He is incredibly loyal to his friends and has been there for me in good times and bad. He has forgiven me when I said stupid things. He has apologised when he has said stupid things. That is the nature of friendship. He has been supportive as I had my children as a barrister. He encouraged me in my career. We all form impressions of our opponents in law but you clearly do not know Rupert Myers. I do and I am very proud to call him my friend.


Hi Rupert!


Google Kate Leader to find out more


Leaver 🙂

Not Amused

Right. I’m now thoroughly confused by all of this.

As I understand the law, sexual harassment applies only to the workplace.

An offence under the Sexual Offences Act would require more.

So what exactly are we saying he did wrong? Other than try to kiss someone who did not want to be kissed?

Are we all campaigning to extend sexual harassment to outside the workplace? Why? Won’t that just create huge problems?

I am starting to see the ugly misogyny of ‘pretending all women are victims’ or ‘pretending grown women can’t look after themselves’ again. I’m not accepting that – that’s nonsense. Women do not need special protection thank you.

I am not at all happy with where this is headed.


I think you are a horrible old hag in most of your posts, but I agree with you here.


I guess the point is that perhaps the behaviour, while not against the law (I think); it’s still been considered beyond the pale morally.

I am sort of with you though. The law can’t intervene everywhere – but *if* the story is true it’s certainly unpleasant. Not sure that necessitates all this quick action though. Just seems a bit… Rash.

Jon Ronson’s “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” book springs to mind.


You have interpreted a lot from Ms Leaver’s tweet. She said “he forced himself on me”. Your crack legal mind has confirmed that this isn’t an offence under the SOA (or anything else) and created a straw man of sexual harassment. Some thoughts:

1. We have no idea what legal offences were or were not committed. “Force” suggests assault and/or battery and possibly more. Who knows, though.

2. Sexual harassment is clearly not legally at play here, but does that make the alleged behaviour (I say alleged out of habit, Rupert’s essentially admitted it) better or worse?

More generally, why does something have to be criminal to be wrong? At the very least imposed himself on a number of women and gave unwanted attention to them. That doesn’t necessarily mean he belongs in jail. It might mean that we can judge him for socially unacceptable actions.

I’m pretty happy with heading towards a place where men don’t force themselves on people. I’m curious why you’re not.

Not Amused

“More generally, why does something have to be criminal to be wrong”

Because we are a large and liberal democracy full of people with a wide range of moralities. We all need to get along and right now the people getting offended are the people causing a fuss. So, given there is no moral consensus, it seems a waste of time to allow people to conduct morality based witch-hunts.

Or to put it another way, if actions are going to have real consequences attached to them then I would rather we all agree in advance which actions have which consequences. Rather than just make stuff up on the hoof because that’s mob justice.

“I’m pretty happy with heading towards a place where men don’t force themselves on people. I’m curious why you’re not.”

No you aren’t. You are trying to use a rhetorical device to shame me in to agreeing with your particular world view.

Given your world view is deeply misogynistic – I’m not likely to change mine. Women are not weak.

If anything illegal occurred then I suggest the complainant report it. Trial by social media is a truly grotesque and cowardly thing.

I stand opposed to the modern culture or ‘shaming’ and mob rule. I consider the people who do this to be disgusting and beneath my contempt. My relative privilege makes me immune to this nonsense and that privilege means I feel have a duty to speak. For doing so I was called a “hag”. I noticed you ignoring that.


Sorry, it was me that called you a hag. In retrospect that was a bit nasty. I have had a bad week and although that does not excuse my actions, I am sorry.

Not Amused

Thank you. Apology accepted and appreciated.


Not Amused:

– your long-winded and angry answer doesn’t address the simple point made by the commenter above that it is far from clear that what is being complained of isn’t a criminal offence and that you don’t have to rewrite the Equalities Act to fire someone because they committed a criminal offence.

– it also misses the basic point that newspapers and magazines frequently dismiss columnists for espousing views that go against their values. When a journalist gets dismissed for making a racist comment, its not because of the Equalities Act, or even because its illegal to make a racist comment, its because the journalist’s job is to speak for the paper and the paper doesn’t want a racist speaking for them. Similarly with Mr Myers here. GQ doesn’t want to be associated with someone who appears to have behaved in a misogynist manner. Nothing to do with extending the Equalities Act, so lose the straw man.

– It really irritates me that you don’t correct people who assume you are female. You know as well as I do that you are a man (and I do know who you are). Why allow people to believe you are a woman? You go on and on about how much you deplore ‘identity politics’ but it seems that you deliberately cultivate the false impression that you are female in order to gain credibility when you make arguments about how women and minorities don’t need any special treatment/don’t face any particular challenges etc etc. If you are so confident that identity politics don’t matter, why not admit that you are a straight, white man when you make these arguments? Not to do so seems completely intellectually dishonest to me and also not really in the spirit of the bar Code of Conduct.


Long-winded and angry. And getting the name of the statute right would be a start.


Not Amused,

I don’t often agree with you but I think you hit the nail on the head here. This trial by social media is a very dangerous thing.


1. You haven’t addressed the legal point — that you have used your vast legal knowledge to determine that an actionable act has not occurred. How exactly did you do that?

2. As someone below says, there are a vast number of things you can do or say that are not criminal but which are judged by society (and employers) leading to consequences. I don’t understand why that’s difficult to understand. If I did a number of sub-criminal things in my office I would expect to be suspended/fired, and I’m an employee. If I was a freelancer/self-employed by Myers, I would expect it even more quickly.

3. The basic facts of this are that Myers forced himself on someone and apologised for it (i.e. he didn’t say “no I didn’t”). It seems to be that there’s a moral consensus that this is wrong. Other accusations (he hasn’t admitted to this, but I’ve seen screenshots which back them up) involve harassing women on multiple occasions online and in person. It seems to me to be a truism that this isn’t acceptable behaviour as well.

4. Good attempt at claiming I am a misogynist for my views. If you’re a lawyer, I urge you to try that line on an HR department, or partnership that espouses similar views to me (and most good ones do). I’m sure it will go down swimmingly.

5. I’m sorry you were called a hag. I have to say I didn’t read that post. I am not sure why it’s my responsibility to say anything about it — particularly since you are, by your account and the post below, a privileged man.

Have a good evening.

Larry Darrell

It is an excellent development – lefties starting to devour their own. More of the same please. And Rupert is certainly not seen as a conservative by most right-wingers – he is a cuck.

Larry Darrell

This sums up what is happening to the left – it is excellent, and must be encouraged:

I’m reminded of a film I saw recently where a gangster keeps a dog in a cage which he torments and beats in order to make it angry and bloodthirsty. Then later he gets eaten by the dog.


I love how you’ve gone – within a two-sentence post! – from talking about how the left are eating their own to saying that a Conservative isn’t really a conservative because he doesn’t fit your insane purity politics definition. If you had any sort of self-awareness, you’d see the irony in that, but then using the word “cuck” is an infallible guarantor of someone who can’t understand that the world is laughing at him.

Roger Errington

Of course he’s a rightwinger. Former Daily Mail hack and deputy chairman of Bermondsey Conservatives!


Dear NA

If publications want to sack a “journalist”, they’re free to do so, at will.

Does GQ need to carry toxicity?

No, they don’t.


Imagine my surprise to find that the “pinned tweet” on Kate Leaver’s profile is a promo for her new book.


Jesus. Really? Even if she is doing it to sell a book (she probably isn’t), how does that impact on Rupert’s behaviour, which he has essentially admitted.

Larry Darrell

Imagine my surprise to find that famed lefty-lawyer Lisa Bloom was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by various acknowledged thugs like Harvey Weinstein to “silence” (Bloom’s words) the female victims. No doubt the lefty-lawyers have some laughable “excuse” when one of their own cashes in by selling out to “the man.”
This is why you lose, lefty!

Charlotte Proudman

This is about me.


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

Larry Darrell

You lefties would do much more for the world by confronting the heinous crimes (real crimes) committed by the religion-that-must-not-be-mentioned, than by getting the vapours over the flailing of some limp-wristed cad.


This isn’t a left or right issue.

This is a man issue.

Rupert has been making unwanted advances on young women for years. I know this from personal experience.

Of course he shouldn’t be labelled a criminal in the absence of due process. But the numerous women coming forward sharing their experiences of his predatory behaviour shouldn’t be labelled as ‘mob’ stirring up a ‘witch hunt’.

If upon hearing 10+ women have come forward following a sexual assault allegation your first instinct is to lament on his career prospects, you are part of the problem.

Men should be held accountable for their conduct with women. Rupert has chosen to enter a profession that is held to a high moral standard. He then chose to hold himself out as a public figure in the media. He even wrote articles of how women should be respected.

Then he used that power and esteem to meet as many young women as possible in order to make unwanted sexual advances on them.

Not Amused – it’s not misogynistic to condemn these actions as wrong. Physically forcing yourself on someone after they’ve made it clear they are not interested may well amount to sexual assault.

You should be applying your advocacy skills to defend these women. Instead your primary concern seems to be protecting another privileged man.


When is an advance really unwanted? I’ve gone on to sleep with women who’ve initially said they are not interested. Does that mean that continuing to pursue those women after they initially said they “just want to be friends” makes me a rapist? How can you truly know if an advance is unwanted? It is still the case that men are expected to make the first move, whether it’s asking a woman out or kissing a woman during the course of a date. A woman is not going to tell you “this is the correct time to kiss me, please proceed”. She communicates this through body language cues. I know that overweight feminists with poor personal hygiene like to theorise about a weird alternative universe where men ask “may I now touch you” and women answer “yes you may” as a sort of negotiated consent but anyone who has had sex knows that is not how things work, especially when alcohol is involved. Although Myers is a cuck and a virtue signaller and I have no sympathy for him getting himself in this mess, I do have to wonder what happened on that date. To force yourself on a woman telling her you want to fuck her the very moment she tells you she is not interested is so unhinged that I have to question whether a public figure (a barrister and author no less) would have engaged in it. It is very possible that this woman may have embellished the facts a little in order to serve her own cause. My gut feeling is that she rebuffed him with “let’s just be friends” and after a few more drinks he decided to try and escalate by kissing her, thinking she might have been playing hard to get. The “I have enough friends, I just want to fuck you” is probably an invention of hers to monster him. And before you turn on the outage tap, remember that you lot on the other side are taking her story at face value without hesitation, so you’re not exactly being more forensic in your approach.


“Myers is a cuck.” Tells us all we need to know about your parochial, frightened and ill-conceived world view.

Your juvenile insight into sexual relations leads me to doubt you’ve had any whatsoever.

As for taking Kate’s word for it, it’s quite easy to research and discover that Rupert offered no defence to the allegations, he apologised immediately both publicly and privately.

His actions aren’t criminal nor do they make him a terrible person. What they probably do, though, is severely erode his high ground for social and political commentary. He chose to put himself in the public eye, with that comes some acceptance of public scrutiny of which he’s fallen foul.

To the average non-tantruming, reasonably well-adjusted adult it’s really not that difficult to understand without throwing all of your alt-right toys out of the pram.


Myers is a cuck (cuckservstive) in that he calls himself a conservative but rolls over to have his belly tickled by the Left on every issue of major importance. If you don’t like the term because it’s doesn’t accord with your view of the language political discussions should be conducted in, that does not detract from the validity of the descriptor.

As to my juvenile insights on sexual relations, I congratulate you on your sleuthing. I am in fact an incel permavirgin who snuggles up to an anime waifu pillow at night. Please help me to rectify the situation if you will by pointing out which of my insights on sexual relations are wrong.

I place very little stock in Myers’ blanket acceptance/apology. Arguing the toss about what he did or did not do would only have been digging himself a deeper hole. The media works on the basis of “believe accusers”, so it’s no wonder he lost his GQ gig.

By saying his actions are not criminal and don’t make him a bad person it seems to me you’re implicitly disbelieving the “victim”, so I’d be curious to know what you think happened, and were you, a very well adjusted and grown up moderate, would draw the line between acceptable courtship and sexual assault.

Roger Errington

He calls himself a conservative because he is one. Former Daily Mail hack and deputy chairman of Bermondsey Conservatives! Do check your facts.



By your logic, a public accuser of non-consensual sexual behaviour is always lying.

(i) If the accused denies it, it is not true. Because, according to you, where there is doubt (i.e. always unless witnesses, which there normally isn’t) more likely accused did not do it (at least where they are a ‘public figure’) because you say such behaviour is improbable, or accuser is embellishing facts to serve their own cause.

(ii) If the accused apologises for doing it, it is also not true. The media believes accusers and any accused who apologises is simply accepting the inevitability of this.

If no other witnesses (normally the case), it follows that, if the behaviour complained of would have constituted criminal conduct, it would not be possible to (by your standards) find guilt. See above.

Can I ask if you would reason the same way if a man accused a woman or other man of the same thing.


“By your logic, a public accuser of non-consensual sexual behaviour is always lying.”


I’m just pointing out what it is that stinks about this case:

– mediocre nonentity “writer”
– allegations coincide with Weinstein media frenzy
– pinned tweet touts new book
– allegations which if true represent a seriously unhinged individual with no social intelligence and propensity to commit sexual assault
– likelihood of a seriously unhinged individual with no social intelligence and propensity to commit sexual assault having gone undetected in the public eye for so long? Not very likely

But like I said, I don’t think Myers was perfectly gentlemanly and she invented everything.

I think he probably behaved like an entitled boor with no social skills and she hammed it up to use to advance her career (a time-worn tactic, see Charlotte Proudman).


I have spent 15 years at the bar and I can tell you most barristers are unhinged

Benny Goodman


You might be right. You might be wrong. We all draw inferences based on our experience and view of the world.

But…. he apologised, and people do not normally apologise, especially publicly, unless they have actually done something wrong, and particularly when all they are facing is an accusation on Twitter which could be batted away without too much effort. Surely you agree that the obvious inference is that he might have actually done the thing complained of.


If you can’t figure out if a woman is consenting, you probably should stick to your sock drawer.


Yeah, because you’re so much more hip and up on things than all those men being dragged through the courts on sex cases hanging on this very question.


” I’ve gone on to sleep with women who’ve initially said they are not interested”

Pffft. Hahahaha of course you have. 😀


Alright then, bozo, make an abstraction from the personal anecdote. Is it really inconceivable for a woman (or a man for that matter) to signal token disinterest when in fact they are interested?


I’m not going to discuss my thoughts on signalling on here – and least of all with you. I just find the idea that someone as patently boorish and unpleasant as you is some sort of stud a bit difficult to entertain – in spite of the imputed female attraction toward so-called bad boyyyzz (which I imagine you think you are).

Bore off.


Yes, I’m a bore, that’s why you’re such a faithful follower of mine.

I have not made a single claim of being a stud anywhere, and you know it.


Not a faithful follower. More a determined irritant keen to point out all the numerous (and boy are they) times that you are talking out of your misinformation-spreading aris and venting your generally execrable opinions (under what seems no end of pseudonyms)..

You’d miss me if I weren’t here darling…


Whatever you say, bugman.


Conservative my foot. His positions read like a Soros policy document.

Rupert 🐻

Me a cucky-wucky woo-woo.

Now tickle my tummy til I cummy

Him wot Knoes stuff

Is this the same Rupert who has the nickname “Poopy Roopy”?


Yes. It’s because of his “ahem” strange tastes.


The accusations may or may not be true, but I haven’t seen any evidence, or even much detail as to what the accusations actually are. Also, I haven’t seen a detailed response from the accused. Until then I’ll reserve judgement.

I don’t think its right that people can lose their jobs over accusations made on Twitter.


Probably won’t be long before someone lodges a complaint with the BSB.


Rupert Myers should sue this woman. Her actions plainly amount to defamation – there has been no attempt to present the facts of this in anything approaching a balanced way. Lets get some crowd funding going to support him.

Join the conversation

Related Stories