UK Laywer set to be disbarred over calling a woman stunning

Post Reply New Topic

Charlotte Proudman a 27-year-old barrister, sent a LinkedIn Invite to 57 year old Lawyer Alex Carter-Silk.
He responded as pictured above, along with her response.

She claims his slightly inappropriate message was a massive act of Sexism and Objectification of women.
She said it amounted to "using LinkedIn essentially as Tinder instead" of highlighting women's professional skills.

She has posted this on Twitter to help get his law licensed revoked and for her to get full justice against him to make sure sexism is purged from LinkedIn.
She is also taking this to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which is the English and Welsh equivalent of the Bar Association, to ensure he is fined, his law license is revoked and his practice is shut down.
If she wins he will never be able to practice law of any sort in England and Wales ever again.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... ike-tinder

She is calling on all women to support her and to send a strong message to men around the world.
You can obviously join and/or follow the conversation on Twitter.

Has LinkedIn really become the new Tinder for straight men?

Eh, I hope they disbar her. Such conduct should not be expected of a barrister.

For not being quiet and polite when a man (who is supposed to be a colleague) hits on her?

Nope. Anger is the appropriate response here. She is one hundred percent in the right.

He's not her colleague, they've never met in person.

She hit him up in person asking for some "instruction" (as more details emerge) via a LinkedIn invite.

His coworkers both male and female have come out in his defense, calling her out.

They are both barristers, no? Barristers are a profession. Meaning they have certain ethics that all members of the profession are required to follow, and members of the profession are meant to show solidarity with other members of the same profession. This is what I meant by "colleague." Pardon me if that's not a correct use of the word. My point is, his conduct was extremely unprofessional, and he needs to be called out for it.


Completely irrelevant who messaged who first. Being approached by a woman isn't a greenlight to comment on her looks.


Sexual harassment is not a democratic process. You don't get to vote on whether or not he's a creep.

For what it's worth, I don't think he should lose his license to practice. I'd be fine with a public apology, if I were her. But I'm not her, so however far she decides to take this, she'll have my support.

disbarment is too harsh a penalty for a lapse in judgment that has already been censured by the recipient, who wasn't hurt by more than an insult.

He's a Solicitor (Private Lawyer in most countries), she's a Barrister (two different types).

Also why did she purposely put a posed photo showing off her looks on LinkedIn instead of a professional photo?
Why did she change her LinkedIn profile and photo late last night?
She also changed her Facebook and Twitter profiles too.

I don't believe he's a creep, just a guy from an older generation who are known for speaking a certain.
If she didn't like what he said, she could have threatened to report him on LinkedIn or actually reported it via the report button, which would have gotten his account banned, if LinkedIn felt it was sexual harassment.

She is promising to take him for all this worth.
Her and her fellow female supporters have also have made his wife and daughter names public and have supposedly tried to contact them.
She has also reported the firm he works for promising to shut them down for hiring him and defending him.

She better be praying she doesn't get fired, because there is a good chance no other employer will hire her in the UK in fear of her doing this again.

She's also claiming on Twitter those who refuse to take sides and are taking his side are "Furthering the problem!"

It's looking more and more likely she purposely wanted some guy to do this, so she could flex her feminist muscle and have grounds to sue for a massive payout.

She is going to get rich:

1) From all the media deals
2) From her supporters contributing to a donation (which is said to be in the works)
3) From winning a huge judgement from him in court
4) And/or from winning a judgement from the law firm that employed him.

No longer will she have to struggle to live on her meager Human Rights Barrister position (she has an entry level position).
If she wants or needs more money, she can try this again in a few years with a different man on LinkedIn.

I have to say, you seem really emotionally invested in this issue involving people elsewhere in the world from you whom you don't know personally. If you do know them personally I apologize, but if these people are strangers to you you may want to reexamine your level of personal emotional investment in this issue. It's unsettling.

Well apparently Ms. Proudman's life story is getting stranger by the minute.

From the UK Telegraph (news outlet)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... death.html

It gets even better



The well gets even deeper.



She has severe issues with her family too.
Sounds like she needs some mental help.

@wilburforce
I'm not emotionally invested.
The Twitter postings in her Twitter feed are more expressive and charged than anything I have posted.
Even the comments in the press are nearing Twitter level.
Or you can read Cathy Newman, who is a well known Feminist who did quite the blog write up on the issue.
She claims the amount of "abusive" Ms. Proudman is receiving over this, is sickening and how it bothers her deeply as a feminist.
Oh she claims she is getting abusive for defending her and how it was a predictable response from the right wing.
Yes It was on the Google news feed.
http://blogs.channel4.com/cathy-newman- ... exist/1397

It is also being reported by the BBC News, which I watch most days on PBS.
It's the biggest controversy in the UK in years.

Also if you haven't noticed we have thread on the forum called "SO many terrible misogynists on this forum."
Funny enough we have another thread on this forum titled "Manspreading is a misdimeanor in New York Subway!", about how men are being arrest on the NYC subway for not sitting with their legs together while the punishable distance is up the arresting officer.
We also have thread on this board about how Rape Culture is an epidemic and needs to be dealt with (though the facts tell a very different story).

We are having a discussion about a now unstable woman, who hasn't dealt with her life and family issues from childhood.

But It's safe to say the debate is now dead (Or will be soon) based on how she treats her own family.

To recap I'm not emotional, just very opinionated.

FYI I don't like it when anyone gets bullied or is handed to an internet mob justice, without due process... It just peeves me something big.

The amount that you have posted on this particular issue alone, and the way in which you discuss it, suggests you are indeed very emotionally invested. It just strikes me as strange, and a little worrying.

Are you really using the "she was asking for it" defense? Really? Really? How repulsive.


His age is not an excuse. If he's that much older than me or her, then he's old enough to know better. This "boys will be boys" attitude has gotta go.


Probably because she didn't like the attention she got for it. Can't say I blame her.


I agree. If you don't condemn sexism, you condone it.

Yeah, who cares? Some lady got mad somebody because complimented her picture lol. Perhaps he would of been better off never responding to her and only doing business with men, why would anybody want to walk around on egg shells worrying about somebody having her precious feels ruffled by some innocuous comment that her rampant neuroticism reads too much in to. She should seek psychological help.

If this is what feminism has come to then it has outlived its purpose.

Last edited by Jacoby on 12 Sep 2015, 1:30 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have no emotions about it what so ever...
Though just reading posts on this forum at any given time would easily give the impression that everything is emotionally charged.

I've probably gotten a tad carried way into tangent, but this isn't anything too unusual.

If you have a problem with any posts you can use the report function or PM a mod or admin (Which it sounds like something you'd do).

Or if that isn't to your liking you take a screenshot and post it to social media

I am going to probably play Super Mario Maker again and maybe post more about it, I hope you don't misconstrue it as emotionally invested.

I suggest you read Barchan most recent post to understand emotional investment.

Welcome to 2015!
I've offended a few married women by use the title Mrs. when addressing them over the years.
I was taught in high school and college as part of the work place sensitivity stuff they made us do, is that it is offensive and sexist to address any married woman by Mrs. unless she asks to be called that.

You should address every married woman as Ms. unless told otherwise.
You should never address an unmarried woman or girl as Ms., unless given permission because it's sexist and objectification.
You always address them by their first name.
You also don't address them using their last name unless it is for legal reasons, because it objectifies them as property to their husband (if married), father (if still alive), brothers and uncles (if they have either of these two

As for men, you should always address man and boy (at least 5th grade) as Mr. when in presence of women and girls.
To address them by any other name is offensive to women.

Yes this was literally taught in my high school every year, as it was also taught in college at career events and certain classes to ensure that everyone understood proper sensitivity by the time we graduated with our degrees.

Have you ever heard the Shakespeare quote: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."? I think it could apply to this post of yours.

P.S. I don't use social media, other than this forum.

Then you obviously have no context with LinkedIn really works not how it is supposed to work.

Companies regularly hire good looking people to recruit for them of both sexes, who then purposely post suggestive photos as their main photos.
They are then sent to go flirt with people who are of interest and in that field the company is in.
It's quite common to for women to get hit up by good looking men recruiters, who then "flirt" with them in hopes of getting that woman to meet up for a chat about that company.
They can be quite "flirtatious" even at that meeting.

On flip side there are good looking women recruiters, who are required to "flirt" with men in order to get them to meet up and then try to "sell" the company to that man.

Both men and women recruiters definitely go past the line of what is professional.
Granted there are plenty of recruiters who do it right (well as in they don't dabble in it).

It's no big secret that U.S. employers try to find out what you look like before scheduling you for an interview.
If they think your photo is less than attractive, it could very well be what's stopping you from getting that interview.
People of both sexes tend to gravitate to the more attractive type, even when decided who to interview and who to hire.

Also if you lack a LinkedIn account (and social media presence in general) it will greatly damage your chances of being taken seriously when you apply (Yes I've been told this from professionals and recruiters).

Now please practice what you preach, especially if you're going to resort to using the greatest plagiarist of all time (that is what he is known for now).