The Witchfinder spent a little time over the weekend dropping a note to the official UK Barrister’s regulator about Charlotte Proudman.
The Witchfinder has made an official complaint to the Bar Standards Board, asking them to consider whether Ms Proudman has breached rule CD5.
It is a bit like this. No matter how much fun journalistic or Twitter condemnation is there comes a time when things start to turn into a bit of a lynch mob. There are types of allegations, like child abuse or assault – or discrimination, that need to be dealt with officially not in the High Court of Twitter.
Equally however, that does not mean those things should not be dealt with. I was disgusted by Charlotte Proudman’s complaints about Alexander Silk. People receive compliments about their appearance in all walks of life.
Charlotte Proudman may or may not have a legitimate beef with Alexander Silk, your author personally leans towards, ‘not’. However, that beef was dealt with wildly disproportionately, leading to condemnation in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and even in a wildly offensive satirical video by your humble author.
This has led to vast numbers of tweets about her by members of the public, many critical. The Bar Standards Board rules state that, “You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession [CD5]”.
In essence my concern is that her attempt to whip up a hashtag hit mob has done exactly that. Rule CD5 is one of the rare rules that applies at all times, even when a barrister is not working providing legal services.
The Bar Standards Board rules – meaningfully circled.
I have seen a number of people hassling Ms Proudman (@CRProudman) and her friend Jessica Asato (@Jessica_Asato) online. I would ask people not to trouble them on Twitter but instead to channel all that legitimate concern into constructive purposes and write instead to – AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk .
Ms Proudman has been given repeated opportunities to comment on this issue, has read the emails, but has not replied.
Matthew Hopkins News intends to be fair and balanced about the issue, and will of course report with equal prominence if Ms Proudman is exonerated but considers there is a public interest in these matters being addressed.
I want to start by saying, this man is an fool. Guess what lots of men are and women too, it’s not an excuse, but perhaps a better way of looking at minor infractions.
However, If he had publicly printed ” this one’s easy but no good in bed!” I would say go for it girl! fair is fair! PLEASE NOTE PUBLICLY and MUCH MORE OFFENSIVE.
The fact this was on a professional site makes it only a little bit more inappropriate than if he did not know her and it was Facebook – it was a stupid comment no doubt, maybe at worse even a little undermining of her achievements if you want to try and spin it that way but that is worse case scenario.
WOW, I aced a test a work and was told I cheated because no one else did! (maybe I should have got a gun and shot my boss)
What about when I was younger and had to drive a work vehicle with a leaky exhaust even after complaining or was not given equipment to do my job when others were, expected to return to work after an injury and not do light duties or face no pay, I worked when my granddad died and my partner left me. No one has it easy (especially in any competitive environment) but we all can succeed if we want to.
I did not demand rights even equal to my colleagues. I got my qualifications, moved on and I earn more than any of those people. I am now the boss and I treat people with respect and (guess what, I do not talk to female staff unless necessary. because this kind of thing can happen)
I will be using MS Proudman as an example of how silly things can become so serious purely because she is not a reasonable person.
Lets be rational people – there is no way you can justify her reaction to this.
If you think you can, your not well! He is a fool and perhaps a little bit behind the times, maybe even sexist but what a price to pay.
We are far too PC is scary, a crime should be an obvious clear cut infraction not a perspective where no serious harm is done, forget the bigger picture that is something to be dealt with separately – you can not hang one person for a minor issue to highlight those more serious ones and there should be an independent ruling before something has such consequences for those involved.
It’s disgusting and shocking – she should have been arrested purely to demonstrate you can react like this!
Last time I checked you were not allowed to kill someone for calling you names? but she decided to try and destroy this guy for far less.
All the extreme views show, he is paying for the sins of all those things that have offended her combined. Why are we being told about other examples by her etc.. That has nothing to do with this man – and the reaction to this individual case.
She connected to him first raises questions if you can spin what he said why? did he have something she could benefit from did they practice the same type of law – was is fishing for this type of reaction – can spin anything you see. I am not in anyway condoning Mr Silks behaviour but punishment fits the crime?
NO WAY.
I am not defending his actions in anyway. He might have undermined her by not saying good luck with your career but he did not ask her to get in bed with him either, even if he did it is still a very petty example.
Her being paid less than a man doing the same job is a much better one in this specific case.
I do not agree with contacting strangers like this on a professional site but we have to be careful we do not end up living in a society where we have to fear everything we say in general. There does seem to be a lot of generalising going on with sexual comments – this is not all about Mr Silk do not confuse the two issues they maybe related (but once again the public reaction to MR Silk is based on the bigger issues not the one he specifically was involved with – that is what I am emphasising. Crimes are punishable.
Before it gets brought up again (boring) I do see a difference if I tell a friend of my wife, her best friends hair looks nice! Is different to contacting a stranger and telling them they are attractive on a professional site. To contact someone on a professional site and say they are attractive is inappropriate but not that provocative.
To say someone is HOT on facebook is quite sexual though, if your not both single. I understand the difference between freinds assuming these men did not have partners. Otherwise I think her moral compass is a little off.
Personally I think she is way too highly strung and I think all damaging public social media should be carefull handling the government need to bring in new laws, and perhaps only print anything damaging with court order to make sure the facts are correct, any persons name or photo mentioned should be able to have it removed until a court order proves it is truthful, valid, in the public interest and fair….. or something along those lines, free speech should include boundaries, private conversations should stay private and you should own any content that you have shared.
WE NEED TO CATCH UP in LAW with this fact evolving digital age!
Far to much damage that outweighs the original issue caused by people with personal issues grudges or differences of opinion occurs not real news. Fancy damaging a companies reputation because of something an individual did that was not do with that firm.
Someone sue her! Shame on her professionally.
I think she should be sued, for damaging this mans reputation, he is a clown but no more – maybe he should be banned from social networking sites for a while or sent on a course to educate him.
Her response was border line hysterical, or that of someone with a mental illness. I do not condone Mr silks behaviour but her reaction was so much worse. It’s worse than punching someone in the face because you thought they were looking at you wrong because less people will be effected! She has set about destroying this man, making an example but he is not guilty for all the issues she has faced. It is as if she let rip and he is the fall guy.
Very disappointed someone has not took legal action against her for ruining some ones life for such a minor infraction. Please remember even though he was a fool do not blame him for every sexist issue to date nor call him a pervert unless you have evidence otherwise. It’s all most as if all men should be castrated – we are inherently different but cant we all get along.
I fear for society the abuse of social media needs to stop, we will all end up living in fear or being held accountable by people who simply share different opinions. The price for this particular minor offence – life! How crazy – look at the specific facts. Silk was a prat, Proud man is dangerous – she should not be allowed to practice Law, how many lives will she ruin on a personal crusade, I pity her that kind of ill feeling stems from somewhere and most of us have a real hard times in our life (I have) but we don’t behave in this fashion.
So what are the criteria for assessing whether she’s likely to have diminished confidence in her or her profession?
It’s a vague classification. One criteria might well be the number of people who email polite complaints.