Oh, the nasty man said horrible things, *swoons*.

At a networking event in 2017 he boasted to a male pupil that he had “buttfucked another chambers dry”.
 

👀 

Woman does something wrong - rehearing

Man does something wrong - punishment should be more severe

 "We are taught that as barristers, small misdemeanours like parking violations are OK, but more serious crimes are not. Is sexual harassment the equivalent of a parking violation?"

Well, I suppose that they can't all go on to be QC's...

Hang on a moment... I've just noticed that this all happened in Manchester. That rather changes the context.

Obviously in London this kind of behaviour would have been very out of place and engaging in it would demonstrate a clear lack of judgement on the part of the individual engaging in it. Simply because of how at odds with everyone else's behaviour it would have been. But I wonder if it felt quite so incongruous in the perhaps less cosmopolitan environment of the Manchester bar?

If it's par for the course up there then it seems a tad harsh to give him a six-monther for it.

So - as an aside - at what point does a disciplinary panel bring the profession into disrepute?  I mean there is a degree of cognitive dissonance is coming out and saying - on the one hand "there is no room for sexual harassment at the bar" and on the other "this person who is a repeat offender and making sexually inappropriate remarks including some pretty awful comments to a female work experience student deserves only a 6 month ban so, despite there being no room for sexual harassment at the bar this chap can come back in 6 months"

9.39 - 'sexual harassment' isn't a serious crime though. She's conflating it with other things.

I read this and I just don't get the lenience here. if the guy is banned from taking on work experience placements, then he's clearly considered to be dangerous or predatory in some way, right? If that's the case then how can he continue to be a part of the profession? I thought the whole point was to weed out these kinds of people rather than just isolating them from those they'd do harm to, and otherwise let them get on with it. 

All of that is said reservedly as he's appealing. 

Six months' suspension sounds fair. He made unacceptable comments and it's quite right he be sanctioned, but acting like he should be getting a custodial sentence for making someone feel uncomfortable is going a bit over the top.

Don't think he's considered 'dangerous', Poopot.

@10:35 - did you miss the bit of the story where he swallowed the mini-pupil whole?

She literally had to survive for a week off of tripe that she peeled from his stomach lining before he finally regurgitated her.

That's literal harm and he deserves to be in Guantanamo.

People seem to be missing some important context here. The offending was against a mini pupil. It would be an awful lot less serious if it was a woman of the same level of seniority as him, but a mini pupil is in a situation where she feels she needs to impress her supervisor and her supervisor has considerable power and authority over her. He abused that position for sexual gratification and isn't suitable to hold a similar position in future.

These cases are difficult.  Loss of "only" 6 months' income and being hauled over the coals publicly is not a "low penalty".  I suspect his practice is irreparably damaged. 

His conduct sounds horrible but do we need some sense of perspective?  

Anon @9.45: Sexual harassment is ok if it takes place outside London. That’s hilarious. 

Anonymous 26 March 21 11:06

People 

It's not "people".  It's a troll.  Don't waste your time on it.

“because you can’t finger women with long nails”.

I don't see what difference the length of a woman's fingernails makes, frankly.  

If he had been working in a big firm and so subject to internal disciplinary procedure (rather than self-employed) I wonder what the outcome would have been.

@11.22 - its not a troll, its people. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean its 'a troll'. But thanks for demonstrating that you have no argument against these people.

@11.47 - he'd likely have been fired following the accusation, whether he'd done anything or not.

@ 11.22

Agreed.

I can't imagine what it would be like spending your day supporting a man who sexually harasses women at work and then upvoting your own posts.

But I doubt it's a very nice place to be.  Sitting amongst the 3 day old takeaway containers in his underpants seems likely

This is the sort of shite talk I’ve had to put up with in every single job I’ve had. From till operator to law firm. To those saying it’s not that serious, when you’ve experienced this behaviour all your life, it’s draining. You try & laugh it off when it makes you uncomfortable because there’s nothing else you can do & it seems so trivial when your junior to say the conversation is making you uncomfortable. People need to be held accountable that this behaviour is not acceptable anywhere to anyone. 

@13:24  Quite right, but what I can't imagine is a world in which anyone would ever upvote a single post that I personally disagree with.

Between you and me, the only possible explanation that I can think of is that reasonable god-fearing readers are upvoting all of my posts (and of course your good self's) and that all of the other dissenting posts on here are just being repeatedly upvoted solely by the people who made them. All of whom are misfits and social outcasts living in lightless grottos amongst their own detritus. Poor probably, certainly poorer than me.

It just makes you shudder doesn't it? Dreadful people. Some of them probably don't even read the Guardian.

@11.22.13.24 - but its not a troll, its people. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't mean its 'a troll'. But thanks for demonstrating that you have no argument against these people. And try to take your mind off people's underwear.

“Buttfucked another chambers dry” - spot the avid user of hardcore pornography. 

demonstrating that you have no argument 

Why would anyone waste their time arguing with a clown?

14.38 - how do you know?

@14.58 - I have Google.

@14.57 - you're not arguing with anybody when you have no argument.

I suppose it's possible that a sixth form debating society somewhere is still arguing about whether or not sexual harassment exists and whether or not it is harmful or to just a big funny joke.

Thankfully the grown-ups have moved beyond that.

@15.06 - I'm sure you do, but how does that let you know?

@15.31 - correct, the grown ups are talking about what level of sanctions are appropriate and whether 'sexual harassment' and/or the harm caused is exaggerated.

@15.34 “buttfucked” tends to fairly niche and specific terminology exclusively associated with hardcore pornography. It’s not really heard in everyday parlance, is it?!

@11.06 - I don't think people are missing the point that she was a mini pupil. People aren't saying nothing should be done, its more whether the sanction was too lenient. I think it was about right, all things considered. And not sure he acted for 'sexual gratification'.

This is utterly grim. I hope this hideous creature is never allowed near any woman’s vagina - short nails or not. 
 

Is this serious?

Do you mean you can no longer corner a female trainee in a lift and sexually intimidate her?

Might as well apply to the police force then.

15.56 - yeah, a 6 months suspension and not being allowed to take on pupils pretty much means you can't do it anymore. What is 'sexual intimidation'?

@15.53 - is it really?

@16.16 are you 12?

@16.35 - are you 11?

@15.55 - I don't think the BSB can go that far!

Much of this thread seems to characterise the well-known scientific concept, Schroedinger's Arsehole.

You say something offensive and if (and only if) someone complains you say it was joke, thus from the moment you make the comment you are Schroedinger's Arsehole.

@18.18 - which comments are you referring to?

acting like he should be getting a custodial sentence for making someone feel uncomfortable is going a bit over the top.

No-one mentioned a custodial sentence.

He should be struck off.  He abused a position of trust.

@9.05 - agree on the custodial sentence, but likewise a strikeoff would be totally OTT and would probably be capable of being challenged in court. The suspension is probably about right, it strikes the correct balance.

A bit strong to say its an abuse of a position of trust in my view.

Anonymous 26 March 21 16:05

What is 'sexual intimidation'?

What is a 'sea lion'?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

Anonymous 27 March 21 09:43

@9.05 - agree on the custodial sentence, but likewise a strikeoff would be totally OTT and would probably be capable of being challenged in court. The suspension is probably about right, it strikes the correct balance.

A bit strong to say its an abuse of a position of trust in my view.

There is no recorded occasion when the view of an trouserless, internet addicted men's rights enthusiast with poor personal hygiene and a porn viewing problem has been of value.

@9.05 - ah, so you don't know what 'sexual intimidation' is.

Screaming about 'sealioning' as if the term is new every time you don't agree with something, especially when you cant say which posts are 'sealioning' just makes you look bad and part of the problem.

@10.47 - nobody said that you lack trousers, have an internet addiction, are a women's rights enthusiast, have poor personal hygiene, or a porn viewing problem - we don't care if you do or not, you're still welcome to express your views here.

If your approach to a view you disagree with is to insult the person expressing those views rather than make a coherent argument, then it is your view which won't be recorded as being of value!

10.47 appears to think men's rights is a bad thing. I suspect this is typical of those who want to increase sanctions against male barristers.

This is truly disgusting behaviour.  This man was in a position of care, trusted to nurture future barristers and custodians of the law and he chose to abuse his power and didn't care about the consequences.

He might have ruined this woman's career and for no reason other than that he could.

He shouldn't just be struck off.  He should be on some sort of register so that he can never ingratiate himself into a position where he mentors, trains or has responsibility for subordinates ever again.

10.47 appears to think men's rights is a bad thing. I suspect this is typical of those who want to increase sanctions against male barristers.

Oh dear.  As long as there are male barristers who want to right to harass, threaten, demean and abuse their female colleagues and trainees then their rights to practice will be taken away.  And quite properly too.

And women's rights will be supported on the merits of those women as potential solicitors and barristers, not on whether or not they will pander to the inappropriate behaviour or sexually incontinent men.

Hurrah for that.  We all deserve better than this sort of shoddy behaviour.  It brings the whole profession into disrepute and it shames us all when it is not dealt with properly.

@13.35 - how might he ruined this woman's career?

What sort of register should he be on?

Why should he never train anyone or have responsibility ever again?

This ix why sanctions against barrusters should remain exactly as they are.

@14.16 - the behaviour may shame you, but it doesn't shame me.

Nobody's right to practice is being taken away. And rightly so.

Remember women can also be guilty of shoddy behaviour too. Don't fall into the trap of thinking man = bad, woman = good.

@14.16 - what do you mean by 'sexually incontinent men'?

A recent survey reports that 86% of women aged 18-24 said they had been sexually harassed in public spaces, while just 3% did not recall ever having experienced sexually harassing behaviour. The remaining 11% chose not to answer the question.

71% of women of any age said they had experienced sexual harassment in public spaces.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

More than four-fifths of young women in the UK have been subjected to sexual harassment, according to a survey for UN Women UK.

https://www.unwomenuk.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/APPG-UN-Women-Sexual-Harassment-Report_Updated.pdf

Laura Bates, founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, said women were recognising the abuse they faced as sexual harassment, but it was unsurprising they had no faith in an “utterly broken” system.

“If you talk about wolf-whistling or street harassment in the UK, you are liable to find yourself on the front page of a tabloid being called a ‘feminazi’ and accused of overreacting, so of course young women don’t think that they’ll be taken seriously if they come forward,” she said.

In reality there is no backlash against the BSB from the majority of barristers or the public. The drive for stricter sanctions against men comes from a small minority of mostly female barristers with good media contacts and is largely driven by anti-male sentiment.

27th @ 20.52 - self-reporting surveys with no evidence are meaningless. What was the definition of 'sexual harassment' in the survey?

27th @ 20.54 - Screaming about 'sealioning' (as if the term is new) every time you don't agree with something, especially when you cant say which posts are 'sealioning' just makes you look bad and part of the problem.

In reality there is no backlash against the BSB from the majority of barristers or the public. The drive for stricter sanctions against men comes from a small minority of mostly female barristers with good media contacts and is largely driven by anti-male sentiment.

The straw man strikes again.

In reality no-one has mentioned a backlash until now.  There is no "drive for stricter sanctions against men" either.  This sort of hysteria adds nothing to the debate.  Sadly some people are so desperate to justify their sexual incontinence and their desire to bully, harass and abuse that they'll make up any old nonsense.

A man harassed and abused someone he was supposed to support and protect.  The only debate is whether or not he should be allowed to return to practice.  The majority view appears to be that he is not.

Descending into vacuous appeals to emotion, to fear, to spite and to bitterness serve no-one, not even yourself. 

100% of men have been sexually harassed.

@filofire - perhaps, but just because something isn't acceptable doesn't mean people should be barred from a profession for it.

"The public censure of women as if we are rabid because we speak without apology about the world in which we live is a strategy of threat that usually works.  Men often react to women's words - speaking and writing - as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women's words with violence.  So we lower our voices.  Women whisper.  Women apologize.  Women shut up.  Women trivialize what we know.  Women shrink.  Women pull back.  Most women have experienced enough dominance from men - control, violence, insult, contempt - that no threat seems empty."

She wasn't wrong.

@27th @ 21.01 - yes, but self-reporting surveys with no evidence to support the findings are meaningless.

Just because Laura Bates thinks a 'system is 'utterly broken' doesn't make this the case. 'Everyday Sexism' is geared towards allegations from women only and not men - this indeed looks like 'Everyday Sexism'!

I have never seen the front page of any tabloid describe someone complaining about wolf-whistling or 'street harassment' (whatever this might be) as a 'feminazi' or accuse them of over-reacting. I don't believe this has ever happened, and I doubt you can show otherwise, so it is unlikely to put young women (or old women) off coming forward.

@14.24 - which comments do you think imply she wasn't wrong?

It's remarkable how misogynistic rage is being rebranded as rationality.

It's remarkable how misogynistic rage is being rebranded as victimhood.

Mind you, war is peace, lies are truth, ignorance is strength.

There's nothing new under the sun.

Certainly not mediocre men approving of and benefitting from the behaviour of harassers and abusers.

That's been going on longer than forever.

@22.00 - which comments do you think are 'misogynistic rage'?

Much of the calls for tougher sanctions on male barristers (which don't have widespread support and come from a small minority of mostly female barristers) are driven by misandristic hate. Let's hope the BSB aren't bullied into making changes.

But seriously ladies, who doesn't love an orange wig, a red nose and a squirty flower....?

@11.04 - yes, your comment is a case of the straw man striking again. Thank you for introducing it as such.

There has indeed been talk if a backlash. This talk has been to a large extent driven by misandry. There is no genuine backlash, but a small group of barristers are making a lot of noise to give the impression that there is a backlash when there is not. It is possible that they have an agenda to reduce the number of men in the profession, who knows. Or perhaps their desire to bully, harass and abuse means that they'll make up any old nonsense.

Pray what is this 'sexual incontinence' that you hint at knowledge of?

Clearly Kearney didn't 'abuse anybody - to claim that he did is hysteria calculated to make what he did sound worse than it was in order to push for a stricter sanction against him and other male barristers. The majority view here and elsewhere is that he should be allowed to return to practice. As your comment shows, a small minority of mainly female barristers are for some reason claiming that the majority think he shouldn't be, but that isn't the case.

You are correct - attemoting to remove someone's livelihood by descending into vacuous appeals to emotion, to fear, to spite and to bitterness serve no-one, not even yourself. 

@28th @ 23.49 - which comments do you think are 'misogynistic rage rebranded as victimhood'?

@00.11 - why are you adorned in an orange wig, a red nose and a squirty flower? Why do you think ladies will love it and how do you think it helps your argument?

I googled "Rob Kearney" and the first two results which came up are 'professional rugby player' and 'worlds strongest gay'.  He doesn't look like a rugby player to me.

A 'bec de corbin' or 'raven's beak' is a medieval French weapon, not a Lincoln's Inn pupil!

@11.24 - the photos in the article are only of his head - his body doesn't really look like that.

Terry Crews speaks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GibE058a4P0

“Masculinity can be a cult,” Crews explained. “And when I say ‘cult,’ it’s no different than David Koresh. It’s no different than Jim Jones.” He went on:

This is what happens with men and women. […] As a woman, they talk, but a guy is not looking at you as even all the way human. This is what you have to understand — there is a humanity issue here,” he continued. “[Women are] like, ‘Why don’t you hear me? Why don’t you see my feelings?’ And [men are] like, ‘But you’re not all the way human. You’re here for me, you’re here for my deal.’ It’s real.

Crews also admitted his own complicity in this system.

“I am guilty,” he said. “I believed, simply because I was a man, that I was more valuable than my wife and the other women in my life.”

29th @ 17.56 - sorry you feel that way about men, I'd suggest you address it. Yes, a small minority with similar fringe views are trying to have draconian sanctions on male barristers. Hopefully they won't succeed.

25 sings of a passive narcissist

https://lifelessons.co/personal-development/covertpassiveaggressivenarcissist/

Correction:

That should read covert narcissist

https://lifelessons.co/personal-development/covertpassiveaggressivenarcissist/

The ban on taking on pupils, mini-pupils and work experience students is daft. Tell the prospective pupils, mini-pupils or work experience the BSB's findings and let them make up their own minds. Pupillage is hard enough to come by as it is.

If you're used to abusing women then I suppose I can understand how when they demand that the abuse ends you find yourself believing you're the subject of a draconian backlash.

You're not though.

You're just being expected to behave like a civilised mature human being.  If you can manage that, if you can have a trainee or a colleague without groping her in the lift, you'll be okay.

That you need that spelling out to you, and that you still won't accept it even after it's been made clear, is why you're a trouserless internet warrior and not a barrister.

@19:51- as was said before, it's a troll.  It's trying to normalise sexual abuse in the workplace and society, trying to offer it to people as an option.  You can go and train with someone who has a record of abusing his pupils.

And it's always a him.  It's always a him who does the upskirting or who hides the cameras in toilets and then says it's not my fault.  She was young and pretty and I couldn't help myself.

They're trying to make the whole world into that episode of Friends where Joey and Chandler find a free porn channel.  Why isn't the pizza delivery girl offering us a threesome?  Why doesn't my trainee let me feel her up in the lift?  Why is am not seen as sexually potent?

They think porn is more real than the women sitting and standing next to them - and if those women don't act like sex workers then for these people those women have no rights to autonomy.

And the incel trolls can post whatever nonsense they like.  Women know.  All the women reading this discussion (if any are still bothering) know.

You don't want to apologise.  You don't want to change.  You just want to pretend it never happened and it wasn't important anyway so you can do it again.

And we all know.

30th @ 19.51:

If you're used to abusing men then I suppose I can understand how when they demand that the abuse ends you find yourself believing you're the subject of abuse.

You're not though.

You're just being expected to behave like a civilised mature human being.  If you can manage that, if you can avoid men being allowed to speak without you abusing them, you'll be okay.

That you need that spelling out to you, and that you still won't accept it even after it's been made clear, is why you're a trouserless internet warrior and not a barrister.

Two excerpts from the book "The Porn Trap" by Larry and Wendy Maltz lead me to wonder if Rob Kearney was watching pornography and had a problem that he wasn't aware of.

They do seem to describe his behaviour (all about power and control) and attitudes ("looking at you right now in a sexual way whether you like it or not").

"Using porn regularly can cause you to become increasingly self-centered. After all, when you're in a relationship with porn, it's all about you. Porn also plants and reinforces the idea that when it comes to sex and relationships, power and control are more important than empathy and caring. If you regularly use porn, especially during the years in which you could be learning the crucial skills that enable you to be empathetic, caring, sensitive, and loving, you can become emotionally stunted when it comes to interpersonal intimacy. Sex with your partner can become "porn sex" rather than an intimate, loving connection."

" 'I am looking at you right now in a sexual way whether you like it or not. Never mind the fact that I don't know your name, care to know your name, or have any idea who you are. I don't really care about you. You serve as an object for my sexual pleasure. I only care about how sexually aroused you can make me feel.' This is how a former porn user describes the way he used to look at people when he was heavily into porn."

I think its become clear from the comments that a lot of those calling for tougher sanctions aren't actually barristers, trainees, pupils, mini-pupils or otherwise people who have a direct interest, but are people who get some sort of kick out of seeing men being punished.

30th @ 9.50 and 9.51 - which comments do you think are 'passive or covert narcissism?

I think its become clear from the comments that a lot of those calling for tougher sanctions aren't actually barristers, trainees, pupils, mini-pupils or otherwise people who have a direct interest, but are people who get some sort of kick out of seeing men being punished.

Sadly too many men think it's all about them.

It's about the safety of women.

I guess if all you think about is yourself and your own needs then it's impossible to see that.  Which is exactly the same mind set that thinks it's okay to sexually abuse a pupil, a colleague or a trainee.

@19:51- yes, as was said before, it's a troll.  They know there was no 'abuse' in the case here, but they're exaggerating  the impact because they want to see more severe punishments being brought in against men.

To them its always a him. All 'hims' do the upskirting or hide the cameras in toilets and then says it's not my fault.  All 'hims' think she was young and pretty and I couldn't help myself. That's why they should have no input into deciding how men are punished.

They think 'hims' see the whole world as that episode of Friends where Joey and Chandler find a free porn channel.  They think 'hims' think why isn't the pizza delivery girl offering us a threesome?  They think 'hims' think why doesn't my trainee let me feel her up in the lift?  When their views are questioned they question 'hims' sexual potency because they have no real argument. That's why they should have no imput into deciding how men are punished.

They have a thing about porn, and project that onto 'him', wondering  if 'hims' think porn is more real than the women sitting and standing next to them - and if those women don't act like sex workers then for these people those women have no rights to autonomy. Even although porn has nothing to do with this case. That's why they should have no input into deciding how men are punished.

They think its OK to call men 'incels'. That's why they should have no input into deciding how men are punished.

But women and men know.  All the women and men reading this discussion (if any are still bothering) know.

They don't want to apologise.  They don't want to change.  They just want men punished and to make out what happened was more serious than it was so they can do it again and again.

And we all know.

@8.07 - that's a good point actually. While there is nothing to suggest Kearney watched porn, the need for 'power and control' and fixation on sex might mean that some of those calling for stricter sanctions on male barristers watch porn and have a problem they're not aware of.

Or it could be that they're ideologically opposed to porn and want to invent excuses to ban it.

Or they might just be using the fact that a male has been accused of something to sexually harass him by associating Jim with all manner if sex-based allegations.

Dude, whoever is posting here at 00:09 on a weeknight needs to take a long hard look at their life. 

Like, I know that lockdown is tough for everyone, and I'm sure that you'll dismiss this as part of the misogynist 'trolling' that you seem to be fantasising is all around you; but you honestly sound like you are losing your grip on reality. Your caricature of male opinion sounds like something being broadcast from a parallel dimension. I'm deeply concerned that you have gone so far down a rabbithole of online nuttery that you think it's insightful into sexism in the UK in the 21st Century and don't recognise it for the paranoid nonsense that it is.

I suspect that you will take disagreement as an adversarial threat (I will be "trying to shut you down" or "dismissing women" perhaps?) but please believe that I'm on your side when I say this: get an early night, go for a walk in a park, take a couple of days off of internet comment boards (yes, including Twitter).

You don't live in a misogynist dystopia, you're just disagreeing with a couple of rando's on the internet. Women do not 'all know' what you say we do - your beliefs are fringe, paranoid delusions that are not shared outside of a very small circle of Twitter activists.

Please - get outside, get offline, and exercise some self care.

Of course he couldn't imagine that someone might be posting from a different time zone.

Or that some people are allowed to stay up after midnight.

Or that when you're shown to be in the wrong the best thing to do is admit it and make amends.

#gaslighting

#malefragility

It's funny how the men's rights brigade are the ones with the lowest regard for men.  They think that abuse and harassment is the best men can do.

Feminists are men's best friends.  We actually believe that men are better than that, and that those who aren't have been fed distorted and damaging ideals of masculinity that lead them to loneliness, depression, unhappiness and violence against themselves and others.

You can be so much better than this.  You just have to want to.

"when you're shown to be in the wrong the best thing to do is admit it and make amends".

Yes, you should.

@11.01 - it not about men, but a lot of the calls for tougher sanctions on male barristers is driven by hatred of men.

A common trope of this is people misrepresenting or falsely stating risk which don't exist in order to try to bulky the BSB into adopting tougher sanctions. Case in point here - there was no 'abuse' and 'safety of women' has nothing to do with this case.

I'd call for tougher sanctions for those who call for overly strict sanctions on male barristers where the calls are based on the gender of those male barristers.

@13.33 - sorry that you feel men having rights is 'abuse' and 'harassment'. I feel that this is all too typical of those who wish to see stricter sanctions on male barristers.

Also typical is the tendency to see the workd through a gender prism and adopt stereotypical attitudes to men and masculinity. Education is the best friend of such views.

You can be so much better than this.  You just have to want to.

The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.

- George Orwell

"when you're shown to be in the wrong the best thing to do is admit it and make amends".

Yes, you should.

"I know you are but what am I?" is embarrassingly poor even by your low standards.

Still, I LOLOLOLOLOLOL at you.  

[email protected]:

""when you're shown to be in the wrong the best thing to do is admit it and make amends".

Yes, you should.

"I know you are but what am I?" is embarrassingly poor even by your low standards.

Still, I LOLOLOLOLOLOL at you."

...yes, but you still should.

I know you are but what am I? is indeed embarassingly poor even by your low standards!

If you're LOLOLOLOLOLOLing that means you have no argument left (not that you had many to begin with).