Kevin MacPherson: 50 Shades of Stornoway.
A Scottish solicitor has been struck off after emails were discovered on his computer in which he fantasised about his trainee and appeared to be titillated by evidence in a child sex abuse case.
Kevin MacPherson took on a trainee solicitor, referred to as 'TS' in proceedings, in 2011 while he was a partner at Ken MacDonald and Co in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis.
In 2013 the firm's office manager, 'Mr B', logged on to MacPherson's computer to retrieve details of a banking transaction and uncovered a trove of emails which left him "distressed".
A year earlier, Mr B had warned MacPherson to delete a folder from his desktop which Mr B had opened while searching for a deed, only to find it was full of pornography.
The email which caught Mr B's eye in 2013 was from a woman referred to as 'Ms D' who worked at another firm, which stated "...if you come near me I'll scream...."
Mr B continued searching for the banking information, but also searched for more emails from Ms D. He found correspondence between the woman and MacPherson dating from the time of TS's training contract, which he printed out and took to the trainee and Ken MacDonald, who ran the firm. MacPherson was confronted and agreed to resign, but continued to practise law after setting up his own firm which he ran out of his home in Stornoway.
After a complaint was made to the Law Society of Scotland, MacPherson was prosecuted before the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) in 2019, and earlier this month it published its judgment.
Inbetween explicit conversations about threesomes, nipples and Ms D's "massive fl**s", MacPherson and Ms D worked themselves into a lather discussing TS.
"Have you been thinking of my trainee?" asked MacPherson. "A little, just thinking how exciting it will be for her if she is as you think and she has found you", replied Ms D.
"The trainee is the only stimulation i have these days", lamented MacPherson. "Is she pretty?" enquired Ms D. "In an elegant way", replied MacPherson.
In another email exchange, Ms D told MacPherson, "I must admit I did consider leaving my pants at home. Also I thought you would approve of my dress and how you'd observe me", to which he replied, "I wish my trainee knew the code!" Ms D responded, "Ha yes you never know one day she might sit in front of you open her legs and display her bare shaved [****] for your use".
But, she told Macpherson, "I think that would only happen if I was your trainee", warning that "It's too dangerous for you to involve her". Macpherson agreed, commenting "Yep i know, good view of her chest today though!"
"Doubt her nipples are as big as urs though!", added the solicitor. "Or can take pain like mine!" replied Ms D. "No that's true", accepted MacPherson.
However, MacPherson did not leave TS alone. He repeatedly texted his trainee outside of work hours about non-work matters, and attempted to arrange to meet her socially, both by himself and with his fiancée. TS described his invitations as "unwanted".
Mr B also found disturbing emails in which MacPherson discussed his representation of a minor who had been accused of sexually abusing a young girl. "You would have loved what I was reading this morning x", he told Ms D, continuing that it was "a statement of a little girl talking about what she saw in a gym".
The SSDT said the email trails which mentioned TS referred to her in a manner which was "inappropriate, disrespectful and sexually explicit", and that MacPherson's out-of-hours badgering of his trainee amounted to harassment.
Ruling that he should be struck off, the SSDT said it was clear that MacPherson found the alleged victim of sex abuse's statement "titillating or sexually gratifying", and that his conduct called his integrity into question and the profession into disrepute.
Comments
9
33
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00 and 11.03 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
8
40
Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
35
8
Anonymous 30 October 20 11:44:
The BSB's decision, as recorded in para. 16, shows that Lester was not cleared. The Times article above is an accurate reflection of that fact. Indeed, that article was needed to correct an earlier misleading Times article which wrongly said he had been cleared. The decision is publicly available. Telephone the BSB and they will provide it to you.
4
32
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03 and 12.32 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
6
38
Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
14
30
Tarquers Izanazi 30 October 20 12:04
Give it up, real people. Mr Evidence is a bot.
'Real people' - says someone called Tarquers Izanazi.
34
3
Anonymous 30 October 20 13:28, Anonymous 30 October 20 13:29: The BSB's decision, as recorded in para. 16, shows that Lester was not cleared. The Times article above is an accurate reflection of that fact. Indeed, that article was needed to correct an earlier misleading Times article which wrongly said he had been cleared. The decision is publicly available. Telephone the BSB and they will provide it to you.
30
9
Mr Evidence was clearly convicted of harassment and has ever since been railing against those who called him out. No wonder he likes Lord Lester so much.
35
8
Tarquers Izanazi 29 October 20 23:36
By that logic, gravity didn't exist before 1686.
And by your logic the earth is flat.
11
31
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32 and 13.34 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
6
35
@13.36 - that is a false accusation. Ufortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment.
Lord Lester was still completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
11
39
Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
32
4
Anonymous 30 October 20 14:19, Anonymous 30 October 20 14:21, Anonymous 30 October 20 14:22: The BSB's decision, as recorded in para. 16, shows that Lester was not cleared. The Times article above is an accurate reflection of that fact. Indeed, that article was needed to correct an earlier misleading Times article which wrongly said he had been cleared. The decision is publicly available. Telephone the BSB and they will provide it to you.
31
12
Anonymous 30 October 20 14:21: Actually, accusations are true unless proved otherwise. So you are guilty of harassment.
35
6
Wait... why was Lord Lester in Scotland in the first place?
I don't understand how was ever in a position to get caught up in this sordid bondage escapade? Why didn't his manservant intervene?
12
31
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34 and 15.32 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
13
28
Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
12
31
@15.35 - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment. Furthermore, Anonymous @14.21 hasn't even been accused of harassment, never mind being guilty of it.
Lord Lester was still completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
35
10
Anonymous 30 October 20 16:23, Anonymous 30 October 20 16:25. The BSB's decision, as recorded in para. 16, shows that Lester was not cleared. The Times article above is an accurate reflection of that fact. Indeed, that article was needed to correct an earlier misleading Times article which wrongly said he had been cleared. The decision is publicly available. Telephone the BSB and they will provide it to you.
10
29
Anonymous 30 October 20 16:21
Wait... why was Lord Lester in Scotland in the first place?
I don't understand how was ever in a position to get caught up in this sordid bondage escapade? Why didn't his manservant intervene?
It is a false accusation that Lord Lester was in Scotland. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment.
Lord Lester was still completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
15
34
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
10
32
Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
9
37
Tarquers Izanazi 30 October 20 19:27
What, as opposed to anonymous?
'Real people' - says someone called Tarquers Izanazi who just realised Anonymous isn't a real name.
11
30
This times a googlilion.
33
11
Lord Lester wasn't cleared of harassment. See para. 16 of the BSB's decision.
29
9
Lord Harassment of Herne Hill, QC.
11
32
Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
8
36
@Giggle - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment, as you are demonstrating. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
35
8
Anonymous 31 October 20 09:58: Lord Lester wasn't cleared of harassment. See para. 16 of the BSB's decision.
30
12
Anonymous 31 October 20 10:00: not false, because he was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
12
26
Anonymous 31 October 20 04:49
Lord Lester wasn't cleared of harassment. See para. 16 of the BSB's decision.
Nobody can see it - you made it up.
10
35
@Tarquers Izanazi 31 October 20 11:51
Aw diddums Mrs N9 Evidence. Sorry you think anyone might take being described as a women as an insult, but nice to see how frothy you are getting about this.
Good to see you think pointing out that the earth isn't flat is broken logic @30 October 20 13:56 btw.
5
35
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
14
29
Anon 31 October 20 10:18
Anonymous 31 October 20 10:00: not false, because he was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
No, it is an objective truth that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
33
10
Anonymous 31 October 20 12:39: I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address.
8
28
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
34
4
Is Mr Evidence capable of a retort that doesn't involve repeating what someone else has posted with the name/pronouns changed? He sounds like an 8 year old.
29
8
Anonymous 31 October 20 16:06: I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address.
You will have seen from para. 16 of the decision that Lord Lester wasn’t cleared of harassment.
29
6
Anonymous 31 October 20 16:06: I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
30
8
Lord Lecher of Herne Hill, QC.
25
5
Anonymous 31 October 20 23:30: quite. It’s indicative of a disturbed pathology.
13
17
Is Anon 31st October @23.30 capable of a retort that doesn't involve repeating what someone else has posted with the name/pronouns changed? She sounds like an 8 year old.
10
26
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16, 10.18, 15.50, 1st November 05.53, 10.18 10.53 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
10
25
@Giggle - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment, as you are demonstrating. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
12
29
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
14
17
Anonymous 13:17: quite. It’s indicative of a disturbed pathology.
32
4
Anonymous 01 November 20 13:56, Anonymous 01 November 20 13:56, Anonymous 01 November 20 13:57: I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
36
8
Lord Mo Lester QC.
12
25
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
12
29
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16, 10.18, 15.50, 1st November 05.53, 10.18 10.53, 18.25 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
6
26
It is an objective fact that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
27
10
Anonymous 01 November 20 13:17
Is Anon 31st October @23.30 capable of a retort that doesn't involve repeating what someone else has posted with the name/pronouns changed? She sounds like an 8 year old.
Thanks for proving the point, pet. Go ahead and reinforce it by doing it again.
27
5
@11:32. If not a disturbed pathology, then at the very least indication that someone's balls haven't dropped yet.
28
8
Lord Pester of Herne Hill, QC
25
10
Anonymous 01 November 20 19:53, Anonymous 01 November 20 19:54, Anonymous 01 November 20 20:20: I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
12
19
1st November @ 22.56 - Thanks for proving the point, pet. Go ahead and reinforce it by doing it again.
8
23
@22.58 if not a disturbed pathology, then at the very least indication that someone's been caught making up stories.
11
28
@Giggle @ 18.37 - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment, as you are demonstrating. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
11
32
@Giggle @ 5.32 in the morning - that is a false accusation. Unfortunately, false and unsubstantiated accusations are very common when it comes to harassment, as you are demonstrating. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
9
29
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
7
35
Clearly if anyone claiming to have seen the BSB report actually had they would have posted it on here by now.
28
4
Anonymous 02 November 20 08:40, Anonymous 02 November 20 08:41, Anonymous 02 November 20 08:41, Anonymous 02 November 20 09:56:
I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
7
34
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16, 10.18, 15.50, 1st November 05.53, 10.18 10.53, 18.25, 18.37, 22.56, 22.58, 2nd November 05.02, 8.23, - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
11
29
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
38
7
Anonymous 02 November 20 08:41: he did not say (whether initially or at all) that the source of the quote was the Times. He said that the BSB's decision - that it did not clear Lord Lester - was confirmed by the Times' corrective article. That was the whole point of the Times' corrective article: the Times had wrongly reported that Lester had been cleared by the BSB. In fact, and as made clear in para. 16 of its decision, the BSB had done no such thing, because it had no jurisdiction to revist the factual findings. Hence the corrective article.
8
34
ANON @11.54 - actually, they made up a quite and said it was from a BSB decision. It wasn't - they made up a fictitious quote.
6
33
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB. The Times have said nothing to contradict this.
5
31
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
28
2
Anonymous 02 November 20 13:52, Anonymous 02 November 20 15:02:
I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester. The Times’ corrective article reflects this.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
33
8
Anonymous 02 November 20 13:52: why don’t you telephone the BSB and get a copy of the decision and see for yourself? Why are you reluctant to do this? If you honestly felt that the quote was fake, you would do so.
32
5
The BSB did not clear Lord Lester QC. They rather found that, despite harassing Ms Sanghera, he should not be sanctioned. The relevant part of the ruling, which is publicly available, is at paragraph 16 and provides:
“The question which therefore falls to be determined is whether, in light of the findings against Lord Lester, he should be allowed to continue to practise. This has given us very anxious cause for consideration. After all, Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and abused his position. Those findings stand, notwithstanding Ms Sanghera’s non-participation in the instant proceedings. We have no jurisdiction to revisit those findings or to interfere with them. We are driven to conclude, however, that notwithstanding Lord Lester’s conduct, he should not be subject to sanction. This is because he intends imminently to retire and does not intend to renew his Practising Certificate upon its expiry.”
This is confirmed by the Times article on the subject:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-lqz3n72pw
“The headline to our article “Lord Lester cleared of peerage-for-sex claims” (News, last week) incorrectly suggested, when read alone, that Ms Jasvinder Sanghera’s complaint to the House of Lords about Lord Lester’s conduct may have been dismissed. The article reported on the outcome of an investigation into Lord Lester by the Bar Standards Board. The findings of an earlier House of Lords committee are unaffected by this ruling. We apologise for any distress caused.”
32
10
Anonymous 02 November 20 13:52, Anonymous 02 November 20 15:02:
I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
8
36
@18.07 - in other words The Times in no way supports the fabricated quote.
31
9
Anonymous 02 November 20 22:42: in other words, the Times’ corrective article reflects para. 16 of the BSB’s decision.
8
23
@9.35 - no, because para 16 was made up. The Times doesn't reflect it because it doesn't exist.
7
27
I honestly believe the quote was fake, but I won't be calling anybody to confirm what I know already. And I certainly won't be providing my email address to someone who I believe has been making things up.
This is in the same way that I don't respond to emails telling me that I can claim a share in a diamond mine if I provide my bank details.
28
8
Anonymous 03 November 20 10:53, Anonymous 03 November 20 13:45:
I obtained the decision from the BSB. You can too by telephoning them on the number I provided. They will email it to you. Or I will email it to you, if you provide me with your email address. Para. 16 of the decision makes it clear that the BSB did not clear Lord Lester.
Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and that finding was undisturbed by the BSB. It is now an objective truth that he committed harassment.
10
23
I agree with The Times that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
25
9
The votes in the comments section show that people overwhelmingly accept that Lord Lester was not cleared by the BSB.
12
23
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
9
27
There is not one person who genuinely believes that Lord Lester was not cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB. That is because Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
7
23
Janjenanonunclemontyqcgiggle 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16, 10.18, 15.50, 1st November 05.53, 10.18 10.53, 18.25, 18.37, 22.56, 22.58, 2nd November 05.02, 8.23, 3rd November @ 20.37, 4th November @ 05.14 in the morning - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB. That is now an objective truth.
23
6
Anonymous 03 November 20 22:34: The Times’ corrective article accurately states that Lord Lester was not cleared by the BSB and, in so stating, reflects the BSB’s decision as recorded in para. 16.
22
6
It is telling that Mr Evidence will not telephone the BSB to obtain the decision. He knows that he will not like what it says because it shows that Lester was not cleared by the BSB.
There is an irony to Mr Evidence’s position, too. By adopting a head-in-the-sand approach, as he always does, and not letting go of his counter-factual position, he has actually resulted in more attention being drawn to Lester’s guilt. He would do better to keep quiet. Lester is dead. That he was found to have committed harassment is a sad fact, at the end of an otherwise distinguished career. Best for his supporters to move on and say as little as possible about the matters which detract from his legacy.
13
24
Clearly multiple votes by the same person doesn't prove anything, in the same way that referring to a non-existent decision which nobody has seen and which can't be produced upon request doesn’t prove anything. Lord Lester was still completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
21
10
Anonymous 04 November 20 10:23: what is your evidence for multiple voting by the same person? You are speaking self-serving nonsense. The overwhelming number of people reading this thread rightly recognise that Lord Lester was not cleared by the BSB. Para. 16 of the decision, as reflected by the Times’ corrective article, speaks for itself. The decision is publicly available on request from the BSB.
21
4
Anonymous 04 November 20 10:23: the decision can be produced on request. Telephone BTAS on the number provided and they will email it to you.
9
22
Anonymous 04 November 20 10:13 - The Times’ article accurately states that Lord Lester was completely cleared by the BSB and, in so stating, doesn't reflect the BSB’s decision as recorded in para. 16 because you made up para. 16.
11
19
JanjenanonunclemontyqcgiggleJason - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
12
18
@Jason 04 November 20 10:20
It is telling that Mrs No Evidence will not produce the BSB statement which she refers to. She knows that it doesn't exist and that she doesn't like it that it her mentioning it and not being able to produce it shows that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
There is an irony to Mrs No Evidence’s position, too. By adopting a head-in-the-sand approach, as she always does, and not letting go of her counter-factual position, she has actually resulted in more attention being drawn to Lord Lester’s being completely cleared by the BSB. She would do better to keep quiet. Lester is dead. That he was found to have been completely cleared by the BSB is a happy fact, at the end of a distinguished career. Best for her supporters to move on and say as little as possible about the matters which detract from genuine accusers.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by thd BSB.
16
22
JanjenanonunclemontyqcgiggleJason 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49, 30th October 10.22, 11.00, 11.03, 12.32, 13.34, 15.32 and 18.24, 31st October 04.49, 10.16, 10.18, 15.50, 1st November 05.53, 10.18 10.53, 18.25, 18.37, 22.56, 22.58, 2nd November 05.02, 8.23, 3rd November @ 20.37, 4th November @ 05.14 in the morning, 10.13, 10.20 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB. That is now an objective truth.
11
23
Clearly if the person claiming to have the BSB report actually did have it they would have posed it by now. I certainly would advise anybody to phone or give their personal details for something that doesn't exist.
12
19
Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.
15
5
The BSB obviously had no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of another, unrelated body. The BSB's remit is to look at whether a barrister has been found to have behaved in a way which is worthy of professional sanction. Lester was not sanctioned because he was due to retire and it was not necessary or proportionate to sanction him.