Senior associate at Linklaters' alliance firm outs himself for sexually harassing colleague

^{"No way this will come back to haunt us."}

A senior associate at Allens, the Australian firm in a global alliance with Linklaters, has outed himself as having sexually harassed a colleague. She has expressed outrage that he is now being considered for promotion.

Fiona Thatcher was a junior lawyer in Timothy Leschke's infrastructure projects team when, she said, late on Friday night in July 2015 he sent her a string of texts suggesting sex.

Leschke, who was an associate, then appeared at her apartment complex and rang her security buzzer for 5 minutes, reported the Australia Financial Review, and sent her a similarly suggestive text the following morning.

Thatcher made a formal complaint to Allens the next week, backed up by her father who had been visiting her and who identified Leschke.

Allens' two-day investigation concluded that Leschke had sexually harassed her, but accepted his excuse that he had been drunk. It gave him a warning, told him to apologise to Thatcher, and ordered him to work from home for a week.

Thatcher was permitted to move from her office adjacent to Leschke's, but was not allowed to swap to a different team, and Leschke continued to work in the same team as Thatcher until she left Allens five months later.

Leschke, according to AFR, outed himself on Monday to his colleagues in Allens' Brisbane office after a story about the episode which did not name him appeared in the Australian press. His admission was apparently greeted with applause, which is understood to have upset some female staff.

Thatcher told RollOnFriday of her frustration at the rise of Leschke in Allens' ranks, where he is understood to be on the partnership track.

”Despite privately apologising to me and admitting certain failings, their continued support of him speaks volumes”, she said.

“Allens' response to what Leschke did, both then and now, sends a chilling message to all current and former employees that we should stay silent. My inbox is full of messages from Allens alumni with their own stories of abuse”.

”The weak, cowardly, harmful position Allens has taken makes you wonder what else they have to hide”, she said.

Thatcher told AFR there was a culture at the firm "where all that matters is how much you work and how technically proficient you are, and you’re managed by people who are good lawyers but don’t have emotional intelligence”.

That environment meant “it seems normal that there’s constantly people crying in the women’s bathroom”, she said. “It’s just this factory line of high-achieving young men and women who get spat back out broken, and that’s just so sad. Where is the accountability for that?”

Leschke told AFR he “deeply regretted” his conduct towards Thatcher and “unreservedly apologised” to her.

“No one should have to tolerate conduct of that nature. My actions were inexcusable and well below the standards expected of a decent human being”, he said.

Leschke said he had sought to hold himself to a higher standard since. “It is possible for people to make bad mistakes, learn from them and change,” he said, adding that men needed to “take responsibility for addressing this issue”.

Note: The AFR story originally stated that the texts sent by Leschke “aggressively” demanded sex and that he rang Thatcher’s buzzer for 15 minutes, not 5. AFR subsequently amended its story, and references to its account have been updated.

Comments

Is the suggestion that he is never promoted for the rest of his life?

It was in July 2015...

Applauded for admitting to pesting? That's a madness.

Strange that any female (or male) staff would be upset at him apologising for his conduct. Do they support the conduct or object to the apology?

9.36 - surely its good that he apologised?

He should have used the Lawyr App to find bangbuddies.

I think she should leave him alone now.

Sorry Thatcho, no Hero-Victim status for you.

He clearly had a complete bender and tried to rekindle whatever relationship had previously existed between them (nobody just sends an SMS demand for nookie out of the blue). Bloody stupid of him. He looked like an absolute fool. Etc etc etc...

But he's entitled to be allowed to move on with his life (and to continue progressing his career) having rendered a full apology and mended his ways. This idea that one drunken gaff dooms a man to a life of exile and penury needs to be sent back to the Middle Ages along with its stovepipe hat.

If you still can't stand to be in the same room as him - even after he has apologised and changed his ways - then it's on you to move firms.

To Anonymous at 10.46 - you are plain wrong if you don't think that men demand sex out of the blue - either by text or in person. I don't think making a mistake should mean a person can't move on with his life and progress his (or her) career but I also think that it should be incumbent on the firm to get rid of the sex pest and keep the person (usually female) who has been harassed. Your comment that it is on her to move firms is the current attitude of most firms out there - they pay off the women making complaints and allow the abysmal behaviour to go unpunished. Then people turn around and say that women only make the complaints because they want the pay off and that they have a victim complex - if you turned it on its head, made no pay offs and got rid of the sex pest then everyone would be happy except for the sex pest and if they genuinely were horrified by their own behaviour and repentant then they could have a new start in a new firm where they could build a good reputation and progress their career.

They clearly had a relationship at some point. Broke up. He got drunk and tried to hook up with his ex.

Hardly the most outrageous thing that has happened.

I had a casual relationship with my ex (after we had broken up). I started seeing someone else so I stopped seeing my ex but one night my ex sent me a string of drunken text messages asking if we could meet.

I didn't attempt to destroy my ex's career as I am not a psycho.

A well drafted NDA would have prevented this bad press...

@11.02 - he didn't go unpunished. No reason either of them should have to leave when the matter has been dealt with.

The bar is set so low for male decency that admitting you're a marauding sexual harasser is regarded as praiseworthy.

The floor is now open to the misogynist incel who enjoys calling women psychotic when they object to sexual harassment and psychological abuse.

@11:02 - yeah yeah yeah, whatever, stop being absurd and hysterical. You are throwing around mad accusations that have no basis in fact. Go back to your Laura Bates blogs if you just want to wail incoherently about imaginary evil men.

This poor chap isn't a "sex pest" and he hasn't "harassed" anyone. He's just had one absolute shocker of an evening after an excess of drink. That isn't a justification to fire him. No quantity of 'third wave' buzzwords will change that.

If, after six years have gone by, the other individual still can't come to terms with events (and/or their ex-boyfriend's success) - then it's up to them to find somewhere they feel more comfortable. Possibly an in-house role at a cotton-wool manufacturer would suit them better.

@11:02

Hey! You!

Copulate with me this instant!

@11.24 - apologising is to be applauded. He didn't admit to being a 'marauding sexual harasser' because he wasn't one.

Nobody has called women psychotic for objecting to sexual harassment and psychological abuse.

But then we wouldn't expect someone who thinks men are 'misogynist incels' to know the difference between a fact and a false accusation.

@11.24

Oh pipe down you raving woke looney. There is a huge difference between objecting to drunken text messages and trying to ruin someone's career. She is clearly doing the latter.

anon at 10:46 and 11:05 is (a) assuming that he had a pre-existing sexual relationship (which isn't in the story and (b) ignoring that he was her line manager (which is in the story)

of course if you assume different facts, the situation looks better

you could also assume different facts which make it look worse

@11.42 - correct, such as the facts it was 6 years ago, he's already been punished and he's apologised.

Frankly, if getting howlingly drunk on a Friday night and sending dirty messages suggesting sexual activity to women in my Whatsapp contacts list whose profile thumbnails have suddenly become remarkably appealing is a sacking offence, then I'm unlikely to have a job on Monday.

Indeed, I shouldn't have had a job this Monday either, or the Monday before that.

But hey, that's what you get for not including your husband and/or child in your profile picture. So don't go blaming me.

I am gobsmacked that anyone would assume they had a pre-existing relationship in the absence of any evidence to that effect, or that men don't just demand sex from women out of the blue. I have had complete strangers demand it from me simply for walking past them on the street. I am not unusual, most women have experienced harassment and abuse in public spaces from men they have never even seen before, let alone had a relationship with.

Step out of your privileged ivory tower and start actually listening to women.

09:46 - Well done on your state the obvious comment. Did you also know that grass is green?

@12.24 - if its a mistake to assume they had a pre-existing relationship then its a mistake to assume they didn't.

@12.29 - so you agree that its good he apologised. Good. Sadly some people think he should be criticised. Perhaps you should target them.

The Brisbane office doesn't seem to have changed over the years!

Herein lies the issue. Until this culture changes you won’t break the cycle. I wonder why he was pissed - probably due to work stress. Doesnt excuse his behaviour but culture in many prof services businesses is as above. If you want this not to happen we need to regulate hours and demands properly and have a more equitable distribution of wealth through the firm.

Ex Allens Brisbane - what happened since 2015?

Bloke gets drunk and tries to get his leg over with is presumably a woman he has previously bedded.

Not great behaviour but isn't something to bring up so many years later after it's already been reviewed by his firm and subject to a disciplinary.

Well here it is. All the proof recalcitrant men will ever need that feminism is their friend.

Porn addled internet warriors think this is the best men can do and the best you can expect from them.

Feminists regard men with enough respect to expect common decency and humanity.

Which would you rather be? The drunken loser shouting into the intercom or the one with self-respect? The man who invents a prior relationship to excuse a self-confessed harasser or the man who calls out men like that?

This kind of behaviour will not stop until more men see it as cowardly and vulgar than see it as daring and praiseworthy.

And another one.

Why do they always look like potatoes?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/apr/09/rob-roberts-tory-mp-delyn-who-asked-intern-fool-around-will-not-lose-party-whip

I'm genuinely shocked at the comments on here. The issue is that her manager sexually harassed her (a criminal offence as most of you are aware or should be aware) and although admittedly he was "punished" by having to work from home for a week, he came back to the office, effectively told the lads what he did, got a pat on the back (mimimalising the victim's/survivor's discomfort of the situation) and then CONTINUED TO BE HER MANAGER. You all need to comprehend how insanely uncomfortable that would make someone (man or woman), to effectively have their professional future in the hands of someone that thinks it was OK to text them "aggressively demanding sex" MULTIPLE TIMES and then TURN UP AT HER HOME (invasive much?) and ring her buzzer FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES - that is a long time.

Yes, of course there is more to the story, it could absolutely be a drunken one off, but we dont know that for certain (it's not reported in the article). The bare minimum that you would expect in such cases from any competent employer, especially a LAW FIRM, is to ensure that upon his return he is no longer her supervisor. That is the issue at hand here. If you are in a position where you have a duty of care to uphold, you have to plan for a worst case scenario and in sexual assault cases you have to cater for the fact that this might not be an isolated incident. This is NOT an outrageous assumption - the comments justifying his behaviour ("they must have been exes, have history etc") are outrageous. As if having slept with someone previously or inviting someone to your home somehow justifies that that person is entitled to demand sex from you!

Also, as a woman and as someone who has friends that are women (and actually listens to women), I can personally attest to the fact that I have and I know of other women who, on multiple occasions, been approached by absolute strangers (mostly men) demanding sex, at work (colleagues and clients) and outside of work. A reminder of the UN statistic - 97% of woman have been harassed. It really is time men stopped allowing their discomfort at the statistics to avoid dealing with the issue. The starting point is to believe woman when they notify you of the issue and be an ally. Women need men's voices to amplify ours. The goal is to make this world as safe for women as it is for men.

Anticipating potential responses to this comment, I would like to add that I am not sure what the strategy was on making this announcement 6 years on and there shouldn't be any frustration that he is doing well in his career (other than how unfair it is that she had to leave whereas he got the high fives). Someone shouldn't be penalised for one mistake, but as the associate in question is on track for partnership, let's hope he uses that position to provide a voice and support for other members of his firm going through similar experiences.

Despite him unreservedly apologising and the incident being years ago, it appears Fiona is still trying to ruin his life even though she left the fim (with no indication based on the above that she was forced out). This is textbook feminism for you.

This is not an endorsement of the guy's behaviour though, he's still a two-hat.

This is the consequence of structural sexism. It's not a one off and we shouldn't see it as such. The reality is that we live in a culture that accepts lower standards of behaviour from men than from women and in fact actively rewards men for behaviours that they would punish in women.

It goes further than that. As can be seen in this case, the man is promoted and the woman has to leave her workplace because of the things he did wrong.

Meanwhile some dudebro scrote wanders around the comments calling women names because they don't accept being treated like crap.

'Men can't help themselves' - is insulting to men and women. Stop it. They can help it, they choose not to because it is still acceptable to do so and the comments seem to confirm it.

Looking at what are mostly male comments, I am ashamed that my fellow men are so quick to brush this off so easily. I would make each and everyone morph into a woman and then endure a year of being subject to the same sorts of behaviour displayed here and regularly in the news. I think you have to walk in those shoes to understand the impact. Wonder if any went to the schools that were named recently in the British Press. Methinks they probably were!

"I have had complete strangers demand [sex] from me simply for walking past them on the street."

Yes, but sarcasm is quite a common thing in the UK.

"You all need to comprehend how insanely uncomfortable that would make someone (man or woman), to effectively have their professional future in the hands of someone that thinks it was OK to text them "aggressively demanding sex" MULTIPLE TIMES and then TURN UP AT HER HOME (invasive much?) and ring her buzzer FOR FIFTEEN MINUTES - that is a long time."

I'm not sure that's right, is it?

Putting myself into the complainant's shoes here, if my smoking hot female line manager wanted to take my 'professional future' into her hands, aggressively demand sex from me, and then 'ring my buzzer' for fifteen whole minutes then I'd think I had died and gone to heaven.

Frankly, the idea that I'd manage to last for the full fifteen is preposterous.

Like, maybe three at max.

So, you know, I've thought about it really really hard, and I don't think that it would make me that uncomfortable at all. You are making a lot of assumptions.

@13.42 - I don't know if the anti-male commenters are porn-addled or not, but they shouldn't do it anyway.

@Toby Feeman - I don't agree with your notion that she is cowardly and vulgar, but I wouldn't describe her as daring and praiseworthy.

Anon 09 April 21 15:19

'Men can't help themselves' - is insulting to men and women. Stop it. They can help it, they choose not to because it is still acceptable to do so and the comments seem to confirm it.

Most of the comments you refer to are from a single poster who has decided to waste his life trolling the site in the hope that somehow, somewhere he'll persuade society to mandate a woman to touch him in his special place.

It's not going to happen.

Also worth looking at this. It'll make it easer to ignore him.

https://youtu.be/4hcnep5QdSA

Hmm. When I was a trainee, a female trainee suggested twice to me, in a meeting room at work, that I should go back to her place and sleep with her. She said we ‘didn’t need to have sex’ but that we could at least ‘cuddle’.

I didn’t fancy her enough, so declined politely. Was I outraged? Nonsense - I felt mildly flattered, and felt decidedly un-sporting / priggish that I wasn’t inclined to oblige. I respected her pluck in asking; and wondered vaguely about karma – “if I turn down this request, it’ll increase the chances of my being similarly turned down next time I ask the same from another woman” kind of karmic thinking. I suppose nowadays she would be an evil person, and my 2021 doppelganger would be receiving counselling for the "trauma".

If this guy had continued his behaviour, and especially into an office setting, this woman would have had a case. As it was, even at the time, it was rather stupid, but hardly a hanging offence.

To be bringing up a once-off incident years later is borderline deranged.

It's a quarter after one

I'm a little drunk and I need you now ...

Anonymous 09 April 21 14:50

Great point about structural sexism. It's endemic in society and really easy to see where it comes from if you want to look.

This one example should make clear it's ubiquity and it's appeal to a certain type of man.

https://youtu.be/wWoP8VpbpYI

@15:52 - yes, that's right, a single poster is responsible for all the comments from different people which you disagree with, and all the votes supporting those comments.

Who says false accusations aren't common.

She wants help from the partnership?

Sorry honey. That's like a country sending for Boris Johnson.

Not a hope in hell.

"Meanwhile some dudebro scrote wanders around the comments calling women names because they don't accept being treated like crap".

Says you, wandering around calling men names.

She wants help from the partnership?

Sorry honey. That's like a country sending for Boris Johnson.

Not a hope in hell.

But there should be hope of support and a decent resolution. That's the point.

And that's why it's a good thing that she brought this up. This guy should never have been allowed to stay on as her manager and I hope female law students considering traineeships all avoid Allens like the plague.

If they miss out on the best trainees maybe they'll start treating their people better.

@14:20 - why do you think all men look like potatoes?

If he was drunk why did he continue with the texts the following morning?

Why did the firm not allow her to move teams?

Why did the firm allow him to continue as her supervisor?

The man is obviously a dick and should have been shown the door. He could then have sorted his life out and forged a career elsewhere and she could have continued hers. As it is he faced no punishment (being told to work from home for a week is not a punishment!) and she was forced to leave the firm and find a job elsewhere.

"But there should be hope of support and a decent resolution. That's the point."

Isn't the point that there has already been one? And that it was delivered six years ago?

I'm not sure how much of it is just wind-up merchants on these boards, but every time there's a story like this one you get a small number of slightly loopy posters suggesting that a 'decent resolution' hasn't happened unless the guy in question has been sacked, cast out of polite society, and subjected to a lengthy public humiliation of some kind. An approach which isn't proportionate or realistic.

And, to be clear, it remains unrealistic and disproportionate no matter how hard one tries to dress it up in verbose 'progressive' terminology, or with insincere suggestions that those kind of unfairly harsh punishments are somehow bettering men because feminists 'believe they can be better'.

Also, before you start, I'm no doubt an 'incel' or whatever the latest catchphrase is because I disagree with you, so there's no need to even say it. I am of course also the same person as everyone else who has ever disagreed with you on everything, and everyone who has ever recommended or upvoted their opinion. We're a conspiracy of one and we never have sex, even with each other, who are all the same.

If he was drunk why did he continue with the texts the following morning?

Because he was still drinking and hadn't been to sleep yet?

Given what we know about the evening in question, that doesn't seem particularly far fetched.

It's so sad it's almost painful to see how desperate the misogynist boy troll is for responses and attention.

And I speak as someone who's been declared a vexatious litigant in multiple jurisdictions.

@14:50 - nobody 'had' to leave though

@15:19 what's acceptable, men can't help themselves what, and what comments?

Toby Feeman @ 17:29 - with misandry like that I'm not surprised!

@Disappointed - we don't know that these are mostly male comments any more than we know that you are actually male. I don't see the comments as 'brushing this off', more as reflecting the fact he apologised and it happened a long time ago. Surely it would be unfair to never promote him.

@16.37 - unclear what his being punished and apologising has to do with structural sexism.

@16:59 - but she was given support by the partners - he was punished and apologised. I don't see why he couldn't remain her supervisor, although if she wanted to move teams she should have been allowed. I doubt this will put off future female trainees at all, not sure why it would.

Anonymous @17.28 - quite possibly one of the best comments ever posted on here.

In reply to Anonymous @13 28

Years before this - Friday night drinks each month were legendary. The quantities of alcohol lead to many embarrassing situations by partners and associates. People carried on afterwards at the night club downstairs or around the corner. Or retired to quiet areas of the office.

At times, junior office staff needed to be bundled into taxis to protect them from partners. Decent divorce rate among partners but probably no different to other firms.

A partner at the annual firm dinner using his speech to discuss, among other things, the size of the breasts of one of the associates.

A different era.

"Thatcher told AFR there was a culture at the firm "where all that matters is how much you work and how technically proficient you are, and you’re managed by people who are good lawyers but don’t have emotional intelligence”."

It is correct that the office was always big on technical proficiency.

It also had a lawyer who could bend time and bill 25 hours a day.

Ex Allens Brisbane @ 2.28 - were they reported for it?

Anonymous @ 9.46am

Nothing was ever said or done. Junior office staff were chaperoned at times for their own safety. No-one was reprimanded or lost their jobs. Different times.

However, there were many partners who were just hard working ethical lawyers who went home at the end of the day.

And continued to be her supervisor afterwards.

That is the problem.

She is the victim. He is the perpetrator. Those are admitted facts.

Whether or not they had a previous relationship is irrelevant.

I am really baffled why the above eludes people who support Allen in having shown such an abysmal management of the situation.

If you want to keep people on who harass or bully the staff they supervise, fine. Law firms are a business and capitalism has never cared much about peoples sensibilities. I am on board with that. But at a minimum the perpetrator ought to have supervisory power removed as well as their ability to determine someones career and salary. Simple.

Ex Allens Brisbane @ 10.07 - I was thinking more about the lawyer allegedly billing 25 hours a day - were they reported?

And the junior office staff chaperoned or bundled into taxis - what was felt would have happened if they hadn't been chaperoned or bundled into taxis?

Fair point on the other lawyers. I daresay there were also hard working and ethical lawyers who socialised after work.

rubbish fiona

@ 9 Apr 15:34

With your dad there though? You said you have put yourself in her situation. Think you need to re-evaluate your daddy issues.

Anonymous @10.57

"Ex Allens Brisbane @ 10.07 - I was thinking more about the lawyer allegedly billing 25 hours a day - were they reported?

No.

And the junior office staff chaperoned or bundled into taxis - what was felt would have happened if they hadn't been chaperoned or bundled into taxis?

A drunk partner may have forced himself on her.

Fair point on the other lawyers. I daresay there were also hard working and ethical lawyers who socialised after work."

There were.

This article has misquoted the AFR. Looks like this quality reporter needs to check his or her facts. Journalists need to stop publishing her exaggerations of something that happened 6 years ago.

Hopefully she has something else in her life beyond this. It’s really sad.

Anyone interested in why she hasn’t published the string of aggressively demanding texts? Probably because that’s crap.

Let's be clear, outing yourself does not necessarily make the crime less punishable.

It is only fair that strong punishment should be considered first unless extraordinary cause can be shown to avoid disqualification.

Ex Allens Brisbane @ 4.59:

Why wasn't the lawyer billing 25 hours a day reported (assuming it wasn't an error)?

What was the basis for thinking that a drunk partner might have forced themselves on a junior? Was this perceived risk limited to one occasion or was it one or several partners and one junior?

Anonymouse @ 10.22am

Ex Allens Brisbane @ 4.59:

Why wasn't the lawyer billing 25 hours a day reported (assuming it wasn't an error)?

No idea. I expect his partner adjusted the hours when it came to billing the client.

I recall partner time mysteriously appearing on my files from time to time when they never went near them.

At another firm, one of the lawyers was one of the highest billers even though he was never in the office enough hours to justify it. No WFH back then.

What was the basis for thinking that a drunk partner might have forced themselves on a junior? Was this perceived risk limited to one occasion or was one or several partners or one junior?

Past molesting probably. A partner. One occasion? No.

08.20 - he didn't commit a crime.

Are you saying he shouldn't have apogised (or as you call it, 'outed himself')? And that he should have been sacked?

Everything you'll ever need to know about this case and this thread of comments is right here.

https://youtu.be/Yd0dTaepyyY

@15.21 - please summarise the link and why you think it says everything about the case and the comments in not more than 100 words.

No idea where the idea that he had his own infrastructure team and/or was a direct reporting manager as barely a third year at the firm came from.

They were co-workers at basically the same level in the same team. She did not report to him. She was older than him. He could not have had any ability to influence her career or salary.

Clearly she’s built him up to be something he’s not.

Why are people publishing exaggerations rather than the facts? It undermines the whole movement and all other victims’ stories.

Ex Allens Brisbane 12.17

"No idea. I expect his partner adjusted the hours when it came to billing the client.

I recall partner time mysteriously appearing on my files from time to time when they never went near them.

At another firm, one of the lawyers was one of the highest billers even though he was never in the office enough hours to justify it. No WFH back then."

Did you ever report any of this? Are you going to now?

"Past molesting probably. A partner. One occasion? No."

What past molesting? Why didn't anyone report the partner (or did they)?

@ 22.50

Ex Allens Brisbane 12.17

"No idea. I expect his partner adjusted the hours when it came to billing the client.

I recall partner time mysteriously appearing on my files from time to time when they never went near them.

At another firm, one of the lawyers was one of the highest billers even though he was never in the office enough hours to justify it. No WFH back then."

Did you ever report any of this? Are you going to now?

There is a difference between time recording and what is actually billed.

I suspect in each case the files are long destroyed.

Are you saying you have never seen padding on a file?

"Past molesting probably. A partner. One occasion? No."

What past molesting? Why didn't anyone report the partner (or did they)?

Different times.

There was a partner who would routinely throw things at lawyers. Lawyers today wouldn't know what hit them.

@15.21 - please summarise the link and why you think it says everything about the case and the comments in not more than 100 words.

The thread police have started setting homework.

I know that lockdown is tough for everyone, and I'm sure that you'll dismiss this as part of the misandry 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 female 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 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 men" 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).

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

@20:57 - What's the matter? Were the words too hard? Did it interrupt your porn viewing?

Try this one. It's quite straightforward.

https://youtu.be/4hcnep5QdSA

@Whyexaggerate

Clearly she’s built him up to be something he’s not.

1 You produce no evidence that what you say is true.

2 You are holding her responsible for the reporting of the story, blaming her for something she has no responsibility for or control over.

Why exaggerate? Or are you simply lying?

Wow.

There's something quite unsettling about a man who feels the need to lurk on a thread about sexual harassment (of a woman by a man) and respond to every post.

And minimise the harassment.

And make the woman out to have behaved improperly.

And try to control the discussion.

Why would someone want to do that?

@7.41 - if that's what the link says I disagree with it.

@7.49 - please summarise the link in 100 words or less. And try not to obsess about porn all the time.

07.43 - thanks for your concern, but it sounds as if its you who needs to get offline for a while!

To whom it may concern:

Don't waste your time with low value, low quality men. Studies and statistic show a high correlation between heavy porn users and lack of empathy, particularly lack of empathy with victims of sexual harassment and rape.

Block. Delete. Move on.

Have faith that most people are intelligent enough to see a weird guy with a weird agenda. You and your time are worth more than this.

@7.54 - surely she has some responsibility if she raised the allegations years later, after the matter had already been dealt with.

Do you know, I wasn't aware that Mark Hardy was such a vocal third-wave feminist.

@8.50 - there isn't one man responding to every post, so why someone would want to is academic.

What I don't know is why anyone would want to maximise the 'harassment' when he has apologised.

If toxic masculinity is loyalty, duty, courage and wisdom - admittedly something no-one has said until me just now - and feminism is the desire to destroy all men and turn them into muslims, then I'm proud to be a toxic anti-feminist.

Until these woke warriors can understand that men shout at the women they love then there can be no peace.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the human race dies out.

@7.54 - You clearly haven’t read her LinkedIn and Facebook posts about the incident that were previously published and then mysteriously deleted when they didn’t suit her new narrative.

This thread really does sum up patriarchy.

When it comes down to it, the root of the patriarchy is men doing everything they can to rob women of sexual and reproductive autonomy. In this situation here is a man turning up outside a woman's home and trying to browbeat her into having sex with him - literally trying to force her to have sex.

Women have a biological power of being able to decide if and when we reproduce, and which men deserve to have offspring. Men have been trying for most of human history to deny that power and even the knowledge of that power.

Men like this man and those in the comments defending him are frightened because they're not in control.

And they claim that women are the emotional ones.

Ex Allens Brisbane 12th @ 3.50:

Thanks.

"There is a difference between time recording and what is actually billed.

I suspect in each case the files are long destroyed.

Are you saying you have never seen padding on a file?"

Not 25 hours recorded for a day. But this must have been a mistake. Even if someone was cost-padding they wouldn't do it as blatantly as this surely..

If true, any allegation of padding should be reported - its the only way to eradicate it.

"Different times".

Perhaps, but I don't believe based on what has been said that the partner would have forced himself upon the junior if she hadn't been put in a taxi. It might have been that something happened that other people thought ought not to happen, or that they might both regret, but that's probably all.

@8.03

Ex Allens Brisbane 12th @ 3.50:

Thanks.

"There is a difference between time recording and what is actually billed.

I suspect in each case the files are long destroyed.

Are you saying you have never seen padding on a file?"

Not 25 hours recorded for a day. But this must have been a mistake. Even if someone was cost-padding they wouldn't do it as blatantly as this surely..

If true, any allegation of padding should be reported - its the only way to eradicate it.

Don't think the 25 hours was a mistake.

Have you reported instances of it?

"Different times".

I suspect the power imbalance between the two may have resulted in him pressuring her into sex. And that's why she ended up in a taxi. But it's hypothetical - we will never know.

There was another ocassion at a Xmas party when a junior in a Santa's helper outfit also needed the taxi option. I dont recall if the same or different lawyer involved.

Reading this guy's posts is like being a passenger in a clown car.

@10.14 - sounds like you're an expert in that field. Note you don't disagree though.

Textbook misandry Gaia.

Until these woke warriors can understand that men shout at the women they love then there can be no peace.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if the human race dies out.

Can I just say I don't know how I feel about this. I mean, patently it's nonsense, but is it a joke (in which case kudos) or is it meant to be serious?

It's got to be a joke. Right?

Comments

Related News