I like Victor Nwosu!

I think that we all know exactly what the BSB are going to conclude in the end here...

That job interview sounds horrible. It has the hallmarks of a casting couch.

Hey!

You! Stop that!

I'm the only genuine fake Lord Lester allowed in this comment section.

Keep us updated on the appeal. Difficult to say what actually happened and if true that his witness wasn't allowed to appear then it should be looked at again. These cases do need a higher standard of proof and of course the fine and 'costs' are ridiculous. Use if the emotive buzzword 'uncomfortable' immediately raises a flag in this sort of case.

@9.04 - is that because opposites attract - you being a barrister who was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB, and he being a solicitor who wasn't?

@9.35 - he's a solicitor, so unlikely to be completely cleared of any wrongdoing whatsoever in the way that Lord Lester was, as the BSB regulates barristers and not solicitors.

@9.45 - even if true it hardly sounds like a casting couch. There is no suggestion he offered anything in return for sex. Important not to get carried away with accusations.

WTF!  Some young person makes unwitnessed  claims that he said “Mmm I like what I see” and commented that she was beautiful!  He asked her to pull her seat over to read his computer screen?! WTF.  That’s gbp20k + and a public shaming.  This seems absurd! 

"I like what I see"

Ambiguous.

Bit like the Derek Bentley murder case and the infamous "let him have it" statement.  

There is a reasonable possibility that he was being a bit of a sad lech, but it's nowhere near an assault.   Well within the parameters of social interaction that adults used to manage without the need for institutional chaperones.  When much younger, I was hit on my lecherous older female partners; so what.  I felt slightly sorry for them, but also liked their honesty and was a bit intrigued, tbh.  Reaction is OTT, as is the sentence. 

All hail the New Puritans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfYwnsMjPEs

(Any excuse folks, I'm a Fall fan.  Apologies and all that, Swifties.)

Anonymous 28 July 23 10:42: not difficult to know what happened here. We know what happened here, as the SDT made findings of fact which were upheld on appeal. And there is no further appeal beyond the Administrative Court. 

Anonymous 28 July 23 11:58 - u ok hun

Anonymous 28 July 23 09:45 - spot on.

Good on her for raising awareness, she clearly didn't want another impressionable young woman going through what she went through. Sadly such objectifying behaviour is still rife in the legal industry

"There is no suggestion he offered anything in return for sex. Important not to get carried away with accusations."

That's actually a very important point.

There's a huge difference between the two scenarios.

In one you're telling a buxom young woman with dreams of becoming a paralegal that you want to spend the hour that you had originally set aside for interview getting busy with them on the meeting room floor, spending a full sixty minutes gasping and grunting in sweaty ecstasy as you each explore one anothers' bodies. An activity which would be engaged in recreationally and purely for the pleasure of one or both parties to the interaction.

Whereas in the other scenario you're telling that same buxom young woman that you want to spend the hour getting busy with them on the meeting room floor - in the very same wanton way - but also that you will then make her a paralegal at the conclusion of the event in a way that you would not otherwise have done. Which fatally undermines the integrity of the hiring process.

One is obviously unconscionable, and the other entirely above board.

So thank you for brining that up.

How much did the Senior Partner at Baker & McKenzie get fined for his sexual misconduct?

paper cuts 28 July 23 12:46: there is no ambiguity. First, he never ran a case on ambiguity. He denied saying that, other than in relation to the CV. Secondly, the tribunal found that he did say those words, other than in relation to the CV, and that the words had a sexual connotation; that finding was upheld on appeal. So no ambiguity.

There was no ambiguity in the Bentley case, either. His case at trial was that he never said, “Let him have it, Chris”. He never ran a case on ambiguity, as that would have been inconsistent with never having said those words.

@13.48 - we don't know what happened as we weren't there. Even the SDT wouldn't claim to know what happened.

@13.49 - the question is, are you?

@13.51 - don't squeeze it!

Dirty bugger.

For all the men excusing this behaviour, imagine the absolute, devasting horror of being told you look well during an interview. 

Take a look at the whole legal profession where selection of any candidates is all amount pleasing the employers and institutions with youth and good looks. There is not much career prospects after age 50 so most people in employment are immature, inexperienced and inefficient due to lack of training at high standard of excellence which applies especially to overseas recruitment. 

I was at law school with Victor- he was always a flash got. Used to work for the RAC at weekends selling memberships in shopping centres

Anonymous 29 July 23 10:26: u ok hun

@[email protected] - yes, she may have misinterpreted his comment to have sexual connotations which could indeed mean her mind is pre-occupied with sex. Same goes for the tribunal for siding with her. 'Dirty bugger' is a bit strong though!

@14.44 - the question is, are you?

@Anonymous 29 July 23 15:51 - but we know she didn’t misinterpret what he said, because the Tribunal found in her favour and that finding was upheld on appeal.

@Anon 29 July 23 16:55 - exactly.

@[email protected] - not so much excusing anything rather than pointing out he might have been talking about her cv, so not even clear there is anything to excuse. Won't just be men thinking this.

Agreed though, it would be treated differently if a woman made the comment to a man. And in any case not serious enough to go to the regulators and doesn't warrant massive fine and 'costs'.

@ Anonymous 16.55/57 - but we don't know if she misinterpreted what he said because we weren't there and only he knows what he meant. The Tribunal's findings and the appeal are irrelevant, however the process is automatically unfair because she was named and he wasn't. We simply can't know.

Exactly.

It does seem that both the original tribunal and the appeal were annoyed by the facts that he strongly denied the accusations and said that he said he should be believed over an (anonymous) 22 year old and that they let this cloud their judgement. Feels like the findings against him were out of spite and the facts went out the window. For this reason we can't take the original tribunal or the appeal seriously.

We know that she didn’t misinterpret what he said, and we also know what he meant, because of the Tribunal’s findings of fact, which were upheld on appeal and go to the heart of the case. The process was entirely fair. Had it not been, the decision would have been overturned. 

@[email protected] - what's a 'got'?

And what's flash about selling RAC memberships?

This shows the unfairness of the process. People can comment on the man but not the woman because he's named and she isn't.

Is there a link to the original tribunal hearing and the appeal?

Is there a breakdown of the 'costs' part of the punishment and details as to why they are more than the fine itself?

Those arguing that he may indeed have been talking about the CV, have you ever asked a CV if it had a boyfriend? 

Those commenting that the tribunal established the facts and as such, we know what happened might consider that the threshold was 51% likely- and no more.  
That’s the civil standard but we seem to be dealing in criminal punishments 

The multiple upvotes and downvotes here have gone off the scale and are higher than the number of readers of the article.

Anonymous 01 August 23 16:47- where is your evidence that the votes are higher than the number of readers of the article? It is more likely that people are overwhelmingly rejecting Question Man’s false narrative, continually peddled under multiple posts.

He look like the victim here. The tribunal look awful, they come out of it looking a second rate Carry On film, assigning innuendo to ambiguous statements. Their opinions are rejected.

Anonymous 04 August 23 08:14 - they are not opinions but findings of fact, which were upheld by the court on appeal. Those findings are now objective truths. You can no more reject them than reject the fact that London is the capital of England or that the day which follows Monday is Tuesday. 
 

You sound like you are stomping your feet because you do not like the result.

@9.37 - they aren't facts but what the tribunal state their opinion is (following an automatically unfair process) and the tribunal would be the first to tell you this. They are no more objective truths than Paris is the capital if England or that the day which follows Monday is Wednesday.

The only objective fact is that we don't know what he meant. Having read the article and the comments it does seem more likely than not that he was commenting on her cv.

You sound like you are stomping your feet because it has been pointed out to you that the only fact is that there are no facts, and that this is no basis to criticise or fine anyone.

Anonymous 04 August 23 11:55 - we know what he meant because the tribunal found as a fact what he meant, and that finding was upheld on appeal. 
 

That is the way the law works.

@Anonymous 04 August 23 11:55: u ok hun

@12.09/12.11 - no, we don't know what he meant because we weren't there and we aren't him. We know it was likely he was referring to her cv.

Tribunals don't establish facts, they're just a forum for the members of the tribunal to state what they say they think happened. This doesn't make those opinions facts anymore than it makes your opinions facts. That's the way the law works and that's what the tribunal would tell you.

There hasn't been an appeal on the evidence and won't be unless he appeals it to a proper court. He won't as he's made it clear what he thinks of the tribunal, who won't enforce the fines. So he looks like a victim and the tribunal looks bad.

The question is are you?

Anon 04 August 23 12:09 - exactly. Tribunals establish the facts. That is their purpose. And those facts were upheld on appeal. There will be no further appeal, not because of what he thinks of the tribunal or the administrative court, but because any further appeal is barred by statute.

@12.38 - what state are you talking about? Why are you replying to 12.09 when you are 12.09?

The tribunal doesn't establish facts and they be the first to tell you that. All they do is state what they say their opinion is. These opinions are no more facts than anything you say being a fact.

Anon 04 August 23 12:38: yes and, as you’d expect, the Tribunal refers to findings of fact at paras 8 and 10 and has a specific paragraph with that heading: 

https://www.solicitorstribunal.org.uk/sites/default/files-sdt/12245-2021%20Nwosu%20-%20Appeal%20Annotation.pdf

The facts they found were plainly open to them -  especially since the accused already (on his own case) had the CV before the interview, and therefore wouldn’t have said “Mmm, I like what I see”, because he wasn’t looking at the document for the first time - and hence the administrative court upheld those factual findings.

Anonymous 04 August 23 14:02 - why are you talking about a state? If you mean the state of your argument, then we are all agreed it is very poor.

@16.10 - they aren't facts though, they're stated opinions. The tribunal would be the first ones to tell you that. It isn't possible to state something as a fact which isn't a fact.

What their opinion was (and we don't know if this even was their genuine opinion) is open to them, but that doesn't make them facts or factual findings. Remember, an opinion is not a fact. Very important.

He may well have said "Mmm, I like what I see" as his memory would have been likely to have been refreshed by re-reading it (otherwise there would be no point in doing so). This seems much more likely (or factual as you would say) than that his comment was a sexually motivated one directed at her.

@[email protected] - bangin' response!

Important not to lose sight of what this lady had to go through. It has been found as a fact that she was spoken to in a totally inappropriate, unwanted, sexual manner. Behaviour of the sort exhibited by Mr Nwosu is to be deprecated.

@Anon 04 August 23 12:38 - agreed.

Anonymous 06 August 23 18:53: what is “bangin’”?

@[email protected]/16.21 - although nothing has been found as fact, as the tribunal will tell you. All they've done is state what they say is there opinion following an unfair process. Its impossible to know what was meant by the comments.

Agreed with what?

anon 08 August 23 15:58 - yes, what she went through was dreadful. Good to see Nwosu sanctioned.

Where facts are in issue, it is the court or tribunal’s function to find as a fact what happened. The tribunal here, as you would expect, did no differently. They even have a heading, “Findings of fact”.

@Eh? - @[email protected]'s response

@Anonymous 11 August 23 07:07 - still unclear what “bangin’” means.

@7.50 - it means @[email protected]'s response. That's the definition of bangin'

Anonymous 11 August 23 16:12 - no, still unclear. The word “bangin’” is not known to the English language.

Anonymous 06 August 23 18:53 - why do you think the response is making a loud noise?

@18.11 - but you just said at @18.13 that you did

@18.13 - the response didn't make a loud noise but it was bangin'. Why do you think you can hear the comments?

Very concerned that Anonymous 06 August 23 18:53 thinks that words written in this commentary are making a loud noise!

@6.38 in the morning - very concerned that anyone would think that anyone would think that the words written in this commentary are making a loud noise.

But the response @[email protected] was bangin'

Anon 12 August 23 06:38 - very worrying indeed that he can hear words making a noise. Doesn’t bode well for the substance of his arguments!

@12.27 - very worrying indeed that anyone is reduced to saying they think anyone can hear words making a noise and upvoting their own comments, all because @[email protected] made a bangin' response.

Doesn’t bode well for the substance of their arguments!

Anon 12 August 23 12:27: exactly. Worrying that he says he hears words on the printed page. Time for him to see a psychiatrist.

Good luck to this young lady. Nobody deserves what she went through. Really hope she can make a success of things.

@15.30 - exactly

Anonymous 12 August 23 15:30: the votes are indicative of a wholesale rejection by commentators of Question Man’s false narrative.

No, thd votes are indicative of multiple votes by the same person.

@Anonymous 20 August 23 07:57: you have provided no evidence that the same person is voting multiple times, which is very telling. I agree with @Anon 13 August 23 05:22 that the voting shows an overwhelming rejection of Question Man’s pernicious narrative.

Any update on the appeal?