Er no WSS. It's the same lawyer who made the unfortunate comment to her, making an unfortunate comment about his own daughter. Personally I think he knew he was pushing his luck, which was why he mentioned it "not being politically correct", and she was right to be pissed off. However, if it was just a one-off, I don't think she was right to make it public.
Those trying to make her out to be a hypocrite because she's made comments about guys on Facebook are missing the point spectacularly though. LinkedIn is meant to be a professional network, and Facebook isn't, so the standards of acceptable behaviour are different on each. Just like trying to flirt with random women in the pub is fine, but it's not acceptable with colleages or potential clients in the office.
Let's all agree that he was wrong to make a crass comment on a website that supposedly has a professional image and purpose for business networking, ok, so let's park that, he was wrong, she was right, like farting in church.
Sorry we can't quite all agree because that's not what happened. He made a crass comment in a private message having previously "linked in " with her. She then put the matter in the public domain. So he farted in private but she bottled it and then opened the bottle in a crowded lift.
Er no WSS. It's the same lawyer who made the unfortunate comment to her, making an unfortunate comment about his own daughter. Personally I think he knew he was pushing his luck, which was why he mentioned it "not being politically correct", and she was right to be pissed off. However, if it was just a one-off, I don't think she was right to make it public.
Those trying to make her out to be a hypocrite because she's made comments about guys on Facebook are missing the point spectacularly though. LinkedIn is meant to be a professional network, and Facebook isn't, so the standards of acceptable behaviour are different on each. Just like trying to flirt with random women in the pub is fine, but it's not acceptable with colleages or potential clients in the office.
Let's all agree that he was wrong to make a crass comment on a website that supposedly has a professional image and purpose for business networking, ok, so let's park that, he was wrong, she was right, like farting in church.
Sorry we can't quite all agree because that's not what happened. He made a crass comment in a private message having previously "linked in " with her. She then put the matter in the public domain. So he farted in private but she bottled it and then opened the bottle in a crowded lift.
I'm still not entirely sure it was "a crass comment".
The lesson I have learned from this then is that if I get asked to 'connect' with an attractive lady on linked in. I also need to 'friend' her on Facebook if I want to flirt. Or 'follow' on Twitter if I want to send abuse.
She is a " Human Rights" lawyer. About to make millions off us the mug tax payers --- all this publicity just bigging up her profile.
Setting aside the fact she's not working at the moment, she's a junior barrister doing legal aid work. There are more juniors out there than you can shake a stick at: work is hard to come by without a good clerk putting briefs your way.
Her hourly rate, from which, being self-employed, she'd have to pay all her overheads including chambers costs and clerking fees, wigs, etc is £42.70: if she can find work at all. Meanwhile a rat catcher's fee would be around £70, a garage mechanic around £80 and the renowned Pimlico Plumbers charge between £120 and £200 depending on the time of day.
If she'd wanted to get rich, learning how to fix a leaking waste pipe and all about the wonders of PTFE tape might have been a better option for her.
Er no WSS. It's the same lawyer who made the unfortunate comment to her, making an unfortunate comment about his own daughter. Personally I think he knew he was pushing his luck, which was why he mentioned it "not being politically correct", and she was right to be pissed off. However, if it was just a one-off, I don't think she was right to make it public.
Those trying to make her out to be a hypocrite because she's made comments about guys on Facebook are missing the point spectacularly though. LinkedIn is meant to be a professional network, and Facebook isn't, so the standards of acceptable behaviour are different on each. Just like trying to flirt with random women in the pub is fine, but it's not acceptable with colleages or potential clients in the office.
Let's all agree that he was wrong to make a crass comment on a website that supposedly has a professional image and purpose for business networking, ok, so let's park that, he was wrong, she was right, like farting in church.
She ranted on about about him/men objectifying women, when clearly she has objectified men with comments such as "hot stuff" and "oh la la" when commenting on Facebook photos. Regardless of which website it was said on, it's the same thing. My feeling is if it had been a young "hot stuff" male who contacted her on LinkedIn she would have reacted entirely differently.
But it isn't the same at all, is it? I can't imagine anyone would find it objectionable to tell a friend (regardless of gender) that they look good in a photo, especially not on a website that encourages people to comment on their friends' photos. Commenting on the appearance of someone that you don't know well during what is essentially a networking opportunity, strikes me as a very different scenario.
I do not find the issue confusing at all. Neither is the "problem" modern.
I do not know what business people work in, but "flirting" or paying unwarranted "personal" attention to others in the workplace though extremely common has long run the risk of being deemed inappropriate behaviour.
No matter the intention you can never be sure how the "subject/object" of your comments will interpret such actions.
While to most people these comments seem fairly innocuous they are personal in nature. The disingenuous reference to "the photograph" does not stand scrutiny because intrinsic to the "value" of any photograph is the subject matter included.
That such comments were made within a "professional/ industry" environment is entirely inappropriate. There are employment laws and professional standards in place specifically to deter such behaviour. So whether people like it or not there is no place for his comments in a professional work environment.
Most of the comment on here seems to accept that Carter-Silk appears to have breached acceptable standards.
The criticism of Proudman is she chose to publicise such comments in a "public social networking domain".
I stand to be corrected but I think the owners of LinkedIn are very much of the opinion they were a "public social networking domain" most importantly designed for the development of professional networking. Thus his comments would have been "public" to any other party to which she was linked on the network.
It seems a pretty weak argument to complain she then chose to take what were effectively comments in a public domain to a larger forum.
I do not disagree her response appears to be an overreaction. However according to the professions' industry publications such comments/ inappropriate behaviour are not only commonplace in their working environment they are classified as "rampant". In such circumstances I suggest this may add, if not an explicit background to, then some context to the comment and the nature of the response.
Maybe, just maybe, the woman had had just enough of having to put up with schoolboy "sexual banter" in a professional environment.
As a Union (Staff Assoc.) representative I used to have to deal with this sort of stuff far too frequently 30yrs ago!! I have on occasion seen guys' careers disappear overnight. The look of bewilderment on their faces that a few "fun comments" could have such drastic consequences is a very salutary lesson.
In this instance the man concerned even alludes to inappropriate nature of the comments before making them but then still chooses to send them, a truly inspired decision.
I do not have sufficient information to make some of the snap judgements a few seem comfortable in offering but I have seen the distress in the workplace which some even apparently innocuous comments have caused.
Is a little respect in the workplace so much to ask?
I stand to be corrected but I think the owners of LinkedIn are very much of the opinion they were a "public social networking domain" most importantly designed for the development of professional networking. Thus his comments would have been "public" to any other party to which she was linked on the network.
It seems a pretty weak argument to complain she then chose to take what were effectively comments in a public domain to a larger forum.
Grapevine, just to add a couple of points in here, both the request to be LinkedIn and the response are private. You don't get to see who your "connections" have asked to be connected to or what the responses were.
Puts things in a slightly different context. It was a private communication that has been made public. We can debate the rights and wrongs of what was said and whether making it public was right, but the decision to make tings public was entirely down to one person. And I suspect that person may end up regretting it more, in the long run.
Er no WSS. It's the same lawyer who made the unfortunate comment to her, making an unfortunate comment about his own daughter. Personally I think he knew he was pushing his luck, which was why he mentioned it "not being politically correct", and she was right to be pissed off. However, if it was just a one-off, I don't think she was right to make it public.
Those trying to make her out to be a hypocrite because she's made comments about guys on Facebook are missing the point spectacularly though. LinkedIn is meant to be a professional network, and Facebook isn't, so the standards of acceptable behaviour are different on each. Just like trying to flirt with random women in the pub is fine, but it's not acceptable with colleages or potential clients in the office.
Let's all agree that he was wrong to make a crass comment on a website that supposedly has a professional image and purpose for business networking, ok, so let's park that, he was wrong, she was right, like farting in church.
She ranted on about about him/men objectifying women, when clearly she has objectified men with comments such as "hot stuff" and "oh la la" when commenting on Facebook photos. Regardless of which website it was said on, it's the same thing. My feeling is if it had been a young "hot stuff" male who contacted her on LinkedIn she would have reacted entirely differently.
But it isn't the same at all, is it? I can't imagine anyone would find it objectionable to tell a friend (regardless of gender) that they look good in a photo, especially not on a website that encourages people to comment on their friends' photos. Commenting on the appearance of someone that you don't know well during what is essentially a networking opportunity, strikes me as a very different scenario.
Again, it's not about the website, she says she took offence as it was a professional website, and made statements as well that his comment objectified her, so how the hell when she was commenting hot stuff and oh la la not objectifying the men she said it to, friends or not, irrespective of what social media platform it was.
She is a " Human Rights" lawyer. About to make millions off us the mug tax payers --- all this publicity just bigging up her profile.
Setting aside the fact she's not working at the moment, she's a junior barrister doing legal aid work. There are more juniors out there than you can shake a stick at: work is hard to come by without a good clerk putting briefs your way.
Her hourly rate, from which, being self-employed, she'd have to pay all her overheads including chambers costs and clerking fees, wigs, etc is £42.70: if she can find work at all. Meanwhile a rat catcher's fee would be around £70, a garage mechanic around £80 and the renowned Pimlico Plumbers charge between £120 and £200 depending on the time of day.
If she'd wanted to get rich, learning how to fix a leaking waste pipe and all about the wonders of PTFE tape might have been a better option for her.
Linkedin is a professional networking site Facebook and Twitter are social networking sites. I've just seen her on C4 news, which is neither, and it strikes me that she needs to lighten up a bit if she wants to meet a nice man who will look after her.
Comments
The modern world is confusing
Her hourly rate, from which, being self-employed, she'd have to pay all her overheads including chambers costs and clerking fees, wigs, etc is £42.70: if she can find work at all. Meanwhile a rat catcher's fee would be around £70, a garage mechanic around £80 and the renowned Pimlico Plumbers charge between £120 and £200 depending on the time of day.
If she'd wanted to get rich, learning how to fix a leaking waste pipe and all about the wonders of PTFE tape might have been a better option for her.
I do not know what business people work in, but "flirting" or paying unwarranted "personal" attention to others in the workplace though extremely common has long run the risk of being deemed inappropriate behaviour.
No matter the intention you can never be sure how the "subject/object" of your comments will interpret such actions.
While to most people these comments seem fairly innocuous they are personal in nature. The disingenuous reference to "the photograph" does not stand scrutiny because intrinsic to the "value" of any photograph is the subject matter included.
That such comments were made within a "professional/ industry" environment is entirely inappropriate. There are employment laws and professional standards in place specifically to deter such behaviour. So whether people like it or not there is no place for his comments in a professional work environment.
Most of the comment on here seems to accept that Carter-Silk appears to have breached acceptable standards.
The criticism of Proudman is she chose to publicise such comments in a "public social networking domain".
I stand to be corrected but I think the owners of LinkedIn are very much of the opinion they were a "public social networking domain" most importantly designed for the development of professional networking. Thus his comments would have been "public" to any other party to which she was linked on the network.
It seems a pretty weak argument to complain she then chose to take what were effectively comments in a public domain to a larger forum.
I do not disagree her response appears to be an overreaction. However according to the professions' industry publications such comments/ inappropriate behaviour are not only commonplace in their working environment they are classified as "rampant". In such circumstances I suggest this may add, if not an explicit background to, then some context to the comment and the nature of the response.
Maybe, just maybe, the woman had had just enough of having to put up with schoolboy "sexual banter" in a professional environment.
As a Union (Staff Assoc.) representative I used to have to deal with this sort of stuff far too frequently 30yrs ago!! I have on occasion seen guys' careers disappear overnight. The look of bewilderment on their faces that a few "fun comments" could have such drastic consequences is a very salutary lesson.
In this instance the man concerned even alludes to inappropriate nature of the comments before making them but then still chooses to send them, a truly inspired decision.
I do not have sufficient information to make some of the snap judgements a few seem comfortable in offering but I have seen the distress in the workplace which some even apparently innocuous comments have caused.
Is a little respect in the workplace so much to ask?
still don't care.
Puts things in a slightly different context. It was a private communication that has been made public. We can debate the rights and wrongs of what was said and whether making it public was right, but the decision to make tings public was entirely down to one person. And I suspect that person may end up regretting it more, in the long run.
If she was acting for me, I'd rescind her duties