'Professionals treat LinkedIn like Tinder'

viv1969 said:
My sister in law is my husband's sister. Her husband is no relation to me.....see? :)
Click to expand...
You'd be surprised at the number of people just don't get that. I can't believe the number of people that have tried to convince me that my sister in laws husband is my brother in law.
 
TonyHall said:
On her website she describes herself as a "Barrister and feminist legal activist" and she appears to value her appearances in the media.

I'll leave it up to others to draw any conclusions. But she does appear to be on a bit of a crusade, a quick look at her twitters she proclaims "Together we can end sexism".

I'm all for the end of sexism, but rabid feminists do little to advance their cause IMHO.
Click to expand...

Man she's not exactly beautiful. Why would he even want to you know what...
 
The plot thickens ....

"She has contacted Brown Rudnick to complain and will also be referring the issue to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, as well as reporting to police subsequent Twitter trolling."

"
Matthew Scott, a barrister and blogger, told the BBC's Victoria Derbyshire programme: "I think we have to look how this developed... Charlotte sent him a message, asking him to connect so the initial contact was made by Charlotte.

"He later complimented her stunning picture, so I do think his crime is provoked from Charlotte."

beats people starving throughout the world, the migrant crisis and the terrible weather in London ....... but I suppose it is "mega money" London

and also beats "Fearne Cotton reveals she's had a baby girl" ....... is there no justice in this world

"
She tweeted the news this morning, revealing the baby's name as Honey Krissy Wood.

Fearne also said, that along with her husband Jesse Wood, they are "buzzing with love".

The couple already have a two-year-old son, called Rex.

The 34-year-old presenter left BBC Radio 1 in May 2015 after almost ten years working at the station.

Fearne wrote on twitter; "Jesse and I are over the moon and buzzing with love, as our baby daughter Honey Krissy Wood came into the world this morning".
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
My sister in law is my husband's sister. Her husband is no relation to me.....see? :)
Click to expand...
We'd already established that I was being dim. No further explanation required.

Give me a break, I'm living life under a Briquette of Damocles.
 
Who needs the telly. All of life is here.
 
Lawyers eh?

probably following the american model of sue everything possible. Amazed to find now that in every hotel, food establishment, there's a declaration that the biulding may contain substances harmful to health, cleanign products, smoking residue etc. It's all about the sue culture. Every other advert on TV, billboards along the roads with strange staring people, women with big hair, really strange portraits alongside a phone number and reasons to contact them to sue someone.

had a crash, DUI, points on your licence, taken XYZ drug, had IVF which failed, the list goes on and on. Is it any wonder some in the UK are following suit?
 
Someone from The Fail has trawled through her friends list and found some comments she's made on photos of men. The news really is slow at the moment.
 
Julie1979 said:
Someone from The Fail has trawled through her friends list and found some comments she's made on photos of men. The news really is slow at the moment.
Click to expand...
Was to be expected. Totally fails to take into account the fundamental differences between posting a message to a stranger on a professional networking site, and posting a message to a friend on a social networking site.
It's the Mail, I don't expect high standards. Or any standards.
 
Llamaman said:
Was to be expected. Totally fails to take into account the fundamental differences between posting a message to a stranger on a professional networking site, and posting a message to a friend on a social networking site.
Click to expand...
But by her own standards and the reason for her broadcast to the world was objectification regardless of the arena. She by commenting on photos of the men (presumably friends) the way she did has objectified them. That's the bar she set others, or is her classification void when it's friends then it's fine. Maybe she should of been a bit clearer, "when a old bloke says to me stunning picture, that's misogynistic, but when i comment on hot guys that's ok. Get it.".
 
Sharky said:
But by her own standards and the reason for her broadcast to the world was objectification regardless of the arena. She by commenting on photos of the men (presumably friends) the way she did has objectified them. That's the bar she set others, or is her classification void when it's friends then it's fine. Maybe she should of been a bit clearer, "when a old bloke says to me stunning picture, that's misogynistic, but when i comment on hot guys that's ok. Get it.".
Click to expand...
I disagree - her email specifically refers to LinkedIn and it being a professional networking site, not a dating site, which is how he appears to be treating it (at least in this one instance).
I don't agree with her entirely, but having read the entirety of the original offending message and her response, I have some sympathy with her (but not how's she's dealt with it or the particular accusations she makes).

LinkedIn is a professional networking site. It should be treated as such, and as a rule of thumb one should behave as if one were in a workplace environment. If, upon meeting someone for the first time at work, your response was "wow, you're stunning", that would be wholly inappropriate in that context. And, yes it is objectification that undermines someone's professional credentials. Their attractiveness is utterly irrelevant to the situation.
Telling a friend, outside work, that they look good is not the same thing at all.

I do take issue with some of the other points she made. Making a pass at someone is (excluding the small % of bisexual people) always going to be sexist (in the sense that gender determines your behavior) - plus probably ageist, heightist, etc depending on your personal preferences. That doesn't make it inherently wrong. "Sexism" as a criticism should only be used where the behavior is demeaning or restrictively discriminatory. I'm not sure there's any evidence of that here - if he were building business relationships with similarly qualified men, but was only interested in her (and other women) as potential conquests or eye-candy, then that would be an issue, but we cannot deduce that from the evidence we have seen here. And nor could she.
On that basis, I don't think we can substantiate the sexism/misogyny accusations leveled against him.

Old men making fools of themselves around younger women is nothing new (e.g. Vince Cable) nor is it evil. Doing it at work is, however, unprofessional.


Disclosure: I met my wife at work. No, I didn't hit on her at our first meeting. :D
 
Last edited:
Llamaman said:
I disagree - her email specifically refers to LinkedIn and it being a professional networking site, not a dating site, which is how he appears to be treating it (at least in this one instance).
I don't agree with her entirely, but having read the entirety of the original offending message and her response, I have some sympathy with her (but not how's she's dealt with it or the particular accusations she makes).

LinkedIn is a professional networking site. It should be treated as such, and as a rule of thumb one should behave as if one were in a workplace environment. If, upon meeting someone for the first time at work, your response was "wow, you're stunning", that would be wholly inappropriate in that context. And, yes it is objectification that undermines someone's professional credentials. Their attractiveness is utterly irrelevant to the situation.
Telling a friend, outside work, that they look good is not the same thing at all.

I do take issue with some of the other points she made. Making a pass at someone is (excluding the small % of bisexual people) always going to be sexist (in the sense that gender determines your behavior) - plus probably ageist, heightist, etc depending on your personal preferences. That doesn't make it inherently wrong. "Sexism" as a criticism should only be used where the behavior is demeaning or restrictively discriminatory. I'm not sure there's any evidence of that here - if he were building business relationships with similarly qualified men, but was only interested in her (and other women) as potential conquests or eye-candy, then that would be an issue, but we cannot deduce that from the evidence we have seen here. And nor could she.
On that basis, I don't think we can substantiate the sexism/misogyny accusations leveled against him.

Old men making fools of themselves around younger women is nothing new (e.g. Vince Cable) not is it evil. Doing it at work is, however, unprofessional.


Disclosure: I met my wife at work. No, I didn't hit on her at our first meeting. :D
Click to expand...
Granted she specifically mentions LinkedIn to start on Twitter but she generalises the topic when she got media coverage:

“Ordinarily I would’ve deleted it. Then I clicked on his profile and saw that he was a partner in a solicitor’s firm. This is somebody with a duty to others; a professional who knows that sex discrimination is not tolerated in the workplace — for him to then perpetrate that against another legal professional was blatantly unacceptable. I wanted to know how many other women have received sexist messages."

She states it's a sexist message from him, not in the context of the place but the message itself. LinkedIn isn't a workplace, it's a professional social media platform for networking with others. Yes standards should be better than Facebook or similar but it's still people at the end of the day with all the faults that come with that. The comment at worst was ill-judged by an older gentleman who granted should of known better. It was not in my opinion sexist, offensive, indecent or enough for her to call him as having "unacceptable and misogynistic behaviour".

She's already lining up the firing squad for him when really a much simpler curt reply without needing to out him to the world would of sufficed. That however wouldn't of got her 15 mins worth of fame and a platform to be vocal from though.

She does have some valid things to say and genuine sexism, harassment etc. should be strongly dealt with whether in the workplace or not.

Was it the second meeting when you hit upon your future wife then lol ;).
 
Last edited:
Sharky said:
“Ordinarily I would’ve deleted it. Then I clicked on his profile and saw that he was a partner in a solicitor’s firm.
Click to expand...

So, basically, when she realised he was rich.

This was the FRONT PAGE of the Fail today. Which ranks it as more important than assisted dying, the refugee crisis, the labour leadership race, the sticky situation with the IRA and even Strictly.

The world always goes mad in August.
 
JonathanRyan said:
So, basically, when she realised he was rich.
Click to expand...
Or she realized that she could get a lot of lucrative work out of his firm. If you're inferring what I think you are, it's defamatory and nonsensical, given what's happened.

JonathanRyan said:
This was the FRONT PAGE of the Fail today. Which ranks it as more important than assisted dying, the refugee crisis, the labour leadership race, the sticky situation with the IRA and even Strictly.
Click to expand...
It's the Mail. News<Soapboxing. Besides, those other stories don't give you the excuse to fill the front page with a photo of a young woman (except Strictly, but the Mail might feel conflicted promoting a BBC show).

JonathanRyan said:
The world always goes mad in August.
Click to expand...
Normally, August is a slow news month, but not this year. Which makes it even more surprising this non-story is generating as much coverage. Maybe the editors are bored of the real topics.
 
Llamaman said:
Or she realized that she could get a lot of lucrative work out of his firm. If you're inferring what I think you are, it's defamatory and nonsensical, given what's happened.
Click to expand...

I'll be honest. None of this lady's actions display the ice cold logic I'd expect from a lawyer.
 
JonathanRyan said:
I'll be honest. None of this lady's actions display the ice cold logic I'd expect from a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Yes, but if you're suggesting she's a gold-digger, your script reads like;

Oooh, a senior partner. Bingo. I'll send him a professional non-flirty message to reel him in.
Aaaargh he's complimented me! Time to complain on Twitter, radio, TV, to his firm and the law society.

Doesn't seem very likely does it?
 
Llamaman said:
Yes, but if you're suggesting she's a gold-digger, your script reads like;

Oooh, a senior partner. Bingo. I'll send him a professional non-flirty message to reel him in.
Aaaargh he's complimented me! Time to complain on Twitter, radio, TV, to his firm and the law society.

Doesn't seem very likely does it?
Click to expand...

It's only slightly less plausible than "oooo he works for a big law firm, I'll flame him and get them to toss me some money to shut up" or "taking on a big boy law firm make my name as a hardball lawyer - feminists will be flocking to my door to beg me to take their cases".

Either way, there are more important examples of workplace sexism for her to get upset about.
 
Just to make sure that there is no possibility of being accused of any sexist motivation whatsoever the photos of all my female friends on social media are not stunning and make them look like munters. There, should be safe now :)
 
She said, "I don't want to be seen through my body!"

Hey love, get yerself a burka.. Sorted. (y)
 
The original email may not have been misogynist... but some of the posts here are.

Disappointing, but not unexpected.
 
Llamaman said:
The original email may not have been misogynist... but some of the posts here are.

Disappointing, but not unexpected.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of tongue in cheek stuff here, are you sure you're not just taking some posts a little too seriously?

Anyway, if you think that any of my posts are misogynist I'll gladly either clarify or apologies and retract if you can point me at them.
 
woof woof said:
There's a lot of tongue in cheek stuff here, are you sure you're not just taking some posts a little too seriously?
Click to expand...
That may be the first time I've ever been accused of taking things too seriously! :banana:
Just because it's a joke doesn't mean it isn't also misogynist...

Anyway, no point dwelling on this as
a) it's Friday night and I'm only 1/3 into my ESB :beer:
b) I realise my position on these matters is not in keeping with the TP one.

Edit: and for the record, Alan, it wasn't any of your posts that prompted my comment.
 
Last edited:
I think it is a misinterpretation. I can sort of see what he means, she is not stunning...The picture is ok and a lot better than what most 'professionals' use on LinkedIn. Most that I know, covering a lot of Chief somethings, have such unprofessional photos on it, looking like something from a social media website taken of a crappy blackberry phone.

Anyway, in my opinion, his comment was unnecessary however, her response was totally disproportional.
 
Last edited:
dejongj said:
I think it is a misinterpretation. I can sort of see what he means, she is not stunning...The picture is ok and a lot better than what most 'professionals' use on LinkedIn. Most that I know, covering a lot of Chief somethings, have such unprofessional photos on it, looking like something from a social media website taken of a crappy blackberry phone.

Anyway, in my opinion, his comment was unnecessary however, her response was totally disproportional.
Click to expand...

As somebody who is on Linkedin, and uses it a fair bit, I can't help but completely agree.
 
dejongj said:
I think it is a misinterpretation. I can sort of see what he means, she is not stunning...The picture is ok and a lot better than what most 'professionals' use on LinkedIn. Most that I know, covering a lot of Chief somethings, have such unprofessional photos on it, looking like something from a social media website taken of a crappy blackberry phone.

Anyway, in my opinion, his comment was unnecessary however, her response was totally disproportional.
Click to expand...

And she's apparently made sexist comments about men... and then removed them when the spotlight fell on her. Hypocrite?

Both parties in this little saga probably need counselling. Any bloke who makes comments about his hot daughter and at least appears to be a serial letch and any woman who thinks that what's source for the goose is source for the gander needs seriously rebalancing needs to spend less time being sexist and more taking a long hard look at themselves.

Can we start a petition to have them both slapped across the face?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top