and that’s just the stories of sexual harassment- my old shop lost 8 female senior associates in the last 12 months from just one department, because apparently they already have enough female partners to tick that box. 

While some of the accused here have been found to have done something wrong, many of the claims are unsubstantiated, or appear to be vague accusations of 'sexual harassment' or 'inappropriate behaviour' unsupported by evidence. There is doubt about whether some of the stories happened at all or as claimed, particularly where the incidents were consensual in nature.

What's the latest on the London silk who, after an agreeable lunch, was subsequently caught shagging round the back of a railway station and then later - much later - decided that there was clearly some tactical merit in deciding that she had actually been the victim of a crime, thereby meaning that her name cannot be published.  Do you know whether criminal proceedings are ongoing?

"There is doubt about whether some of the stories happened at all or as claimed..."

Only in your rather bizarre, single-issue, in-no-way-holding-onto-an-unsettling-fixation posts.

oh it took Mr Evidence a bit longer than usual to accuse these awful wimmin of crying wolf. I imagine he was supping at the Christmas spirit last night and scoffing at the awful harridians who he leched over but, thankfully, no one has any evidence of that so of course it didn't happen.

Surprisingly though, Mr Evidence does not call for evidence for any other stories on this site, so presumably he only judges ones concerning sexual harassment.

a) Sexual harassment is endemic and IMO linked to a culture of heavy drinking.

b) Consent is a criminal rather than an employment misconduct standard. It is never appropriate to have sex in the workplace. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would be appropriate for a partner to conduct a consensual relationship with a trainee or NQ 20 years younger. 

c) There is a non-endemic problem of women playing the sexual harassment card. This problem shouldn't be dismissed and should be taken seriously when conducting investigations.

@"Unsettling fixation" - yes, you're right, I forgot to say that when allegations are challenged, instead of substantiating them or providing evidence, there is a tendency to weaken them further by making vague false accusations against the person questioning the allegations. Very strange.

There's nothing vague or false about the accusation that you exclusively question the existence of sexual harassment against women and not any other form of misconduct reported on this site.

I love the fact my nickname for you has stuck, Mr Evidence. How does it feel to be notorious?

Also love the notable omission of Slappo-gate.

@3...2....1 - thanks for the warm-up act Mrs None, and for sharing your imaginings. The reason people doubt allegations is because there are so many false accusations, such as your comments. Thanks for proving my point.

@Human - yes, not "vague or false", but vague and false. Although I don't agree with your other comment, you do a least express a reasoned opinion. Shame you had to go and spoil it.

@Anonny - how many male senior associates left the department in the last 12 months? What was the percentage split by gender 12 months ago?

yes, I forgot, all these silly tarts make it all up.

They must be very silly indeed to jeopardise their careers to do so, particularly against such powerful and well respected men. It's a wonder these people even got jobs in the first place, but of course they are only there for "equality and diversity" and Sandra is pretty to look at.

FAOD that was sarcasm. You might need a lesson in it if you thought I was seriously making 'false allegations' in my first post.

@Mrs None - I don't know how it feels to be notorious - why don't you tell us? Looks like the only thing stuck is you - stuck with no evidence. What is 'Slappo-gate' - is that what you do to your forehead when you read your comments and realise how silly they are?

@3...2....1 - if that's your idea of sarcasm it looks like its you who needs a lesson in it!

Unfortunately, people do make false allegations for a variety of reasons - that's why its so important that allegations are not couched in vague terms and are properly substantiated.

You still haven't grasped you are talking to more than one person, have you? Or that some of your critics are male?

@"Still haven't grasped it"-its obvious how many people I'm talking to. You may know your own gender but that's as far as it goes - guessing at other commenters' is just speculation.

You still haven't grasped that you have no evidence to back up the unsubstantiated allegations in the stories.

Mr Evidence - all I can say is I hope you have a Merry trolling Christmas. And may the rest of the general populous have more faith in humans than you do. There may well be some false accusations but that does not mean we should tar every accuser with the same brush. Maybe women should start recording every interaction with men in order to produce the so-called evidence you desire?

@3...2...1... - I wish you a Merry Christmas too. I completely agree with you that some accusations are true. But some are not, and that is why it is so important that any accusations are properly specified and investigated. No need to record interaction between people, but at the same time no need not to look for any evidence at all.

I thought Reed Smith said that the alleged victim didn't try to sue them.

Perhaps listening a little less to R Kelly would give some of these partners more of a sense of reality 

@a sense of reality - which partners, why R Kelly, and where is the relevance to the allegations here?

oh simmer and less of the bounce bounce bounce...,...R Kelly like a lot of the male partners at the centre of these allegations have a misplaced sense of entitlement because they bring in the big bucks so they can pick up and drop these daft girlies as they please

@R Kelly fan - which partners and which allegations do you feel this is the case for? And why do you consider the women allegedly involved to be 'daft girlies'?

Dear non R Kelly fan-having been perceived as one of those “daft girlies” in the past .... we only employed her because she will bring the punters in-i have more than an insight into how it all works -fortunately or unfortunately depends how you look at if I’m too old now to be seen as fresh fodder and therefore wise to how it all works - sadly I think misogynistic dinosaurs are ingrained in this profession ..... and somethings will never change - are you listening to “ignition” as you type 

My curiosity is ignited R Kelly fan - who told you that you were only employed because you brought the punters in? 

He told me himself.... I said I could believe I could fly that I could touch the sky ! Non R Kelly fan you take this so personally 

@R Kelly fan - who told you that you were only employed because you brought the punters in? It is not true that I take it personally that you believe you can fly, nor that I take it personally that you believe that you can touch the sky.