kp

Kevin MacPherson: 50 Shades of Stornoway.


A Scottish solicitor has been struck off after emails were discovered on his computer in which he fantasised about his trainee and appeared to be titillated by evidence in a child sex abuse case.

Kevin MacPherson took on a trainee solicitor, referred to as 'TS' in proceedings, in 2011 while he was a partner at Ken MacDonald and Co in Stornoway, on the Isle of Lewis.

In 2013 the firm's office manager, 'Mr B', logged on to MacPherson's computer to retrieve details of a banking transaction and uncovered a trove of emails which left him "distressed". 

A year earlier, Mr B had warned MacPherson to delete a folder from his desktop which Mr B had opened while searching for a deed, only to find it was full of pornography.

The email which caught Mr B's eye in 2013 was from a woman referred to as 'Ms D' who worked at another firm, which stated "...if you come near me I'll scream...."

Mr B continued searching for the banking information, but also searched for more emails from Ms D. He found correspondence between the woman and MacPherson dating from the time of TS's training contract, which he printed out and took to the trainee and Ken MacDonald, who ran the firm. MacPherson was confronted and agreed to resign, but continued to practise law after setting up his own firm which he ran out of his home in Stornoway. 

After a complaint was made to the Law Society of Scotland, MacPherson was prosecuted before the Scottish Solicitors' Discipline Tribunal (SSDT) in 2019, and earlier this month it published its judgment.

Inbetween explicit conversations about threesomes, nipples and Ms D's "massive fl**s", MacPherson and Ms D worked themselves into a lather discussing TS.

"Have you been thinking of my trainee?" asked MacPherson. "A little, just thinking how exciting it will be for her if she is as you think and she has found you", replied Ms D.

"The trainee is the only stimulation i have these days", lamented MacPherson. "Is she pretty?" enquired Ms D. "In an elegant way", replied MacPherson.

In another email exchange, Ms D told MacPherson, "I must admit I did consider leaving my pants at home. Also I thought you would approve of my dress and how you'd observe me", to which he replied, "I wish my trainee knew the code!" Ms D responded, "Ha yes you never know one day she might sit in front of you open her legs and display her bare shaved [****] for your use".

But, she told Macpherson, "I think that would only happen if I was your trainee", warning that "It's too dangerous for you to involve her". Macpherson agreed, commenting "Yep i know, good view of her chest today though!"

"Doubt her nipples are as big as urs though!", added the solicitor. "Or can take pain like mine!" replied Ms D. "No that's true", accepted MacPherson.

However, MacPherson did not leave TS alone. He repeatedly texted his trainee outside of work hours about non-work matters, and attempted to arrange to meet her socially, both by himself and with his fiancée. TS described his invitations as "unwanted". 

Mr B also found disturbing emails in which MacPherson discussed his representation of a minor who had been accused of sexually abusing a young girl. "You would have loved what I was reading this morning x", he told Ms D, continuing that it was "a statement of a little girl talking about what she saw in a gym".

The SSDT said the email trails which mentioned TS referred to her in a manner which was "inappropriate, disrespectful and sexually explicit", and that MacPherson's out-of-hours badgering of his trainee amounted to harassment.

Ruling that he should be struck off, the SSDT said it was clear that MacPherson found the alleged victim of sex abuse's statement "titillating or sexually gratifying", and that his conduct called his integrity into question and the profession into disrepute.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Blinks 23 October 20 09:00

How is badgering TS with out of work emails and texts not harassing her? Glad I don’t work with you Nonnie 1

Anonymous 23 October 20 09:04

Likewise Blinks. People email and text out of work all the time. It isn't badgering, and TS never claimed to have felt badgered at the time.

Strike off was the only option given the other stuff, but its clearly not harassment of TS.

Sorrydidyousaysomething 23 October 20 09:11

@08:44.  You can't say its "clearly not harassment" you wazzock - you don't know what was in the texts or how frequently they were being sent.

Gobblepig 23 October 20 09:21

"MacPherson was confronted and agreed to resign, but continued to practice law"

Perhaps slightly off-piste, but perhaps you meant that he continued to "practise" law. You know, as part of maintaining his legal practice. 

Anonymous 23 October 20 09:23

I can and do say it 9.11, because it clearly wasn't. As for what was in the texts (and emails) and the number, the link to the case was provided - you might want to read it before you start calling people 'wazzocks'.

Sorrydidyousaysomething 23 October 20 09:39

Yeah you're right I didn't see the link.  In fact the trainee kept 136 of them and he admitted they amounted to harassment...

Anonymous 23 October 20 10:14

Yes, 9.39, you didn't read the link which contained the information you said wasn't known. It seems the wazzock is you.

We dont know if TS specifically kept the texts or just didn't delete the 136 which were sent over a two year period. Its odd he admitted it was harassment because it wasn't - presumably he wanted to demonstrate remorse. TS herself said they weren't harassing.

Sorrydidyousaysomething 23 October 20 10:54

"It seems the wazzock is you" - alright Sherlock Holmes!

Look the texts aren't set out in the judgment, so my point stands (nor is their frequency, actually).  The texts were clearly at least borderline because, although she didn't "attach any significance" to the texts at the time, she also had "concern" and he has admitted harassment (you say to demonstrate remorse - a leap of logic but ok), including that he had "pushed things too far" in the way he invited her to socialize.

I'm actually open-minded about whether this is somewhat of a harsh judgment or not, but for you to so boldly claim it's "clearly not harassment" still isn't right, even if I'm a lazy wazzock.

Anonymous 23 October 20 11:11

I'm more concerned about his stimulation over the victim of a sex offence he was instructed on.

Anonymous 23 October 20 11:20

I was joking somewhat, 10.54, its no massive deal to miss the link in the first instance.

I don't agree that it can't be said that its clearly not harassment - we do have a good idea from the judgement of the frequency of the texts (we don't know how many TS sent in reply, but if anything this would likely make an even stronger argument that it wasn't harassment). And we have an idea of the content and that TS had no problem with it at the time. That she subsequently re-evaluated things in the light of other texts doesn't matter, nor does his admission. It isn't a leap of logic that he claimed remorse - it appears to be his whole defence. It could well be that he felt that if he fought the harassment accusation then it would be viewed that he wasn't really remorseful. Given what else he was accused of, it wasn't necessary to bring the harassment accusation.

On the whole, not only was it clearly not harassment, but it was clearly nowhere close to harassment.

 

Anonymous 23 October 20 11:27

Alleged victim I believe 11.11, but agreed, particularly given their age. The 'harassment' part detracts from this more serious aspect.

Anonymous 23 October 20 13:12

@Mrs False Accusation @12.36 - there are no comments either asking for evidence or 'defending paedo-y' types, in fact quite the opposite.

Anonymous 23 October 20 13:55

@ Employment Seat - exactly, there were no actions having harassment purpose or harassment effect.

Anonymous 23 October 20 14:32

This chap is clearly a wrong'un and needs to be [redacted] as a lesson to others. 

But, no matter how clear that fact is, note that there is always a misogynist like @13:47 trying to blame the behaviour of a man on a woman.

Doubtless if you had your way you'd have fired TS for 'provoking' this lunatic.

Anonymous 23 October 20 14:51

Not sure why you aren't allowed to suggest that sex offenders should be chopped up and fed to conger eels. You can't say anything these days. It's political correctness gone mad!

Bodach 23 October 20 15:06

@Cailleach @13.07 - You're drafting a letter, and you're sending out a bill.
Your PA is doing the filing. You treat your trainee with respect without making a misogynistic din. 'Cause if you don't, then that's a sin...

Anonymous 23 October 20 15:10

@14.32 - the comment at 13.47 wasn't blaming Ms D for his behaviour, it was asking what action was taken over her own behaviour. It isn't misogynist to ask this question, but it is misandrist to try and argue that apportioning any blame to women is misogynist.

Nobody has argued that TS should have been fired, and you provide no evidence for your accusation that anyone would suggest this.

Anonymous 23 October 20 15:57

@15:10 what has Mrs D done wrong? Apart from the offence of Reading E-mails While Female?

Frankly, it sounds as if she's been in a sexually abusive relationship, and yet still there are people like you here trying to use her as a human shield for a dangerous predator. It's not enough that this pervert's trainee has suffered, you also want to see his girlfriend monstered somehow.

When people say that the UK is structurally misogynist, this is exactly the kind of thing they're thinking of. A man has done something wrong, so you want women around him to suffer. It's like Saudi Arabia with worse weather.

Anonymous 23 October 20 16:00

Anonymous 23 October 20 13:12

@Mrs False Accusation @12.36 - there are no comments either asking for evidence or 'defending paedo-y' types, in fact quite the opposite.

 

Not a woman, M6, but thanks for confirming your identity by your persistent assumption that no man would disagree with you.

Anonymous 23 October 20 17:03

@15.57 - read the case. She sent as well as read emails. What evidence do you base your theory that she was in a 'sexually abusive relationship'? And which comments wish 'to use her as a human shield for a dangerous predator' or wish to see anyone 'monstered' or wish 'to see women around him suffer'. You do realise Ms D isn't his girlfriend - did you actually read the case?

It isn't structurally misogynist to hold both men and women to account and not blame men for everything. It is structurally misandrist to do otherwise.

Anonymous 23 October 20 17:21

@Mrs False Accusation @12.36 - there are no comments either asking for evidence or 'defending paedo-y' types, in fact quite the opposite.

Not a woman, M6, but thanks for confirming your identity by your persistent assumption that no man would disagree with you.

Of course you aren't, M6, but thanks for confirming that the post at 12.36 was a false accusation and for confirming your identity by your persistent assumption that only a man would disagree with you.

Paul 23 October 20 17:22

Ms D responded, "Ha yes you never know one day she might sit in front of you open her legs and display her bare shaved [****] for your use".

I may be old-fashioned, but that seems a bit racy for a work email.

Ms D may not be a solicitor, the story says only that she worked at another firm.  It will be interesting to see if any action is taken against her, or against her firm. 

Anonymous 23 October 20 18:17

Chaps - Leave this kind of conversation for the pub. You'd have to be positively mental to write anything like this down. It's only ever funny when there's no risk of being caught.

Ladies - I'm amazed that you're amazed that this sort of thing goes on. This is how men, well most men, talk when you're not looking. Also, as a systems administrator, I know that women routinely "weigh up"* with oneanother their lovers' penises over e-mail. * - pun intended.

We're all as bad as each other.

Anonymous 23 October 20 18:30

Just want to chip in here to say to 'Paul' and the other anonymous incel that I think it's really disgusting that you are trying to take the spotlight off of MacPherson. This is a story about a young woman who has been harassed by her boss. 

If you read this article and your first though was to wonder why a woman at some other company hadn't been punished, then you need to have long hard think about whether you are actually part of the problem.

Anonymous 23 October 20 20:10

@18.30 - my first thought was why is a claim of what was obviously not harassment allowed to detract (or as you might say 'take the spotlight off') the serious aspects of the case. The story isn't about a young woman being harassed by her boss.

If you really don't think any criticism should be levelled at Ms D purely because she is a woman, and if you brand men 'incels' purely because they hold a different viewpoint than you, then you need to have long hard think about whether you are actually part of the problem.

Anonymous 23 October 20 23:19

Why on earth did he use a work email account or store the emails on his work computer.

Hasn't he heard of gmail?

It's almost as if he wanted to get found out.

Anon 24 October 20 08:42

An interesting example of how ethically innocuous (albeit stupid) acts can be spun by lawyers to ruin someone’s life. And how many lawyers (on here) are really pretty stupid as they can so easily taken in.

The case report indicates

- He never said anything inappropriate to TS

- The “texts sent outside of work” are -on basis of evidence available in the Report - entirely consistent with perfectly normal behaviour.
 

Indont see any harassment here at all. 
 

As for the suggestion that D was probably in an abusive relationship with him as well - totally laughable.

Seriously the ability of lawyers on here to actually objectively weigh evidence in negligible.

Measure twice cut onc 24 October 20 08:49

Surely the biggest failure here is laziness (or perhaps stupidity).  If he hadn't left a trail on his work computer then his thoughts (as distasteful as many may find them) would have remained (mostly*) private.

*I say mostly because I would be surprised if his day-to-day behaviour did not reflect his inner life to some extent, however limited, e.g. each time he contacted the trainee about non-work matters.  It would be a surprise to me if at least some of his colleagues had not privately labelled him a wrong 'un or creepy or some similar epithet.  That is not to say that such labelling is always correct but people are rarely able to police their behaviour all the time and those in regular contact with them often witness their slips.

Anonymous 24 October 20 09:58

Being titillated by the sexual abuse of a child is not just "distasteful", wherever it is recorded. 

Anonymous 25 October 20 00:10

Not sure 8.49 - it doesn't seem as if anything was considered creepy until the emails about TS came to light. Innocuous past texts and emails were then viewed retroactively through harassment tainted glasses.

Anon 25 October 20 01:20

Sorry for the naivety but what is the “scene” they’re talking about in the emails in the transcript? Is Mrs D an (ex-)escort? And MacP used to use her services?

Measure twice cut onc 25 October 20 09:31

Anonymous 24 October 20 09:58

Being titillated by the sexual abuse of a child is not just "distasteful", wherever it is recorded. 

So what do you want to do?  Criminalise the imagination?

Measure twice cut onc 25 October 20 12:21

Not sure 8.49 - it doesn't seem as if anything was considered creepy until the emails about TS came to light. Innocuous past texts and emails were then viewed retroactively through harassment tainted glasses.

 

Apart from the folder of porn found on his computer a year previously and the unrecorded experiences of his other female subordinates you are almost certainly completely correct.

Measure twice cut onc 25 October 20 12:25

It's both interesting and valuable to be aware of one's emotional response to cases.  Our job as lawyers is to respond to the facts of the case, not to how we feel about them.

Anonymous 25 October 20 12:33

Yes 12.22, I know.

TS raised no concerns about the folder (if she was aware of it). There were no "unrecorded experiences of his other female subordinates".

Anonymous 25 October 20 14:04

Anonymous 24 October 20 17:51. The BSB did not clear Lord Lester QC. They rather found that, despite harassing Ms Sanghera, he should not be sanctioned. The relevant part of the ruling, which is publicly available, is at paragraph 16 and provides: 

“The question which therefore falls to be determined is whether, in light of the findings against Lord Lester, he should be allowed to continue to practise. This has given us very anxious cause for consideration. After all, Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and abused his position. Those findings stand, notwithstanding Ms Sanghera’s non-participation in the instant proceedings. We have no jurisdiction to revisit those findings or to interfere with them. We are driven to conclude, however, that notwithstanding Lord Lester’s conduct, he should not be subject to sanction. This is because he intends imminently to retire and does not intend to renew his Practising Certificate upon its expiry.”

Anonymous 25 October 20 14:26

Anonymous 25 October 20 12:33

Yes 12.22, I know.

TS raised no concerns about the folder (if she was aware of it). There were no "unrecorded experiences of his other female subordinates".

You clearly 1 don't work in a law firm and 2 either don't read or don't understand what you read.

1  All the secretaries, juniors, paralegals and trainees know who the "creepy" partners are.  They don't, as a rule, talk about it except to each other.

2  Not everything relates to TS.

But you are clearly the poster who regularly defends indefensible behaviour in the comments on this news feed so in the words of noted media personality Duncan Bannatyne "Ah'm oot".

Anonymous 25 October 20 18:26

Source for this please 14.04 - Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Jan 25 October 20 20:07

Anonymous 25 October 20 14:04

Interesting. This is confirmed by the Times article on the subject: 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-lqz3n72pw

“The headline to our article “Lord Lester cleared of peerage-for-sex claims” (News, last week) incorrectly suggested, when read alone, that Ms Jasvinder Sanghera’s complaint to the House of Lords about Lord Lester’s conduct may have been dismissed. The article reported on the outcome of an investigation into Lord Lester by the Bar Standards Board. The findings of an earlier House of Lords committee are unaffected by this ruling. We apologise for any distress caused.”

 

Anonymous 25 October 20 20:33

Agreed, 12.25  and also not to respond to what we would like the facts to be.

Anonymous 25 October 20 22:29

@14.26:

You clearly 1 don't work in a law firm and 2 either don't read or don't understand what you read.

1  None of the secretaries, juniors, paralegals and trainees as a rule spoke about the partner.

2  There was no harassment relating to TS.

But you are clearly a poster who regularly posts comments you can't defend so in the words of noted media personality Duncan Bannatyne "Ta-ta".

Anon 25 October 20 23:48

 “All the secretaries, juniors, paralegals and trainees know who the "creepy" partners are.  They don't, as a rule, talk about it except to each other.”

Wtf?

Do you think that this sort of vague speculative assumption counts as ‘evidence’ of something?

And you say you work in a law firm? Are you sure its not just a roving Kangaroo Court? Or the Jeremy  Kyle show?

 

Jen 26 October 20 09:03

Anonymous 25 October 20 14:04: this is confirmed by the following article:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/corrections-and-clarifications-lqz3n72pw

“The headline to our article “Lord Lester cleared of peerage-for-sex claims” (News, last week) incorrectly suggested, when read alone, that Ms Jasvinder Sanghera’s complaint to the House of Lords about Lord Lester’s conduct may have been dismissed. The article reported on the outcome of an investigation into Lord Lester by the Bar Standards Board. The findings of an earlier House of Lords committee are unaffected by this ruling. We apologise for any distress caused.”

 

 

Anonymous 26 October 20 12:04

So what do you want to do?  Criminalise the imagination?

No-one said anything about criminalisation, but by all means defend your right to get aroused by the thought of kiddies being sexually abused.

Anonymous 26 October 20 12:22

Janjenanon - The Times article confirms that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

You were asked to provide a source for your statement that "The relevant part of the ruling, which is publicly available, is at paragraph 16". I ask you again, what is the source for this and your accompanying purported quote?

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 26 October 20 16:32

Anonymous 26 October 20 12:22: the quote is from the decision issued by the BSB. I obtained it from the Bar Tribunal and Adjudication Service. Their telephone number is 0203 4327350. They will email the decision to you.

Uncle Monty QC 26 October 20 17:39

I have heard from tenants at Lester’s former set, Blackstone, that he was always a bit creepy around the junior female tenants and that it didn’t surprise many people there that he harassed that poor lady. He had been referred to as “Mo” Lester in chambers for quite a while before then.......

Anonymous 26 October 20 19:24

Janjenanon - you said in 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. 

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 26 October 20 19:26

janjenanonunclemontyqc @ 17.39 - that is a false allegation. Without any evidence to support what you are saying, what you really mean is that Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 27 October 20 07:32

Anonymous 26 October 20 19:24: the decision is publicly available: BTAS will provide a copy to anyone who requests it. Telephone them on the number provided and they will email it to you. That is how I got it. 

Anon 27 October 20 07:39

Anonymous 26 October 20 19:26: you mean allegedly false. Remember that the truth or falsity of  an allegation is determined by a court or tribunal.

Anon 27 October 20 16:25

Anonymous 26 October 20 19:24: the decision is publicly available. BTAS will provide it to you by email if you telephone them and ask.

Anonymous 27 October 20 18:39

No 7.39, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 27 October 20 19:10

Janjenanonunclemontyqc @ 07.32 & 16.25 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Je Suis Monty Don l'Autobus 28 October 20 02:30

The strike off would have to be for the harassing texts, surely. The private emails with a friend are creepy but they are not objectionable in a professional reg sense. On the other hand, I don't agree there was no harassment.

Anon 28 October 20 09:05

Anonymous 27 October 20 19:10: it is publicly available. Why don’t you ask BTAS to send it to you? Alternatively, give me your email address and I will send it to you now.

Anon 28 October 20 09:12

Anonymous 27 October 20 18:39: you can’t mean false if you are a lawyer. Allegations, until proven, are treated neutrally as mere assertions. No judgement is made as to their truth or falsity until the court or tribunal has ruled on the matter. If an allegation were, contrary to the correct legal position, treated as false before any findings were made, no charge could ever be brought. “I’ve been harassed!” “Sorry, that’s false. Nothing to see here”. 

Anonymous 28 October 20 09:14

There weren't any harassing texts, 20th at 2.30. TS only claimed to have found them harassing retrospectively after the private messages were leaked. Since they weren't considered harassing at the time there was no harassment. Unfortunately 'harassment' is bandied about too often as a catch-all for anything people object to. But 'harassment' in a legal sense is quite specific.

Anon 28 October 20 09:36

Anonymous 27 October 20 19:10: if you don’t telephone BTAS to obtain a copy, you accept that Lord Lester QC was not cleared by the BSB.

Anonymous 28 October 20 11:34

Lord Lester really putting the work in to clear his name here.

Posting all hours of the day and night, impressive energy from a bloke his age. Sure, a bit 'creepy', but did the BSB really use the word creepy or did they just say 'creep'? Hmmm? Habaeus Corpus y'see; it means innocent until you can post a link to a verbatim quote on a forum thread.

I mean, I say 'bloke his age', I really mean 'cadaver'. People love to split hairs about those minor details though don't they?

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:08

Janjenanonunclemontyqc @ 09.05 & 09.36 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:09

No 09.12, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:11

Janjenanonunclemontyqc @ 11.34 - Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anon 28 October 20 20:44

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:08: it is publicly available. Why don’t you ask BTAS to send it to you? Alternatively, give me your email address and I will send it to you now.

Anon 28 October 20 20:45

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:09: you can’t mean false if you are a lawyer. Allegations, until proven, are treated neutrally as mere assertions. No judgement is made as to their truth or falsity until the court or tribunal has ruled on the matter. If an allegation were, contrary to the correct legal position, treated as false before any findings were made, no charge could ever be brought. “I’ve been harassed!” “Sorry, that’s false. Nothing to see here”. 

Anon 28 October 20 20:46

Anonymous 28 October 20 16:11: Lord Lester was not cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 29 October 20 09:49

Janjenanonunclemontyqc 28th October @ 20.44 & 20.46 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 29 October 20 09:51

No janjenanonunclemontyqc 28th [email protected] 20.45, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anon 29 October 20 12:39

Anonymous 29 October 20 09:49: it is publicly available. Why don’t you ask BTAS to send it to you? Alternatively, give me your email address and I will send it to you now.

 

Anon 29 October 20 12:40

Anonymous 29 October 20 09:51: you can’t mean false if you are a lawyer. Allegations, until proven, are treated neutrally as mere assertions. No judgement is made as to their truth or falsity until the court or tribunal has ruled on the matter. If an allegation were, contrary to the correct legal position, treated as false before any findings were made, no charge could ever be brought. “I’ve been harassed!” “Sorry, that’s false. Nothing to see here”. 

Anon 29 October 20 12:41

Anonymous 29 October 20 09:49 and Anonymous 29 October 20 09:51: Lord Lester was not cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 29 October 20 14:39

This thread is the best proof yet that necromancers need to unionise. Perhaps club together with fortune-tellers, tarrot readers and oneiromancers for maximum collective bargaining power.

I mean, just look at the poor sods, they must be working 80 hour weeks to keep Lord Lester's putrid fingers typing away this fast. I'm surprised that the ouija board hasn't worn through by now.

We get it, Lord Lester was 'cleared' by the BSB in a secret hearing that you can't publish a link to (which, you tell us, makes it 'false') and at which an undisclosed number of freemasons were present.

We hear you loud and clear that logic and reason work differently in the underworld and so we shouldn't try to impose reality based analyses onto the affairs of the lost souls who toil along the banks of the Styx. Such a thing would be cultural imperialism and would put us at risk of being accused appropriating the sacred rituals of the shadow realm.

So no more using Lord Lester's funeral shroud as a glove puppet. And definitely no making it flap its mouth while saying "I touch my co-workers and serving staff inappropriately" in a squeaky voice. It would be as creepy as the man himself (which might be not creepy at all, depending on your point of view). Message received loud and clear.

Anonymous 29 October 20 18:39

Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39 & 15.22 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 29 October 20 18:40

No janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th [email protected] 12.40, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anon 29 October 20 21:44

Anonymous 29 October 20 18:39:  it is publicly available. Why don’t you ask BTAS to send it to you? Alternatively, give me your email address and I will send it to you now.

Anon 29 October 20 21:47

Anonymous 29 October 20 18:40: you can’t mean false if you are a lawyer. Allegations, until proven, are treated neutrally as mere assertions. No judgement is made as to their truth or falsity until the court or tribunal has ruled on the matter. If an allegation were, contrary to the correct legal position, treated as false before any findings were made, no charge could ever be brought. “I’ve been harassed!” “Sorry, that’s false. Nothing to see here”. 

Anon 29 October 20 21:49

The BSB did not clear Lord Lester QC. They rather found that, despite harassing Ms Sanghera, he should not be sanctioned. The relevant part of the ruling, which is publicly available, is at paragraph 16 and provides: 

“The question which therefore falls to be determined is whether, in light of the findings against Lord Lester, he should be allowed to continue to practise. This has given us very anxious cause for consideration. After all, Lord Lester was found to have harassed Ms Sanghera and abused his position. Those findings stand, notwithstanding Ms Sanghera’s non-participation in the instant proceedings. We have no jurisdiction to revisit those findings or to interfere with them. We are driven to conclude, however, that notwithstanding Lord Lester’s conduct, he should not be subject to sanction. This is because he intends imminently to retire and does not intend to renew his Practising Certificate upon its expiry.”

Anonymous 30 October 20 07:04

Janjenanonunclemontyqc - you posted what you said was part of the decision into the BSB investigation into Lord Lester. You said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. When asked for the source you initially said it was The Times newspaper. When it was pointed out to you that the quote you provided wasn't in The Times and you were asked for proof of your quote you failed to provide it, instead resorting to various excuses and delaying tactics. There is a reason that you failed to provide proof of your quote - it doesn't exist. You made up a quote which you tried to claim was part of a BSB statement.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 08:02

No janjenanonunclemontyqc, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 08:57

Why, 29 October 20 23:36? - it was proven before that. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 08:59

Janjenanonunclemontyqc 29th October @ 12.39, 12.41, 14.39,15.22, 21.44 and 21.49 - you said on 25th October at 14.04 that the decision was publicly available. I ask you again, proof please. If you have it show it. If you can't show it, you don't have it.

Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 09:10

No janjenanonunclemontyqc, I mean false. Truth must be proven. Until something is proven it is false. Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 09:20

Janjenanonunclemontyqc 30th @ 21.49 - you just made up your 'quote' from the BSB ruling, didn't you? Lord Lester was completely cleared of any wrongdoing by the BSB.

Anonymous 30 October 20 10:22

I'm convinced. You've worn me down.

I will finally say the words out loud: Lord Lester was a proper wrong 'un.

Anon 30 October 20 11:00

The BSB's decision, as recorded in para. 16, shows that Lester was not cleared. The Times article above is an accurate reflection of that fact. Indeed, that article was needed to correct an earlier misleading Times article which wrongly said he had been cleared. The decision is publicly available. Telephone the BSB and they will provide it to you.

Anonymous 30 October 20 11:03

Lester was an absolute wrong 'un. Decent people do not harrass others and abuse their position. What a sad end to a career in the law and public life.

Related News