Given that it was taken as a joke its highly unlikely BTP will take any action, if it was reported to them. Just the same as its highly unlikely they'll take any action against her for wasting police time or for calling people dickheads.

Loved the photoshop. 

Not sure about the juicy line. Absolute shanter.

Like grapes 

Ironic that a comedian is so lacking in any humour…

If I strike up conversation with an attractive woman on the tube I never mention I'm a solicitor.  

Poor conduct. 

Even worse flanter.

The police are very busy to be dealing with this sort of thing.

Can you imagine the outrage that would ensue if a man decided to photograph random women on the tube, post them online on social media and then add a series of insults by way of a caption?

We'd all recognise it as harassment - but these poor chaps are just expected to suffer it because they're men, who apparently are just supposed to suffer this kind of arbitrary public shaming as part and parcel of daily life.

If we get rid of all the dickheads from law, who will run the firms? 

In other news: aspiring comedienne that nobody has ever heard of finds a way to attract publicity by posing as a victim.

Likes and favourites ahoy!

Look. You know what I think about this already.

I suspect that they will both soon be cleared of all wrongdoing by the BSB.

Probably yet another conversation that never actually happened.  Social media is full of them. 

The lads in question are clearly posting in this comments section. Public shaming is not a good thing, but if you are in the habit of harrassing random people on public transport in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable then you have to expect that something bad is eventually going to happen to you in return. These are not "poor chaps".

Also, to the person above talking about humour - where's the "humour" in what they did? I'd hope they were not being serious or intending that their words be taken seriously - but what's the joke here? Children with poor impulse control act like this.

The lads clearly under the influence thought they'd encountered Dobbie from Peep Show and lost their minds.

@10.18 - although the BSB regulate barristers, not solicitors or commediennes.

Is there any proof that these gentlemen actually said the words of which they are accused?

Can their accuser really prove that they were ever on the same train as her?

Do we know that the photograph wasn't taken through the window while the train was stopped? Or perhaps as they passed in a tunnel?

Is this all motivated by jealousy on the part of the complainant?

@11.02

There's 3 types of people in this world.

1. People who make things happen.

2. People who watch things happen.

3. People who ask "what just happened?"

@11.02 - you're learning - we'll make a rational individual out of you yet!

You forgot to ask:

What did the police say when they received the complaint?

Why does she think they should lose their job?

@Any Reasonable Person - always a mistake to think anyone disagreeing with you must be the accused. It gives the appearance of having no genuine argument.

People criticising the comedienne are no more likely to be 'the lads in question' than you are likely to be Faye Treacy.

I agree that the comedienne was wrong to publicly shame the men (and going to the police is just ridiculous). She didn't feel uncomshtable,  see made a joke out of it (and 'uncomshtable' is an overused buzzword designed to get a reaction without being specific). She of course had the right to respond to them, but has gone about it in entirely the wrong way, ultimately making the men look like the victims.

Solicitors (and attorneys, for all you historians) were always seen as the lesser side of the profession... 

Why should they be fired? Another case of the illiberal left trying to go after people's livelihoods for no reason. At least they haven't been publicly identified, or else the HR team would have had a field day.

@11.11:

4. People who say things happened that didn't.

That's why we need to ask what happened.

A stand up comedian used to dealing with crowds of drunken idiots is unlikely to have felt uncomfortable exchanging shit chat with 2 weak looking man-child types on a tube carriage filled with CCTV. 

@09:44 - I suppose that you think that Police time would be better spent locking up BAME people just for stealing money and selling recreational substances to feed their families?

Newsflash: You need to start treating that behaviour as a health issue, decriminalising it, and ensuring that everyone has a regular living wage paid to them directly by the government each week. Then there's no need for anyone to steal iPhones or work in a rubbish job they don't like. It's 2021 and we've just discovered that, apparently, there is always money available if the government wants there to be. So spend it on minorities for a change.

As a bonus, the police would then have an unlimited amount of time to focus on moral crimes like this one to ensure that reactionary attitudes are properly criminalised and everyone's individual diversity is properly respected and celebrated.

Who in their right minds asks a woman "are you juicy?"

I challenge the people reading this to use this line on their wife or girlfriend (or both if you're a playa!) and report back with your success rate.

She hasn't made them look like victims, they look like the idiots that they are. Women are perfectly entitled to shine a light on the disgusting things men feel free to say to them in public.

A comedian that calls themselves a legend is not in fact a comedian or a legend.

The police won't be interested in this.

She deserves a peerage!

This comments section is fucking depressing

fire!

@13.33 - guarantee that some people will have had success with it.

@15.04 - which comments and why? The ones defending her?

@Dearie - women and men are perfectly free to call out the things they say to each other. However, by attempting to publicly shame them, calling for them to be fired and running to the police the men now look like victims, not idiots. And she looks like she's over-reacted.

@14.55 - for what?

@15.38 - you're right, she was wrong to go to the police, but firing her would be a bit harsh.

You're OK with her calling them dickheads though Dearie?

Is a woman not allowed to call a man a dickhead? They did a dickhead thing. If you or they don’t like it, maybe try behaving like an adult in public. 

@Dearie - if she called them dickheads they're now even. She doesn't also have the right to publicly shame them, report them to the police, or try to get them fired. That's we they look like victims now. If you or her don't like it, don't over-react and make victims of them.

How tiresome are some of the comments here. Calling a stranger ‘juicy’ and asking if they are up for it is not funny, not harmless and not normal. She is perfectly free to push back and call that behaviour out in whatever manner she likes. How little we seem to have progressed. 

@Julie Carlisle- clearly it was harmless as she wasn't harmed by it, as evidenced be her joking about it.

Their actions clearly don't give her the right to do exactly as she likes. Public shaming, reporting them to the police and saying they should be sacked means they are now the ones being wronged. We indeed seem to have made little progress of we can't see this.

You're saying they should end up with a criminal record and be fired Julie?

The men do not look like the victims, nor are they; the only person who looks like a victim, and is a victim, is the lady.

Progressed towards what exactly?

I'm sure that calling someone 'juicy' could be funny in the right circumstances, and I fail to see how asking anyone if they're interested in intercourse could be 'harmful' to them (they can, and did, just say no).

The only thing likely to cause any kind of harm here is the attempt to publicly shame and vilify two people who'd done nothing other than offend someone else's very delicate sensibilities by doing little more than engaging them in conversation. If that kind of mediaeval knee-jerk witch burning behaviour is what you're hoping to progress us to, then expect to be hoping for a very long time.

@Julie Carlisle 

You don't know what was said.  Which is the point.  If someone publicly shamed you for saying something stupid and made it seem worse than what was actually said, I'm sure you would not like it. Are we now in a world where people should lose their jobs based on something stupid said on a train? Tbh my advice to all young men is watch what you say, hell you even have to watch what you look at these days are you can get accused and shamed for being creepy if you look at an attractive woman.  Just mind your own business as the risks are quite high. 

Same old, same old. Woman points out sexual harassment/abuse etc and it is met with a flurry of ott demands for evidence and screeching about how its "ruining the poor men's reputations". Might shock a few posters to learn that women don't tend to make this stuff up for shits and giggles. We don't get believed when we have the evidence to prove what happened so why would we put ourselves through the misery for something that never occurred?!?

Absolutely hilarious how the lads keep posting loads of comments thinking the readers will be persuaded. They are likely to get at least a caution (meaning career likely over) as the BTP are otherwise seen as endorsing this type of behaviour towards lone females on the tube.

"She doesn't also have the right to publicly shame them, report them to the police, or try to get them fired"

Why?? I don't necessarily think she was right to do any of those things, but that doesn't mean she can't do it. If you do something in public then expect others to see and hear it. If you do something stupid in public then expect a lot more people to see and hear it.

5th @ 7.07 - the men look like victims because she went to the police and said they should be fired from their jobs. This would be OTT.

6th @ 10.37 - although of course nobody is asking for evidence, but let's not let the facts get in the way of a spot of man-bashing.

6th @ 10.37 - unfortunately evidence is necessary due to the high incidence of false allegations in sexual harassment claims. In the case here there isn't even an allegation of sexual abuse.

Anonymous 08 September 21 12:09: the men do not look like the victims, nor are they; the only person who looks like a victim, and is a victim, is the lady.

Julie Carlisle 04 September 21 14:47: spot on.

@NOT the lads - no, they won't get a caution as no crime was committed. The police won't do anything, so wishful thinking on your behalf I'm afraid.

No career will be over, and in any case loads of lawyers have cautions.

@15.56 - the men now look like victims because of the public shaming and calls for them to be prosecuted and sacked.

Fire these pieces of ...

06.29 - fire who? for what?

Anonymous 08 September 21 21:15: the men do not look like victims. They harassed a woman and got what was coming to them.

Anonymous 08 September 21 20:47: the police will likely take action because what happened amounted to harassment.

@8.51 - they didn't harass her because she wasn't harassed. She was joking about it.

They look like victims because of the public shaming and the calls to have them fired or prosecuted.

@8.53 - the police haven't and won't take any action because no crime was committed.

This is not going well for the person saying the men are the victims.

We all know the men are not the victims and that the victim is the woman.

08:51

Damn. Women are too considerate: somebody touched me inappropriately, oh no, but I need to protect his career because God is forgiving or some other merciful bullshit that fill my silly head. 

Seriously, just show their stupid faces already.

Dearie 8th @ 10.10 - she can't rightly do it and she can't have them fired or prosecuted.

She took offence at their remarks, which she had the right to do. She had the right to respond. Publicly shaming them, reporting it to the police (who have much better things to do) and saying they should be fired was OTT and she was wrong to do this. In fairness she now seems to have realised this, having removed the photo from Twitter, no longer calling for them to bd fired, and no longer calling for their prosecution.

Bloody hell, just as well we don't take the comment section seriously. I'm impressed this many people are happy to say the "chaps" here are the victims. Where's the '82 Dolorean?

Well no one comes here for serious or balanced views. But even so, the incel vibes are surprisingly strong in the comments. Whatever happened to the good old days when men could make lewd and inappropriate comments to women whenever and wherever they wanted, without fear of consequence? I mean, the cheek of this message woman, making these people stand behind their actions. How very dare she.

To those commenting that men cannot even look at or say anything to women these days, have you ever considered that the perception may be a reflection on you, not reality? You definitely can do both of those things... If you don't act like an entitled creep when doing so.