mitty

"Yeah, right now I'm paragliding with some models, nbd. I'm definitely not in my parents' basement."


BPP students have called on the University to improve its approach to claims of sexual harassment after a male student directed an inappropriate comment to a female classmate.

Although the incident was relatively minor, BPP's response indicated that its policies were not fit for purpose, said the LPC students in an open letter sent this week.

The cohort had set up a WhatsApp group to exchange tips on how to secure a coveted training contract. 

One of the participating students, whom RollOnFriday will call 'Mitty', dismissed a female student's summary of the best tips she had received as "not great advice". 

He told her that "this is the first time I've advised a girl without sex lol", then claimed that he had managed to get his LPC fees "part paid" and was due to join Akin Gump as a trainee on "over 100k, paid in USD", although he claimed that he hadn’t “committed to them yet".

(A spokesman for Akin Gump confirmed to RollOnFriday that the firm had no connection with the student and had never heard of him, and pointed out that, in any event, its future trainees studied at ULaw.)


mitty bpp


Another student interjected, "Didn't think anyone would need to sleep with someone to get advice".

Mitty countered that "I rarely talk to girls in person otherwise", then boasted that he had been given work experience by “HM the Queen, Linklaters and JP Morgan Chase", and that in the case of Her Majesty, "I was chosen in person so getting your foot in the door really helps".

He went on to claim that "I personally litigate, deal with police, 100-300M M&A", and that "I have a trial soon".

Mitty was removed from the group by a moderator after being informed that his suggestion that he traded advice for sex was "really inappropriate", and that his outlandish boasts were inaccurate.


mitty bpp


Three other students reported Mitty to their programme leader for his sexual remark, but on the first day of class, the student to whom he had made the comment discovered that she was sharing two of her three elective classes with Mitty.

After more complaints, Mitty was moved from one of their shared classes into an alternative time slot. However, the complainants were told that he could not be moved from the other class he shared with the target of his WhatsApp chat because it would clash with the rest of his timetable. 

"BPP’s policies, investigation and response to this incident have fallen short", said the signatories of the open letter, who complained that BPP’s lack of transparency around any measures taken created a lack of accountability.

"We believe at the very least, the perpetrator should have been separated from the target of the harassment. If his timetable conflicted with hers, then his electives should have been changed regardless of his preferences". 

"If this was the response for a minor and clear-cut incident, we are concerned what will happen if there is an assault committed against a student in the future", they said, describing how course leaders appeared uncertain how to respond to the complaint and had described it as "novel".

The students said that at least one woman in their LPC cohort had suffered "serious personal loss and damage to their career" due to sexual harassment, and asked for BPP’s policies to be updated "to better protect future students".

BPP did not respond to a request for comment. It is not know whether Mitty is a graduate of Leicester University.

Tip Off ROF

Comments

Anonymous 16 July 21 08:00

Given the minor nature of the incidents, it would be to lose perspective to ban him from all classes they both attend.

Anonymous 16 July 21 08:37

For context, I was in this group and our main gripe was that the university didn’t tell anyone what they were doing to talk to him. We’d have been happy if they admonished him not to do it again or gave him another form of minor punishment, but they refused to disclose what if anything they’d done, never contacted the target of the harassment, and when they showed up in the same class on day one it just felt like the university had done literally nothing about it 

Anonymous 16 July 21 08:44

Genuinely baffled that this needed anything more than a stern talking to as a response.

"Come on now Bob, this is a course for grownups. Stop posting obvious wind ups in the WhatsApp".

Labelling it 'harassment' is the D&I equivalent of hypochondria.

Anonymous 16 July 21 08:56

"A spokesman for Akin Gump confirmed to RollOnFriday that the firm had no connection with the student and had never heard of him, and pointed out that, in any event, its future trainees studied at ULaw."

He's taken a L.

Anonymous 16 July 21 09:06

@8.37 - interesting to hear the views of someone on the group. I think its difficult for BPP to tell other people what actions they took (that doesn't mean they shouldn't though). I agree that to the extent BPP needed to be involved at all (perhaps it was best addressed by the WhatsApp mods), some form of admonishment or guidance would have been the best option, as there was no harassment. No reason they shouldn't remain in the same class or why them being so would imply that BPP hadn't done anything.

Good god 16 July 21 09:06

We are now living in a woke cancel culture tyranny aren’t we.  Well done ROF for perpetuating this.  

Anonymous 16 July 21 09:35

@9:06

Another thing to note is this wasn’t the first time he’d been creepy with that girl, it happened a few times but this was the only time we could capture proof. The main thing that annoyed us is if you make a complaint, BPP says they can’t tell you what they have done about it at all - so there’s no accountability. They can just say they dealt with it and then do nothing. What happens when something way more serious than this happens? For most of us this was just funny like we’re not actually triggered by this guy, we’re just concerned that the process in place is so non transparent for when something bad happens 

Anonymous 16 July 21 10:17

"This is the first time I've advised a girl without sex", and "I rarely talk to girls in person without [sex] happening".

 

How is this harassment or even an offense?

 

All he has done is refer to the act of having sex, in a group chat, for adults. I totally get why the BPP admin closed the chat since it is a professional environment, and ya don't chat about sex in a professional environment. That combined with the obvious lies make the dude look immature. But it's not harassment to simply refer to the act of having intercourse (and how much of it you personally have, you big stud, you).

Anonymous 16 July 21 10:31

@9.35 - what happened the other times?

I understand the frustration about BPP not saying what they've done, but that's not his fault. And the problem is that no matter what they do, someone will say its not enough. And not saying what they've done doesn't mean they did nothing - they did ban him from certain classes, which a lot people would regard as OTT. And just  because they deal with a trivial matter one way doesn't mean they would deal with a more serious matter the same way. And they may still not say what they did even if it was a more serious matter.

As you say, most people find it funny, that would suggest no harm caused and everyone should move on.

Anon 16 July 21 10:34

The problem with creepy guys is that it always starts fairly innocuously.  Mostly the behaviour goes nowhere but enough times it doesn't and you can end up with a really seriously bad experience, whether at university or in the office.  People say, "oh there is no smoke without fire" and that you "must" have encouraged the behaviour, or ask why you didn't nip it in the bud at the beginning. When you do try to nip it in the bud you get accused of being hysterical or a snowflake or worse.  Either way, you end up being made to feel it is your fault or something you must have done to set him off. 

Warren 16 July 21 10:45

@10:17 he's massively denegrating women, including this specific woman, by implying they and her only have worth if they perform sexual services. I don't think it deserves more than a strong word about being such an unproffessional dickhead and a final warning, but lets not pretend he wasn't in the wrong or that his target has nothing to complain about.

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:06

@Warren - its a silly throwaway comment, its hardly 'massively denegrating women'. A quiet word from someone on the WhatsApp group maybe, but a final warning from BPP would just be ridiculous.

Maybe he shouldn't have said it, but there wasn't a 'target' and there are limits as to when a complaint becomes unreasonable.

Hackaforte 16 July 21 11:10

Blah blah cancel culture drone moan snowflakes gripe groan woke grizzle grouse can’t say anything these days snuffle snort Jordan Peterson’s Twelve Habits of Highly Effective Lobsters huff puff in MY day that would be taken as a compliment whinge whine Piers Morgan waffle bloat what about men being harassed wheeze rattle burp.

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:12

It always starts with something innocuous.

For many it doesn't go beyond that.

For some it does.

How do you tell the one from the other?

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:14

@10.34 - the problem with creepy gals is that they unnecessarily escalate things. As you say, most of the time there is no need to escalate, so over-reaction is unecessary. A quiet word at the outset is best.

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:23

@Hackaforte:

Woman complains: we must take all reports of harassment extremely seriously.

Man complains: blah drone moan gripe bloat whinge

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:24

Waiting for the ROL article in 3 years: "NQ accused of [insert inappropriate behaviour here]"

He's gonna make a brilliant lawyer ......

Anonymous 16 July 21 11:29

"How do you tell the one from the other?"

 

So lock 'em all up. It's the only way to be sure. Right?

Now, let's see if that logic holds on other topics. Shall we start with, say, Islamic extremism?

Anonymous 16 July 21 12:08

"The problem with creepy guys is that it always starts fairly innocuously.  Mostly the behaviour goes nowhere but enough times it doesn't"

So then punish them for harassment when it stops being innocuous. You cannot punish innocuous behaviour because you personally are feeling fear (however well grounded) that it will at some point stop being innocuous.

"he's massively denegrating women, including this specific woman, by implying they and her only have worth if they perform sexual services."

No he is saying (because these are the words that he actually said) that any time he engages with a woman it involves the sideways shuffle.

You can choose to infer that the reason for this is because that's the only value he sees in a woman, but that is not the only possible inference. I would personally infer that he is an immature virgin who is trying to act like woman cannot help but throw themselves at him.

Neither of us know exactly why he said what he did - we only know what he said, and what he said is not harassment.

Anonymous 16 July 21 12:16

@11.29 nuance is completely lost on you. In that case why bother with the DBS checks for those working with vulnerable adults and children. I mean, only a few will be predators, why penalise the rest?!?! Amirit?

Anonymous 16 July 21 12:21

@12.08 he is denigrating women, he is suggesting that he would only help them if they provide sexual services to him, that their "worth" to him is only as a means to a sexual end. If a partner said the same to a trainee would you still struggle to see it as harassment? 

This culture of excusing men for their deplorable actions towards women ("himpathy") is what allows rape and sexual assault and the rest to flourish. Didn't Wayne Couzens start by flashing a woman and then very soon graduate to rape, kidnapping and (allegedly) murder?

 

Lydia 16 July 21 13:40

He was just joking for goodness sake. Clearly he seems to be a "Walter" [Mitty] hence his name and the suggestions he worked for the Queen. Can't people of that age take a joke?

Anonymous 16 July 21 13:53

"@12.08 he is denigrating women, he is suggesting that he would only help them if they provide sexual services to him"

No, he's not.

The messages themselves show him in the very act of providing help to a woman without receiving sexual services. They also show him claiming to have never done that before, as any time he speaks to a woman it leads to the old bump and grind.

You are welcome to draw your own inferences as to his motivation, but you do not get to claim them as proven facts.

Anonymous 16 July 21 14:12

@12.21 - he wasn't denigrating women he was joking and nobody was denigrated by it as people didn't take it seriously. If a partner joked to a trainee, I wouldn't struggle to see it as harassment, I simply wouldn't see it as harassment.

Comparing this to rape, assault and murder simply shows warped views and a lack of fitness to judge.

Drummond 16 July 21 15:11

Leaving aside the sexual comments, can someone please tell me why he even thinks a firm would allow students/trainees to conduct litigation, deal with the police and mergers & acquisitions all at the same time?
 

Scrap that, no firm would allow you to do all three even if fully qualified and experienced in each. Not worth the professional indemnity risk! 
 

What a big headed, hot air filled plonker, so yeah I guess he’ll make a perfect “blaggit & co” lawyer or one of those company exec types who can never explain what they actually do for a living. 

Anon 16 July 21 15:42

Having read this in full as well as some of the comments, my opinion on this is that he should never have said that. 
 

As a future lawyer you need to be careful what you say because it can be misconstrued. He may have meant it one way but it’s been interpreted in another and here we are. 
 

whilst I don’t agree that he should be suspended or whatever else everyone else is suggesting, stern word and life lesson should suffice. HOWEVER, the university needs to take some action with respect to how they handle the situation. Social media has taken over and so there should be rules and regulations to follow. BPP should update their procedures in dealing with things like this. I believe that’s what’s caused more of an uproar than the comment itself. I interpret this article as it shedding light into the scenario and a request to BPP to do something for future students

Anonymous 16 July 21 15:50

@Drummond- you do realise that in the same way that he wasn't seriously requesting sex, he wasn't seriously claiming to have done those jobs?

Anonymous 16 July 21 16:04

@15:42 you’re right on the nose. We’re honestly not that bothered about what he said. What bothered us was that the University sent us their disciplinary policy and it is very vague and has no transparency or accountability. There was another of the same class available at a different time slot and they didn’t even do the super basic step of putting him in that class, that would have required no effort at all. We had to ask them to do that before they agreed. They didn’t even ask the girl if she was ok (he’d made creepy comments towards her in class before as well). They just went “well, we dealt with it, we won’t tell you how we dealt with it, but don’t worry about it.”
 

What’s going to happen when you get an actually serious case of harassment? All we asked them to do is update their policy to get with the times. They don’t even have a sexual harassment policy and we feel they really should. The guy’s a clown and nobody is threatened by him we’re just worried the university is massively under prepared esp since they said this was a “novel situation and they didn’t know what to do.” 

Anonymous 16 July 21 16:33

@16:14 at a bare minimum the person who complains should know what the university did to handle their complaint. None of this would have happened if they had just contacted the girl he was being creepy towards and told her they warned him not to act like that again. Right now they can just say they’ve dealt with an issue even if they haven’t, because there’s no transparency.

The guy is a menace in class he’s always wasting time talking about nonsense, correcting his female teachers, and occasionally being creepy. A talking to would be nice! 

Anonymous 16 July 21 17:15

@16.04 - a lot of these points were made by an earlier commenter (same commenter?) and have been addressed.

The problem is that this isn't really a disciplinary matter, so perhaps unsurprisingly BPP's disciplinary policy wouldn't cover it. It isn't clear what moving him into a different class would achieve, and it does seem unfair/inappropriate to him. It seems that BPP have moved him into a different class due to pressure and that they have been forced into overreacting, so they can't be accused of not doing anything.

The earlier commenter mentioned 'creepy things', but wouldn't say what they were. Perhaps you can tell us what the 'creepy comments' were?

It was explained to the previous commenter its difficult for BPP to tell other people what actions they took (that doesn't mean they shouldn't though).

As you say, this wasn't a case of harassment. And remember, BPP were forced into taking action even although nobody thinks it was a case of harassment. So there is no reason to suspect that BPP would not take action if there was harassment.

It is highly unlikely that BPP don't have a sexual harassment policy, but if they don't then any such policy must be clear about what isn't harassment as well as what is. I hope that your concerns about policies will extend to this point. 

 

Anonymous 16 July 21 18:00

"How do you tell the one from the other?"

 

So lock 'em all up. It's the only way to be sure. Right?

Now, let's see if that logic holds on other topics. Shall we start with, say, Islamic extremism?

 

Did you read my post?  You copied and pasted a part it so I can only assume yes.  So how on earth did you reach the your conclusions from that question?

And more to the point, how on earth do so many men get away with the claim that they are the more rational gender and women are ruled by their emotions?

You need to calm down dear, and maybe think before you post.  You're knee-jerk testeria isn't doing the debate any good at all.

Anon 16 July 21 18:33

@16:14 - 

 

I think their policy should extend to social media platforms to ensure accountability

CliveWarren 16 July 21 19:20

If the chap was dishonest re the Akin Gump  and other stuff would that stop him qualifying as either barrister or solicitor?

Anon 16 July 21 20:05

@16.33: That is a really amazing post.

You people want to be lawyers and don’t even manage to tell this guy off yourselves when he’s such an annoyance? In class? You don’t manage to show your female classmate support, stand up for her and tell him to leave her alone? How old are you? He needs a talking to? - Well, talk to him! 

A woman and a feminist 16 July 21 20:30

I can’t help but just feel really sorry for this guy.  He’s clearly very socially awkward and I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s still a virgin with that sort of absurd ‘banter’.  In the balance of who needs a bit of a support, I’d venture a guess that it’s him.  
 

And does anyone else find it a bit ridiculous that we get up in arms if young folk just starting to explore their sexy identity say something stupid that really is relatively innocent (for someone of that rather silly age), and yet have no have no problem that those same youngsters have access to porn that routinely denigrates woman to a much more extreme extent?    I’m no prude, but that does seem to send very different messages to teenagers.  Are we just lining them up for either failure or a life of duplicity?  This whole “bring your whole self to work/school” initiative suddenly starts to feel like “bring your whole self only if it’s the type we approve of and is currently in trend”. :(

PS - I’m in my 30s before people start calling me a dinosaur. 

Anonymous 16 July 21 21:03

@18.33 - they wouldn't have any authority to cover private social media use. Which is just as well, since any such policy would also have to cover malicious allegations and gossip on social media.

Anonymous 16 July 21 23:57

@CliveWarren - no, because he was joking. However, if the complaints against him were malicious or involved dishonesty that may stop the complainants qualifying as a barrister of a solicitor.

Anonymous 17 July 21 06:59

@18.00 - you still don't say what should be done.

Why do you claim that 'so many men get away with the claim that they are the more rational gender and women are ruled by their emotions'?

What is 'knee-jerk testeria'?

Do you think its OK for women to say 'calm down dear' to men but not vice-versa?

Anonymous 17 July 21 20:43

@14.29 - it doesn't seem that bad at all. I feel sorry for the person who made the comment on the Whatsapp group - the people stirring things up will likely be causing a big impact to his mental health.

Anonymous 19 July 21 07:40

We're frequently told that girls mature earlier than boys, that women are better socialised and better at multi-tasking.

Because of this women are supposed to make allowances for boys.

It's time that instead of women making allowances, boys and men are taught to look up to their female counterparts as examples they should look up to and seek to emulate.

Anonymous 19 July 21 14:08

@7.40 - alternatively, people could just respect each other and not look done on other people because of their gender, male or female.

Human 19 July 21 14:40

I read online that these coaches you read about in moral panic peices in the guardian suggest undermining or being negative to women is likely to make them more amenable to sex. I wonder if that is what is going on. Often the most inadequate dweebs are the most worrying source of harassment. What do they have to lose?

Anonymous 19 July 21 18:58

@7.40 - alternatively, people could just respect each other and not look done on other people because of their gender, male or female.

Why?  When you could deal with reality and accept that most men want mothers, not equals, whether they be work colleagues, friends or lovers.

Truth is that most guys are so pornsick that they've forgotten how to relate to other human beings or take basic care of themselves.

Anon 20 July 21 02:46

Worrying that lots of people are reacting like it is nothing/funny. Granted it’s not major but it’s inappropriate in the context and needs to be called out as such and not downplayed; nip it in the bud before he gets worse. And yeah, even if he is trying to be funny he is making himself look like an idiot so even more reason to pull him up. Might do him a favour. 

Anonymous 20 July 21 07:35

@Human - if he was an 'inadequate dweeb' and that is why such offence has been taken then that makes the subsequent sexual harassment of him even worse - he actually had a lot to lose. That type of thing does happen fairly often - the offence taken is not at what was said, but at who said it.

It could of course be that she fancied him and complained because he made a remark she perceived as disrespectful. We simply don't know.

Anonymous 20 July 21 11:46

19th @ 18.58 - what evidence do you have that most men want mothers, not equals, whether they be work colleagues, friends or lovers and that most guys are so pornsick that they've forgotten how to relate to other human beings or take basic care of themselves?

Anonymous 20 July 21 14:58

"most guys are so pornsick that they've forgotten how to relate to other human beings or take basic care of themselves"

How do you mange to come up with so many of these misandrist non-sequiturs each week?

Like, do you go and just copy paste them from Twitter? Or are you thinking them all up yourself?

Hats off to the immense effort you put into trolling these boards, but I'm just fascinated to know where you get all of your source material from.

Human 21 July 21 01:00

It takes an extraordinary act of dweebery to transform the man-child who is objectively lying about his career history (we do know that), making objectively negative comments about a female classmates reasonable suggestions (we do know that), and publicly suggesting that he sees transacts basic courtesy to women only in exchange for sex (we do know that) into some oppressed victim of sexual harassment. We do know that he was actually the victim of his own  behaviou, which we do know was pathetic but nevertheless deceitful and spiteful. I salute the inadequacies of  Anon 07:35

Anonymous 21 July 21 11:02

@Human - he wasn't objectivley lying about his career, he was joking (we do know that). He wasn't making objectively negative comments, he was joking (we do know that). He wasn't seriously asking anyone for sex (we do know that). He was subsequently sexually harassed (we do know that). We don't know if his behaviour was pathetic, and there is no evidence or even suggestion of spiteful or deceitful behaviour on his part.

Sorry you feel that calling out sexual harassment is inadequate, but that rather denotes inadequacy from you!

Anonymous 21 July 21 14:42

*dons mask*

I am Not All Man

I hear there has been a misandry.  Someone has perpetrated a reverse sexism.

Excuse me if you will - but I am here to perform a Devil's Advocate.

 

What about men who get assaulted?  Why aren't you talking about that?

Anonymous 21 July 21 19:51

@14.42 - nobody was assaulted, but a man was sexually harassed.

We're talking about that.

Not-All Man 22 July 21 12:18

@14.42 - nobody was assaulted, but a man was sexually harassed.

We're talking about that.

Exactly my point

Why are you ignoring men who get assaulted?

Your misandry is obvious and if you expect support then it has to go both ways.

Have you seen how many men are in prison.  And for proper reasons.  Not for stupid little tv licence offences.

Anonymous 22 July 21 15:55

20th @ 2.33am - people aren't saying its nothing, they're saying its trivial. Agreed, its not major.

We don't know if its inappropriate in the context without knowing the wider discussion. Perhaps he should be told it isn't funny by her or someone on the group, but its important nit to over-react, and its not a matter for BPP. Moving classes is silly, they're not children.

Je Suis Monty Don l’Autobus 23 July 21 03:19

I’m sorry but this is an incredibly minor incident, and did not amount to personal harassment of the woman concerned in any way. She has no basis to demand his removal from classes and there is no reason the university should bow to demands to disrupt this guy’s education, even if he does sound like a bit of a twat.

She would have no grounds whatsoever to feel threatened by his presence in class, based on what has been reported here anyway.

It is time we started pushing back a bit on the notion that if any claim is raised that touches on matters sexual, then all must fall into line behind the excommunication of the “wrongdoer”. There is literally nothing to see in this case. (And let’s face it, sex was utterly tangential to most of the rank chat here - most of what he said was idle and presumably fake boasting about his career prowess).

Administrators should have the confidence to say, in truly trivial cases: sorry but this is truly trivial, we do not propose to take any action beyond the entirely appropriate step which has already been taken, which was to kick him off the whatsapp chat.

Oh, and some utter, utter drivel being posted above  by those desperate to pretend the word “harassment” belongs anywhere near this guy’s conduct as described above. Just absolute tripe slewing from the keyboards of law’s next generation. Some of you appear utterly intellectually bankrupt.

Related News

X

Don’t miss your best career move. Receive approaches from top law firms and in-house employers when they want someone just like you.