Our thanks to Jeff for this in the Independent. Do be sure not to miss two extracts from the article, which I’ve highlighted at the end of this post.

The odious Ms Proudman doesn’t have her own Wikipedia page, but this can be found on the Feminazi page:

“Usage in the United Kingdom peaked in 2015 along with reporting on barrister Charlotte Proudman, who had criticized a male colleague for commenting on her appearance online.”

The harpie is facing a four-day Bar Standards Board disciplinary tribunal. An extract from the article tells you all you need to know about Proudman’s views:

“In the [Twitter] thread, Dr Proudman wrote that the judge had described the relationship of the couple as “tempestuous”, which she argued was a “trivialization” of domestic abuse.

“Tempestuous? Lose his temper? Isn’t this the trivialization of domestic abuse & gendered language. This is not normal married life,” she wrote.”

Clearly 100% of the responsibility for the relationship being tempestuous lay with the husband, and abuse only suffered by the wife. Another extract:

“The five charges against Dr Proudman allege that she “failed to act with integrity” in posting the tweets, that they amounted to professional misconduct, were “misleading” and “inaccurately reflected the findings of the judge” in the case.

She is also accused of behaving in a way “which was likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public placed in her and in the profession” and that she “knowingly or recklessly misled or attempted to mislead the public” by making the posts.”…

The 36-year-old cried [J4MB: Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.] as the charges were read out to her and denied them all during the first day of the tribunal.”

One can only hope Proudman is eventually forbidden to practise as a lawyer again. She has long been a disgrace to her profession.

She is being represented at the hearing by two lawyers – one man, one woman. Another extract:

“Monica Feria-Tinta, acting on behalf of Dr Proudman, argued that the tweets were “commentary” by a “feminist” and not “statements of fact”. [J4MB emphasis.]”

The final paragraph is a belter, and quite made my week:

“Tweets sent by currently practising and retired lawyers, seen by The Independent, brand Dr Proudman a “c***t”, a “w*****”, a “narcissist”, and “dreadful” — as well as accusing her of “idiocy”.”

I’m not sure what a “c***t” might be – possibly a typo, should it be “c**t”? Anyway, all accurate descriptions, I think we can all agree!

—————————-

If you’d like email notifications of our new blog pieces, please enter your email address in the box near the top of the right-hand column and click ‘Subscribe’.

We shall shortly be posting this piece on our X channel.

Our YouTube channel is here.