The Witchfinder spent a little time over the weekend dropping a note to the official UK Barrister’s regulator about Charlotte Proudman.

It is a bit like this. No matter how much fun journalistic or Twitter condemnation is there comes a time when things start to turn into a bit of a lynch mob. There are types of allegations, like child abuse or assault – or discrimination, that need to be dealt with officially not in the High Court of Twitter.

Equally however, that does not mean those things should not be dealt with. I was disgusted by Charlotte Proudman’s complaints about Alexander Silk. People receive compliments about their appearance in all walks of life.

Charlotte Proudman may or may not have a legitimate beef with Alexander Silk, your author personally leans towards, ‘not’. However, that beef was dealt with wildly disproportionately, leading to condemnation in the Daily Mail, the Telegraph and even in a wildly offensive satirical video by your humble author.

This has led to vast numbers of tweets about her by members of the public, many critical. The Bar Standards Board rules state that, “You must not behave in a way which is likely to diminish the trust and confidence which the public places in you or in the profession [CD5]”.

In essence my concern is that her attempt to whip up a hashtag hit mob has done exactly that. Rule CD5 is one of the rare rules that applies at all times, even when a barrister is not working providing legal services.

I have seen a number of people hassling Ms Proudman (@CRProudman) and her friend Jessica Asato (@Jessica_Asato) online. I would ask people not to trouble them on Twitter but instead to channel all that legitimate concern into constructive purposes and write instead to – AssessmentComplaints@BarStandardsBoard.org.uk .

Ms Proudman has been given repeated opportunities to comment on this issue, has read the emails, but has not replied.

Matthew Hopkins News intends to be fair and balanced about the issue, and will of course report with equal prominence if Ms Proudman is exonerated but considers there is a public interest in these matters being addressed.