@mpj

I know I did, and what of it? Her name and workplace are not private information. (I assume @David meant 'private' when he wrote 'personal'. Personal information is not necessarily private, and the only information I divulged was public personal information, rather than private personal information.)

Which completely demolishes Grants and Steve Cooghan's case of being exempt from intrusion and investigation into their private lives.
Is Hugh Grant, Hugh Grant, one and the same, Hugh Grant?
There might be a case for Steve Coogahan beause he created an alta ego Alan Partridge who is a fictional chaaracter.
But at the end of the day they are both public figurs trading as public figures, so I have little sympathy for either of them if they are 'outed'as not being who they portray themselves to be, provided that the information has come by by legal mean and not by criminal activity.
And that is what Levinson will find also.

T Helen L-H

"Not much I can say except exercise your god-given right not to read my blog, then..."

I don't suppose it matters but I think this is rather odd response, for two reasons: Firstly you are supposedly in the business of selling something, but more than this there seems to be an trend towards caring about rubbish that goes on on Twitter. Mehdi Hassan also has a debrief of such an encounter. I think there should be limits to what is 'blogworthy' that's all.

You truly need to get out more if you are that worried.

Well said, thank you.

Why can't so many London-based politicos realise that there is a whole world beyond Twitter?

It is actively damaging the reporting of news, as worthy-types - such as Ms Lewis - spend all day piously raging about a fleeting "trend" and then feel the need to bore us all to death with it the next day in a bloody blog.

I'm the first to admit that I was massively tweeting about her yesterday, and found her name, and linked to her chambers profile etc.

But that doesn't mean I think she's a mooning dippy bint, which is an unfair inference. I take her for exactly what she is, a successful, intelligent and, yes – attractive – woman, who also seemed – to my eyes and those of so many others – to rather enjoy looking and listening to Hugh Grant. That's all. Commenting on that doesn't objectify her or ignore her professionalism. The fact that the situation could have been lifted from a Richard Curtis film starring, er, Hugh Grant, only made the whole situation more comic.

I think many people found the whole situation endearing. I've no doubt that most of the men behind the barristers will be ogling Sienna Miller, and presumably they'll be the objects of much tweeting. #allthemenintheroom

And remember, it is only twitter. Most people are not on it.

@ Guy Walters

Oh yes, very much a storm in a tea-cup, I'm fully aware. Still, just as it was "only Twitter", this is "only one blog". Shan't be turning this into a national campaign, complete with T-shirts and stirring anthems.

I'm saving that for Benton (argh! I'm doing it now!)

I agree with Helen.

This started as a bit of observational silliness, and quickly changed to something a lot more disconcerting. Soon it all seemed a little uncomfortable, especially the bandying about of personal information and highly personal (sometimes nasty) remarks.

All that said, the lawyer is in top form today, showing what an effective professional she is, regardless of the unsought media attention.

And I have no idea what or who "Benton" is...

I've stopped reading the BBC News and sports site, why because many sports journo's have become very lazy, rather than report actual news or events we get a column littered with # and we are expected to be on twitter to read it? Not on twitter, don't want twitter, the Arab Spring showed it to be, at least at present, a boring spam ridden diatribe of misinformed drivel.

@Guy YOU "found her name, and linked to her chambers profile"

I really have no clue what this meeja hyping of Twitter is all about.
It seems to me that 99% of it is by morons for morons.

By far the worst thing about this is the fact that Sky News ran a story on it. It's bad enough than newspapers now bulk up stories with a column or two of "twitter reactions," now television are doing it as well?

Don't you think the word 'moron' is more offensive than the two words 'woman lawyer'? I would never call anyone a moron, but I can imagine referring to a lawyer who was a woman as a woman lawyer. It's a bit like the idea that one cricketer calling another cricketer a black c*nt should be fined for the first word but not the second.