Cote Maybe they would. The point was that recruiters will think twice before they hire someone who went so publicly berserk over "Your picture is stunning". They have to weigh in the possibility that a similar scenario will take place one day if a male colleague or a business contact makes the mistake of saying "You look stunning today" and gets dragged down social media and national newspapers, with all the negative publicity that would entail.
Do you realise how little you know about what you are trying to write about? Its a bit embarrassing to read. What recruiters do you think "hire" barristers? Do you imagine that barristers send their cvs off to employment agencies and suchlike? Do you think that's how that profession works? Carter-Silk is a solicitor, and while solicitors might do that, it is simply not possible for barristers.
As for your "publicly berserk" comment - that's just really, really funny to read, so exaggerated and outlandish is it. Goodness knows how you would describe someone who did actually have a proper breakdown in the workplace. You would presumably run out of hypberbole to describe it!
It is a different matter if there were proper sexual harassment, but that is another matter. HR would take quick action against the man in that case. Even then, they would not look kindly upon the employee who publicises emails and causes a public relations disaster to the company she is working for.
It is indeed, since I estimate that if Carter-Silk had made two similar comments, it would have amounted to sexual harassment. On its own, it is probably not grossly offensive enough to amount to it. However there is certainly something sexually harassing/offensive about it, and repeated incidents of the same or similar would do. So he is a real fool for putting himself in that position, in writing, when he supposed to be selling his knowledge of the law to clients.
I do wonder though what sort of HR Department barristers might have, and these HR people that aren't going to "look kindly" on them or indeed the "companies" that they work for. Clue - barristers are self-employed, must be formally instructed by solicitors and are definitely not permitted to form limited liability companies (neither are solicitors).
FWIW I'd hate to be one of those timid people, terrified to speak out for themselves in case they offend all sorts of imaginary people. Although I think its probably worth your while checking some basic facts before you do all that pseudo-strict sounding outpouring of words, because what you have written above is pretty nonsensical.