|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Skids
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007 Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
Post subject: | |
|
KenH wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | KenH wrote: | When I was an apprentice I got held down and stripped and had my cock and balls painted, is that harassment? True story by the way! |
What colour paint?
It's definitely harassment, bordering on sexual assault, unless of course you were into it. |
It was green paint and was at least water based! No I wasn't into it but I did enjoy washing it off. |
One thing they did to me was just plain dangerous. I was down a sewer manhole over 4 meters deep (no 'confined space' permits or atmosphere testing then). I unblocked the line and as the water gushing in was rising, and I was clambering up the ladder, they put the lid back on! Only for about 5 seconds, but, as well as a high chance of being overcome by methane, I could have drowned.
It was terrifying. _________________ Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
KenH
Joined: 24 Jan 2010
|
Post subject: | |
|
Skids wrote: | KenH wrote: | stui magpie wrote: | KenH wrote: | When I was an apprentice I got held down and stripped and had my cock and balls painted, is that harassment? True story by the way! |
What colour paint?
It's definitely harassment, bordering on sexual assault, unless of course you were into it. |
It was green paint and was at least water based! No I wasn't into it but I did enjoy washing it off. |
One thing they did to me was just plain dangerous. I was down a sewer manhole over 4 meters deep (no 'confined space' permits or atmosphere testing then). I unblocked the line and as the water gushing in was rising, and I was clambering up the ladder, they put the lid back on! Only for about 5 seconds, but, as well as a high chance of being overcome by methane, I could have drowned.
It was terrifying. |
The early 80s was a dangerous time in the trade! So many stupid things we did back then. _________________ Cheers big ears |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Nationwide News & Anor v Geoffrey Rush
http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/services/access-to-files-and-transcripts/online-files/rush-v-nationwide
"The Federal Court has established this online file in view of the public interest. Documents will be placed here when considered publicly accessible."
A lot of exhibits...*
e.g. A randomly selected e-mail from Damian Trewhella, 1 Dec 2018:
"Dearest GR-
It's such an awful situation that the STC and Daily Telegraph have jointly brought about - utterly diabolical.
I sincerely hope you are holding up ok - it's a storm full of a lot of bullsh** that will pass.
...
We need to request extremely respectfully that you step aside until this matter resolves (it is not a resignation...)
...
Very best,
DT"
A text message from Geoffrey, 10 Jun 2016:
"... beloved Aryan Schone Mullerin (yes a complicated and obtuse jeu de mots, of course) - basically it's a spectacular near-homophone praising you as a delicious mysterious daughter of the Miller! - apologies for missing your opening last night ... but I was thinking of you (as I do more than is socially appropriate [emoji here]) - how is your Big Wheel turning? ... how do months fly so quickly by? ..."
* Exhibits A1, A2 & A3 are the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Matters, I think.
Last edited by K on Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:35 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Very interesting, K, thanks. There’s one email there (I forget which pdf) that really lays bare how people get crushed by the huge corporations and sums of money that make up this industry: an executive producer apologising to a director (I think?) for dropping a production with Rush because the distributors are spooked.
I do sympathise with the view that this actually gives victims a great deal of power – that, by speaking up, they can have immediate and significant impact on the lives of perpetrators – but of course the problem with that is that all allegations (no matter how severe or credible) are treated more or less equally, and the only way we can be totally comfortable with that is to either always presume alleged perpetrators’ guilt or else consider the innocent ones to be collateral damage in a worthy cause. What’s even more alarming for me though is how humanity gets so thoroughly crushed under this weight of money and PR, and how alleged perpetrator and victim alike get forced into pantomime roles thoroughly detached from the complexities of interpersonal relationships.
The only thing that matters to these companies is the $ value of Geoffrey Rush vs the $ value of Geoffrey Rush the alleged sexual harasser. But people aren’t mere commodities, and there are more important things in the world than whether a film gets good box-office takings. It should be capital that serves humanity, not the other way around.
There have to be better ways of dealing with this entire phenomenon. Broadly speaking, we need:
1) Better preventative services to help people to recognise, control and (if possible) reduce urges to engage in non-consensual sexual acts, including teaching consent, empathy and healthy and positive sexual behaviour to everyone, providing easily accessible counselling services and targeting specific dysfunctions through interventions and specialised treatment.
2) A culture in which people can talk about such urges or perpetration or experience of victimisation openly and without stigma. This includes a recognition that sexual crimes are not "special" crimes, but rather one of many ways in which one person can harm another. This likely also entails a relaxation of defamation law to something more closely resembling the US model.
3) Processes for people who perceive themselves to have been victimised to, if desired, confront the offender and receive apology and/or restitution, and to be protected from them if need be. This may in some cases be an effective alternative to pursuing a legal complaint.
4) For those cases that do enter the legal system, a significant reduction in the stress and trauma required in order to pursue a complaint (including secondary victimisation through cross-examination and so on). Flexibility to enable restitutive justice where desired by the complainant.
5) Appropriate disciplinary measures for offenders who have been accused or found guilty of sexual misdemeanours, including proper rehabilitation and full reintegration into society after release (including being able to find work).
6) A cultural and (robust) legal establishment of a distinction between professional and personal life, such that employers or companies can no longer act as any kind of quasi-judicial mechanism for matters not involving the direct administration of their workplace. This might go so far as to include unrelated criminal or personal behaviour within the list of attributes for which it is unlawful to discriminate. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
You forgot:
7: Criminal prosecution of false claims.
8: A public register of former claimants to help employers, co-workers, and employees protect themselves against the risk of working with people likely to publish claims against them.* A statute of limitations should apply such that one no longer appears on the list after as suitable period, say 20 years.
The aim here is to provide a balance between the right of a victim of harassment to speak out (which is essential but has massive costs for the victim of the complaint, whether or not it is true), and the right of ordinary people not to be the victim of a public claim of sexual wrongdoing.
Right now we have an insane guilt by accusation system with near-zero cost to the false accuser and horrendous, life-changing costs to the victim. With every other sort of crime, guilt is determined by evidence, almost always given in public, and always weighed up and decided on by a court of law. There are all sorts of problems with the court system, as we all know, but it does at least try to be fair to all parties, or at very least it pretends to try. Our current system of trial by accusation does not even pretend to try to be fair.
* Think about it. Suppose you discover that the person you are working with has previously, in some other job, made accusations against co-workers. You need to know this so that you can institute appropriate risk management before it happens to you too. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
But what if the compliant was warranted? Do they get taken off the list? These cases are not easy to prove, so point 8 will push victims back in the wrong direction.
The false claim on would need as solid a foundation as a guilty one.
Just how common are false complaints? Who would open themselves up to that sort of microscope unless they had too? _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Which one is that? |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yes, defendants like to claim that they've been proven not guilty when they've just not been proven guilty to the legal standard required.
There are already criminal defamation laws, though they are seldom used. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | But what if the compliant was warranted? |
If you care so little about the offence that you aren't even willing to go on record as an accuser, then you have nothing to complain about.
think positive wrote: | Do they get taken off the list? |
Of course not. That is the whole point of the list in the first place. It is there to warm people (mainly co-workers) that this is a person with form who you need to think carefully about. You may find it wise, for example, to make sure that there are always witnesses whenever the two of you are in a room. Or you may judge that this person is harmless and can be treated normally. That s a judgement call you have to make. But you MUST be entitled to know that there is history - exactly as you are entitled to know that someone has a criminal record. The point in either case is that there may be more risk, so you are entitled to know about it and make your own judgement about whether that person is safe to work with or share a flat with or whatever.
think positive wrote: |
Just how common are false complaints? |
Nobody knows. The one thing we can be 100% sure of is that the incidence is going to skyrocket now that it has become fashionable to accuse.
think positive wrote: | Who would open themselves up to that sort of microscope unless they had too? |
Anyone with a grudge. Anyone in a tough battle for promotion. Anyone who didn't get promoted. Anyone with poor social skills who misunderstands a perfectly normal innocent incident and blows it up into something it wasn't. Anyone. _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006 Location: Thailand
|
Post subject: | |
|
I had a beer with a US (Californian) bloke in a bar of dubious repute in Thailand 5 years ago. He was over the noon as he he had just paid cash for a 2 bedroom beach side condo in Thaland . He apparently works in some large firm in Los Angeles and they had a new HR manager who was female. At the works Christmas booze up one of the girls he worked with said "Off to Thailand for Christmas again? Yep. The new HR Manager who was worse for booze blurted out in front of a dozen people. "Single men only go there to have sex with underage children:. She was asked to retract that remark and continued on with her assertion.
The next 2 days his lawyer submitted a claim for slander against the company and her. They pointed out this his brother had married a Thai lady, his nephews and nieces were half Thai and he was a keen golfer and he now felt besmirched. The horrified company settled there bit out of court and HR woman was dismissed without compensation. The woman fought it and lost and was forced to sell her house and he now travels business class to his condo every year
She left California because her reputation is poison and she is virtually unemployable in California as it made the papers.Her husband divorced her to retain his share of the property. This bloke I met was looking to an early retirement because he has plenty of money now and the firm cancelled all events involving alcohol
His Thai girlfriend probably loves it too as she gets to spend time looking after his condo while he is at work.
He got about 400 K US dollars and a condo costs him about 100k. _________________ Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
Amazing story.
Scary that an inane comment could result in someone losing their career and their home. She definitely deserved some form of disciplinary action but the punishment seems out of all proportion to the crime. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I thought the same (well, that was my second thought; my first was, when exactly did Elon Musk work in HR? )
Tannin wrote: | You forgot:
7: Criminal prosecution of false claims.
8: A public register of former claimants to help employers, co-workers, and employees protect themselves against the risk of working with people likely to publish claims against them.* A statute of limitations should apply such that one no longer appears on the list after as suitable period, say 20 years.
The aim here is to provide a balance between the right of a victim of harassment to speak out (which is essential but has massive costs for the victim of the complaint, whether or not it is true), and the right of ordinary people not to be the victim of a public claim of sexual wrongdoing.
Right now we have an insane guilt by accusation system with near-zero cost to the false accuser and horrendous, life-changing costs to the victim. With every other sort of crime, guilt is determined by evidence, almost always given in public, and always weighed up and decided on by a court of law. There are all sorts of problems with the court system, as we all know, but it does at least try to be fair to all parties, or at very least it pretends to try. Our current system of trial by accusation does not even pretend to try to be fair.
* Think about it. Suppose you discover that the person you are working with has previously, in some other job, made accusations against co-workers. You need to know this so that you can institute appropriate risk management before it happens to you too. |
I'd be very wary of advocating any new punishments for false accusations. Firstly, just as rape and other forms of sexual crime are among the hardest to successfully prosecute (as there are rarely witnesses), they're also among the most difficult to conclusively disprove. It goes without saying that, just because someone is found not guilty of a crime due to lack of proof, it doesn't mean that they didn't do it. So how do you prove that they didn't do it, and that the defendant was deliberately making it up? I'd say that such cases are pretty rare, and would tend to involve either admissions of false accusation (which are, as they should be, often prosecuted) or a successful defamation action – and we've seen of late how defamation proceedings, and the huge toll that they can have on the victims of abuse, can be used to bully and silence victims and deter others from speaking up. And of course there are plenty of other cases where an accuser and alleged perpetrator might have different memories of events and different understandings of what happened; just as we rightfully hesitate before always condemning the latter in such cases, we shouldn't be quick to blame the self-perceived victim for their misinterpretation of events.
I don't mean to say that there shouldn't be consequences for deliberately defaming another person or making vexatious allegations – it is a terrible thing to do to someone, particularly in this culture of shoot first, ask questions later. But, just as I oppose workplaces playing judge and jury with their employees accused of inappropriate behaviour, I wouldn't want them to have the power to do the same to supposed false accusers, either. Those cases should be dealt with in the courts, or else (as I suggested above in the opposite scenario) through some other agreed-upon form of restitution. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Tannin wrote: | think positive wrote: | But what if the compliant was warranted? |
If you care so little about the offence that you aren't even willing to go on record as an accuser, then you have nothing to complain about.
... |
That is a really bad argument. Do you really think, for example, rape victims want their victimhood publicly known? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Tannin wrote: |
think positive wrote: |
Just how common are false complaints? |
Nobody knows. The one thing we can be 100% sure of is that the incidence is going to skyrocket now that it has become fashionable to accuse.
think positive wrote: | Who would open themselves up to that sort of microscope unless they had too? |
Anyone with a grudge. Anyone in a tough battle for promotion. Anyone who didn't get promoted. Anyone with poor social skills who misunderstands a perfectly normal innocent incident and blows it up into something it wasn't. Anyone. |
I understand where you're coming from, but I'm not as pessimistic.
The #metoo movement started in the USA and they have different laws to us.
Their statute of limitations works differently to ours, so there's a time limit over there (as I understand it) to report an incident
The right to free speech is enshrined in their constitution, so libel and defamation laws are very different. Over there, people can make accusations on social media with little fear of recourse, while the subject of the accusations undergoes trial by media, social and traditional, potentially ruining their life.
Here, as we've seen, publishing accusations can lead to defamation trials.
I think we have a better balance. There's a number of proper channels available to someone who wants to lodge a complaint where it can be assessed by some form of judiciary. Simply making accusations in public without using those channels is a recipe to get a public colonoscopy.
I have some sympathy for the ABC journalist who wasn't the one who made the issue public. Others made it public and she was basically forced into a deny or confirm conundrum. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
As Stui says, this is a very pessimistic outlook, and implementing this would be so detrimental to real victims coming forward. I absolutely disagree with you that false claims need a register, it’s more likely that the perp is smart and goes one on one and there are no witnesses, he says she says, and not necessarily in that order.
In fact I’d say more men would be unlikely to speak up than women, as they might find it more embarrassing as well as humiliating.
Certainly proven false claimants should be prosecuted, but unless you are gonig to open the books on sexual offenders, your register idea stinks. Is it actually possible to get a look at the sexual offenders register in Australia? _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|