Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Welsh politician found dead; named in the British harassment scandal Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Carrying on working is not the same as no longer having the air of suspicion. While the two you cite, and others, have indeed gone back to work after an incident, every time their name is mentioned it carries with it an accusation, a reminder of the story, a reminder of the accusations. Even if they were proven false. That's not being free.

    And no, I disagree. Stepping down, being asked or told to step down, is someone else saying they have no confidence in you, that they believe you're guilty. That's not due process.
    The examples I gave weren't proven innocent though and managed to carry on was my point - if he was innocent then he'd be in a better position than them. I think it's practical. If you had a job where you worked with lots of money and you were accused of embezzling, you would be asked to step down until the facts were known. Likewise, if you're in a job where you have to work with people (often vulnerable ones) and you're accused of a crime where you hurt other people, you should be taken out of that situation until the facts are known. If a teacher was accused of paedophilia do you think they should continue working until they've been proven innocent or is it best to err on the safe side and take them out of that environment until the enquiry is over? It's important to think of the victims of these crimes: though Sargeant's death is very sad, victims of sexual crimes are at a higher risk of suicide than perpetrators or those accused.


    (Original post by Good bloke)
    They weren't, as I understand it. The police were not involved.
    In that case we should be asking why the party/victim did not involve them, but that doesn't affect the process the party followed.

    (Original post by Good bloke)
    We have certainly reached a point where a male politician can be accused of behaviour that is not illegal or even immoral, but which was not liked by someone, leading to anonymous, confidential accusations which lead straight to the sack.

    This is puritanism gone mad, and has actually developed from so-called liberalism. We are back in the sixteenth century.
    I'd argue that sexual harassment etc is immoral, actually.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    I'd argue that sexual harassment etc is immoral, actually.
    It is, also, highly subjective.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    In that case we should be asking why the party/victim did not involve them, but that doesn't affect the process the party followed.
    We are asking that, except for you who is defending it. The party did not follow a process. It simply sacked him without hearing a defence (which he couldn't give as he wasn't told what the allegations were), You do see how that is wrong, don't you?


    (Original post by Etoile)
    I'd argue that sexual harassment etc is immoral, actually.
    Sexual harassment is clearly wrong. But what is sexual harassment? Is it propositioning someone? If it is, how will people ever get together and have relationships?

    Many of these cases seem to involve women being propositioned by men they don't feel attracted to. Why do they not say 'No thanks' and move on?

    In any event, harassment involves repeated behaviour towards the same 'victim'.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)

    I'd argue that sexual harassment etc is immoral, actually.
    It's bizarre that it's not illegal at this point, though, given its prevalence. Portugal, Belgium and Peru (iirc) have all done it.

    I'm not particularly knowledgeable of the politics, is there a reason behind it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Carrying on working is not the same as no longer having the air of suspicion. While the two you cite, and others, have indeed gone back to work after an incident, every time their name is mentioned it carries with it an accusation, a reminder of the story, a reminder of the accusations. Even if they were proven false. That's not being free.

    And no, I disagree. Stepping down, being asked or told to step down, is someone else saying they have no confidence in you, that they believe you're guilty. That's not due process.
    The issue is partly that allegations are unproven, rather than proven false. The allegation could be true, but simply not be provable in court.

    (Original post by Etoile)
    Politicians have bounced back from plenty of things - look at Keith Vaz or Bill Clinton!
    Though both sexual, neither was concerned with unwanted sexual conduct. To have that stain to your character is difficult to manage.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    It's bizarre that it's not illegal at this point
    Can you define what you want to be made illegal please?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Can you define what you want to be made illegal please?
    Egh, I was going to say physical harassment, but on reflection that's somewhat hard to verify. Perhaps that's why actually, because it can cause a guilty-til-proven-innocent effect, much like some rape allegations have been in the past.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Sexual harassment is clearly wrong. But what is sexual harassment? Is it propositioning someone? If it is, how will people ever get together and have relationships?

    Many of these cases seem to involve women being propositioned by men they don't feel attracted to. Why do they not say 'No thanks' and move on?

    In any event, harassment involves repeated behaviour towards the same 'victim'.
    You are talking about unwanted repeated behaviour of a sexual nature in order for it to be sexual harassment. Therefore, it is not usually "let us go out for dinner" or "you look beautiful today, my lady" but "why haven't ****ed yet", "your tits look really good today".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It is, also, highly subjective.
    The way around that is to make sure your behaviour is always appropriate and unlikely to be taken the wrong way or make anyone uncomfortable. I know often things are not meant to be taken as harassment, but unfortunately many men don't seem to stop and think "would I be uncomfortable if someone did/said this to me?" which is the more important part. If you punch someone as a joke, it still hurts.


    (Original post by Good bloke)
    We are asking that, except for you who is defending it. The party did not follow a process. It simply sacked him without hearing a defence (which he couldn't give as he wasn't told what the allegations were), You do see how that is wrong, don't you?




    Sexual harassment is clearly wrong. But what is sexual harassment? Is it propositioning someone? If it is, how will people ever get together and have relationships?

    Many of these cases seem to involve women being propositioned by men they don't feel attracted to. Why do they not say 'No thanks' and move on?

    In any event, harassment involves repeated behaviour towards the same 'victim'.
    Yes, it did follow a process. The process is to suspend members who are accused of serious crimes. Before his death he literally asked for a enquiry so that he could clear his name asap so it's clear he knew he would be able to defend himself at that point. I don't think his suspension was wrong, the only part that I think is wrong is that they didn't tell him what the allegations were.

    Propositioning someone whilst at work is definitely inappropriate and depending on how it's carried out can also be harassment. It's not harassment to say "will you go out with me?" (though still inappropriate) but that doesn't seem to be the case in any of the allegations I've heard...
    If people are concerned about being accused of harassment when asking someone out, they really need to change their technique. On the other hand, if they can't ask someone out appropriately they probably shouldn't be in a relationship either since they clearly lack the ability to understand the feelings of others.
    Women do say no. Men continue anyway. In other instances, women are afraid of outright saying no in case the man turns violent or, in the context of parliament especially, in case it leads to negative consequences for their career.
    I had a job interview on Monday where the (male) interviewer made a comment about my appearance that wasn't meant unkindly but made me feel very uncomfortable. Obviously I couldn't say that or risk blowing the chance at the job, but he should have thought about what he was saying and realised it was inappropriate. At interviews from now on I'll be wearing a fake wedding ring...


    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    The issue is partly that allegations are unproven, rather than proven false. The allegation could be true, but simply not be provable in court.



    Though both sexual, neither was concerned with unwanted sexual conduct. To have that stain to your character is difficult to manage.
    Actually Clinton was accused by several women of unwanted sexual conduct - Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick, the latter of whom accused him of rape.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CastCuraga)
    Egh, I was going to say physical harassment, but on reflection that's somewhat hard to verify. Perhaps that's why actually, because it can cause a guilty-til-proven-innocent effect, much like some rape allegations have been in the past.
    (Original post by Notorious_B.I.G.)
    You are talking about unwanted repeated behaviour of a sexual nature in order for it to be sexual harassment. Therefore, it is not usually "let us go out for dinner" or "you look beautiful today, my lady" but "why haven't ****ed yet", "your tits look really good today".
    As defined in British law, sexual harassment is unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. It applies specifically between employer and employee. I cannot sexually harass you as we do not have an employment relationship.

    I'm not sure how asking someone out meets that if it isn't accompanied by some kind of threat in the work environment. It certainly cannot apply in any other context.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Thoughts with his friends and family :sad:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    As defined in British law, sexual harassment is unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature that has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for them. It applies specifically between employer and employee. I cannot sexually harass you as we do not have an employment relationship.

    I'm not sure how asking someone out meets that if it isn't accompanied by some kind of threat in the work environment. It certainly cannot apply in any other context.
    There is general harassment outside of employment too, with the tort and the criminal offence, which could cover repeated advances without a sexual element.

    But your point was that someone could claim they had been sexually harassed simply because someone at work asked them out now and again, but there is a necessary sexual element to it.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    I don't want to sound cynical but I think it's ridiculous that the same people who tell victims of sexual assault and harassment to 'toughen up' perceive this suicide as evidence that we should be more lenient to potential perpetrators.
    What this man chose to do was horrible, however the investigation of his conduct is in no way to blame for his suicide. His case was dealt with in a typical way for any workplace misdemeanour and if he was found innocent then he would have been reinstated to his position immediately.
    Carl Sargeant's death was tragic, however blaming sexual harassment investigations for this is irrational when there are mental health factors which clearly should be taken into account in causing Sergeant to react in such a way to the allegations he was presented with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    The process is to suspend members who are accused of serious crimes.
    This does not appear to be serious crime! If it were the police would have been involved a long time ago.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    This does not appear to be serious crime! If it were the police would have been involved a long time ago.
    So you don't think sex crimes are serious? I think given the party know what the allegation is and we don't, we should hold back on that judgment for now. Perhaps the victim didn't want him to go to jail.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    So you don't think sex crimes are serious? I think given the party know what the allegation is and we don't, we should hold back on that judgment for now. Perhaps the victim didn't want him to go to jail.
    Look, there is absolutely no excuse not to report a serious crime to the police, and that is the obvious route for any victim. They weren't. In this case the political party should have done so if the allegations were serious too. I therefore think we can assume they are either not serious or they have no supporting evidence, in which case they would never come to trial.

    It is utterly immoral, repugnant and improper to impugn anyone's reputation with false or unsupported allegations, or to bring up trivial matters just because there is a passing bandwagon to jump on.

    I am not saying the allegations aren't true, just that they should have been brought up properly, in due time and in such a way that the alleged perpetrator can defend himself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    "Guilty until proven innocent" is how it works these days, apparently...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Look, there is absolutely no excuse not to report a serious crime to the police, and that is the obvious route for any victim. They weren't. In this case the political party should have done so if the allegations were serious too. I therefore think we can assume they are either not serious or they have no supporting evidence, in which case they would never come to trial.

    It is utterly immoral, repugnant and improper to impugn anyone's reputation with false or unsupported allegations, or to bring up trivial matters just because there is a passing bandwagon to jump on.

    I am not saying the allegations aren't true, just that they should have been brought up properly, in due time and in such a way that the alleged perpetrator can defend himself.
    Obviously I do think it should have been reported to the police, but perhaps the victim was trying to be merciful is what I was saying. Reporting it to his employer would have then been intended to stop something similar happening again but without the consequences of a criminal record. This is especially the case if it is someone that you work with. I can see why a victim would do that and request not to have the police involved even though I agree the police should be informed. It is generally very difficult for victims to dredge up such crimes given they spend a lot of time trying to get past it, so the reason why lots of allegations come up at once like this is because victims don't feel like they're on their own and feel like something is more likely to be done than if they report a single incident.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    "Guilty until proven innocent" is how it works these days, apparently...
    just the same with any assertion about anything, flat earthers for example, who needs to provide evidence simply assert a "truth" and it's true voila
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Etoile)
    Obviously I do think it should have been reported to the police, but perhaps the victim was trying to be merciful is what I was saying. Reporting it to his employer would have then been intended to stop something similar happening again but without the consequences of a criminal record.
    Think before you write. How would a politician not have permanent public consequences at least as bad as a criminal record if you report something to the party and get him suspended and sacked?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.