Sir Michael Fallon

[Sweep]

Not me.

Richard Madeley made a good point early this week, stick with me. He pointed out that men know what is crossing the line, they know it. He was right. You don't touch women, other than your wife or girlfriend , if you are a man, ever. You don't touch their knee, their arms, their shoulders or anywhere. We know that, we really do. Anyone claiming otherwise is a dinosaur.

I've been in offices etc for 25 + years and never felt the need to touch a woman in any way. I keep a bubble around any woman and don't enter that bubble. Not hard to do.

I agree.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

So verbal "abuse" is of the same magnitude as physical abuse?
As I asked, is speeding at 32 in a 30 limit the same as speeding at 120mph in a 30 limit?
If something is against the law then that is the only consideration? Murder is the same as shoplifting?
We have probably all been guilty of posting something on here that might offend someone, especially the professionally offended who are often offended on others behalf. Should we all lose our jobs?
I think you misunderstand. Both myself and I guess SR are not blaming the victims. We are simply suggesting that there are serious cases of sexual abuse and clearly less serious claims that whilst in bad taste and ill advised do not amount to criminal behaviour or anything like it. It's a very easy, very lazy and an absolutely incorrect argument to associate those who question both sides of the story with supporting unacceptable behaviour. If someone made an unsubstantiated and false claim against you, I don't think you would want the complainer believed as a matter of course.
The only time I am suggesting that the establishment is at fault is when they fail to listen to a complaint. If you want people to come forward if they are abused, I don't really know why you would disagree with that.
No-one has suggested any of this is trivial. I am suggesting that there are far more serious cases and that we must not let this distract us from dealing with real abuse.
This is not an argument for Victorian, 1970's or 1870's attitudes. It's asking for a common sense approach.

So SR describing the allegations against Fallon as tittle tattle isn’t suggesting it’s trivial?

You keep mentioning 32mph and 120mph, they are both illegal.

E&D complaints in the workplace come under Civil Law and do not neccessrily involve the Police, somebody making a sexual advance/comment can be dealt totally in house, totally different to actual physical assault which can be dealt with under Criminal Law and not Civil Law.

Murder, shoplifting, 32 in a 30, 120 in a 30, would all be dealt with under the same system, no on is suggesting they are identical crimes.

If you were sacked for bullying someone in your workplace and you got a lawyer to appeal and took the firm to court, it would be dealt with under civil law.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The problem as I see it is that Westminster is totally out of date and not fit for purpose.

MP's can basically behave as they wish and other than the totally corrupt party whip system there are no systems in place to protect people working there.

 

[MegaSteve]

...

 

[Hobbit]

I am suggesting that there are far more serious cases and that we must not let this distract us from dealing with real abuse.
This is not an argument for Victorian, 1970's or 1870's attitudes. It's asking for a common sense approach.

Whilst I agree with a fair lump of what you posted I think you're totally wrong with the above. "Real abuse" starts when the line is crossed. The line isn't fuzzy, with a "oh here's a gentle slap on the wrist for a mild transgression." Having crossed the line it becomes more about punishment for the crime that varies depending on the severity of the transgression.

The common sense approach, I feel, must come with an acknowledgement that any sexual abuse, even just pestering an individual with unwanted advances, is just not acceptable.

But going back to Fallon's resignation based around touching a journalist's knee we now hear that there are other transgressions. I think May has missed an opportunity to stand up immediately after his resignation speech and say he was asked to resign for far more serious reasons. Making a statement like that would have sent a strong message out other transgressors that there is no hiding place, and also to other victims that they will be supported.

 

[bluewolf]

Whilst I agree with a fair lump of what you posted I think you're totally wrong with the above. "Real abuse" starts when the line is crossed. The line isn't fuzzy, with a "oh here's a gentle slap on the wrist for a mild transgression." Having crossed the line it becomes more about punishment for the crime that varies depending on the severity of the transgression.

The common sense approach, I feel, must come with an acknowledgement that any sexual abuse, even just pestering an individual with unwanted advances, is just not acceptable.

But going back to Fallon's resignation based around touching a journalist's knee we now hear that there are other transgressions. I think May has missed an opportunity to stand up immediately after his resignation speech and say he was asked to resign for far more serious reasons. Making a statement like that would have sent a strong message out other transgressors that there is no hiding place, and also to other victims that they will be supported.

Agreed. Whilst some offences may seem minor, they are cumulative and the pressure on an individual can build to significant levels over time. It can't be too hard to be professional in the workplace. If someone is struggling with that concept then they have issues need dealing with.

 

[Sweep]

The problem as I see it is that Westminster is totally out of date and not fit for purpose.

MP's can basically behave as they wish and other than the totally corrupt party whip system there are no systems in place to protect people working there.

Isn't there the Parliamentary Standards Committee?
Do you think that your post may be a little bit politically motivated? In that regard is Holyrood any better? In the same context, is Holyrood fit for purpose?

 

[Old Skier]

First place to get rid of are the bars. Why do you need a bar selling alcohol in the workplace. Recipe for trouble.

 

[Sweep]

Whilst I agree with a fair lump of what you posted I think you're totally wrong with the above. "Real abuse" starts when the line is crossed. The line isn't fuzzy, with a "oh here's a gentle slap on the wrist for a mild transgression." Having crossed the line it becomes more about punishment for the crime that varies depending on the severity of the transgression.

The common sense approach, I feel, must come with an acknowledgement that any sexual abuse, even just pestering an individual with unwanted advances, is just not acceptable.

But going back to Fallon's resignation based around touching a journalist's knee we now hear that there are other transgressions. I think May has missed an opportunity to stand up immediately after his resignation speech and say he was asked to resign for far more serious reasons. Making a statement like that would have sent a strong message out other transgressors that there is no hiding place, and also to other victims that they will be supported.

I totally agree. I am not trying to belittle these cases or defend the offenders. However, when you are talking about comments or touching a knee, that line that gets crossed gets blurred when you consider context, the time, the place etc. We only hear of one side of the interaction. What was the mood? Was alchohol on both sides involved? Had the complainer made any suggestion or indication they may be open to an advance (and no, this is not a suggestion she was asking for it). What constitutes an unwanted advance? Is asking someone out who isn't interested an unwanted advance? Offering to buy them a drink? How do you know it's unwanted unless you ask?
How many times do we hear of chat up lines? How often on tv shows do we hear someone being asked what their best chat up line is? How many of these are as bad or worse than Fallon is alleged to have said to Leadsom? Do these cross the line? Or does the line move depending on where you are or what time of day it is?
I have a friend who asked his now wife out 5 times before she said yes. Whenever it is mentioned all the ladies think it's romantic, including his wife. In this context it's harassment.
My point is that life is just not that black and white. The intention of my speeding analogy was to illustrate just that. 32mph is not as bad as 120mph. One can be accidental, the other a clearly intentional breaking of the law. My fear is that if we do not instil some common sense into this then we risk becoming a distant and humourless society, scared to death of offending someone or being reported and suffering reputational damage. Some talk of 1970's attitudes, but do we really want to go back to the time of Mr. Darcy, where dating was done with chaperones and marriages were largely fabricated because being married was the done thing?
In truth, we all know where the line is and we know you don't cross it. But reporting people for these kinds of offences as Leadsom is alleged to have done and the faux uproar and offence taken on her behalf risks placing this line in doubt and is simply using unwritten rules of a non black and white society to an individuals own advantage. It also risks undermining and belittling more serious cases because others who simply read about such cases think the victim is just another gold digger or attention seeker.
Does it not worry anyone that we only ever hear about this stuff when it happens in Hollywood, football or politics?

 

[Old Skier]

Rumours coming from Westminister that "The List" was compiled by a researcher from Herr Mandlesons office.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I totally agree. I am not trying to belittle these cases or defend the offenders. However, when you are talking about comments or touching a knee, that line that gets crossed gets blurred when you consider context, the time, the place etc. We only hear of one side of the interaction. What was the mood? Was alchohol on both sides involved? Had the complainer made any suggestion or indication they may be open to an advance (and no, this is not a suggestion she was asking for it). What constitutes an unwanted advance? Is asking someone out who isn't interested an unwanted advance? Offering to buy them a drink? How do you know it's unwanted unless you ask?
How many times do we hear of chat up lines? How often on tv shows do we hear someone being asked what their best chat up line is? How many of these are as bad or worse than Fallon is alleged to have said to Leadsom? Do these cross the line? Or does the line move depending on where you are or what time of day it is?
I have a friend who asked his now wife out 5 times before she said yes. Whenever it is mentioned all the ladies think it's romantic, including his wife. In this context it's harassment.
My point is that life is just not that black and white. The intention of my speeding analogy was to illustrate just that. 32mph is not as bad as 120mph. One can be accidental, the other a clearly intentional breaking of the law. My fear is that if we do not instil some common sense into this then we risk becoming a distant and humourless society, scared to death of offending someone or being reported and suffering reputational damage. Some talk of 1970's attitudes, but do we really want to go back to the time of Mr. Darcy, where dating was done with chaperones and marriages were largely fabricated because being married was the done thing?
In truth, we all know where the line is and we know you don't cross it. But reporting people for these kinds of offences as Leadsom is alleged to have done and the faux uproar and offence taken on her behalf risks placing this line in doubt and is simply using unwritten rules of a non black and white society to an individuals own advantage. It also risks undermining and belittling more serious cases because others who simply read about such cases think the victim is just another gold digger or attention seeker.
Does it not worry anyone that we only ever hear about this stuff when it happens in Hollywood, football or politics?

Good post, and one (apart from the speeding analogy) I find hard to disagree with if we are talking in general, we’re not though, if it had been the single allegation against Fallon and he’d of stood his ground and fought it then we let due process take place, he didn’t, he resigned and admitted his behaviour wasn’t of an acceptable standard.

What has followed is people questioning the system or the alleged complainant, just about everything else but him, he’s accepted his behaviour was wrong and it seems he’s being portrayed as a victim.

 

[Sweep]

Good post, and one (apart from the speeding analogy) I find hard to disagree with if we are talking in general, we’re not though, if it had been the single allegation against Fallon and he’d of stood his ground and fought it then we let due process take place, he didn’t, he resigned and admitted his behaviour wasn’t of an acceptable standard.

What has followed is people questioning the system or the alleged complainant, just about everything else but him, he’s accepted his behaviour was wrong and it seems he’s being portrayed as a victim.

Which is a problem when a story moves faster than a thread.
I am certainly not defending Fallon and as far as I can see he has admitted wrong doing and taken his punishment (whilst at the same time saying some claims are untrue). My posts on this thread were on the wider context of social behaviour, boundaries and the offences Leadsom was alleged to have made against Fallon and their effect.

 

[drdel]

'Collars are definitely getting hot' but it might be an idea to take a breath and remember, unfortunately, we are all short of the facts.

The reported stories are claims by one person against another. It is not unknown for people to argue and take different views of the same circumstances/conversation (remember the kids game "Chinese whispers?).

Some ladies can be manipulative, liars and cheats with a suspect moral compass; these traits are not unique to the male species.

Consequently, it may be a disappointment but people (men and women) can be good and bad in equal measure - its why we have the 'laws of the land' the basis of which is "innocent until proven guilty". The idea is that a number of other people remote from the claims assess what took place at the time.

Bad behaviour, harassment and abuse of power should not be condoned in anyway; but that does not mean that rushed 'kangaroo court' judgement can then take precedent when one-sided allegations are made. If society believes that the boundaries of what is termed bad behaviour or assault needs to be redefined as 'crimes' then that's fine and clear.

My concern is that what is happening is that 'claims' are being made and judgements made before and totally devoid of context or opportunity for rebuttal.

 

[Hobbit]

I totally agree. I am not trying to belittle these cases or defend the offenders. However, when you are talking about comments or touching a knee, that line that gets crossed gets blurred when you consider context, the time, the place etc. We only hear of one side of the interaction. What was the mood? Was alchohol on both sides involved? Had the complainer made any suggestion or indication they may be open to an advance (and no, this is not a suggestion she was asking for it). What constitutes an unwanted advance? Is asking someone out who isn't interested an unwanted advance? Offering to buy them a drink? How do you know it's unwanted unless you ask?
How many times do we hear of chat up lines? How often on tv shows do we hear someone being asked what their best chat up line is? How many of these are as bad or worse than Fallon is alleged to have said to Leadsom? Do these cross the line? Or does the line move depending on where you are or what time of day it is?
I have a friend who asked his now wife out 5 times before she said yes. Whenever it is mentioned all the ladies think it's romantic, including his wife. In this context it's harassment.
My point is that life is just not that black and white. The intention of my speeding analogy was to illustrate just that. 32mph is not as bad as 120mph. One can be accidental, the other a clearly intentional breaking of the law. My fear is that if we do not instil some common sense into this then we risk becoming a distant and humourless society, scared to death of offending someone or being reported and suffering reputational damage. Some talk of 1970's attitudes, but do we really want to go back to the time of Mr. Darcy, where dating was done with chaperones and marriages were largely fabricated because being married was the done thing?
In truth, we all know where the line is and we know you don't cross it. But reporting people for these kinds of offences as Leadsom is alleged to have done and the faux uproar and offence taken on her behalf risks placing this line in doubt and is simply using unwritten rules of a non black and white society to an individuals own advantage. It also risks undermining and belittling more serious cases because others who simply read about such cases think the victim is just another gold digger or attention seeker.
Does it not worry anyone that we only ever hear about this stuff when it happens in Hollywood, football or politics?

The line doesn't get blurred with the context. Context actually crystalizes the offence. Someone can touch their wife's knee or girl friend's but as a 'first contact' its inappropriate. "Lunging for a kiss," as melodramatic as it sounds, as Fallon is reported as doing in the most recent allegation is totally inappropriate because of the context.

However, we've probably all experienced the occasion where you're out with a girl, the eyes linger a little longer and you both find yourselves leaning forward for a kiss. That's body language that sends the message "oh go on then." That again is in context.

Context doesn't blur it, it defines it.

 

[User62651]

Best way is keep work and social life completely separate whenever possible I think, risks of flirting in the workplace backfiring are too high, no escape when it goes wrong.
That's offset by there still being an office culture where the bosses (male bosses tbh) throw the staff Christmans Party with free booze, secretly hope people will get horribly drunk and misbehave and embarrass themselves, some usually do, then they have either some tittle tattle to gossip about for the next few months or a new office 'hero' or 'legend' who did this or that when blind drunk, chuckle chuckle. Seen it often enough in the past, that culture needs to change.

 

[MegaSteve]

So, in the corporate world where does cheek kissing, as a greeting, fit in?

 

[Sweep]

So, in the corporate world where does cheek kissing, as a greeting, fit in?

For me it doesn't. I just hold out my hand to shake a woman's hand. It's kind of a shame as the old fashioned side of me thinks women should be treated in a more gentlemanly way but it's just much safer. It's not the kind of a firm warm handshake men give to each other. If I think about it, it's a bit of a compromise.
The only time I would kiss a woman on the cheek is after a game of mixed golf or someone I know well socially. I have noticed more young people doing it though in a kind of continental way, often with one of them saying something in explanation, because well, we are British and reserved.
Oddly enough I deal with a few men from far flung places across the world who I maybe meet a couple of times a year and we will often greet each other with a manly hug. I would never do that with a woman in the corporate world.
Social interaction is a strange thing when you think about it.

 

[FairwayDodger]

While I understand the concern, I think all the chat about what and isn't acceptable is a bit of a distraction. As others have said, context is important but in any situation we do all really know where the line is and it's not difficult to stay on the right side of it.

An interesting point I heard today, which I think demonstrates this, is that none of these people are behaving improperly with anyone who has the power to fire them.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

So, in the corporate world where does cheek kissing, as a greeting, fit in?

As per Sweep, I would never greet a woman at work with a kiss on the cheek, nor have I seen it. Always a hand shake. It's work, not a night out.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Isn't there the Parliamentary Standards Committee?
Do you think that your post may be a little bit politically motivated? In that regard is Holyrood any better? In the same context, is Holyrood fit for purpose?

Yet more whataboutry from you.

The Standards Committee, duck houses etc.etc.
Talking out good private members bills.
As I said, not fit for purpose