|
Post by ellie on Nov 7, 2017 16:28:21 GMT
The implication is definitely that it was suicide. It is a very drastic step but when people are a under terrible stress - especially when their troubles are being played out in public - they sometimes can’t think straight and feel suicide is the best option. It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Nov 7, 2017 22:06:26 GMT
According to the DM, mere hours before his death, Carl Sargeant was still telling people that party officials were refusing to tell him what the actual allegations have been. And he hadn't been arrested for anything. In the meantime, he'd already lost his job and will have undoubtedly been on the receiving end of awful blind public and press intrusion and abuse with the presumption of guilt before an investigation had even started. "Whatever" was already being hyped up as "shocking and distressing allegations" as if it known that the allegations were of a terrible nature, when reality was that that only really reflected his personal statement/reaction to the knowledge that unknown allegations existed. And all that is yet in the public domain is that 3 women have apparently made allegations of sexual misconduct of some kind, where he will have known that just that suggestion would be more than enough to completely ruin his life (and that of his family) for years to come. And the very public stain won't ever have gone away even if nothing was ever deemed actionable. No doubt it will come out in the fullness of time what this sad guy purportedly did. Not that I want anyone to have been the victim of something really bad, but I really hope he wasn't driven to his death by something really trivial and/or opportunistic advantage seeking.
This Weinstein thing is having some major repercussions among politicians here, at least partly because there was already such sensitivity to the sexual abuse of children by celebrities, in the wake of Jimmy Saville and re the relatively recent exposure of a paedophile ring decades ago that involved some politicians (albeit only allegedly in most cases). The extension of that sensitivity to sexual misconduct more generally hasn't been much of a stretch. The House of Commons has long been known to be a rather surprisingly active sexual arena, but that isn't the same thing as abuse. But Michael Fallon, the Defence Minister, has already resigned re his "inappropriate conduct" further to a journalist's allegation that he put his hand on her knee 15 years ago. Even she is now on record as saying that his resigning over "kneegate" was "ridiculous", and that she'd laughed it off at the time, but it also begs the question re why she went public with what was such a trivial complaint in the first place. Could it possibly have been a case of a journalist just wanting to jump on the bandwagon, to effect, when that was the only thing she had to jump on the bandwagon with?
Don't mistake, I'm a great believer in the old adage that all it takes for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing. So where wrong, real wrong, occurred, anyone and everyone who stands up to be counted should be applauded. But there is also a serious risk of over-reaction now to things that shouldn't be made into a big deal and of chancers seeking to try to take advantage of circumstances to further their own ends. Criminal acts shouldn't be ignored and should be made actionable where possible and appropriate action should be taken to make sure proper protections are enforced going forward, but this isn't a time to necessarily jump to inappropriate judgements just for the sake of it.
|
|
|
Post by ellie on Nov 8, 2017 0:19:51 GMT
Well said Dreamsincolour. I agree entirely. This whole thing has entered extremely dangerous territory and it’s way past time for commentors on social and traditional media and those in authority to bring some sense and proportion to the issue.
Michael Fallon (The UK Defence Secretary) resigned because years ago he attempted to kiss a female journalist he was having drinks with. Innapropriate? Yes. Crass? Definitely. A Resigning issue? No I don’t think so. If every man who ever made an ill judged pass at a woman in a social situation had to resign from his job then there would be a lot of job vacancies. It’s not like the guy tried to force himself on her after she told him she wasn’t interested.
Is there any woman here who has not had to brush off a pass from a guy you’re not interested in? If the guy backed off immediately did you honestly think he should be reported for sexual harrassment and lise his job?
What Harvey Weinstein has admitted to is vastly different and more serious than the accusations against most of the other men recently brought into the frame in the UK yet the level of vilification and outrage is much the same. I don’t believe that’s right or fair and it’s time it stopped.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Nov 8, 2017 3:00:22 GMT
I think it goes from inappropriate to a resigning issue when one or both of them are married to someone else, or when he's much older, or when he's her superior at work. A social event outside of work does not make it acceptable for an older, married boss to make a pass at his employee.
|
|
|
Post by dreamsincolour on Nov 9, 2017 1:35:49 GMT
I think it goes from inappropriate to a resigning issue when one or both of them are married to someone else, or when he's much older, or when he's her superior at work. A social event outside of work does not make it acceptable for an older, married boss to make a pass at his employee. You're talking preferred social niceties as if people's private lives should be subject to public control, Mllemass! There's something quite badly wrong re your thinking there! Whether you like it or not, it is just too silly to seriously be suggesting that it should be supposed to be a blanket sacking offence for anyone (in any position) to make a pass at someone else if either of them are just already married or if a man is much older than a woman! There are more holes in that concept than there are in a colander! The issues following on from Weinstein etc are around actual ABUSE not about some preferred unenforceable morality re people's private lives. I personally prefer people to hold to the highest moral standards, but these things aren't always black and white, and anyone who has an affair shouldn't be supposed to have to be sacked. And age gap relationships shouldn't be supposed to be effectively criminalised en masse. What has a private life, even if it doesn't meet with approval, got to do with someone's ability to do a job? The job should only be at risk where there has been criminal behaviour (doesn't have to be related) or where there has been actual abuse of whatever their position is! And re the issues around concern re overreaction, I do just think kneejerk reactions need to be guarded against.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Nov 9, 2017 4:40:41 GMT
It is never okay for a boss to make a pass at a subordinate, at work or outside of work. Two random, married co-workers of equal authority having an affair is a moral problem, yes, but someone making a pass at their own employee is/should be a legal issue.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Nov 9, 2017 6:22:44 GMT
The reason I gave those examples is because I'm tired of hearing how some man was "only flirting" when he said offensive things - as of flirting was perfectly acceptable. I'm referring to workplaces. I've seen it happen, even if I wasn't the target of the flirting. It isn't acceptable for a married man - a boss - to "flirt" with anyone other than his wife. I have completely lost respect for a couple of bosses who used an office party as their excuse to be inappropriate. We were all disgusted by the behaviour and it's hard to go back to business as usual after that. And whether or not either one is married, I think it's creepy for a much-older man to flirt with a much-younger employee. I don't care that it could lead to true love - it's like having your grandfather flirting with you. I don't think that any man with that lack of sense should keep his job.
|
|
|
Post by igs on Nov 9, 2017 10:48:32 GMT
It is never okay for a boss to make a pass at a subordinate, at work or outside of work. Two random, married co-workers of equal authority having an affair is a moral problem, yes, but someone making a pass at their own employee is/should be a legal issue. I think there should be case-by-case evaluation on this. The reality is that most big or medium-big companies don't have a "the boss" and everyone else be younger employees. Most large work places have extensive hierarchies. My old boss was in her early-30s and was dating a man likewise in his early-30s and although she was technically his supervisor there was hardly any complicated power dynamic since she was the like the third lowest tier in a biiiig food-chain as there were about 800 hundred employees (he was second lowest then.) I think these types of relationships aren't exactly rare and not being a big boss doesn't mean you don't have agency or can't give consent. In my current job there are at least 4 in-office relationships and maybe one is between two people of exact same standing in the company structure. It's very easy to see the difference of some heavy-shot major boss making passes at young employees by way of coercion and two people of almost the same standing flirting at an office party and these two scenarios shouldn't be evaluated as if they were the same.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Nov 9, 2017 12:43:34 GMT
The ages and marital status of the people don't matter from a legal standpoint. But a boss hitting on a subordinate is always taking a chance of losing his job. That said, I know a couple who have been married for years; they met when she was his secretary.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Nov 9, 2017 13:30:55 GMT
The ages and marital status of the people don't matter from a legal standpoint. But a boss hitting on a subordinate is always taking a chance of losing his job. That said, I know a couple who have been married for years; they met when she was his secretary. I'm not referring to people who are interested in each other and want to have a relationship. That happens in workplaces all the time! My cousin and his wife met at work and kept their relationship a secret from everyone because they thought it was against company policy and were worried that one if them would be transferred elsewhere. It wasn't until they sent out their wedding invitations that everyone found out. Their boss came to the wedding. She told them that she had no problem with them continuing to work together and couldn't believe they were able to hide their relationship for so long! I guess I'm thinking of men like HW, and some that I've known in my real life, who use the "I'm married" label to harass women. If the women object, the men can claim it was just harmless flirting because they're happily married. And yes, the bigger the age difference, the more it happens. It seems that once there's a difference of a generation between two people, men use the excuse of "I'm from a time when this behaviour was acceptable".
|
|