A complaint does not mean it actually happened. I am all for calling someone out when there is concrete proof. But when you call someone out and there is no real proof, then who’s career is ruined!
Certainly not Tramp’s. He can admit to sexual assault on national television and still get elected President, thanks to the evangelical vote. Oxy Moron much, evangelicals? Did Jesus Christ grab Mary Magdalene by the…
“Certainly not Tramp’s. He can admit to sexual assault on national television and still get elected President, thanks to the evangelical vote.”
He did not admit to sexual assault. He was talking about an environment in which it was much like a club, and women wanted to be grabbed. I’m getting really tired of this. There is not always a verbal consent. My wife grabbed my butt all the time, people grab butts in clubs all the time, stop acting like a fool to get at “Tramp”.
bob – Don’t you agree that people should more readily admit when they made a mistake and simply take responsibility for their action(s)? Wouldn’t the public and political discourse benefit from more people being willing to admit their error(s) instead of pretending they never happened?
April 3, 2019 at 5:26 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
I’m sorry Rosenblatt, I don’t reply to you anymore. I’m just following the lead of Planet.
Unless you start calling him out, I’m not reading all your comments, and will vastly only reply to show you are inept.
Sounds like it’s completely ok. Seeing as you allow it from Planet, and have for years.
April 4, 2019 at 10:33 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
You’re clearly not reading anyone’s replies if you keep attacking me for things other posters have written.
March 27, 2019 at 11:23 am
Hmmmmm says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
25
1
I believe that making the public statement that this type of behavior will not be tolerated says a lot. I also believe that false accusations can happen. If they are willing to investigate and treat all parties fairly, I applaud Lloyds.
For Sexual Assault? Nope, just sexual harassment, which is terrible of course, but for most women who are victims, full recovery is usually achievable. And “sexual harassment” is subject to different interpretations by different people. When do you cross the line from joking to harassment? Reasonable people can differ.
Due Process? Rehabilitation and forgiveness? Such outdated ideas for the New Puritans.
If you don’t know the difference between joking and sexual harassment then it sounds like you’re apart of the problem. Keep anything that is sexual in nature out of your conversations with colleagues, it’s not difficult or complicated.
Suppose if I have a female friend in the office with whom I am very close and we joke about everything for years and over time, we joke about sex too. It happens all the time everywhere and it is totally normal and harmless. Not gross jokes, but fun respectful kidding.
And then she decides for whatever reason to turn on me – she feels jilted, office competition for promotions, whatever. Suddenly, innocent jokes from the past become in her eyes only “harassment” and suppose the he said/she said investigation doesn’t go my way. (Men are usually assumed to be guilty once accused.)
Think it doesn’t happen? Well in your Brave New World, no jokes are allowed. The New Totalitarians, our Leftist Masters.
And then I am banned forever from my workplace? Seriously? You are on board with this plan?
A few things to unpack in your response. If you have a relationship that includes conversations about sex, then yes, you are running a risk and you always were. What was happening before was the culture was not clearly defined. What Llyods is doing is changing its culture. While this was ok (or a grey area) before, now it isn’t. So if you want to continue these sexual jokes with a coworker you run the risk of going too far and being reported. All it takes is a simple conversation with that co-worker to change the way you communicate so that you adhere to company policy. “I know we’ve joked about this before but I think going foward we should keep our conversations professional to avoid a possible miscommunication.” Again, not difficult or complicated.
The picture you are painting with your argument is that we need to protect sexual harassers that mean well at the expense of victims. So there shouldn’t be punishments for sexual harassment because some people lie about being harassed and some people don’t realize they are harassing. Firstly, we don’t NOT enfore laws or rules just because there is an edge case where the person is innocent. Murder is still against the law even though innocent people are convicted. It’s not perfect, but its a law because, for the most part, it takes murder’s off the street and the victims are provided justice. Secondly, ignorance is not a valid defense.
“And then I am banned forever from my workplace?” How I am reading your comment is that you understand the rule, but you don’t agree with it. The rule is that you do not talk about sex to your coworkers and, if you do, the punishment is to be banned. It’s pretty clear.
It’s not about “leftist masters”, society changes all of the time. 50 years ago racist jokes were tolerated and now they aren’t.
Racist jokes are STILL tolerated, but only if aimed at white people. Be honest about that. You hear it all the time.
And no, I am NOT defending true sexual harassers, which you know already. Instead, you are pretending there are never false accusations, which happen all the time.
Out here in California, most brokers believe that over 50% of all EPLI claims are fraudulent (I think over 80% are). Many of these involve sexual harrassment charges (“he looked at me funny”).
See Duke lacrosse team, Virginia frat accusation, etc. etc. and a whole host of incidents that were fraudulent where the men were convicted in the media before the truth came out. The New Witch Hunters.
And if you are honest, you will recognize that there is almost never a way to prove a sexual harrassment charge one way or the other. Usually, there are no third party witnesses.
And so YOU are in support of mob justice; the accused loses his career. You agree that is good.
March 28, 2019 at 4:10 pm
rob says:
Like or Dislike:
9
0
WOW, Agent! 2 in a row?!?! BRAVO. EXCELLENT POINT.
March 28, 2019 at 5:03 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
7
0
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts this is not the Agent we’ve “come to love” all these years.
Craig – in comparing existing law with this topic, “Agent” wrote “Murder is still against the law even though innocent people are convicted. It’s not perfect, but its a law….” Yet your second paragraph accused him of “pretending there are never false accusations…”
You need to slow down and really read the post before you reply. Complaining someone didn’t do something they clearly did detracts from whatever you post after your demonstrably false accusation.
March 29, 2019 at 4:48 pm
Agent (Not other Agent) says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
10
0
I am a first-time commenter but it seems I’ve taken the name of another poster here.
@Rosenblatt – Thank you for highlighting the point I had already made but Craig skipped over.
Based on your inability to thoroughly read comments and comprehend the logic I laid out, I won’t be responding to you anymore.
Instead, I will leave you with this quote:
Haruki Murakami once wrote, “Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”
March 29, 2019 at 6:15 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
2
5
“The picture you are painting with your argument is that we need to protect sexual harassers that mean well at the expense of victims. So there shouldn’t be punishments for sexual harassment because some people lie about being harassed and some people don’t realize they are harassing. ”
I cannot believe Ron made any comment in support of you. Ron, this isn’t ok. At all. The argument is poor, and we aren’t talking about a law at all. Keeping murder off the streets is not synonymous with refusing to do business with people who have been accused of sexual harassment. There is no court of your peers, in point one, and in point two, the issue Craig has is when someone decides to manipulate and call something harassment because they are simply angry. Yes. The system isn’t perfect, but setting up a system which does not protect from sexual harassment, and causes people to get hit in the crossfire, is not ok.
People can deal with this for the most part on their own. If it goes to extremes, they can go to the police. The businesses should stay out of it. It’s not perfect, but this ensures those who are harmed have recourse, and petty issues go nowhere close to allowing someone to ruin someone’s career over an accusation. The balance tips when you start doing things like this.
This is not ok. All you leftists need to condemn this agent immediately.
March 29, 2019 at 6:24 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
1
5
Rather, Rosenblatt, I confuse the two of you seeing as you talk nearly identical.
This is absolutely not acceptable. Leave it to the police and evidence, no business should take part precisely due to those who get charged and the flaws with the legal system as to innocent people getting charged.
We don’t need to start having businesses do this. It opens up a can of worms even further for those falsely accused. It just takes it a step further where it doesn’t need to be.
Anyone who supports this is out of line. I will not accept it, and I will shame the hell out of anyone who does, in order to counteract this. Don’t like it? Don’t try to shame those who are against it, I’m taking your lead. So you’re going to have to be the one to let this go.
April 1, 2019 at 10:46 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
4
0
Bob – you’re so focused on attacking Ron and myself that you’ve misplaced your anger once again. The paragraph you cited was not written by either of us. It was written by Agent (not the Agent we’re used to posting here, but a new one).
Do me a favor — stop attacking me for things other people said. Make sure your vitriol is directed at the right person next time you reply.
April 3, 2019 at 8:34 pm
Libby says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Bob – ever hear of a little thing called the EEOC? You must go through the EEOC who conducts a thorough investigation with the Employer and Plaintiff or you are barred from bringing suit. Besides, the Employer is the one who will be sued, in addition to the perpetrator, due to their deep pockets – so they have every reason and right to investigate these allegations. Lastly, failure to participate in an EEOC action could negate EPLI coverage. And they really don’t care whether you stand for it or not.
April 4, 2019 at 11:34 am
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Hey, fake agent. Get a different moniker to post with. I am the real Agent. My posts are short and to the point.
March 27, 2019 at 8:07 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
3
8
P.S. Besides joking, people often misread the way other people look at them. Or they misread the way other people might touch them in a friendly but non-sexual way. Invitations to lunch or social settings can be misinterpreted as sexually charged or not. It goes on and on.
And the assumption that some women won’t use the new Totalitarian rules to falsely accuse men? Of course some will. Goodbye career if you are the target.
Remember when VP Pence said he doesn’t have lunch or dinner with women unless there are at least 3 people at the meal and he got crucified by the tolerant left as a sexist? Looks like he was ahead of his time.
MARCH 27, 2019 AT 1:33 PM
Agent says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 18Thumb down 1
If you don’t know the difference between joking and sexual harassment then it sounds like you’re apart of the problem. Keep anything that is sexual in nature out of your conversations with colleagues, it’s not difficult or complicated.
While I do not condone this type of behavior, I become a bit concerned when events outside of the workplace directly affect you in the workplace. Yes, I understand you have an image to uphold but being accused of sexual harassment in a bar after work starts to get a bit sketchy for me. One would conclude both parties are drinking and most likely bantering about. Lloyds stated we have got t ensure the everybody should feel safe at any time of day doing anything that’s associated with the Lloyds Market. Was this trip to the bar associated with the Lloyds market? If not, I may have an issue here. If so, Lloyds may want to reconsider having employees go to a bar for business. The article also states the senior manager attached her at the bar around the corner from the business. What does attacked mean??? Furthermore, the article states: Neal said it isn’t within the jurisdiction of Lloyd’s to ban alcohol outside of its buildings but added that he would no longer tolerate it on the premises and would eject anyone who is drunk.
So, Lloyds is still cool with employees drinking on their own after hours, and apparently at work as well as long as they are not drunk? WOW!! And you wonder why there are issues like this. I will tell you this right now. Putting a sexual harassment policy in place will not fix the apparent underlying problem here.
When a superior or management tells you that if you make a complaint about their bad behavior they will ruin career, I don’t care if it is after hours, that is sexual harassment. I believe in due process and investigations, but when someone crosses a line and they are told to knock it off and are threatened, then the threat means something must be done.
I am glad I am married… I think you need a bunch of lawyers to ask someone out on a date these days.
In my previous life (Retail Manager), I had a gal working for me that I soon found myself head over heals about. I was close with her brother and he finally asked me when I was gong to ask her out. He told me that she talked to him about me and said it was obvious the only reason she took the job was to get “close” to me. We dated for over 6 years. Today, I would have to step back and wonder if I was getting set up.
They should prepare for libel and slander suits as well then.
A complaint does not mean it actually happened. I am all for calling someone out when there is concrete proof. But when you call someone out and there is no real proof, then who’s career is ruined!
Certainly not Tramp’s. He can admit to sexual assault on national television and still get elected President, thanks to the evangelical vote. Oxy Moron much, evangelicals? Did Jesus Christ grab Mary Magdalene by the…
Well, indeed he did.
“Certainly not Tramp’s. He can admit to sexual assault on national television and still get elected President, thanks to the evangelical vote.”
He did not admit to sexual assault. He was talking about an environment in which it was much like a club, and women wanted to be grabbed. I’m getting really tired of this. There is not always a verbal consent. My wife grabbed my butt all the time, people grab butts in clubs all the time, stop acting like a fool to get at “Tramp”.
Cap planet- We on the right love the sanctimonious indignation from a party that can’t define “is”.
bob – Don’t you agree that people should more readily admit when they made a mistake and simply take responsibility for their action(s)? Wouldn’t the public and political discourse benefit from more people being willing to admit their error(s) instead of pretending they never happened?
I’m sorry Rosenblatt, I don’t reply to you anymore. I’m just following the lead of Planet.
Unless you start calling him out, I’m not reading all your comments, and will vastly only reply to show you are inept.
Sounds like it’s completely ok. Seeing as you allow it from Planet, and have for years.
You’re clearly not reading anyone’s replies if you keep attacking me for things other posters have written.
I believe that making the public statement that this type of behavior will not be tolerated says a lot. I also believe that false accusations can happen. If they are willing to investigate and treat all parties fairly, I applaud Lloyds.
Name and shame and ban for life! Yikes.
For Sexual Assault? Nope, just sexual harassment, which is terrible of course, but for most women who are victims, full recovery is usually achievable. And “sexual harassment” is subject to different interpretations by different people. When do you cross the line from joking to harassment? Reasonable people can differ.
Due Process? Rehabilitation and forgiveness? Such outdated ideas for the New Puritans.
If you don’t know the difference between joking and sexual harassment then it sounds like you’re apart of the problem. Keep anything that is sexual in nature out of your conversations with colleagues, it’s not difficult or complicated.
quite possibly the most valid point you’ve ever made on this forum, Agent. I’m honored to upvote this and wish I could more times.
Suppose if I have a female friend in the office with whom I am very close and we joke about everything for years and over time, we joke about sex too. It happens all the time everywhere and it is totally normal and harmless. Not gross jokes, but fun respectful kidding.
And then she decides for whatever reason to turn on me – she feels jilted, office competition for promotions, whatever. Suddenly, innocent jokes from the past become in her eyes only “harassment” and suppose the he said/she said investigation doesn’t go my way. (Men are usually assumed to be guilty once accused.)
Think it doesn’t happen? Well in your Brave New World, no jokes are allowed. The New Totalitarians, our Leftist Masters.
And then I am banned forever from my workplace? Seriously? You are on board with this plan?
A few things to unpack in your response. If you have a relationship that includes conversations about sex, then yes, you are running a risk and you always were. What was happening before was the culture was not clearly defined. What Llyods is doing is changing its culture. While this was ok (or a grey area) before, now it isn’t. So if you want to continue these sexual jokes with a coworker you run the risk of going too far and being reported. All it takes is a simple conversation with that co-worker to change the way you communicate so that you adhere to company policy. “I know we’ve joked about this before but I think going foward we should keep our conversations professional to avoid a possible miscommunication.” Again, not difficult or complicated.
The picture you are painting with your argument is that we need to protect sexual harassers that mean well at the expense of victims. So there shouldn’t be punishments for sexual harassment because some people lie about being harassed and some people don’t realize they are harassing. Firstly, we don’t NOT enfore laws or rules just because there is an edge case where the person is innocent. Murder is still against the law even though innocent people are convicted. It’s not perfect, but its a law because, for the most part, it takes murder’s off the street and the victims are provided justice. Secondly, ignorance is not a valid defense.
“And then I am banned forever from my workplace?” How I am reading your comment is that you understand the rule, but you don’t agree with it. The rule is that you do not talk about sex to your coworkers and, if you do, the punishment is to be banned. It’s pretty clear.
It’s not about “leftist masters”, society changes all of the time. 50 years ago racist jokes were tolerated and now they aren’t.
Racist jokes are STILL tolerated, but only if aimed at white people. Be honest about that. You hear it all the time.
And no, I am NOT defending true sexual harassers, which you know already. Instead, you are pretending there are never false accusations, which happen all the time.
Out here in California, most brokers believe that over 50% of all EPLI claims are fraudulent (I think over 80% are). Many of these involve sexual harrassment charges (“he looked at me funny”).
See Duke lacrosse team, Virginia frat accusation, etc. etc. and a whole host of incidents that were fraudulent where the men were convicted in the media before the truth came out. The New Witch Hunters.
And if you are honest, you will recognize that there is almost never a way to prove a sexual harrassment charge one way or the other. Usually, there are no third party witnesses.
And so YOU are in support of mob justice; the accused loses his career. You agree that is good.
WOW, Agent! 2 in a row?!?! BRAVO. EXCELLENT POINT.
I’d bet dollars to doughnuts this is not the Agent we’ve “come to love” all these years.
Craig – in comparing existing law with this topic, “Agent” wrote “Murder is still against the law even though innocent people are convicted. It’s not perfect, but its a law….” Yet your second paragraph accused him of “pretending there are never false accusations…”
You need to slow down and really read the post before you reply. Complaining someone didn’t do something they clearly did detracts from whatever you post after your demonstrably false accusation.
I am a first-time commenter but it seems I’ve taken the name of another poster here.
@Rosenblatt – Thank you for highlighting the point I had already made but Craig skipped over.
Based on your inability to thoroughly read comments and comprehend the logic I laid out, I won’t be responding to you anymore.
Instead, I will leave you with this quote:
Haruki Murakami once wrote, “Always remember that to argue, and win, is to break down the reality of the person you are arguing against. It is painful to lose your reality, so be kind, even if you are right.”
“The picture you are painting with your argument is that we need to protect sexual harassers that mean well at the expense of victims. So there shouldn’t be punishments for sexual harassment because some people lie about being harassed and some people don’t realize they are harassing. ”
I cannot believe Ron made any comment in support of you. Ron, this isn’t ok. At all. The argument is poor, and we aren’t talking about a law at all. Keeping murder off the streets is not synonymous with refusing to do business with people who have been accused of sexual harassment. There is no court of your peers, in point one, and in point two, the issue Craig has is when someone decides to manipulate and call something harassment because they are simply angry. Yes. The system isn’t perfect, but setting up a system which does not protect from sexual harassment, and causes people to get hit in the crossfire, is not ok.
People can deal with this for the most part on their own. If it goes to extremes, they can go to the police. The businesses should stay out of it. It’s not perfect, but this ensures those who are harmed have recourse, and petty issues go nowhere close to allowing someone to ruin someone’s career over an accusation. The balance tips when you start doing things like this.
This is not ok. All you leftists need to condemn this agent immediately.
Rather, Rosenblatt, I confuse the two of you seeing as you talk nearly identical.
This is absolutely not acceptable. Leave it to the police and evidence, no business should take part precisely due to those who get charged and the flaws with the legal system as to innocent people getting charged.
We don’t need to start having businesses do this. It opens up a can of worms even further for those falsely accused. It just takes it a step further where it doesn’t need to be.
Anyone who supports this is out of line. I will not accept it, and I will shame the hell out of anyone who does, in order to counteract this. Don’t like it? Don’t try to shame those who are against it, I’m taking your lead. So you’re going to have to be the one to let this go.
Bob – you’re so focused on attacking Ron and myself that you’ve misplaced your anger once again. The paragraph you cited was not written by either of us. It was written by Agent (not the Agent we’re used to posting here, but a new one).
Do me a favor — stop attacking me for things other people said. Make sure your vitriol is directed at the right person next time you reply.
Bob – ever hear of a little thing called the EEOC? You must go through the EEOC who conducts a thorough investigation with the Employer and Plaintiff or you are barred from bringing suit. Besides, the Employer is the one who will be sued, in addition to the perpetrator, due to their deep pockets – so they have every reason and right to investigate these allegations. Lastly, failure to participate in an EEOC action could negate EPLI coverage. And they really don’t care whether you stand for it or not.
Hey, fake agent. Get a different moniker to post with. I am the real Agent. My posts are short and to the point.
P.S. Besides joking, people often misread the way other people look at them. Or they misread the way other people might touch them in a friendly but non-sexual way. Invitations to lunch or social settings can be misinterpreted as sexually charged or not. It goes on and on.
And the assumption that some women won’t use the new Totalitarian rules to falsely accuse men? Of course some will. Goodbye career if you are the target.
Remember when VP Pence said he doesn’t have lunch or dinner with women unless there are at least 3 people at the meal and he got crucified by the tolerant left as a sexist? Looks like he was ahead of his time.
FEBRUARY 5, 2019 AT 2:54 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
You are such a partisan hack, making foolish comments almost exclusively:
Craig, we don’t have to wonder about Pervert Joe do we? He does his thing in front of the cameras most of the time.
“Keep anything that is sexual in nature out of your conversations with colleagues, it’s not difficult or complicated.”
I agree with this Agent sentence at 100%. I’d give you another like, but I don’t vote on this site.
MARCH 27, 2019 AT 1:33 PM
Agent says:
WELL-LOVED. LIKE OR DISLIKE:
Thumb up 18Thumb down 1
If you don’t know the difference between joking and sexual harassment then it sounds like you’re apart of the problem. Keep anything that is sexual in nature out of your conversations with colleagues, it’s not difficult or complicated.
Reply
…says the guy who pulled the lever for Tramp.
While I do not condone this type of behavior, I become a bit concerned when events outside of the workplace directly affect you in the workplace. Yes, I understand you have an image to uphold but being accused of sexual harassment in a bar after work starts to get a bit sketchy for me. One would conclude both parties are drinking and most likely bantering about. Lloyds stated we have got t ensure the everybody should feel safe at any time of day doing anything that’s associated with the Lloyds Market. Was this trip to the bar associated with the Lloyds market? If not, I may have an issue here. If so, Lloyds may want to reconsider having employees go to a bar for business. The article also states the senior manager attached her at the bar around the corner from the business. What does attacked mean??? Furthermore, the article states: Neal said it isn’t within the jurisdiction of Lloyd’s to ban alcohol outside of its buildings but added that he would no longer tolerate it on the premises and would eject anyone who is drunk.
So, Lloyds is still cool with employees drinking on their own after hours, and apparently at work as well as long as they are not drunk? WOW!! And you wonder why there are issues like this. I will tell you this right now. Putting a sexual harassment policy in place will not fix the apparent underlying problem here.
When a superior or management tells you that if you make a complaint about their bad behavior they will ruin career, I don’t care if it is after hours, that is sexual harassment. I believe in due process and investigations, but when someone crosses a line and they are told to knock it off and are threatened, then the threat means something must be done.
I am glad I am married… I think you need a bunch of lawyers to ask someone out on a date these days.
In my previous life (Retail Manager), I had a gal working for me that I soon found myself head over heals about. I was close with her brother and he finally asked me when I was gong to ask her out. He told me that she talked to him about me and said it was obvious the only reason she took the job was to get “close” to me. We dated for over 6 years. Today, I would have to step back and wonder if I was getting set up.