Our revolving door

[octave]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

My cases would be ignored due to lack of evidence and witnesses to corroborate my allegations.

 

This is the experience of the vast majority of complainants of either gender.

[facthunter]

Anyone Knowing details of the commission of a  crime and not acting on it is an accessory  after the fact to the commission of such crime. The proximity of a looming election was critical here as it would affect the outcome adversely. Surely  Super-cleaning the office was an act of destroying evidence also.

  Women collectively have the solution to this. They are just over half of the people entitled to VOTE and that POWER should keep the bastards honest.. Nev

[facthunter]

Normally Laws passed cannot apply retrospectively. Ignorance of any particular Law is no excuse but that particular law must  exist for you to have knowledge of it. and commit a crime relating to it. Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

10 hours ago, facthunter said:

Anyone Knowing details of the commission of a  crime and not acting on it is an accessory  after the fact to the commission of such crime.

I know where you are coming from, but I am going to be nitpicking and say that it is not entirely accurate. Unlike civil (aka European) legal systems, common law systems (aka derived from English/Welsh law) has no concept of a duty to act. You may know of the commissioning of a crime, but if you fail to say anything, you are not usually criminally liable for anything. I had a look at the text of accessory after the fact in the WA criminal code (first to come up in a search and I think the states have more or less harmonsed their criminal code), and it does require a positive action to be considered accessory after the fact.

 

However, if you positively do something - including an ommission (in this case covering up/delaying the report) - I would guess, than it can be accessory after the fact. I had a quick search of Aussie cases for instruction and didn't find anything abvious, so I will go by what I recall from English/Welsh law... and that is,  accessory after the fact (and aiding/abetting) is of the actual crime commissioned - that is it has to be directly related to the act of the crime (actus reus). Usually accessory after the fact is assisting with cleaning up evidence, escape from the crime scene, etc.

 

From what I know if the case, which is very little, there was a request to delay the reporting of the case at least, or a cover-up being the more likely. This is a positive act to prevent a report of the crime, or to omit reporting the crime. Is this accessory after the fact? To be honest, I am not sure.. There is a positive action of keeping it away from authorities. But while it does relate to the crime, it does not relate to the commissioning of the crime.. but reporting it. And, it was in reaction to a request of the accusor, not the accused.

 

There is definitely a civil action in the wings for a failure of duty of care... the employer at least owed a duty of care to act in the best interest of their employee. I don't even pretend to know Aussie employment law, but this would also be actionable in tort as long as it hasn't been written out by legislation. But what of the criminal liability? And, does it matter?

 

First, does it matter? Well, yes.. Because generally, if you are commited of an accessory after the fact (or aiding and abetting), you are generally convicted of that crime and in theory, liable to the same punishment as that crime. However, if it is not accessory after the fact, then you can still be held criminally liable - between perversion of the course of justice and obstruction (although I think in Aus, obstruction refers to of a police officer or law enforcement officer, and not a general obstruction of justice).

 

The problem with going for accerssory after the fact is that those that were trying to cover this up/delay the report were not actively assisting in the commission of the offience, nor the escape of the assailant - they were trying to pevert the course of justice.

 

Now, people may be thinking it's just JA arguing the toss, again, which admittedly, is a favourite pastime of mine. But there is an important reason to distinguish between accessory after the fact and perversion of the course of justice..

 

With the exception of strict and absolute liability offences, a crime requires two ingredients: actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind). In order to be convicted of accessory after the fact, we must have an actus reus at least, and usually, it has to be a crime, so there will have to be mens rea. The problem is, as I understand it, we will probably never find out if an actus reus has actually been committed; no actus reus = no criminal act = no accessory after the fact. We have drawn our conclusions on press reports, but we still don't know if sex was without consent - the acrtus reus - let alone whether or not it was reasonable to believe consent was provided (mens rea). I know it is looking like it was the case, but without testing it in court, it is trial by media..

 

However, regardless of whether or not there was an actus reus or mens rea, the fact that someone went to their employer (or senior members, or whatever) and they positively acted to suppress reporting an alleged crime should be enough to provide the actus reus and mens rea for a perversion of the course of justice or general obstruction (if that is a criminal offence in Aus) charge. There doesn't need to be any evidence whatsoever of anything taking place (a defence would be it is obvious the alleged crime was reasonably discerned not to have taken place). It may be hair-splitting, but to pursue an accessory charge would probably fail. However, as long as the evfidence is that they blocked the report of the crime - well, if you treat it as perversion of the course of justice, all bets are off.

 

And there is a good reason for this.. As mentioned earlier, if you are convicted of accessory after the fact (or aiding and abetting), you are generally liable to the same imprisonment as the actual crime (though rarely, if ever, are they handed down that punishment - maybe if it were aggravated they would be). However, in this case, they may escape conviction and claim they are innocent, when they are not...  At least a perversion charge will have a better possibility to those who covered it up to face the music.

 

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[spacesailor]

BUT . The cops often hold information from the public. To futher their own ends !

When such information could possibly help with more details coming from those that should have any knowledge.

OR

To stop a further crime being committed to people ignorant that a criminal is at large.

Like my neighbors car with its dinged bonnet & broken screen !, has a crime of 'hit & run '  been committed ,

Iv,e heard nothing Yet, But a new bonnet & grill have been fitted, front mudguard still waiting.

spacesailor

[old man emu]

Except for New South Wales, no State or Territory, or place where Federal law prevails, requires a person with knowledge of a serious indictable offence to report it. Failure to do so is an offence with a maximum penalty  of 2 - 5 year's imprisonment, depending on the severity of the penalty for the indictable offence. 

 

 

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 316 Concealing serious indictable offence

(1) An adult--

(a) who knows or believes that a serious indictable offence has been committed by another person, and

(b) who knows or believes that he or she has information that might be of material assistance in securing the apprehension of the offender or the prosecution or conviction of the offender for that offence, and

(c) who fails without reasonable excuse to bring that information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force or other appropriate authority.

 

Sounds like New South Wales has nailed the problem of sexual assault. 

 

WRONG! The very next part of that law deals with sexual assault of an adult. Note particularly subsection (1)(c). 

 

(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), a person has a reasonable excuse for failing to bring information to the attention of a member of the NSW Police Force or other appropriate authority if--

(a) the information relates to a sexual offence or a domestic violence offence against a person (the "alleged victim" ), and

(b) the alleged victim was an adult at the time the information was obtained by the person, and

(c) the person believes on reasonable grounds that the alleged victim does not wish the information to be reported to police or another appropriate authority.

 

The thing that is wrong with Trials for sexual assault is that the Defence is permitted to bring the alleged victim's sexual antecedents before the court. In the trial of an accused for any other offence, even a misdemeanour like drink driving,  the Crown cannot bring the defendant's antecedents before the Court. Why then, is it OK to bring up a person's prior sexual history.

 

Can you imagine the situation where a brothel worker, having finished her "shift" was walking to her car when she was attacked and sexually assaulted in the street? In that instance, is it fair on her to bring her occupation into the Defence mix? Trials should only be tests of the immediate facts of their commission, although the commission of some crimes do involve some premeditation and planning, but that's for another topic.

 

 

[Yenn]

In the cases we are talking about we have a woman who approaches her boss and says she has been raped. They talk about what to do and the woman decides that it will be too embarrasing, or her employer will be too inconvenienced, so she withdraws the complaint she made to the police.

Should the employer report it to the police? Maybe, but he will look stupid if the woman does not follow up. That leaves the employer wondering what to do. Obviously he cannot sack the man involved because there is no evidence against him. He can ask the rapist to leave, but he is probably opening himself up to all sorts of allegations of unfair dismissal. He can find another reason to sack the rapist, and that seems to be what happened here.

Meanwhile the rapist just moves jobs, probably with a glowing testimonial and higher pay rate and women are still at risk.

If allegations of rape or sexual misconduct in the workplace have to be reported to the police by whoever knows of them, what will happen? My guess is that women will speak up even less frequently. Has that improved the situation?

I think women should approach the government, telling them what they want to be legislated and not as they are now doing, just having a wish list.

[Jerry_Atrick]

9 hours ago, old man emu said:

Trials should only be tests of the immediate facts of their commission, although the commission of some crimes do involve some premeditation and planning, but that's for another topic.

Too right, sir! There has been unfortunate developments in the law in this area in various ways, whic is totally undefensible. But, as you say, for another topic.

 

But I am glas to see that NSW has taken the lead with respect to imposing some civic duty on people when it comes to serious crimes. I am guessing that there will be appropriate defences, such as duress, or reasonable belief it was not a crime, etc. In the case of rape, I can see some difficulty though - especially given the second point you make re allowing antecedent sexual activity of the victim (it is, after all, the crown that accuses)..

 

As an example, say a woman at work who is as well known flirt confides in you that after a night on the town with joe bloggs, a colleague at work, who it was obvious she was flirting with, was raped by him. All of her actrivity until you saw them leave together was that, well, it was going to be his lucky night. Is it unreasonable to think she may be putting it on and not report it if she doesn't?

 

Say she took sick leave... and over the water fountain, you catch your colleague who boasts what a night he had.. They went out, few drinks, skipped dinner - to a night clubl; ingested a small quantity of class C drugs, at the end of some raunch dancing, they cab it to hers so he could make sure she got home OK.. On the way, they were amorous in the taxi, and he followed her into the house were, she asked him to leave, but he knows women like her really want it and they like it a bit rough, so he pressed on - forecfeully but not hitting, etc... "She was sobbing like an injured dog, but she loved every minute of it.."

 

You (or a female colleague of hers) makes contact, and she validates they were getting amorous in the taxi, but she started pulling away as he was becoming way too forward.. She as pulling back when they arrived; he insisted he make sure she gets in the house quick, because, "well, you never know who is lurking in the bushes".. forces his way inside and violates her. You (or your female colleague) suggest reporting to the police, but she is horrified and doesn't want to. She thinks she will get over it and she doesn't want to be dragged through the process, and besides, she is concerned that if he can do that, she may meet retribution. She emphatically will not cooperate.

 

What do you do? If she doesn't cooperate, there is virtually no evidence, except the taxi driver may have spotted/heard her protestations, but can that be accoutned for as playful banter because they both like that sort of thing? You have reasonable belief a crime has been committed, but you know it is unlikely to go anywhere, and that she may suffer retrubution. The latter is probably a defence, but the former?

 

Unlike other crimes, where physical evidence can usually be gathered from the scene and there can be witnesses that aren't participants to the crime, this is a very delicate area. But, I still commend NSW's take on requiring people to report.

[old man emu]

Let's stop pussy-footing around. Most places have Workplace Agreements that spell out what is expected of employer and employee. These Agreements at binding contracts so that breaches of conditions can be addressed and retribution made.

 

What we need is for corporations who preach that they have the welfare of their staff at heart, to grow a big set of balls and set out in their Workplace Agreements what sort of inter-personal behaviour is prohibited. That includes everything from gender related comments, through bullying to flirting and sexual advances. Once an employee has agreed to those conditions of employment, then any complaints of such behaviour become an internal disciplinary matter and, if procedures are described properly, then the employer can take action that is consistent with the degree of offence.

 

What needs to be remembered is that, for a corporation, poor inter-personal relations are the source of inefficiency and loss of profits. Surely that loss of profit is sufficient fertilizer for growing balls.

[pmccarthy]

In the past, workplace relationships often led to permanent relationships. Are we now banning them, and handing it over to an app?

[Marty_d]

I agree with PM - prohibiting welcome personal interactions at work just goes against human nature.  Like Turnbull's "bonk ban" when Barmy Joyce got his staffer pregnant, it was a sledgehammer to crack a nut.  

Normal, reciprocated personal interaction at work is not the problem.  Obviously you shouldn't be shagging in the lifts (which did happen one Christmas where I work), but a relationship starting with eye contact across the room can go on to be spectacular.

The thing that all workplaces should stress is "unwelcome".  No one, not even Jerry's flying mate, should have unwelcome comments/flirting/touching.  

[nomadpete]

Many (larger) workplaces have invoked strong agreements and behaviour rules. I suspect mostly to cover their own ass.

For instance, my last employer banned Xmas parties because a company sanctioned celebration carries a risk of liability from an employee maybe over indulging and hurting themselves. They were replaced by a pre Xmas 'Staff Recognition Celebration' at lunchtime, where a couple of token awards were handed out - then it was back to work, lads. We were informed the risk (corporate duty of care) carried over even if a bunch of employees left work together to hit the town and party off site, as the employer had a duty of care in that case too.

 

Any suggestion of sexual harassment was rightly addressed. But was taken so seriously that nobody was game to say a passing 'Good morning, looking good!' if your colleague did in fact look happy and to have attended to their general appearance today.  There was fear of retribution (sacking) if somebody overheard the compliment and reported it. Such a passing greeting was once welcomed by either gender. However females were able to make the same comment to each other, or even to men whenever they wanted to.

Over the years this wariness contributed to lower workplace morale. So, although the rules were well intended, in this case they didn't result in greater productivity.

[old man emu]

I don't know about other States and Territories, but the New South Wales Work, Health and Safety Act puts the onus on the Person Undertaking a Business Undertaking (PCBU) to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, workers and other people are not exposed to psychological health and safety risks arising from the business or undertaking. Psychosocial hazards or factors are anything in the design or management of work that increases the risk of work-related stress. Included amongst those risks are workplace bullying, aggression, harassment including sexual harassment, discrimination, or other unreasonable behaviour by co-workers, supervisors or clients.

 

So, the Law is in place to require both PCBUs and workers to prevent, or minimise psychological stress. However, the WH&S Act and Regulations have been shown to be a toothless, paper tiger in most instances, simply through lack of enforcement. Investigations and enforcement by WorkSafe only occur after the damage has been done. 

 

Without going to the extent of posting masses of stuff of how a PCBU deals with this topic, I refer you to the WorkSafe publication 

https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/work-related-psychological-health-and-safety-systematic-approach-meeting-your-duties

[nomadpete]

My story is referring to Qld. But I expect we used similar terms. I remember we all knew about PCBU's and shared duty of care, etc. It's unfortunate that there has been a downside from what started out as a sensible apportioning of responsibility for physical and mental safety.

 

We all regretted losing our really great Xmas parties. Usually around 500 attendees (half the workforce). People spent weeks organising stuff. We had themed group costume contests, music, lots of shop talk. Anybody might have an informal chat with the CEO or chairperson of the Board. It was a productive event which broke down barriers between layers of workplace hierarchy. The only downside was the inevitable one or two who overindulged, but they were looked after by colleagues and put into a taxi home. It was rumoured there might have been some discrete dalliances between consenting adults but it wasn't the norm. The party was in the workplace courtyard from 4 until 9pm then a couple of busses took the keen ones into Brisbane to continue partying at their own expense at South Bank for as long as they wanted.

 

But we live in changing times and as has always been the case, it only takes the bad behaviour of a minority to spoil things for the majority.

Edited March 21, 2021 by nomadpete

[facthunter]

In Canberra you are dealing with a long out of date culture of  excessive entitlement that has completely gone off the rails as compared to other sections of businesses which mostly have done a better job of managing it. (Some LAW firms and isolated creepy bosses excepted... The idea of a document/record of acceptance or such is incredibly naive. Decent people don't force themselves on some who is not conscious. It doesn't go close to a sharer experience of a  consensual  nature . It's the action of a Sicko/desperate.  Nev

[Marty_d]

1 hour ago, nomadpete said:

My story is referring to Qld. But I expect we used similar terms. I remember we all knew about PCBU's and shared duty of care, etc. It's unfortunate that there has been a downside from what started out as a sensible apportioning of responsibility for physical and mental safety.

 

We all regretted losing our really great Xmas parties. Usually around 500 attendees (half the workforce). People spent weeks organising stuff. We had themed group costume contests, music, lots of shop talk. Anybody might have an informal chat with the CEO or chairperson of the Board. It was a productive event which broke down barriers between layers of workplace hierarchy. The only downside was the inevitable one or two who overindulged, but they were looked after by colleagues and put into a taxi home. It was rumoured there might have been some discrete dalliances between consenting adults but it wasn't the norm. The party was in the workplace courtyard from 4 until 9pm then a couple of busses took the keen ones into Brisbane to continue partying at their own expense at South Bank for as long as they wanted.

 

But we live in changing times and as has always been the case, it only takes the bad behaviour of a minority to spoil things for the majority.

Yes our xmas parties used to be legendary too.  60's nights, kicking on, and yes a few of those discreet dalliances... *sigh* (I was single then, before you let on to my wife!)

We actually had a really good one last year, unfortunately I had to catch the last bus home at 9pm so it was a bit short for me.  Would have liked to have continued for a while longer.

[octave]

I think that when we come to right down laws or regulations they can look a bit ridiculous however what they can do is set up a common understand of modes behaviour. By way of an example from aviation, does anyone get prosecuted for flying at less that 1500m from cloud.  I would suggest not but we all understand  the intent of VFR.     If you get yourself into serious cloud and need outside help you may be called upon to explain why you broke the rules.       I don't believe that people are ending up in trouble because they say "I like the new hair do" . Social events have not ceased in the workplace.   Perhaps the days of the office piss up on the premises are less common.  This is not just about staff relations but also about drink driving issues.     All the places I have worked lately either have a relaxed onsite end of year do with modest amounts of alcohol and food or more commonly got to a restaurant together.   I would suggest that these ways of organizing an end of year do are probably much better from the employers perspective.

 

I also suspect that the workplace rules as well as general laws or beneficial to the employer.    By way of an example, when I joined the RAAF we used do a lot of travelling around the state by air and coach.   We had a fellow who was known for waking someone who was asleep on a coach by placing his dick in their ear (and yes he did this to me.)      I suspect if I had complained to the CO (who was a reasonably good guy) he would have suggested that it was just a joke and that if he pursued it he could risk a backlash from others.    These days a boss can say "yeah I know it is silly but it is not me it is the law".  Interestingly this guy stopped this practice when the first women joined us. I think he was motivated by the fact that it is kind of embarrassing behavior in front of women (and today in front of anyone).        

 

A lot of people seem to get offended if they compliment someone and that person does not show enough gratitude.   I tend to feel that comments about appearance and grooming can come off as being condescending.     "I like your new hairstyle" can appear as  if the the person complimenting is giving their seal of approval or endorsement.    In my workplaces there have been people I have chatted to regularly and have got to know quite well. In this case there will develop a less formal way of interacting.   Perhaps in this case I may say something complementary however I am pretty sure I would have to social intelligence to notice how it was received and to learn from it.   I do hate the notion that some men put forward that the new social rules are just confusing to us and that we cant adapt.      

 

Good relations between staff is not just a human rights issue it is also about good business.

 

I used to cycle to a particular cafe everyday and being somewhat of a coffee nerd I would chat to the owner about coffee.   I soon became aware the this guy treated his staff quite badly.  The staff were all young women and he would talk to them in a bullying and needlessly condescending way.   What made this all the more uncomfortable he spoke to the staff in this way he would make eye contact with me, perhaps looking for some kind of approval.   The last time this happened I left the money on the table and left before my coffee was delivered and left, never to return.   I also am quite interested when I am in a place of business what staff relations are like.  I think a bullying workplace culture can often be detected by the customer. 

 

By and large I think the workplace (in my experience) is far better now than in the past (haven't had a flaccid dick in my ear lately)

[Jerry_Atrick]

You could not make this stuff up.. (Alledgedly) wanking over a female member's desk, videoing it and sharing it: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/sex-act-on-female-mp-s-desk-images-shared-among-liberal-staffers-20210322-p57d0v.html

 

(behind a paywall, but since it aired on channel 10, I am sure other references can be found).

 

Quite frankly, I couldn't give a stuff if a pollie has to get off on some sex kink with a prostitute or similar (apart from the potential moral hazard of takign advantage of those that go into that field of work due to trafficing, abuse, or mental health issues). But, FFS, that sort of behaviour is quite simply unacceptable and to then video it and think they can distribute it to colleagues show a sickness on many levels; and reinforces it must be ubiquitous as otherwise why would they do that. Also shows a definite ineptitude as if you're in a political career, wouldn't you want to limit the ability of someone splilling dirt on you?

 

Beggars bloody belief!

Edited March 22, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[pmccarthy]

It is a world that I do not inhabit.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Unfortuanately, though, your taxes are paying for it...

Edited March 22, 2021 by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

8 hours ago, octave said:

(haven't had a flaccid dick in my ear lately)

What I found interesting is that you felt the need for an adjective there...

[Marty_d]

Porter and Reynolds both lose their portfolios.  Looks like Scomo has finally sensed that the wind has changed.

Unfortunately it looks like Dutton will now get Defence.   

[nomadpete]

Revolving doors, or maybe career enhancement?

 

Just read on crikey, an article about the lease of Port of Darwin to Landbridge, which is run by a chinese billionaire who apparently even created his own militia. They had a photo of Josh Freydenberg and Andrew Rob (former trade minister), alonside the billionaire.

 

Seems that Mr Rob took up a $880,000 pa consultancy with them the day after he left politics. Then 2 years ago he quit. Nice work if you can get it.

 

Curiously, although our present PM has been promising for years to 'look into the deal' with a view to quit the deal, they now seem very quiet about it.

 

[facthunter]

Morespins promises aren't of much value. Talk is cheap.. Nev