C J Morgan,
Still calling other posters names such as “dinosaur”

Not much learnt, and no wonder feminists like you so much.

I have wondered why the Floods in this world rarely mention all the false or frivolous allegations made by women about men.

Such allegations are very numerous, much more numerous than the allegations that are found to be true.

Would it be that the Floods in this world also like to make numerous false or frivolous allegations about men.

Vanna and Anti,
Maybe some employers will choose not to employ men to ensure there are no harassers among them - just in case. You cannot always tell a gentleman just at face value. I suspect most people won't go down this path, most employers understand that the vast majority of men and women are possessed of commonsense.

The rest can be dealt with under the SH provisions.

Some of you are making more out of this than needed. Perhaps some of you need a more detailed list of instructions of what is not acceptable but personally I think the grey areas are important because not everyone is the same. (Excepting of course the totally inappropriate behaviours like groping, perpetual sexual attention and stalking etc).

You guys have no idea the guff women had to put up with before SH legislation and what some considered perfectly 'normal' behaviour for the workplace. Fact is work is for work not for sexual matters, if occasionally one leads to the other through mutual consent, fine, but the premise should be an expectation that you get paid to work and not harass other colleagues if they have made it clear certain attentions are not wanted.

Pelican:"Perhaps some of you need a more detailed list of instructions of what is not acceptable "

Perhaps some of you need the same thing? Or perhaps, some women need to loosen up a bit and some men need to pull their head in a bit. At present, it's likely that a woman making a harassment claim will set in train a sequence of events out of all proportion to the seriousness of the alleged harasment. The man who is the subject of the claim will be effectively harassed by her making the claim, if it is untrue, while she is unlikely to face any censure for having made an unsubstantiated claim.

It gives women in the workplace a very powerful, almost risk-free weapon if they choose to use it and do so sensibly. Ms Fraser-Kirk erred in trying to turn the whole thing into a publicity stunt and in getting greedy. If she'd taken a modest settlement, she'd have had her revenge by getting rid of the boss and she'd still have had a job to boot.

I'd be much happier with all of these victim-centric laws if there were a bit more balance in the form of consequences for misuse of the law.

I still wouldn't like this particular set of laws - they're simply too subjectively based and open to abuse.

Antiseptic,
I would agree with that.

I personally am aware of someone who made a false allegation of sexual harrasement (possibly hoping to make money from it).

They eventually told the police that they had been lying, but the police took no action.

They continued to be employed by the company, ntil eventually no other employee would work with them, and then they were sacked.

Definitely the police should have taken action when they found the person had given them false information. They didn’t because the police are highly biased against males, which is well known by feminists and women.

In the case of Flood, he has broken the anti-discrimination policy of his university in this article and in many others he has written, but continues to be employed by the university at taxpayer’sexpense.

I would think he continues to be employed, because the universities are also highly biased, which is well known by feminists and women.

"Or perhaps, some women need to loosen up a bit and some men need to pull their head in a bit."

Well that is probably the most even-handed comment you have made so far.

Nobody should live in fear of going to work especially when the choice to change jobs is not possible for various reasons.

False allegations are just like any other false allegations and should be treated as such. However, lack of proof is not the same of false allegations in any intrusion on anothre person.

vanna
What about all the claims of SH that are legitimate and of a serious nature. Do we just ignore those and go back to the dark ages when women just had to put up with the nonsense just because of one false allegation you are aware of. How many false allegations are there compared to legitimate allegations?

Pelican,
Women can finally be welcommed to the real, unprotected world.

If a woman makes a false or exagerated claim, they are sacked, or they can be taken to court, fined and litigated against.

That is fair, considering the amount of cost and trauma that many of these false alegations from women create for men.

If an academic at a university makes a false or exagerated claim about men, they can be sacked, and there is the posibility that they can be litigated against also, (NB the education system is posibbly the last remaining area where litigation does not take place, but with universities now talking about significantly increasing their fees, I'm sure litigation of universities will begin if they don't start and improve).

So, if a woman makes false or exagerated claims, she puts up with the consequences.

Something never mentioned by the Michael Floods, in their feminist male denigration.