One of the better efforts on this topic but still entirely "victim"-centric.

If I "feel" bullied, then you must be a bully? Nope, sorry, doesn't work for me.

Genuine bullying is persistent, personal, pointless harrassment. If you have a job that needs doing and I'm the one charged with doing it, then it is perfectly reasonable for you to create a "fear" of your reaction to its not being done. Similarly, a father who insists on his children doing their homework and creates a "fear" in the children when he finds them watching TV instead is not being a bully.

Further, the mechanisms in place today for self-perceived "victims" to take action can be easily misused as a form of bullying themselves. A "bully" who is reported to HR will probably have to face annoying and intrusive questioning and may well feel humiliated or coerced into changing behaviour that is perfectly reasonable for fear of falling foul of the person in future. By setting the behaviour bar at a variable height depending on the perception of the "victim" you make the whole issue meaningless.

The AVO/DVO process has been badly corrupted as well. I've faced the Court twice over this issue. The first time my ex-wife was trying to get more custody, so she claimed violence on one day and the next day fileds her custody claim. That took 7 months and a lot of time to get sorted. The next was when the ex called me a liar and I swore at her over a miscommunication to do with the kids. That one was dismissed with her being told to "move on", but it still cost me time and money and the humiliation of having to sit in a crowded court corridor. She, as a self-professed "victim" was taken to the "victims" room and didn;t have to appear in public at all. Who was the bully?

I'm sorry, but this is a bare "C" mark, I'm afraid. Shallow analysis and incomplete research. Could do better.

Next topic; bullying on the Ski fields of Helsinki!

What's with the current obsession with bullying?

It's the topic of the month. I offered to do Graham a piece myself, but I've not been able to get my head around a decent angle on it. The subject is very nebulous and poorly defined.

The stuff being put up so far is simple polemic with little substance.

It consists of either "they done me wrong, cos I said so and I've got lots of degrees so I should know" or "I don't want to be told what to do by someone I don't like". Hardly convincing stuff.

Gore has at least had a good go, but he can't shake the years of indoctrination that says "bullying is never the victim's fault", even though he can't always identify the victim, the cause or what bullying actually is. If a victim says they're a victim that's good enough for him. It might make him feel good about his own social conscience, but it doesn't help anyone to grasp the problem, if there even is a problem.

Why don't you have a crack at it Anti? If everyone has done such a poor job ... I'd most certainly be interested.

In fairness, Cheryl, Gore has had a pretty good go. He sets out a lot of the causative stuff pretty well and has a decent bash at differentiating between simple coercion and bullying, as well as identifying some of the things that make a "victim" out of a "target" and some of the features that differentiate the bully from the simply pushy or abrasive.

I've had a draft ready for days, but I keep going back to it on further reflection. Whether the constant turd-polishing has had any salutary effect is a moot point. I'm glad OLO isn't reliant on my contribution to fill its pages though.

As per the article, Anticeptic is right: You can't rely on the law. There also seems some confusion in his mind about legitimate power which can still be used in a bullying way.

As was stated, let the disacussion roll on.
JG