As should be expected Runner has put forward the standard christian church attitude of its all the woman's fault, just like all those abused children are to blame for the church's problems runner.
Sexual harassment is not just a work place problem, This issue infiltrates all social areas and we have tried all sorts of things over the ages to resolve this problem like segregated schooling, no women in pubs, the burqa. In the end my experience is that it happens in both directions with the same attitude by the perpetrator that "they love it really".
Harassment is intolerable in the work place but how do we control it. Except in large cases where there are multipole complainants it comes down to a "he said, she said" and these are always harmfull and destructive creating undertoe in the work environment.
Some how this must come down to the way we bring our children up, they must understand the unacceptability of this type of behaviour.( Oh and runner i don't mean the double standard of the church.) As with all things of a social nature it seems to take a generation to effect change.

Jockey, welcome to OLO.

<< “some of the conduct which is alleged is not contested". Do you understand what that statement from the barrister means? >>

Does this mean that some conduct that falls in the nebulous area and which is essentially of little consequence and is actually more complimentary to the alleged victim than harmful, has been admitted to?

Or does it refer to some conduct that is clearly and unambiguously in violation of sexual harassment law?

I don’t know. Do you?

So.. no I don’t understand what that statement means

<< Also the case involves SIXTEEN women, not just Kristy Fraser-Kirk. >>

Now, isn’t this interesting!

I wonder how many of these women lodged their own complaints or even let Mr McInnes know in any way, or let anyone else know, that they were finding his behaviour inappropriate?

Again, if there was only behaviour towards these women that falls within the nebulous zone and nothing more serious, then Mr McInnes should NOT be convicted.

And if there was any behaviour of a more serious nature, then you would have expected complaints to have been made by the women involved, at the time, and for the matter to have been dealt with shortly after.

The very fact that other women are now coming out of the woodwork suggests strongly that any alleged harassment was not really of a serious nature.

continued

<< It's also alleged he was reprimanded about 10 times "concerning his inappropriate behaviour, language and approach towards women" while working for Black and Decker from 1989 to 1991. >>

So you would think that McInnes would have learnt from that and worked out what was likely to get him into trouble and what was essentially harmless fun.

After the Black and Decker experience, his actions would be most unlikely to fall within the unambiguous-bad-infringement-of-the-law category and almost certainly to be within the nebulous area, unless this guy is a real blockhead!

I don’t know what the situation is Jockey. I’m just expressing a view that we need to be very careful about things like this and not just automatically think the worst of the complainee and think that the complainants are purely victims that have been seriously abused.

I’m certainly all in favour of preventing sexual harassment of the sort that is damaging to anyone, female or male, in the workplace or anywhere else.

Maybe Mark McInnes IS a serial harasser with a bad sexual hangup. But maybe he is nothing of the sort and is just a bit more playful with young women than most men are. Or maybe the sort of things that he has done are just totally commonplace and part of the culture of big companies or of Australian life and that he has been singled out because he is a big knob or because one young woman has seen an opportunity for a sting, with fame and maybe fortune coming out of it.

Just a few points;

* IMO there is no personal injury worth $37 Million;

* The amount a person sues for, does make a statement about them;

* Curious how 6 others suddenly found the fortitude to "come forward" once $37M was mentioned. Apparently, justice alone was never a motivator for them previously.

The guy may be guilty as sin, I don't know. I just don't like the amount involved, and believe it to be obscene itself, or the way that 6 others suddenly jump onboard when it's that amount of money. It smells of some opportunism, which detracts from any sense of legitimacy. Like I said, the claim(s) might be legitimate, but I don't believe the amount of money is.

There has been commentary to the effect that the figure was to make a statement about the existence of SH and I believe the complainant is going to donate most of it to a worthy cause.

The reason women don't come forward when experiencing SH is fear and most importantly fear of not being believed as the comments on this thread so far would seem to substantiate.

Sure there is a big grey area on what constitutes SH but where does the onus lie? Should those who sexually harrass others not be responsible for their own behaviour and read the very obvious cues at times that clearly demonstrate their behaviour is not wanted nor is it appropriate in the workplace.

Most women I know have been SH at some time at work (to varying degrees) and usually choose to ignore it or they leave without making a complaint. It is very brave for a woman to come forward and face the doubting public who seem more predisposed to disbelieve. The same applies to whistleblowers and those who make IR complaints via a union or other government body.

Complainants are often made to feel like they are the one at fault and face the bully crowd mentality.

There are grey areas in SH but there are some pretty obvious NO-GO areas that any rational human being would know to be inappropriate.

The best thing people can use is their commonsense and most of us do, it is unfortunate that some bosses who hold all the power may feel they are exempt from the usual rules that apply to the rest of us.

We don't yet know the outcome of this case but it would be unwise to assume that SH does not exist in the workplace albeit it has reduced over the past 50 years thanks to changes in workplace law. The only way to reduce SH is for people to complain

@Pelican, what you say is all fair and reasonable. For me personally, I would believe them more if there wasn’t the national debt of Haiti involved. Slight exaggeration, but you get my point. I’m not implying there should be no penalty, but you have to admit, people will do anything to latch onto large sums of money. People have been known to kill for far less, so lying or exaggerating isn’t too much of a stretch, to win your share of Lotto, sorry, legal litigation. I’m told there’s a difference, but it’s subtle.

If there was a news item stating precisely the same event, and no money involved, like any other ordinary case, I would probably believe the accusation BECAUSE he is wealthy, for the person would be creating the impression of seeking justice only. Then if a judge awarded damages, I would be fine with that. But with $37M involved , and THEN 6 others came out of the woodwork….sorry, but I respect the seeking of justice, but not the seeking of financial reward, because this is reward, not damages.

I mean, point me to a rich woman, so I can accuse her of invading my space and sexually harassing me! For that amount of money, I could find 6 cohorts before you even finish reading this sentence! Do you see what I mean?

Drop the money out of the equation. If he’s found guilty, there will be financial costs and penalties, he’ll most likely lose his job, career and reputation, which also means further financial losses, how much more penalty must he pay for “harassment” in a workplace? We haven’t even got to lewd conduct or rape yet…what would the claim be then?!? And leave it to a judge to award damages within reasonable amounts, not lawyers picking fanciful figures out of the air to fund their retirement and excesses from their hefty percentage.

Finally, people cannot get awarded sufficient and appropriate funding for losing limbs and mobility from their jobs, let alone the medical costs incurred and loss of incomes, and some bimbo wants $37M for words?!?