huffnpuff, most Australians care strongly about the Forgotten Australians and the former PM Kevin Rudd made an apology to that effect. The horrors that were dished out to innocent children should not be forgotten and not only to provide support to those victims but to ensure that the events are never repeated.

A quote from a SMH article: "If successful she will donate the money to a charity that helps victims of sexual harassment and bullying, the statement of claim said."

thanks for that pelican , yes i read that a few weeks back that , that is what she intends to do ,

so how is your reaction to the Aslyum Seekers been given a hundred thousand dollars each in the last 2 years and we victims are getting nothing from the goverment i will place the article here so you can read it it is on yahoo news on saturday.

Yahoo7 NEWS

Official figures obtained by News Ltd reveal that more than 50 immigration detainees have pocketed an average of $100,000 each over the past two years.

News Ltd says the federal government has refused to detail the reasons for the... multi-million-dollar payouts to detainees, saying only they were related to wrongful detention or injuries suffered in detention.

A Department of Immigration spokesman said compensation payouts and disease outbreaks are "inevitable" given the large number of asylum-seekers in detention.

"This is a department that deals with 26 million interactions with human beings every year - border crossings, visas, compliance," spokesman Sandi Logan said.

"It's the law of averages - some may well choose to litigate against us or, in some rare cases, we may be at fault and have to pay out under Comcare and Comcover."

' 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.'

The problem is what is 'obvious' to some is not to others.

The definition of being sexually harassed often relies on how attracted the 'harassed' is to their 'harasser'. When so many people meet their partners at work, and people spend the majority of their time there, it really is unrealistic to expect there wont be unwelcome advances and socially awkward/naive propositions. Given all this, are we expecting men to be socially superior to women, or maybe criminalising socially inept men?

What is the 'line' of what is genuine harassment vs what is a situation most assertive and responsible adults should be expected to navigate?

In a world where men are still often expected to make the first move, even to 'chase', I feel it's sometimes a bit unreasonable to expect men to be perfect and expect no woman should be ever expected to give an assertive and unambiguous No (Maybe even more than once, though definitely not more than twice).

Men are expected to 'read the signals', but women are never expected to make their response assertive and unambiguous. Men are judged on the quality and appropriateness of their advance, but women are not judged on the assertiveness or clarity of their response. 'I feel harassed, so you are guilty of harassment.' seems to me a bit one sided. It assumes and allows all women to be passive little scared rabbits incapable of rejecting or dealing with socially awkward and inept men.

The men in this social ritual, when they make mistakes, are assumed bully, aggressor and given full responsibility for the flirting rituals, and for the feelings of women who may feel harassed. When they get it wrong, they are punished.

If a woman gets her rejection wrong, she is not held responsible. She is definitely not responsible for the feelings of the man:-)

Dear Houellie,

We're not talking about socially inept men here.
Or office romances between single adults. We're talking
about men who use their positions of power (bosses),
to make unwanted sexual advances on their staff.
Most women are
capable of dealing with these situations - and most
men will back off when told to do so. However, its
the ones that don't take "No!" for an answer that are
the problem. And their "feelings" for behaving wrongly
are not the issue when sexual harassment charges are
laid against them. Passing the buck onto the victim
simply doesn't wash. And we need to be clear on that.

If only it were so simple Foxy.

I'm sure in this case a boss was abusing his power. How many more other cases is it just misread signals and clumsy propositions.

Are you saying that any boss must therefore not be allowed to ask a woman out, because he's a boss? Too bad if you're the head honcho, your pool of women is zero. No fraternising at work is a terrible reward for reaching the top.

It's a bit hard to regulate workplace romance must be between people on exactly the same level. My friend married his secretary. They've shagged in the office before too.

Maybe this is the new dating ritual at work. The person in the junior position must make all the advances. Pity the world doesn't work like that. Can you imagine a woman drunk on the sex appeal of a powerful man wanting to be the one to offer him back rubs.

Even if she does, if he turns around and gives her one, in Foxy's world he's the boss, the power relationship is thus that at any time he can lose his career.

You just cant expect no hanky panky to ever go on at work. Where are people supposed to meet someone in the current 60 hour a week or you're just not trying environment.

'We're not talking about socially inept men here.'
I think that's exactly what we're talking about.

Blaming The victim:
Translation: Giving women responsibility for their feelings and their part in social interaction.

I'd like to see a new law. If a guy asks a woman out at work, and she isn't very nice in rejecting him, or tells her female work mates and laughs, she is then guilty of sexual harassment. Further, if a woman tries to let a guy down too gently, and doesn't adequately get her message across, she is guilty of teasing and sexual harassment. Or, if a female boss wears clothing that makes her junior uncomfortable, that's sexual harassment.

Lets see responsibility for the mating rituals at work go both ways.

Many people do meet at work Houlley and there is to be expected some natural flirtation between two people who are mutually attracted. Some may even become committed couples. There are grey areas, but I am not talking about those - I can see there is room for movement and perhaps intervention from a supervisor should a person not read the cues.

Women are also in a no-win situation at times. While we may want to let a man down kindly to not cause offence or hurt his feelings, there may at times be a too tentative rejection. That is also human. We are either P*ck teasers or a cold heartless b*tch as well.

There are problems on both sides. I reckon anyone with half a brain though knows where the line is drawn and if unsure opt for leaving sex for out of workplace opportunities.

While I don't always agree with the American Dr Phil he once said to a man who was know for his inappropriate behaviour at work (and to the chagrin of his wife) would you do 'X' if your wife was in the room. He replied a firm NO. Dr Phil then said well that is your marker for appropriate behaviour (or words to that effect).

It really is pretty simple, but I can understand the grey areas but I think most reasonable people can easily navigate them.

huffnpuff
I agree that the money given to asylum seekers for injury in detention is gross mismanagement and when compared to yours and others experience, quite inconceivable.