Dear Antiseptic,

Apologies for not returning sooner. RE: "Suggestion: blow it out ya bum!" LOL, blow it out ya bum?!? You're an interesting fellow -perhaps a tad misguided...but interesting none-the-less.

However, a couple of corrections are in order.

RE: ...there is less frivolous complaint and when such "awareness" campaigns exist". I think you give us too much credit, and suggest the 'rise' in complaints to Worksafe Victoria was probably due more to the highly publicised, Brodie Panlock case. Our reply to those in circumstances such as Brodie's is to leave the job as fast as they can.

However, we rarely deal with individual cases - simply because we are NOT about vilifying bullies on a case-by-case basis. We approach from an organisational perspective - in other words: "the promotion of safe and respectful workplaces". Disagree with our stance if you choose - but that's our stance.

Further, you may be surprised to read we actually AGREE with your statement about 'over-reporting' of bullying instances, which occur for all manner of reasons previously mentioned - lack of social skills/sense of entitlement/etc. It's an unfortunate fact that not all of us will be 'liked' in the workplace, and Yes, some may even see this and the 'criticism' of their lacklustre work efforts as 'bullying', which of course it isn't. Some will make frivolous claims out of 'revenge', and the remainder will probably result from simply being unaware what actually constitutes bullying (planned mistreatment that's 'repeated' and 'persistent', resulting in 'health harming' effects - either physical, emotional or both). We know how stretched the resources of Worksafe, WorkCover and other organisations investigating these allegations are. And it's true that many of these complaints will not fit the 'definition' - but some will. It's an imperfect system, Antiseptic, but it's all there is.

Finally, just clearing up a misperception. RE:"... frivolous definitions used by such "awareness raisers" largely to bolster their own claim to some form of funding." Know Bull has never sought any funding...and never will, simply because we're self-funded and don't require it.

Yours in good health, Know Bull!

Thanks for your response. I'm glad you got a laugh out of my response to the libel remark. Perhaps you could recommend the phrase in one of your treatises on bullying.

On the Brodie Panlock case we agree completely: she should have left. I'd go further and say that most people who complain about being bullied should have simply left, especially if they were the only one to claim to experience it in a given workplace. So much of this stuff is simply an excuse for not taking personal responsibility for interpersonal relationships, but instead "going to mother" for a resolution. My mum used to make us shake hands and agree to move on.

I'm pleased to read that you agree with me on the over-reporting issue. Are you going to amend any aspect of your material to reflect that? It seems to me that a lot of your material promotes overtly the idea of "victim as saint/bully as devil" which is bound to cause those with resentments to act them out, I'd have thought.

On the subject of funding, if you're a private group, then I apologise, however, your website material promotes the view that you have some form of "official" status. If that isn't the case, perhaps an "about" page describing the nature of the group and its membership would be a good idea. In the interest of transparency?