What constitutes sexual harassment?

[Suff]

Sadly Kaz Common sense has long gone out of the window. So we get this overboard lumping together and people who can't seem to be able to make it plain what they do and do not want. Such as touching. There is nothing wrong with telling a guy that if he touches your knee again he'll lose his hand from the wrist downwards. But, apparently, today it's a matter of being frightened and uncomfortable and then running to the police or the papers to get "restitution"

There should be boundaries and I believe anwanted touching is one of them. But before the police there should at least be some kind of dialog like "please stop that I don't like it", in the mildest form up to "how about I see if I can crack your nuts with my foot".

It diminishes the real horrors that are out there, both sexual and violent. They exist and they need to be on a whole different scale. I live with the end result of years of physical violence and the mark is there forever. People like that don't deserve to be using up good oxygen in my view of the world and that goes for sexual predators too.

[AliasAggers]

It is strange how attitudes have altered in recent years.

I can remember way back, perhaps 70 years ago, people often talked about male employers
who practised what we now call sexual harassment, but never once do I recall a 'victim'
going to the police. If they had done so, I have doubt whether the police would have been
interested, but would have probably remarked, 'You could always say No".

It would seem that what is regarded as normal practice has somewhat changed over the years.

[cromwell]

It's when power and coercion are used that it becomes very wrong.

This is it, yes. Powerful men abusing their position to sexually assault and coerce women. It can occur in any organisation; film studio, council, the police, politics, anything.

[Suff]

First blood to the accusers.

Some will allude suicide to guilt. Some will see it as shame which could not be borne.

The most urgent thing now is that these allegations must be made public or it will be seen, by every interest group, as something different.

If it turns out that the allegations are of a very serious nature, then we can mark this down to guilt. If, however, this turns out to be about women who felt uncomfortable because he touched them in an asexual place, this is going to ignite a firestorm of protest which will let real predators off the hook.

This should never have been made public before an investigation was made and charges proffered. This might have saved a life and the destruction of a family. I say might because we just don't know and that is the problem.

[TheOstrich]

Spot on, Suff. We can't really judge because we neither know the accusations or the facts. All we can have is sympathy for Carl Sergeant's (Welsh Labour assembly minister) family for whom this will be a devastating event.

We are often told we need "transparency" in our society, and I think this is yet another case where accusers should not be allowed to hide under the cloak of anonymity whilst the accused is named for all to see. You name both sides, or you name neither. It has been argued that naming accusers will put people off coming forward, but there have been plenty of instances in recent days of accusers waiving their rights. Good for them.

In a related topic, we are still waiting for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether or not to charge the anonymous serial fantasist "Nick". Why this lengthy delay? They should make a decision immediately, and if they do decide to prosecute him for wasting hours of police time and resources, he should be publically named and shamed.

[Workingman]

This sexual harassment issue is a difficult one to get a handle on.

For instance, how can names be kept secret? There will be Chinese whispers and one or both will eventually be named. On the other hand naming them both puts the accused in the position of being found guilty (it is usually guilty) without trial / the chance to defend themselves.

My second point is what has now happened to AM Carl Sargeant and he will never be able to defend himself. What he was accused of, but never told, could have been something or nothing, but in today's climate there is a knee-jerk reaction that something has to be seen to be done: immediately. That alone could have been enough to tip someone over the edge

I hope his accuser(s) is or are now outed and given the publicity they so obviously sought.