Topic: Harassment, Parliament and the BBC

[Norn]

They just don't get it, do they. It isn't to do with 'comforting someone' or 'asking for a date'.  It is a power thing, where a man in a superior position to a younger female thinks it is 'just banter' to make sexual remarks or touch without permission. 
It can happen in any workplace.  Women have always found it difficult to get support for this, they are the ones more likely to lose their jobs.  It is really good that so many women are feeling able to come forward now.
John Humphrys on the Today programme seems to have a particular problem with understanding this.  Given his age and position in the BBC, one can wonder why.

[Lila1410]

I thought he was just acting as "devil's advocate", I'm sure he gets it.

[Beppy]

I think John Humphrey's is one of the best broadcasters around, he looks at both sides.

[Griffon]

What's John Humphreys done? I always thought he was rather good at riding the ever more rapidly shifting sands of social convention. 

[SG]

Do we know for certain that all the women who have 'come forward' are telling the truth? 

[guest1764]

Fallon has stated himself, in his resignation speech, that his behaviour fell below certain standards so why shouldn't we believe the women who have come forward?  I'm surprised more haven't spoken out.  Maybe they will.

[SG]

But we don't know for certain.  Why did none of them, not one, go public at the time?  Odd.

[Griffon]

I keep asking myself the question: why now?   OK. Duh! It's the ripple effect of Weinstein, stupid! But is it really that simple? Was Weinstein all that was necessary to light the blue touch paper and blow parliament sky high and to drive this media frenzy?  Or is there something else going on?  Is this just part of the post Brexit power struggle?  Are people driving personal agendas or settling scores? What the hell is going on, and is there more to it than the Weinstein effect?

[SG]

Bit of all those perhaps Griff.

[Beppy]

Agenda Griff. All settling personal scores or why come out now and coincidentally all at the same time.

[Griffon]

That too. I suspect there are a multitude of reasons. It just needed to right spark to set it all ablaze.

[Norn]

I keep asking myself the question: why now?   OK. Duh! It's the ripple effect of Weinstein, stupid! But is it really that simple? Was Weinstein all that was necessary to light the blue touch paper and blow parliament sky high and to drive this media frenzy?  Or is there something else going on?  Is this just part of the post Brexit power struggle?  Are people driving personal agendas or settling scores? What the hell is going on, and is there more to it than the Weinstein effect?

Some of them did, and were told to keep quiet or it would affect their job.  These were often young women just starting on their careers. And you sort of expected that sort of behaviour from older men on positions of power over you. You were just one of the 'benefits'  .
I was lucky in that it never happened to me at work, and I could cope with crass approaches elsewhere.

[Griffon]

Some of them did, and were told to keep quiet or it would affect their job.  These were often young women just starting on their careers. And you sort of expected that sort of behaviour from older men on positions of power over you. You were just one of the 'benefits'  .
I was lucky in that it never happened to me at work, and I could cope with crass approaches elsewhere.

Yes. I have no argument with the idea that such behaviour is wrong nor that it is high time such things were rooted out. It's the why now? question that interests me.

[Norn]

I think it is the Weinstien effect. And more women feel able to speak out

https://twitter.com/twitter/statuses/925755058410741760

[SG]

If it happened in every case - and we have no way of knowing whether it did or not.  Why did no-one say anything publicly at the time?  And a few risqué comments hardly make them the victims they're being portrayed as.