Bullying?

RE: Bullying?

Sarah McGurk — Fri, 13 Oct 2017 05:57:04 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="ruths"]He needed a Glen (or maybe a Sarah or a Ruths if he would only listen to a female point of view over a male)[/quote].

It will be a sad day when justice, without evidence, comes down to a "point of view", male or female.

PS That'll be corticosteroids dunfor....

[/quote]

I think you could argue that day is already here Anthony. Evidence provided by men is often taken more seriously than that provided by women. In many instances, the ‘point of view’ of any man in the case is likely to hold greater sway, is it not? Ruths and I should just be grateful that Glen and Martin were here to put our case for us. Shouldn’t we?

Personally, I have no desire for you to listen to a female point of view over a male. But I would prefer it if both were given equal consideration, which evidence suggests was not the case. It seems unlikely it was accidental you chose to mention Glen’s post, when there were other, equally clear arguments made. I carefully made no mention of it in my last post as I did not wish to appear churlish In the face of your apology, but seeing as you have raised the issue again, I feel a response is warranted.

I’d like to say I’m looking forward to my one star award, but it wouldn’t be true, so I won’t.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:46:36 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]He needed a Glen (or maybe a Sarah or a Ruths if he would only listen to a female point of view over a male)[/quote].

It will be a sad day when justice, without evidence, comes down to a "point of view", male or female.

PS That'll be corticosteroids dunfor....

RE: Bullying?

ruths — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:35:13 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="ruths"]Anthony, Thanks for your apology. I’m glad Glen‘s comment made sense to you. [/quote]

I have looked at the full document as the full link is now posted which gives a much better analysis and may better help complainants decide whether to proceed to Court.

Reanalysis of part of Table 4.2 [pg 40] reveals:

"Trial"	322	100%	from the original table 4.2
Trial to be rearranged, suspect fled	1
Victim withdrawal	15
Discontinued/withdrawn at court	19
Not clear if guilty plea/conviction	17
Part conviction	11
	deduct 63
Actually tried in court becomes			259
Acquittal becomes			104	40.15%	acquitted
Guilty plea	89
Conviction	66
	so 155
Total convictions becomes			155	59.84%	convicted

from Table 4.2 page 40

[Sorry if the table doesn't come out as it should]

By regrouping the categories and thereby adjusting the values “Total Convictions” rise to a level which may encourage complainants to persevere and overcome their understandable reluctance.

It would, I believe, encourage the number of complainants to go to trial rather than the “the conviction rate for all reported cases was 8 percent” in the original summary.

[/quote]

and yet they don’t, often because they are worried that people won’t believe them , because people are ignorant.

Did you hear John Humphrys on the issue on R4?

He needed a Glen (or maybe a Sarah or a Ruths if he would only listen to a female point of view over a male)

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:01:03 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]Anthony, Thanks for your apology. I’m glad Glen‘s comment made sense to you. [/quote]

I have looked at the full document as the full link is now posted which gives a much better analysis and may better help complainants decide whether to proceed to Court.

Reanalysis of part of Table 4.2 [pg 40] reveals:

"Trial"	322	100%	from the original table 4.2
Trial to be rearranged, suspect fled	1
Victim withdrawal	15
Discontinued/withdrawn at court	19
Not clear if guilty plea/conviction	17
Part conviction	11
	deduct 63
Actually tried in court becomes			259
Acquittal becomes			104	40.15%	acquitted
Guilty plea	89
Conviction	66
	so 155
Total convictions becomes			155	59.84%	convicted

from Table 4.2 page 40

[Sorry if the table doesn't come out as it should]

By regrouping the categories and thereby adjusting the values “Total Convictions” rise to a level which may encourage complainants to persevere and overcome their understandable reluctance.

It would, I believe, encourage the number of complainants to go to trial rather than the “the conviction rate for all reported cases was 8 percent” in the original summary.

RE: Bullying?

ruths — Sun, 08 Oct 2017 09:52:21 GMT

[quote user="Sarah McGurk"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]the response from the ladies on this forum admirably restrained when they should have been outraged.

[/quote]

Thanks Martin. The reality is that I was both outraged and restrained.

I’ve spent most of the past week in the neurology department of a Norwegian hospital. I’ve been allowed home for the weekend, then back in for contrast MRI on Monday, so I probably won’t be commenting again for a while.

Thanks also to ruths and Glen for their support. Also to those who have contacted me privately.

Anthony, Thanks for your apology. I’m glad Glen‘s comment made sense to you.

[/quote]

Hope you feel better soon, Sarah. It sounds horrible.

Glad we managed to correct an often held and sadly, often propagated myth about rape.

RE: Bullying?

Sarah McGurk — Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:29:41 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]the response from the ladies on this forum admirably restrained when they should have been outraged.

[/quote]

Thanks Martin. The reality is that I was both outraged and restrained.

Thanks also to ruths and Glen for their support. Also to those who have contacted me privately.

Anthony, Thanks for your apology. I’m glad Glen‘s comment made sense to you.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 08:36:38 GMT

[quote user="Michael Woodhouse"]I'm quite sure that bullying in the workplace existed long before 1992.[/quote]

I'm sure it did.

What could now be regarded as bullying happened to me in my first job in 1967.

The first reference in Wikipedia seems to be in 1992, a book on the subject.

Retired in 2013, now 79.

The "workplace" has changed!!

RE: Bullying?

Michael Woodhouse — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 01:06:04 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]This may explain why I, and others of my age, aren't as familiar with "HR" at work as it is now; it's comparatively recent.[/quote]

I'm quite sure that bullying in the workplace existed long before 1992.

Also that's 25 years ago, how old are you and how long have you been retired?!!!!

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:55:51 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"] Because things really weren't a bed of roses before they came along.[/quote]

The first known documented use of "workplace bullying" is in 1992 in a book by Andrea Adams called Bullying at Work: How to Confront and Overcome It

[wikipedia]

This may explain why I, and others of my age, aren't as familiar with "HR" at work as it is now; it's comparatively recent.

RE: Bullying?

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:33:30 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]And if I had dealt with only one, or two or three you could, and probably would, say they were exceptions!?[/quote]

Not at all...I'd say they were your own experience!

I also have very little experience of HR in corporates...a little more in small independents. Neither has particularly been better than the other.

I am simply asking that the 'corporate bashing' is based on experience, not preconceptions. Because things really weren't a bed of roses before they came along.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 11:33:58 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

Ok. So no experience of how a corporate actually deals with these things. A little unfair to assume they would do so badly, then.

[/quote]

And if I had dealt with only one, or two or three you could, and probably would, say they were exceptions!?

[see other reply below,sorry above]

RE: Bullying?

J G Wray — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 08:08:47 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]Ok. So no experience of how a corporate actually deals with these things. A little unfair to assume they would do so badly, then.[/quote]

On the other hand I have now been involved, as a sounding board in three cases, one ongoing. Rough stuff. HR stuff is difficult, but the HR departments are clear who pays their salaries.

The main difference as I see it between dealing with HR stuff internal disciplinaries, ending employment etc as a small business owner and Corporate is in the small things, the eye to eye contact vs the facelessness ( if there is such a word), which ironically, takes a depersonalised process and makes it exclusively emotional.

RE: Bullying?

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 03 Oct 2017 07:33:48 GMT

Ok. So no experience of how a corporate actually deals with these things. A little unfair to assume they would do so badly, then.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 23:45:17 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]And what personal experience backs up this summary?[/quote]

One with a corporate ,with whom I was in ownership discussions, whose officer gave me laughably specific advice.

One from an employment law solicitor who advised me to suspend a vet forthwith for what turned out to be an unsubstantiated misdemeanor "because she could do it again".

But I'm sure things have improved since then.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 23:33:35 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]i do wonder why you put the word rape in inverted commas later in the posts.[/quote]

I think it is usual to do this when you highlight any word if it has significance in the context, in no way was it highlighted for any other reason.

As above, in my quote of your comment I would put any word that you had specified in quotes.

Thankyou for recognising my post was a mistake.

RE: Bullying?

ruths — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 22:55:22 GMT

Thank you for apologising, Anthony. I'm glad Glen was able to help your realise the crass and ill informed comment you made. It's a shame that neither Sarah nor I were able to dissuade your from that position.

i do wonder why you put the word rape in inverted commas later in the posts.

but yes, we appreciate it when people recognise that they have made a mistake in reading. Thank you

RE: Bullying?

Bob Russell — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:41:25 GMT

Going back to the original thread!

The complainant should be informed regarding any complaint, vexatious or not.

If basic investigation allows the case to be closed then he or she should be informed (eg a situation where the RCVS cannot get involved). All done in the first letter.

If not then then a response from a claimant (not employer) may settle things and close the case. Nothing wrong with the RCVS recommending the vet speak to his/her insurance company and/or employer.

If this stage is reached and statements are required from the employer then this where they should be contacted. The vet has the choice as to speak to the employer or not.

I would hope that most employers would be supportive enough for discussion at the earliest stage but some situations are not directly related to work.

(I struggle with the concept that publishing the identity of someone accused of rape is OK on the grounds that other victims may come forward as a result. They can do that once someone has been found guilty. It may lead to some wrong not guilty verdicts but this has to be better than falsely accused going to prison.)

RE: Bullying?

Martin Atkinson — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 10:18:52 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]The most important recommendation from this evaluation is that the criminal justice professionals who manage rape cases shift from their current focus on discrediting the allegations of the complainant to enhancing evidence collection and building a case. [/quote]You've barely redeemed yourself Tony. I've only just started reading this thread again this morning and I have to say I was absolutely gobsmacked and disgusted by your original statement on this matter and the response from the ladies on this forum admirably restrained when they should have been outraged.

It just beggars belief when there are probably many, many more women who do not pursue a case of rape or sexual assault because of the feeling of shame they so wrongly feel or fear that they will not be believed because of the attitude of people like you.

If nothing else it does put the subject of this thread somewhat into context when comparing rape with a prolonged RCVS investigation which makes the latter seem rather unimportant in comparison.

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 23:25:28 GMT

[quote user="Glen McIntosh"]I haven’t read the full text of your reference, but my guess is that your quote could easily win the prize for this years most out of context quote.[/quote]

I must apologise to all on this thread, Glen is quite correct.

If I had gone to the trouble of reading even the whole summary, let alone the full paper, which I now have read, I would have realised that this, from the summary, is the key sentence and not the bald conviction rate I quoted and completely out of context.

The most important recommendation from this evaluation is that the criminal justice professionals who manage rape cases shift from their current focus on discrediting the allegations of the complainant to enhancing evidence collection and building a case.

RE: Bullying?

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 12:21:35 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Here is the link to the summary which is a bit more objective than a "police procedural".

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=232617

[/quote]

Here is a link to the paper itself:

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218141141/http://rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs05/hors293.pdf

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 12:16:40 GMT

Here is the link to the summary which is a bit more objective than a "police procedural".

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=232617

RE: Bullying?

Sarah McGurk — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 12:10:25 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Although my mention of "rape" was only meant to highlight the fundamental principle of publication after validation or proof in any suspected misdemeanor I post this link only to give some support to my highlighted and contested statement above.

Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)

[/quote]

This is a paper which outlines the problems associated with rape convictions. One of the reasons given for the low conviction rate (listed as a challenge, which needs to be overcome) is

"There is an over-estimation of the scale of false allegations by both police officers and prosecutors which feeds into a culture of scepticism, leading to poor communication and loss of confidence between complainants and the police."

Also

"There is some evidence of poor investigation and understanding of the law, and in some cases, there has been an emphasis on discrediting features only, by the police and CPS."

The paper confirms what ruths and I have stated, i.e. that there is such a preconception that the women who report rape are lying, that the current situation results in many miscarriages of justice in favour of the rapist.

The fact that you assume that the low conviction rate = the women lied speaks volumes. That is not to say that I believe you dislike women Anthony. Only that the messages everyone receives from the media and myriad other sources result in misogyny that is built into the way we all think. Only as I am getting older have I begun to notice just how prevalent these things are.

RE: Bullying?

Glen McIntosh — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 12:04:38 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)

[/quote]

Seriously?

I haven’t read the full text of your reference, but my guess is that your quote could easily win the prize for this years most out of context quote.

Surely the remainder of the text goes on to detail the myriad of flaws in the justice system that result in this low conviction rate, and makes no comment at all about the proportion of reported cases found to be true or untrue?

Have you never watched The Bill or other police procedural, where this topic has been covered ad nauseum?

RE: Bullying?

Anthony Todd — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 11:12:31 GMT

[quote user="ruths"]I still feel the kind of generalisation implied in "the accuser's evidence is then examined and often found to be untrue in varying degrees" is, in my opinion unproven and misleading. How often exactly? 14 cases you cite? Do I think it's fair? No. However, out of all the rapes reported, that is a tiny number. I suspect there is a great deal of unfairness towards many of the victims of rape as well.[/quote]

Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator. (Kelly, Lovett and Regan, A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases, 2005)

RE: Bullying?

ruths — Sun, 01 Oct 2017 08:20:01 GMT

Back to the thread....

Anon, I can totally understand that this has become such a big issue or you. I felt the same when I had complaints made against me.

It was also awful to be the second vet, when I tried to save an animal that another vet (in another practice) had mistreated. THe client complained and then it was also horrible to have to write the report and send the X-rays etc to the RCVS in response to the client's conplaint.

its hard being a professional person and also being human.

Please find some way of helping yourself out of this- there is some genuine help out there.