Inappropiate Email

Michael
I will reiterate, presumably, the fact that Carl had an investigation pending, the young lady HAD raised this as an issue with someone, and presumably she would not have raised the issue unless she felt it was offensive! - Hence there IS a complainant.
Not having the benefit of a clasical education, the majority of your last post went over my head.

Before retiring from this conversation thread I repeat the most salient point.

The purportedly injured party's opinions are unknown i.e there is no compainant.

Don Quixote

1) There's not the least thing can be said or done, but people will talk and find fault.

2) Every man is as Heaven made him, and sometimes a great deal worse.

3) But his thoughts ran a wool-gathering; and he did like the countryman, who looked for his ass while he was mounted on his back.

4) Don Quixote: Dost not see? A monstrous giant of infamous repute whom I intend to encounter.
Sancho Panza: It's a windmill.
Don Quixote: A giant. Canst thou not see the four great arms whirling at his back?
Sancho Panza: A giant?
Don Quixote: Exactly.

Sarah - good points and very well made - especially regarding the "it was only a joke" defence. Gareth, thanks for your response to Michael's post - you've said pretty much what I would have wanted to.

Presumably, the fact that Carl had an investigation pending, the young lady had raised this as an issue with someone, and presumably she would not have raised the issue unless she felt it was offensive!
Is it Nazism to treat people with dignity? Or should we run roughshod over peoples feelings? Innapropriate behaviour should not be a feature of the workplace, and as innocent as Carl's intensions may have been, I'm sure that sending e-mails of this type, or using the company e-mail system as a dating agency does not form part of his job description.
Companies do have to make a stand to protect their employees, and have a legal obligation to do so (vicarious liability). If a minority of employees feel it is acceptable to harrass, bully, victimise or generally cause upset to others, then need to be made aware that this is NOT acceptable! And if anyone thinks it is acceptable, then need to think again.

LEGISLATE FOR OFFENDING !!!

Wow...I am really very deeply offended and worried by that idea. It shocks me to the core, worries me and will cause me endless nights of sleeplessness. Perhaps I should try to lose someone their job for offending me with such a suggestion or perhaps I should consider getting a warning letter issued to the person who suggested it.

Here is proof perfect that we are 'progressing' from Nannyism to NAZIISM...a totalitarian UK where the Thought Police arrest everyone , without firm eveidence and on the basis that their comments MIGHT be interpreted as being offensive.

That is akin to the H&S issue in which SOME practitioners believe in a mythical 100% risk free world, whereas those who are truly professional and capable of rational and reasonable thought agree that risk is an inherent part of life and deal with it 'reasonably'.

These are important matters where reasonableness must be practised by intelligent people. Totalitarianism and idealism are best kept confined to the world of academe because one person's idealism is often another person's hell.

As said previously, the purportedly injured party of this 'thread' has not even been asked for her opinion and it has not yet been stated here.

The vast majority of people I have met, do not approve of such self-appointed judges of eveyone elses actions, especially those who obvioulsy do not read or inaccurately remember the comments that they are supposedly commenting on. Do I spot a selective memory or just a dogged determination to be noticed...regardless of the damage done in the process?

'Only joking' is a common response if one causes offence, intentionally or otherwise......that doesn't necessarily make it an honest or valid one.

I will refrain from 'p.s.' - ing next time though!

Well said Sarah. Wheather we like it or not, there are rules that need to be observed. Gone are the days when we could do or say pretty much what we wanted to and no one would bat an eylid. It's just the way things are and if Robinsons were stopped from putting a little paper symbol (you know what i mean) on their jars of jam due to them being racist, you certainly can't use the company e-mail system to make potentially unwanted (and that is the point!) comments to work colleagues. Some will not be offended, but some MAY be, so you have to legislate for those that are.

"p.s. I don't think James F was joking either "

Even though he subsequently confirmed that he was?!

I note that the only two women to comment on this post have re-assured Carl that his actions were not too bad....interesting! I agree with Kevin O's comments. Personally I found the choice of language far more offensive than the action itself . With a different choice of language e.g. 'nice' I may have simply put this down to shyness and had a quiet word with you ....hot n dirty is just wrong... I am not at all surprised she compained! (I am 40 next week so does that make me a 'biddy'?) I think most of us on this site will know that a single act can constitute harassment, and also it is how it is received (rather than simply intent) which needs to be considered. There is also the issue regarding appropriate use of work IT systems. On a positive note Carl. I think it shows positive character that you realised you had made an error of judgement and you apologised (...even if it was just damage limitation!) and I would hope that there are no serious repercussions and instead lessons learnt.

p.s. I don't think James F was joking either

im in a similar situation
a young person walked out of the office (has done this frequently) without telling anyone...i was informed by reception that he had walked out of the building obviously upset......the only medum i had to contact him was through facebook a i knew he would be on using his mobile and I told him he could be in trouble and that he cannot keep walking out of work (he stated he was annoyed with someone and apologised) I left it at that and now he has raised a grievence against me as his mum had seen the message and gave him a hard time...i am now suspended impending investigation for imtimidation

Abso-B-lutely barking and, Carl, you must remember grasshopper 'that one Swallow or Stork doe's not make a spring' unless, of course, you have not been swallowing but drouling and/or storking the apple of your eye ?

A bit disappointed by the lack subtlety in your sort of criptic approach although appreciate women often appear offended by the more sensitive gentlmen who might seam timid and do seam to respond better to the more ascertive bad-boy philanderer type who fulfil the role of sweeping the lady of her feet when not actually looking for courtship but something else.

Nevertheless, you don't say whether you had a direct response or whether the response was CC'ed to management & HR ?

Would be nice to have a happy ending as a bit of a sucker for happy endings.

I should have added in my last post that the temporary young lady did not herself complain. It would seem from the papers that her views were never sought by management or anyone else!

Also it is of note that the people who did complain did not do so on their own behalf but on behalf only of the temporary lady.

As a very young man many years ago I was once involved as a HR person in a case where a man left a newspaper on his desk. He was the only man employed in the office.

At lunch time a new young lady took (without his permission) the newspaper and read it. There was a news item concerning the son of the local mayor having sexual relations in public. The news item was couched in very bland terms without any lurid details and took up just a few lines. The young lady then gave the newspaper to a temporary lady member of staff who then passed it on to another lady member of staff.

That third lady complained to management that the male member of staff had harrassed the temporary lady. He was suspended and, after several months of hearings and disciplinary proceedings during which Unison refused to give him any support, dismissed. On appeal he claimed that he was being subjected to sexual harrassment and threated all sorts of dire things to the employers. He was reinstated.

It was then stated by management without any evidence that the lady members of staff were refusing to have him back in the office. He was left suspended for something like 15 years -- on full pay. During which time he actually worked for another organisation!

In that case the allegation worked -- eventually -- to his great financial advantage.

Regards

Colin

May I agree with Ian Gardner's comments? Personal attack does nothing to add to the value of such 'threads'.

Carl, if your comments were simply as posted you have my sympathy and my moral support. I sense that this has torn you apart. Don't let it do so. I hope that the supposedly injured party is mature enough to be honest enough to handle your comments as they were intended. If she can't handle that as an adult (I assume that she is), possibly she needs expert psychiatric help or counselling. I doubt it though.

In one message of this 'thread' I was 'attacked'...not a big issue to me but it is disappointing that some have no sense of scale or priority and obviously are incapable of seeing this tiny non-issue for what it is.

The 'injured' party's views are unstated and unknown so why is there a tiny minority of people so keen to assume that party actually feels injured? I suppose they get their kicks out of dressing up as virtuous Arthurian knights, saving imaginary damsels in distress.

It was once the law to transport starving young children to Australia for stealing a slice of bread. What of 'The Law' at that time? Yes, 'The Law' applies but sometimes, as my fondly remebered law lecturer quoted, "The Law is a ass, together with the self-appointed barrack room lawyers who blindly follow it without question."

What baffles me is why those self-righteous 'knights' are frequently the first to complain and accuse, without even having asked for or gained the views or consent of the supposedly injured party. In such ways 'fairy tales' and vast numbers of imaginary 'facts' are generated, all adding to those virtuous knights' sense of self-righteousness.

Maybe that's what they need to bolster their sense of righteousness while going about their dragon-slaying quests. But, I suppose we need all types...at least they add a spark or two of mirth to otherwise dull days.

Christopher, you seem to be getting very confused with this thread!
James didn't post the original query, that was a chap called Carl Thomas. Try to pay attention, and not get them confused.

It seems to me that you either need to start reading previous posts properly before replying, or leave the discussion if you are not able to do this.

Your misplaced outrage is bringing no benefit to the thread.

Well, given your childish response James, it seems to me that the woman in question may have a point if your revertion to personal insults is the only way you can respond to any form of criticism.

With none of us actually being there and witnessing the comments, your body language, any previous history etc etc; we only have your word for the version of events.

Seems to me continuyeing this discussion with a person who uses insults as their defence is not worthwhile.

Claire, this just proves that what one person finds acceptable, another finds offensive. The safest way is to leave your courtship rituals to when you are not at work, in that way if you offend someone you will only get a smack in the mouth and not a disciplinary/grievance hearing to attend. James would not need guidance that way.

I was joking! Possibly though this forum is not the place for humour.

I still say that an observation on a ladies' smile is very different to an observation of other anatomical parts.

Perhaps Christopher Ingram would like to give us his guide to 'appropriate' courtship? That is assuming that there is a Mrs. or Mr. Ingram whom he shares his life with?

strewth this all got a bit heated im glad it calmed down. In my view as a girl, i quite agree, 1 email does not constitute any kind of harrasment.

Isnt it a shame that it has all come to the point you can not have a joke or say nice things without worrying if you will be in trouble. bring back common sense and humanity.

good luck
Carl

Quite right David. Like I said, the definition of harassment is unwanted conduct which affects the dignity of people in their workplace. The key point is that the actions or comments are viewed as demeaning and unacceptable to the recipient.
It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks, it is what the recipient thinks. And I just don't understand why the comment has to be compared to "starvation, privation, fuel poverty, homelessness, disease, and genocide" to prove it is of no importance. Only an idiot would think that anyone would consider an unwanted comment was as serious as genocide. The point is that under employment law, wheather you like it or not, you cant make off the cuff comments that someone could take offence to and expect to get away with it, because there are homless people about! Get real Michael.

I'm sure that Maxine is right - that a one-off comment which was followed by an apology from Carl - is unlikely to result in a particulary serious outcome. But we all need to be aware that harassment complaints made under employment legislation do not need to rest on the behaviour being repeated - one-off incidents count.

I can't agree with Michael that someone who considers Carl's comments to be sexual harassment needs to grow up. Maybe I wouldn't be offended by it, but surely if the woman who the comment was addressed to felt harassed, we cannot deny her feelings. We have no idea whether she experiences this on a regular basis - not from Carl, but from other colleagues. If so, might that make the workplace a "hellish working environment" for her.

It may be that, after investigation, Carl's managers decide that, despite her feeling harassed, his behaviour was not unreasonable. But surely the start point on harassment must be that it's what the recipient thinks or feels about the behaviour - then when we investigate we make a decision on whether or not the behaviour took place and then whether or not it could be deemed to be unreasonable. Otherwise, on what basis can someone bring a complaint?

Of course there are world issues which are huge - but anyone who has been unhappy at work is likley to feel that their unhappiness is just as important to them as famine, floods or earthquakes somewhere else in the world. And that unhappiness affects their ability to do the valuable work Michael mentions.

Is this not all more than a little ridiculous? It panders to the nanny statism and the soap opera mentality that pervades the UK. If a someone's job is under threat because they acted like a normal human being, we should all be very worried because I doubt if any one of us, yes any one, is innocent.

Those who may be offended by such matters obviously live in the world of trivia. People who think this is 'sexual harrassment' need to grow up and focus on matters of far greater importance...REAL issues like starvation, privation, fuel poverty, homelessness, disease, genocide in many parts of the world OR on actually doing some valuable work.

The relationship between men and women has always been and always shall be based in sexual attraction...that is nature! To condemn 'gentle' play of the type that started this thread is to deny our own humanity. Are we all to be sexless automatons, programmed by the PC, trivia acolytes? What a cold, inhuman world that would be and what a hellish working environmemt would exist.

No wonder our country is failing when so many people spend their time in politicising such matters. We could make issues out of 'Cruelty to Sand Grains' or similar non-issues. There are always those who need to justify their non-value adding positions aren't there?

Guys,
Lets all take a big deep breath, hold for a few seconds, and breath out slowly ------ better?
C'mon admit it, we've all done silly things in our time, but we learn by our mistakes.

Carl,
As you've apologized to the lady I would like to think that she saw it as a compliment and not harrasment. I hardly see one email telling someone you like them as harrasment. If you kept on sending emails/ messages, then that would be a differen matter.
I saw it to be a compliment (yes! even the word dirty - in this day and age with younger generation, words have a different meaning) I took the word as meaning you have a sexy/lovely smile, but hey, what do I know I'm only an old biddy.
Hopefully it wasn't taken any further.
Keep on smiling :-)

James' comment was very obviously not meant to be taken seriously.
How pathetic that some people think it was!

Utter rubbish.