Sexual Harrassment Epidemic

[elasto]

In this day and age, isn't it possible to have a virtual number that forwards to her real number?

That may or may not be sufficient, depending on whether or not she needs to make outgoing calls. She'd need caller ID spoofing too. And that's a real racket the phone company has got.

Can't she make outgoing calls on Google Voice too?

I'd suggest she simply withhold her number but not sure if there's a cultural divide between the US and UK in that regard - maybe in the US people simply don't answer calls from withheld numbers?

[ucim]

Google's web site doesn't say (but it does have YUGE! buttons to get the app). From wikipedia:
Caller line identification

As a call forwarding service, Google Voice also forwards the caller line identification (CLID or caller ID) of incoming calls to the user's telephone service. A user can choose whether to display a caller's CLID, or their Google Voice number, when receiving calls via the service.

Google Voice uses the caller's Google Voice number as the CLID on outgoing calls when the user places a call by calling the user's own Google Voice number and using the service's menu choices,[54] or when the web-based account portal is used to place a call.[55] With the introduction of the Google Voice application on iPhone, Android and BlackBerry phones, Google Voice users can directly dial from the Google Voice app with their Google Voice number as the outgoing CLID.

So it appears so. But it also appears to require a smartphone or a computer. You can't configure a flip phone.

It also requires her to use google. That should be a showstopper right there. I would not want google to have any more information about me than they already have. Much better to have an actual company phone that is not linked to the stalked employee's personal life.

As for withholding the number (caller ID block), in the US CID is a crock. You pay to get it, you pay to block it, you pay to break through the block, you pay to block people from breaking through the block, and in all cases it can be spoofed (which is what scummy telemarketers do). I've been a victim of this on both sides (seeing spoofed (usually local) numbers on the display, and having my own number be trumpeted as the origin of scummy calls.)

Jose

[freezeblade]

I'd suggest she simply withhold her number but not sure if there's a cultural divide between the US and UK in that regard - maybe in the US people simply don't answer calls from withheld numbers?

Unless I am expecting a call from someone I know has a usually-withheld number, I will not answer it. Whoever is calling can leave a message containing a number where I can reach them.

Pretty much everyone I know has similar thinking on the subject. Withheld numbers, in my experience at least, are usually telemarketers, scammers, or other calls that you don't typically want to entertain or answer.

[elasto]

Unless I am expecting a call from someone I know has a usually-withheld number, I will not answer it. Whoever is calling can leave a message containing a number where I can reach them.

In which case she can leave her business number for them to call back.

It also requires her to use google. That should be a showstopper right there. I would not want google to have any more information about me than they already have. Much better to have an actual company phone that is not linked to the stalked employee's personal life.

Well, Google Voice wasn't my suggestion. Surely there are other virtual phone number providers if Google is too scary - perhaps ones that can service on a corporate basis? If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.

Personally I'd find carrying two phones around everywhere to be too annoying. I'd rather have two sim cards in one phone if a virtual number wasn't an option.

[ucim]

I withhold my cell number because I don't want people to know what it is. I do not want to be reached by cell; when I'm out, I'm out. I don't want to be bothered. (I have the cell for other purposes). I generally don't pay attention to incoming CID; I just answer. But if I have a spate of calls from somebody who's... er... "overly enthusiastic about reaching me", CID is a convenient way to duck them. It's only happened once. I find most scum telemarketers spoof CID anyway.

Spoiler:

There are now outgoing interactive voice systems that pretend to listen to you and cough up an "appropriate" response before launching into their spiel, to fool you into thinking it's a person for just a bit longer. I can usually name that tune in one note. Sometimes I'll ask them a surprisingly dumb non-sequitor question when they call; humans handle that differently than robots.

If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.

Not massive. LIke Han Solo Luke Skywalker, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.

I'd rather have two sim cards in one phone if a virtual number wasn't an option.

Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

Back on topic, I wonder if it was a man that decided that.

Jose
edit: It was Luke who was insufficiently frightened, not Han.

[elasto]

If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.

Not massive. LIke Han Solo, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.

So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?

Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

You do? A SIM card here is free from some providers and about £1 from the rest. Why wouldn't every provider want you to choose them after all?

It's the same reason all providers subsidise locked phones (which you can then unlock for next to nothing...)

[elasto]

If not it seems like a massive gap in the market.

Not massive. LIke Han Solo, not enough people are frightened enough of google yet.

So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?

Yeah, sim cards. Another scam. In the old days, the phone's internal memory could handle up to four separate numbers ("nams") with no extra purchase required. Push a button to switch. Now we gotta buy a chip for every new number we want.

You do? A SIM card here is free from most providers and about £1 from the rest. Why wouldn't every provider want you to choose them after all?

It's the same reason all providers subsidise locked handsets (which you can then unlock for next to nothing...)

[ucim]

So how do the telemarketers do it then? Why can't businesses give virtual phone numbers to employees just like telemarketer businesses do?

I don't know. I am not a telemarketing scumbag. CID should not be able to be spoofed; this is a flaw in the telco's system, and they have no reason to fix it. And to answer any "why don't they {good thing}?" question, it's sometimes instructive to ask "they did {good thing}, how can I {bad thing} with it?". When the internet, with all its promise, came out, I wondered how it would be corrupted and turned into mass media propaganda. AOL gave me a hint, and Trump hit me with a clue bat.

But virtual numbers would be nice for good people to have.

A SIM card here is free from most providers and about £1 from the rest.

In the Dominican Republic they are $5 to $10. And if you have a prepaid card and only go there once a year, you have to buy a new one every time. In the old days you could just use a vacant (or obsolete) NAM for free.

Dunno how much they are elsewhere.

But I don't mean to derail the thread.

Jose

[Sableagle]

There's no Parole Board Misbehaviour thread, so here's this, spoilered for length and [trigger: rape]:

Spoiler:

John Worboys: Parole chief apologises to victims

The chairman of the Parole Board has apologised "unreservedly" that some victims of sex attacker John Worboys were not told about his release.

The former black-cab driver served ten years after being convicted of 19 offences, including one rape, although police believe he attacked many more.

The CPS said 83 complaints were made during the initial investigation, but many did not pass the evidential test.

Parole Board chairman Nick Hardwick said hearing the decision must have been "horrible" for the women, but the board was "confident" 60-year-old Worboys would not reoffend.

"We look at a whole range of evidence - both what happened in the original offences, the judge's sentencing remarks, the programmes or work a prisoner has done, reports from people who know the prisoner well," he said.

The Met Police revealed in 2010 that 19 other victims had come forward in the wake of Worboys's conviction.

Officers suspected he had attacked more than 100 women between 2002 and 2008.

These allegations were investigated, but no further action was taken on the advice of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), police said.[/quote]

John Worboys: alleged victims ready to bring fresh prosecutions, lawyer says

Alleged victims of the serial sex offender John Worboys are ready to bring fresh prosecutions against him and send him back to jail, according to their lawyer.

Women targeted by Worboys are devastated by the imminent release of the black-cab driver, who “denied his heinous crimes and then forced [victims] to endure the torment of a criminal trial”, said Richard Scorer of Slater and Gordon. Scorer represents eight of Worboys’ alleged victims who were not included in the original criminal prosecution.

On Friday night the Crown Prosecution Service revealed that while it had prosecuted Worboys for attacks on 14 women, it had dropped cases involving three other women, even though it assessed they “passed the evidential test”, because there were sufficient counts “to enable the judge to impose an appropriate sentence”.

Worboys, 60, has spent nine years and nine months in prison, including time on remand. He was given an indeterminate sentence, which had a minimum term of eight years, for drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, including raping one of them. He is likely to be freed within weeks.

After he was jailed in 2009, police also told prosecutors about another 19 alleged victims, but the CPS advised that it would be in the public interest only to prosecute allegations of rape.

Release of cabbie rapist accused by 102 women defended by Crown Prosecution Service

The Crown Prosecution Service are defending the release of a black cab rapist who was accused of sexual assault by more than 100 women.

Black cab rapist John Worboys, 60, is to be released after just nine years, prompting anger from victims and questions around why not all of the 102 complainants had their cases brought to trial.

One woman who said she had a narrow escape from the sexual predator said police dismissed her when she told them of her ordeal in 2002.

In a comment piece for the i newspaper, Hannah Roberts said it was six years on before she was given the opportunity to identify him and make a statement.

Criticising the CPS, she said: ‘Many of the women who came forward to accuse Worboys were ignored or not believed by police at the time of their attacks.

‘Now the same unheard women whose cases did not get to trial may feel slighted for a second time by suggestions that their cases did not meet the evidential test.

Chairman of the committee, Conservative MP Bob Neill, called for the Parole Board’s processes to be made more transparent, saying it is ‘ridiculous that the current rules prevent the board making public the reasons for their decisions’.

John Worboys prison release: Lawyer for alleged victims calls for fresh prosecutions against black cab rapist

Victims’ groups and charities have condemned the decision to free the 60-year-old, who in 2009 was found guilty of 19 charges of drugging and sexually assaulting 12 female passengers, and the rape of one woman, at Croydon Crown Court.

Police said the following year that they believed he had attacked 102 women between 2002 and 2008, after more people came forward following his conviction.

Worboys served 10 years in jail before his release earlier this week.

Mr Spencer, a specialist abuse lawyer at Slater and Gordon who represents some of his victims, said the Parole Board “must now reveal publicly whether Worboys has finally admitted his crimes and shown any remorse whatsoever.”

He said: “If he still denies his crimes, then he clearly poses a continuing risk to women.”

Somewhat irrational musing follows: Ten years. Five weeks per victim. Richard Huckle got "at least 25 years" for 71 admitted, 91 charged, 200 suspected victims. Sylvia Hardy got seven days in jail for failing to pay £63.71 in council tax arrears, so that works out at £9 a day, or £315 per victim for Worboys.

[Ginger]

Unsolicited girly-girly feelings, triggers warnings all over the places, twisted thoughts on the justice system you have been warned.

Spoiler:

I had to pay like $75 to the courts when they prosecuted me based on my threats. And it felt like paying rape dollars because the man in question paid me to spank him several times and more? And um. Now I gotta pay because He wants to have a restraining order and the prosecutor wants to sue little little bad bad G? Okay then. They should be obligated to tell people that might be victimized that he's getting out for one. I thought they had services like that these days? And two: I know it's gonna sound like sympathy for Lucifer but if some of the cases can't pass the muster evidence wise and they're confident he won't re-offend then.... Anyways reading more.

It really really looks like someone in power is protecting him though. And in my opinion the trials about rape turn into boys' clubs if boys get involved. They start talkin'/chattin' you up about your slutty clothes and behaviors. Your past sexual partners. Your tendencies for lying/mental illness. And then they force you to pay up to maintain their war machine because that's the costs of courts apparently. And the woman the police dismissed in 2002? Police Never believe rape claims. They are always always dubious and always always assume you brought it on yourself. I only ever got "helpful advice" from cops instead of them actually punishing my stabbers/beaters/people touching or harassing me sexually.

And actually I got really really creepy feeling when they Order You to show remorse for your crimes. I don't wanna. I LIKED threatening that guy on a primal, animal level. So why do I have to cop to remorse when he fucking harassed me anyways? Not the case for the man we're discussing, as he clearly assaulted women, however I still think confessing to your crimes in front of the courts to show proper ladylike proper remorse is fucking a sick side show/circus we don't need. Especially if they consider prosecuting you again if you DON'T show, "Proper Remorse."

[ObsessoMom]

Hypocrisy much, Mr. Meehan?

Republican axed from ethics body after report on alleged sexual misconduct

A Republican congressman on Saturday denied an allegation of sexual misconduct made in a report that said he used taxpayer dollars to settle a complaint from a female staffer about inappropriate sexual behaviour.

He was nonetheless removed from the House ethics committee by the speaker, Paul Ryan, made subject to investigation by his former panel and told to repay “whatever taxpayer funds were used”.

The New York Times reported that the Pennsylvania representative Patrick Meehan, a 62-year-old married father of three, was accused last year by “a former aide” of making “unwanted romantic overtures”.

[...]

As a member of the House ethics committee, Meehan has been involved in investigations into numerous recent cases of alleged sexual harassment and confidential settlements involving members of the House.

[...]

“Speaker Ryan takes the allegations against Mr Meehan very seriously,” said AshLee Strong in an email. “The speaker is committed to rooting out sexual misconduct in the House and providing victims the resources they need.”

Strong added: “Though Mr Meehan has denied the allegations, they must be fully and immediately investigated by the House ethics committee. Following a conversation with the speaker today, Mr Meehan will immediately submit himself to the ethics committee for review.”

[Ginger]

They seem to be following the right policies. Making him repay is a good idea. And even if he denies it all claims of sexual harassment must be taken seriously regardless of a man's job. And whether it was a former aide or whatever shouldn't matter.

[ObsessoMom]

Spoilered for off topic re: Meehan

Spoiler:

Meehan represents the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, which has been in the news lately because it's so ridiculously gerrymandered for Republican advantage:


Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that all 18 of the state's congressional districts need to be redrawn.

[Ranbot]

... but there are few that feel like they might be a little too reactionary, based on what's known so far. LIke NPR's cutting all ties with Garrison Keillor...“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” [Garrison Keillor] told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after [Minnesota Public Radio]’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.” The linked article also states there are no other known instances of Garrison Keillor making any sexual advances or harassment with any other co-worker in his ~50 year career.

Maybe there's more to the Garrison Keillor thing and if so I will gladly eat my words...

I gladly eat my words. (edited for correct link)

[CorruptUser]

Spoilered for off topic re: Meehan

Spoiler:

Meehan represents the 7th Congressional District of Pennsylvania, which has been in the news lately because it's so ridiculously gerrymandered for Republican advantage:


Yesterday, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that all 18 of the state's congressional districts need to be redrawn.

You sure? That just looks like a woman with a hat giving Jar Jar a handjob.

[Ginger]

Ex-teen model accuses illusionist David Copperfield of 1988 sexual misconduct

[ObsessoMom]

... but there are few that feel like they might be a little too reactionary, based on what's known so far. LIke NPR's cutting all ties with Garrison Keillor...“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” [Garrison Keillor] told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after [Minnesota Public Radio]’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.” The linked article also states there are no other known instances of Garrison Keillor making any sexual advances or harassment with any other co-worker in his ~50 year career.

Maybe there's more to the Garrison Keillor thing and if so I will gladly eat my words...

I gladly eat my words.

I wonder if that link goes to the right document, since it's dated last November, and doesn't mention Tuesday's public letter from the president of Minnesota Public Radio.

Keillor seems to be fighting back pretty vigorously. Here's Keillor's statement in response.

[Ginger]

You know I somehow heavily heavily doubt... that... his hand found its way into her shirt all on its own by accident? Or: That they were, "friendly right up until her lawyer called." OH AND: Just signing "I Luv U~ <3" or w/evs MEANS SHE LOVES him as a friend now? REALLY? That guy is the only one telling untruths and getting faceless panics here.

[Ranbot]

... but there are few that feel like they might be a little too reactionary, based on what's known so far. LIke NPR's cutting all ties with Garrison Keillor...“I put my hand on a woman’s bare back,” [Garrison Keillor] told the Star Tribune by e-mail minutes after [Minnesota Public Radio]’s statement. “I meant to pat her back after she told me about her unhappiness and her shirt was open and my hand went up it about six inches. She recoiled. I apologized. I sent her an email of apology later and she replied that she had forgiven me and not to think about it. We were friends. We continued to be friendly right up until her lawyer called.” The linked article also states there are no other known instances of Garrison Keillor making any sexual advances or harassment with any other co-worker in his ~50 year career.

Maybe there's more to the Garrison Keillor thing and if so I will gladly eat my words...

I gladly eat my words.

I wonder if that link goes to the right document, since it's dated last November, and doesn't mention Tuesday's public letter from the president of Minnesota Public Radio.

Keillor seems to be fighting back pretty vigorously. Here's Keillor's statement in response.

Sorry...you are correct. I grabbed the wrong link.

Edit: this was the article detailing incidents that I meant to post... https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/01/2 ... -workplace

[The Great Hippo]

Keillor seems to be fighting back pretty vigorously. Here's Keillor's statement in response.

The fact that the NPR article goes out of its way to not identify the accuser -- while Keillor's response provides crucial data that could be used to glean the accuser's identity -- goes a long way to making me think Keillor is either irresponsible or guilty as fuck.

This is highlighted even more by the fact that he seems to think the accuser addressing him cheerfully in emails (even saying "I love you") seems to preclude the possibility that he engaged in any sexual harassment.

[morriswalters]

I have no idea of what he did or didn't do. But there are an almost an unlimited ways to address someone other than I love you. And if it goes to court, and it sounds like it will, she will be unmasked. Her relationship to him, in its particulars will be in question, and how can he can defend himself without describing it as he saw it?

[Ginger]

Policing how women talk to men ain't going to stop sex abuses... and, just saying, 'I love you,' IS NOT an admission of friendship or more. That guy is clearly in the wrong for wanna force himself to be her friend base on her saying an empty, meaningless phrases at least... and at worst he is a sexual abuser of her. Either way he don't win? So yes he should be prosecuted.

[The Great Hippo]

And if it goes to court, and it sounds like it will, she will be unmasked.

Not necessarily. For example, in California, both state and federal courts allow for plaintiffs to press charges anonymously (at the judge's discretion). I don't know what British court of law she would be pressing charges in, or what the laws are like there -- but there's at least a possibility that they allow for her to press charges anonymously.

I also don't get where you're getting this will go to court. She's not pressing charges against him, as I understand it -- she just filed a complaint with NPR (through her lawyers).

Her relationship to him, in its particulars will be in question, and how can he can defend himself without describing it as he saw it?

He's welcome to do that. My issue wasn't with him describing the behavior; my issue was with him providing specific information about his accuser that made it significantly easier for strangers to identify her.

Shrugging and going "Well, she'll be unmasked eventually" is not sufficient defense. Whether or not she's unmasked is her decision -- if she decides to go to court -- and in doing so, that court makes it clear that her identity will be made a matter of public record -- it's then up to her to decide whether or not she wants her identity to be publicly known. He doesn't get to make that decision for her.

[morriswalters]

Given the damage she has done to his reputation the only way to me to relate to it, is to consider what I would do were I in his position. I would sue her for defamation if I felt myself innocent of the charge. Almost certainly she has instigated damage to his contractual dealings with his home radio station, MPR, not to mention damage to his reputation.

it's then up to her to decide whether or not she wants her identity to be publicly known. He doesn't get to make that decision for her.

That's good work if you can get it. It's just a little disingenuous to think that she can duck and cover if he chooses to call her out publicly. You seem to think that everybody is just going to roll over, every time this happens. It's not always going to be clear cut and there are other motives that have to be considered. I guess it all depends on how much he values his reputation and legacy. As I said, if I felt I was in the right I would go to the mat and spend everything I had to clear myself. That's a character flaw of mine.

[Leovan]

As I said, if I felt I was in the right I would go to the mat and spend everything I had to clear myself. That's a character flaw of mine.

That doesn't work with these kinds of accusations where the accused is presumed guilty and there is practically no evidence you can use to prove innocence. The only way to prove you didn't sexually harass someone is pretty much a video of the occasion, at which point you're an asshole for revealing the anonymous victim, and they'll merely point out that there were other occasions and this proves nothing. You're left with fervent denial, which just proves how guilty you are.
Most public persons have discovered the best cure is a loud mea culpa (whether you did wrong or not), and hope it either blows over or someone else (preferably more famous/important) gets accused ASAP before your image takes enough damage to stay in the public memory.

People like you go down in history as the sexist pigs that dragged their victims through the mud in addition to the harassment, discouraging further victims from coming forth and perpetuating the cultural flaws that should have been eliminated violently.

[morriswalters]

As I said, if I felt I was in the right I would go to the mat and spend everything I had to clear myself. That's a character flaw of mine.

That doesn't work with these kinds of accusations where the accused is presumed guilty and there is practically no evidence you can use to prove innocence. The only way to prove you didn't sexually harass someone is pretty much a video of the occasion, at which point you're an asshole for revealing the anonymous victim, and they'll merely point out that there were other occasions and this proves nothing. You're left with fervent denial, which just proves how guilty you are.
Most public persons have discovered the best cure is a loud mea culpa (whether you did wrong or not), and hope it either blows over or someone else (preferably more famous/important) gets accused ASAP before your image takes enough damage to stay in the public memory.

People like you go down in history as the sexist pigs that dragged their victims through the mud in addition to the harassment, discouraging further victims from coming forth and perpetuating the cultural flaws that should have been eliminated violently.

Yeah, ain't life a bitch. There is of course another way. Never let any women get close, don't mentor them, never be alone with them. Should I go on? I believe our sitting Vice President uses the procedure. Dating is a little more complex, but something on the order of of a body cam might be in order. You can't be attacked for sexual harassment at work if there isn't an opportunity and a body cam would solve all those little he said she said moments in private. Not to mention great fodder for YouTube.

Of course that is discriminatory, but if innocence doesn't count then what else is left? Neither your world not the world I've outlined are places I would enjoy living in, but your attitude, if generally accepted would drive me to it. That part highlighted in blue is hilarious.

[Leovan]

... perpetuating the cultural flaws that should have been eliminated violently.

Yeah, ain't life a bitch. There is of course another way. Never let any women get close, don't mentor them, never be alone with them. Should I go on? I believe our sitting Vice President uses the procedure. Dating is a little more complex, but something on the order of of a body cam might be in order. You can't be attacked for sexual harassment at work if there isn't an opportunity and a body cam would solve all those little he said she said moments in private. Not to mention great fodder for YouTube.

Of course that is discriminatory, but if innocence doesn't count then what else is left? Neither your world not the world I've outlined are places I would enjoy living in, but your attitude, if generally accepted would drive me to it. That part highlighted in blue is hilarious.

Like you said, life's a bitch, and sadly what I've outlined is as far as I can see where life is. The defense you've outlined is of course wrong, and is still not entirely effective, but is your best choice besides just hoping you don't run into the problem in the first place. Chances are you won't. Most people who would have the opportunity to falsely accuse somebody are good people and won't, any more than you would. It's a defense that is an overreaction that is statistically unnecessary. Unless you become famous of course, and then it's too late.
It's similar to wearing a gun because you're worried you'll get robbed. Statistically you're creating a lot of hassle for yourself and will never use it, or it'll be ineffective when you would have the opportunity to. But people do it anyway.
The blue part is a little tongue in cheek, I'm glad you caught the humor.

[morriswalters]

Like you said, life's a bitch, and sadly what I've outlined is as far as I can see where life is.

As you say, it's sad.

[The Great Hippo]

That doesn't work with these kinds of accusations where the accused is presumed guilty and there is practically no evidence you can use to prove innocence. The only way to prove you didn't sexually harass someone is pretty much a video of the occasion, at which point you're an asshole for revealing the anonymous victim, and they'll merely point out that there were other occasions and this proves nothing. You're left with fervent denial, which just proves how guilty you are.
Most public persons have discovered the best cure is a loud mea culpa (whether you did wrong or not), and hope it either blows over or someone else (preferably more famous/important) gets accused ASAP before your image takes enough damage to stay in the public memory.

People like you go down in history as the sexist pigs that dragged their victims through the mud in addition to the harassment, discouraging further victims from coming forth and perpetuating the cultural flaws that should have been eliminated violently.

Wow, it's almost like you didn't even read the article where NPR performed an extensive -- and ultimately private -- investigation for several months into the accusation. One that involved the accused, providing multiple opportunities for them to respond both to the charges and the evidence against them.

But you're right; NPR should really have done something differently, here. Their decision to investigate the claim thoroughly (and privately) while involving the accused -- then finally coming to the conclusion that the accusation was correct, and refusing to release any details (allowing the accused themselves to decide if they wanted to make the nature of the accusation public) really shows an egregious amount of irresponsibility on their part.

This is me being sarcastic, by the way. Can you tell? I'm being sarcastic right now. I want to make sure I'm clear about it, since it seems like reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

[morriswalters]

It appears that it was MPR and not NPR who did the investigation. And the two parties(MPR and Keillor) are involved in mediation currently over contractual obligations and the status of the online archives of the Prairie Home Companion and other works. Or can you provide a link showing NPR's connection?

[The Great Hippo]

Oh, wow, no -- my phone just auto-corrected "MPR" to "NPR" and I've been rolling with it since.

The irony of accusing someone of a lack of reading comprehension after I clearly failed to correctly identify the organization involved with the accusation is not lost on me; that being said, everything I wrote in my previous post -- outside of the acronym -- still stands true.

[morriswalters]

Yeah I hate auto correct. I was just checking to see if I missed something.

[Leovan]

I'm sorry I did not specify that I was talking more about the court of public opinion. You're right, MPR did a thorough investigation. I did not mean to say that this specific case was handled badly, I was referring to the more general sexual harassment epidemic pointed out in this thread where going public with accusations tends to be the first step, not the last. When dealing with legal courts or with an employer, the classic procedures are followed more closely, including innocent until proven guilty etc. However, in these cases where the moral outrage is much worse than the legal consequences, the fact that procedure is followed with those actors is small consolation.

[sardia]

I'm sorry I did not specify that I was talking more about the court of public opinion. You're right, MPR did a thorough investigation. I did not mean to say that this specific case was handled badly, I was referring to the more general sexual harassment epidemic pointed out in this thread where going public with accusations tends to be the first step, not the last. When dealing with legal courts or with an employer, the classic procedures are followed more closely, including innocent until proven guilty etc. However, in these cases where the moral outrage is much worse than the legal consequences, the fact that procedure is followed with those actors is small consolation.

Not to say you're right or wrong, but can you point to example?

[The Great Hippo]

I'm sorry I did not specify that I was talking more about the court of public opinion. You're right, MPR did a thorough investigation. I did not mean to say that this specific case was handled badly, I was referring to the more general sexual harassment epidemic pointed out in this thread where going public with accusations tends to be the first step, not the last. When dealing with legal courts or with an employer, the classic procedures are followed more closely, including innocent until proven guilty etc. However, in these cases where the moral outrage is much worse than the legal consequences, the fact that procedure is followed with those actors is small consolation.

Okay -- but I take it that you understand when you said 'these types of accusations', there was pretty much no way to interpret that outside of the accusation we were talking about (the accusation regarding Keillor).

I also deeply disagree with your sentiment regarding 'going public with accusations tends to be the first step, not the last'. Consider that a lot of the accusations coming up now involve incidents that occurred years -- if not decades -- in the past. Clearly, going public in these instances could represent a last resort, not a first one -- with accusers having either pursued or investigated other steps to no result.

The emergence of an environment where public accusations of sexual harassment are being taken seriously can be seen two ways: You can see it as hyper-sensitive and full of opportunists, sure -- but you can also see it as an occasion where people who have been pressured into silence regarding their harassment, abuse, and even rape suddenly see an opportunity to speak out about those incidents in a setting that -- for once -- won't just tell them to 'shut the fuck up'.

[Zohar]

My husband actually works on the largest sexual harassment study ever conducted in a university setting, the only one (shockingly) to ask gender-neutral questions regarding both victims and perpetrators. I believe they interviewed about 200 students in a large, well-known university (~3-hour interviews, in addition to ~5,000 survey responses that were analyzed). Of the interviewed, all whose incidents were reported to authorities (whether voluntarily or by telling someone with mandatory reporting duties) suffered worse consequences than the ones who did not report, based on the victims' perceptions of their experiences.

Point being, reporting and working through what you call the standard legal process usually ends not to work in the victim's favor.

[CorruptUser]

Is there any crime where going through the legal process (that don't have compensation, e.g., stolen car returned) typically results in a better outcome for the victim than not going through it? I mean, at best, you get the whole sense of justice, but the crime still happened plus you have the stress of trial.

[natraj]

i am not sure about better, but most things don't typically have worse outcomes than choosing not to report at all. like if i report my bike being stolen, or a home invasion (two things i choose because i have in the past reported these things and had nothing come of it) whether or not i end up with any benefit, i also am not harmed past the time inconvenience of dealing with the report.

in contrast when i tried to report a sexually abusive stalker, the police were themselves abusive (both verbally and physically), dismissive, insulting, made fun of me, refused to take the report at first; i had to return with another person before they would even listen -- and that was all what i had to deal with just to get the report filed in the first place.

[Leovan]

Not to say you're right or wrong, but can you point to example?

I don't really follow most of the cases to their conclusion (often years later) but a recent case I can think of is with Aziz Ansari.
https://babe.net/2018/01/13/aziz-ansari-28355
He's not legally accused of sexual assault but the article detailing the date repeatedly claims it was such, or at least that the victim felt it was:

“It took a really long time for me to validate this as sexual assault,” she told us.

It's really not the best example of a sexual assault accusation, but it is a good example of someone heading straight to the media with the primary effect being that of damaging the reputation of the accused.

Okay -- but I take it that you understand when you said 'these types of accusations', there was pretty much no way to interpret that outside of the accusation we were talking about (the accusation regarding Keillor).

I also deeply disagree with your sentiment regarding 'going public with accusations tends to be the first step, not the last'. Consider that a lot of the accusations coming up now involve incidents that occurred years -- if not decades -- in the past. Clearly, going public in these instances could represent a last resort, not a first one -- with accusers having either pursued or investigated other steps to no result.

The emergence of an environment where public accusations of sexual harassment are being taken seriously can be seen two ways: You can see it as hyper-sensitive and full of opportunists, sure -- but you can also see it as an occasion where people who have been pressured into silence regarding their harassment, abuse, and even rape suddenly see an opportunity to speak out about those incidents in a setting that -- for once -- won't just tell them to 'shut the fuck up'.

I wasn't being specious when I said I'm sorry for not specifying my intent. I changed the topic without specifying that I did and shouldn't be surprised you called me on it.
And I agree that many of the accusers in probably most of these cases did have to wait years for the opportunity to tell their story without peremptorily being told to 'shut the fuck up' as you accurately put it. It's a travesty that the environment was ever thus, and obviously accusations should be taken seriously when made. However, at the moment the environment has changed to one where rather it's the people accused being told to 'shut up and accept what's coming for you, you obviously deserve it', and I consider neither alternative to be acceptable. The victims should be able to come forward when it happens, not years later when their only resort is to damage the reputation of the accused because there is little to no evidence that would be acceptable in court. But I have a problem with assaults on people's reputation being popularized that need little to no evidence to be effective and the accused has little to no defense.
In my turn I deeply disagree with statements recently issued such as this:

I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations...If some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.

https://twitter.com/EmilyLindin/status/ ... 4822579200

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and all that.

I probably share morriwalter's character flaw that is I absolutely loathe the thought of being falsely accused and have a violent reaction to the mere thought. It makes me overreact to this environment that I consider ripe for such situations.

[The Great Hippo]

I wasn't being specious when I said I'm sorry for not specifying my intent. I changed the topic without specifying that I did and shouldn't be surprised you called me on it.

Okay; in that case, I beg your pardon -- I definitely took your previous post as being insincere, but rereading it now I can see that you were being genuine. My apologies.

And I agree that many of the accusers in probably most of these cases did have to wait years for the opportunity to tell their story without peremptorily being told to 'shut the fuck up' as you accurately put it. It's a travesty that the environment was ever thus, and obviously accusations should be taken seriously when made. However, at the moment the environment has changed to one where rather it's the people accused being told to 'shut up and accept what's coming for you, you obviously deserve it', and I consider neither alternative to be acceptable. The victims should be able to come forward when it happens, not years later when their only resort is to damage the reputation of the accused because there is little to no evidence that would be acceptable in court. But I have a problem with assaults on people's reputation being popularized that need little to no evidence to be effective and the accused has little to no defense.
In my turn I deeply disagree with statements recently issued such as this:

I'm actually not at all concerned about innocent men losing their jobs over false sexual assault/harassment allegations...If some innocent men's reputations have to take a hit in the process of undoing the patriarchy, that is a price I am absolutely willing to pay.

https://twitter.com/EmilyLindin/status/ ... 4822579200

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" and all that.

I probably share morriwalter's character flaw that is I absolutely loathe the thought of being falsely accused and have a violent reaction to the mere thought. It makes me overreact to this environment that I consider ripe for such situations.

Okay -- and to be fair, that is a much more reasonable stance than what I initially took you as having. I can certainly understand being infuriated both at that statement and at the notion of a false accusation carrying so much weight.

I don't know the context of that statement you've quoted. I can imagine situations where it isn't as bad as it sounds -- but even in those contexts, I don't think it's at all inappropriate for someone to still be deeply upset at the sentiment it carries.