BS: Sackings at the Tower

Subject: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:23 AM

I forgot to post when this one finally came to a conclusion last week:


Tower of London sacks two yeomen


The story broke when the two men were suspended. Now the investigation is complete and they have been sacked for bullying the Tower's first ever female Beefeater.

Someone who had made a successful career in a traditionally male environment for 22 years is not exactly some shrinking violet. What she was subjected to must have been intimidating, demoralising and terribly isolating. Good on Moira for standing her ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:41 AM

Sadley there is still so much of it about. A friend of our sons is a femail jockey and at most race courses has to change in the public toilets. Not to save her modesty, but simply because the other jockey's and their valets will not allow her into their area. I admire any woman who is prepared to stick it out (if you pardon the expression).

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Lizzie Cornish
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 07:36 AM

If what happened, happened, then good for her...

However, it is also, sadly, incredibly easy these days for men to be 'taken to task' for 'harrassing' a woman....and often there is no, or very little case, to answer, but the mud sticks.

It was OK then, for Moira to call her male colleagues 'blokes'?

Now, had the men called her a somewhat derogartory name, would she have added that to her list of grievances?

There's always two sides to everything, and I think that at this present time, much is weighted AGAINST men.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 08:30 AM

As I said earlier, this is a woman who served in the military for 22 years. She knows what it is to work in a man's world, and she achieved distinctions for her excellent service. Hardly the type to suddenly get the wobbles if the chaps at work were being a bit off. She was subjected to a sustained campaign of bullying.

As for these poor, put-upon men being "taken to task" when there is no or very little case to answer: this isn't trial by tabloid. There was an industrial tribunal. There was an official investigation. The accusation of bullying was found to have grounds, including physical evidence, and they were sacked.

Since when is the word "blokes" offensive?

I think "at this present time", anyone with eyes and a brain knows perfectly well that being born a white male in most westen countries gives you numerous statistical advantages over being born into any other cultural or gender sub-group. It's hard enough out there for women who want to carve out a career in a man's world, especially when they are going into completely new territory the way that Moira did. She's a very brave lady. For another woman to cast doubt on the findings of her case when the facts are really very clear and have been upheld by an official investigation is distasteful.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:20 AM

I believe that the main reason that men in any "Macho" profession, military, fire fighter, police, resent having women do their job as easily as they can. It robs them of their tough guy facade.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:34 AM

From the freedictionary.com

Bloke is simply a British slang term for 'man/guy', with perhaps slight connotations of masculinity.

Now, how the hell is that considered to be derogatory?

Having seen, first hand, the workings of an industrial tribunal I know that the allegations against those accused have to be pretty well iron clad to succeed. To actually start the proceedings takes a lot of courage and to know that you will have to continue to work in that environment, even if the accusations have been proven, can be daunting, as there will always be a certain amount of caution shown to the accuser by a lot of her colleagues. Since this article does not give details of what this woman had to deal with I think that it is foolish to suggest that her accusations were without merit and that the men were, effectively, the victims here.

There are still 'male bastions' in society and, again, to be the only female on the workforce in a previously male dominated area requires a lot of courage. She says "I had one chap at the gate one day who said he was completely and utterly against me doing the job". Having to work with someone who has that attitude toward you, simply due to your gender, has got to be difficult. I only hope that this event doesn't prevent other qualified women from joining the staff at the Tower.

Just remember, it's women like Moira Cameron who made it possible for all women to enjoy equality in work situations. Read your history.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:36 AM

I am all in favour of female equality, but I always wonder when there's all this fuss over one badly treated woman, why there isn't an equal amount of fuss for males in a similar position?
On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.
Goose and gander spring to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Rapparee
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:37 AM

Lordy, Kendall. I was an military policeman, an infantryman, a stonecutter, and in other macho professions. A woman can do the job of a cop much more easily, at times, than a man -- they can defuse a situation just by their presence. In combat a man would slide a bayonet into you, but a woman would twist it to make sure you were dead. In stonecutting we used hoists (chain then, electrical now), air chisels, sandblasting, rollers, dock trucks, levers -- nothing a woman couldn't do.

Women can become good shots more quickly than men -- something long recognized by shooting instructors -- because they listen to instructions instead of assuming.

One of my family's motto has long been, "Try it before you say you can't do it."

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 09:57 AM

Giok, in this instance I think it's because her appointment was historical in itself - the first woman in hundreds of years to be appointed in that post. It was covered by all the national newspapers at the time. Now, it's exceptionally sad if such a groundbreaking and positive (not to mention high-profile) appointment eventually has such disastrous outcomes, but it seems clear that the bullying was PURELY based on her gender, and the fact that certain colleagues felt she should not be doing the job because she was a woman. Maybe you don't see equivalent "fuss" in the other direction because it's fairly rare for a man to either not get a job because of his gender, or to be systematically bullied just because his female colleagues think that, as a man, he ought not to be doing his job, and that, purely based on their own judgements, they have a right to intimidate him into leaving.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:27 AM

"Maybe you don't see equivalent "fuss" in the other direction because it's fairly rare for a man to either not get a job because of his gender, or to be systematically bullied just because his female colleagues think that, as a man, he ought not to be doing his job, and that, purely based on their own judgements, they have a right to intimidate him into leaving."


There are some women who feel very angry towards men...they are the female equivalent of a mysoginist/misogynist (damn, can never spell that word, LOL)..and they actually make some men's lives absolute HELL.

There are also women out there, the equivalent of 'blokes' who make sexist comments about and to men....who take great delight in hanging up the sexy posters of men..whilst perhaps choosing to slam into any man who fancies a Pirelli Calendar in his office. Some women are lewd and crude and sexist...and they make false accusations about men, for their own agendas.

And guess what...? More often than not, they are believed whilst the men have to live with the consequences...

Men are having a tough time....and that is not a wrong thing to say.

SOMEONE has to say it..so, I'm saying it...and nope, I ain't part of The Sisterhood.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 10:29 AM

On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.
Goose and gander spring to mind. <<<


That's appalling, John! Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:19 AM

Oh, it's very clear you are not part of the sisterhood, Lizzie. That's fine. But For doubts to be cast on the veracity of Moira's story just because she IS a woman is sexism of the worst kind, and the fact that it's coming from another woman is beyond understanding.

I know that there are asome women who seem to only derive their self-esteem from courting the approval of men, and who will even do down their own sex in the pursuit of it, but Moira's problem was real. It wasn't going to be solved by slathering on more glittery eyeshadow or batting her eyelashes or giggling suggestively every time someone with a penis walked by, or any other whimsical nonsense. She is an intelligent woman who had had a distinguished career in a tough, male-oriented world. She was qualified for her job. A couple of blokes decided that, because she didn't have a penis, they had the right to make her life hell for two years. She had the balls to stand up to them. They've been sacked, and deservedly so

This is not a case of some ball-breaking woman setting out to destroy men, and who couldn't work in a male environment - she couldn't have maintained her military career for 22 years, and achieved distinctions, if this were the case. This is not the case of some poor wittle girl who couldn't play with the big boys, so she ran to tell teacher. This is a case of a capable, competent woman who was nearly bullied out of her job by arseholes.

It's laughable, but all too predictable, that certain people on Mudcat would immediately be looking to find fault with her.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:40 AM

I know some men who have had their lives almost ruined by women with whom they have worked...and to assume that all women are downtrodden angels is madness. Some women are vitriolic bitches, with huge chips on their shoulders, looking for men to dump those chips on.

No, I'm not one of The Sisterhood, because I always choose to see both sides of a story, that of the man, and the women.   And I never believe that a woman is in the right, purely *because* she is a woman.

My life has not been enriched by a woman becoming a beefeater, nor has it been made somehow more meaningful. I have no axe to grind with men. I do not consider myself better than them. I realise we have different attributes, that they are stronger, have different skills, brains which work in different ways...

I am very happy as a woman. I love being a Mother, love feelig feminine, heck...I even used to love it when builders used to wolf whistle at me (a hanging offence in The Sisterhood)   LOL


And who the heck brought 'penises' into this discussion?

Are we now lowering ourselves to the kind of men who see women purely as physical parts?

I find that comment ridiculously sexist and insulting to many men, to be honest....

But hell, you're in The Sisterhood, so please, Crude Away to your heart's content, but forgive me if I disappear off to read a little from Jane Austen...

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:41 AM

On Woman's Hour last week they were pleading for no sentences under 6 months for female offenders. No mention of the futility of similar sentences for men.

Maybe because this was being discussed on WOMAN'S HOUR?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GREEN WELLIES
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 11:47 AM

"There are some women who feel very angry towards men..."

But Oh there are very many more angry men.

I work in a predonminatly male environement - heavy engineering - and I dont see why the hell, after going through a lengthy interview process which proved beyond doubt that I was capable of doing my job, I should then have to prove myself again in the work place.

When I attend site meetings with my boss, you would not believe the amount of men who assume I've come along to make the tea !

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:21 PM

Good on her. But like I said in the original thread I thought women were too sensible to partake in the manly occupation guarding the queens jewels while wearing silly clothes:-)

As to Lizzies >i>because I always choose to see both sides of a story. Well, I could point to any number of threads where anyone who disagrees with Ms Cornish is harrasing her, cannot see the world as it should be seen or is sworn at and attacked for simply stating an opposite view.

But as I will probably be accused of bullying or being in the secret clique of folk elite, I shall refrain from doing so. Unless, as seems likely, the thread becomes well and truly Cornished that is.

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:30 PM

Discrimination against women is not confined to the work situation

The Scottish Parliament's Equal Opportunities Committee met in early November to re-examine the sentencing of women

The committee learned that women's experiences of the criminal justice system are different from men's and that some of these differences may stem from or result in discrimination or inequality.

The committee recommended:

"the Scottish Government should explain how they will address the issue of women being more harshly sentenced than men"

Additionally -
"While the report's focus is on female offenders, this does not mean that the committee is not interested in male offenders or that it considers female offenders should be treated more favourably than male offenders."


Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said:
"It's clear that more and more people, including this committee, are agreeing with the Scottish Government's position that prison should only be for the serious offenders who commit the serious crimes.

"That's why we have been working hard to ensure more low level offenders are given the chance to address the underlying causes of their behaviour rather than serve ineffective short jail sentences."


'Female offenders in the criminal justice system'

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 12:36 PM

"And I never believe that a woman is in the right, purely *because* she is a woman."

Well, how about believing that THIS woman is right because a tribunal has found that she was? Because the evidence was so strong that her two bullies have been sacked? Because there was PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the bullying which was presented during the investigation? Is that enough? Or are the poor blokes bound to be the victims in your eyes because, quite frankly, you don't seem to like other women very much? Because that's all the "sisterhood" is: woman who care about other women, and sdon't define themselves through men, or through fawning over men. We are strong enough to know our worth, and to stand on equal terms with men. Many of us also like them rather a lot. I know I do. So this "man-hating" rubbish is exactly that.

I think it's rather sad when a woman has to still define herself and her self-worth through male approval and her sexuality - as the folk songs say, "For the leaves they will wither, and the branches will decay...and the beauty of a fair maid will soon fade away."

The brightest, most competent, most interesting women I know are also pretty damn sexy, and men find them so all the time. A woman doesn't have to be some parody of wilting, clinging, whimsical, over-made-up femininity to be sexy. She can have a career, she can be a mum, she can indulge her femininity in the manner of her choosing - lots of women do all of these things, and they manage to maintain happy, healthy relationships with men.

"My life has not been enriched by a woman becoming a beefeater, nor has it been made somehow more meaningful."

See, that's typical of your logic and short-sightedness, Lizzie. Because if women like Moira hadn't in the past done what she's done - been the first courageous woman to enter into a male workplace, and pave the way for future generations - you wouldn't have many of the freedoms you enjoy now. So you may not think she has enriched your life, but women like her certainly have. And who knows? Maybe your granddaughter will one day want to be a Beefeater, and will be grateful that Moira has done what she's done now. I know I'm grateful to women like her.

"Crude Away to your heart's content"

Ha. I see you discover your primness and sanctimony when convenient, Lizzie - normally you're effing and blinding in one of your rants, so do spare us the moral superiority.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: katlaughing
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:21 PM

THIS is why folks leave here...it is so predictable. We ask that folks NOT rise to the bait put out by trollers..yet you all take on one and you're off to the races. Back and forth, same old bullshit..that one is going to always say the opposite is true to whatever the rest of you post. So WHY DO IT? (That's rhetorical. I do not want an answer!) Just think about it, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 01:49 PM

I'll answer anyway.

It's such good fun and whiles away the long winters nights:-)

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: kendall
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:04 PM

I believe that there are many women who hate men because they are the type these women are attracted to. The loser, the drunk and the abuser.

Many men are attracted to women who cheat, wont work and also drink.

It's been said that men marry their Mothers. My Mother was one of the most respectable, decent, hard working people I ever knew.Maybe thats why I honor all women. (Except my first wife, her lawyer, and some of her friends...).
>
>
>
>A little humor!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:10 PM

Because Jacqui, when women ask for equality, surely it should be for all?
Some animals are not more equal than others, to paraphrase Mr Orwell

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:32 PM

Sorry kat, but I have a right to my opinion, and just because it disagrees with yours, on this subject, does NOT make me a troll...nor does it make many of those who consistently disagree with me a lot of the time, trolls.

Please don't patronise me, or be rude in such a way, purely because you're a mod.

I get flaming mad with women who think that simply because they are a womem, it gives them 'rights' above men. In my book, it doesn't. Women have had it their own way for a very long time.

As I said, which was completely overlooked, I know men who have been bullied and harrassed, yes, accused too, by women, so we are not all saints. That stands on both sides.

Ruth, if you want to bring men down to simply nothing more than 'penises', which for some extraordinary reason you chose to bring into this conversation, then that is your right...but to me, that shows a somewhat derogatory attitude towards men.

And sorry, kat, but purely because I choose not to be part of The Sisterhood, does NOT make me a troll, but it does show how those in The Sisterhood choose to regard women who stand outside it.

I prefer the likes of Florence Nightingale and Edith Cavell, to someone who's a Beefeater, purely speaking personally....but each to their own.

And as for bullying...........................................

Femal physician, heal thyself....as they say.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Gervase
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 02:53 PM

I haven't seen a transcript of the tribunal hearing, and so cannot make a judgement one way or another. There is an account here by one of the sacked Yeoman Warders. It is in the Daily Mail, which makes my hackles rise immediately, but it does present the alternative view.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:34 PM

So who said women should have rights over men? No one. This is about someone, a woman, having the right NOT to be bullied in the workplace because of her gender.

Funnily enough, Lizzie, I don't imagine Moira is particularly bothered whether you prefer Florence Nightengale to her, but I fail to see the logic of comparing them. Different jobs, different career paths, equally valid. Don't forget that Moira spent 22 years in military service to her country - but maybe you think she's less of a woman because she chose this career path in the first place? Because she chose the armed services rather than working in a job more appropriate to a woman?

I did not reduce men to penises, but this assertion does show your inability to argue logically and to process information. I said that there was no reason she should be reduced to a puddle of glitter-spattered hormonal goo in front of every person she met who happened to be born with one, and that she shouldn't be persecuted or discriminated against by her colleagues just because she hadn't been born with one. Do keep up.

This woman has done something brave and interesting with her life, and yet you can still belittle and demean her achievements precisely because she isn't a man. How sad it must be to hate your own sex.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 03:47 PM

Gervase, I can tell you that the Daily Mail, if they have the full report, is being very economical with the truth. There were many more incidents; they haven't even mentioned the nasty notes, which happily she kept.

For the sacked bloke to imply that Moira is some sort of party-girl floozy is a lie, pure and simple. The fact that he's tried in the article to besmirch her character says quite a lot about the veracity of the rest of his statements.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:02 PM

"This woman has done something brave and interesting with her life, and yet you can still belittle and demean her achievements precisely because she isn't a man. How sad it must be to hate your own sex. "

I don't hate my own sex, you state that, not me...but at times, I am ashamed of some of them.

Many people to many interesting things with their lives.

Moira has wrecked the career of her fellow Beefeaters who are now going to lose their jobs and homes.

I'm sure she feels a great sense of victory, as do the rest of The Sisterhood.

I hope she enjoys her job

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:12 PM

So, what - they should have been allowed to wreck her career instead? When they were the aggressors? How does that work?

I think you'll find that the Beefeaters in question have homes elsewhere as well as the apartment at the Tower for which they pay a peppercorn rent. They are not homeless. But if people bully other people in the workplace, why shouldn't they lose their jobs? What should the solution be, Lizzie? Should they have been allowed to bully her out of her job? Would that have been more fair because, on some bizarre level, they have more of a right to do that job than she does?

I can assure you she feels no victory. She has had a nightmare of a time for two years. She went from being full of optimism and enthusiasm for this job to wishing she'd never applied for it. She has said that, given her time again, she wouldn't do it. Does that sound triumphant to you? She's a lovely woman, who did not deserve this. What she does deserve - what ANY woman deserves - is to be allowed is to be allowed to get on with her job, without being harrassed because of her gender.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:14 PM

"Moira has wrecked the career of her fellow Beefeaters"

Unbelievable. No, Lizzie, THEY wrecked their OWN careers when they decided to try and bully her out of her job.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

?

Victim blaming is a typical fascist trait *

*Kriss Ravetto (2001) The unmaking of fascist aesthetics



Finally we agree on something Lizzie

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:16 PM

Florence NIghtingale was a nurse for 11 months only. She also spent more than half of her life in bed. Most of her time there was apparently spent writing letters.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:19 PM

I am sure she will enjoy it much more now there is no intimedation and bullying. Remember that this was REAL bullying, not the kind that certain parties here seem to perceive, invent and revel in.

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:28 PM

This woman apparently has said that her hair fell out because of how she was treated.

?


The man, who she said was nasty to her was also a former soldier, you have to be to do that job, a soldier of 29 years standing, with an unblemished record.

He has stated that he didn't socialise with her after work.

Why should he?   Did that upset her? Why should it?

I can't actually see, in the information provided, anything that would make someone's hair fall out.

Geez, I've had FAR worse said about me, and to me, from some of the very folks in here who are spluttering about how mean these nasty men were to 'poor moira'.....but somehow, my hair managed to stay attached to my head...and I didn't sue everyone, nor demand that they were banished from messageboards...

I used to work with a woman in Harley Street who was absolutely vile. She went out of her way to do all she could to cause trouble. Luckily, the other lass I worked with became my best friend, so she knew what was going on. This woman would be cutesy pie to me in front of the doctors, and when Kimmy was there, but...when the doctors disappeared and Kim went home early (she finished earlier than we two) the atmosphere changed in an instant. It was scary, it was upsetting and...it was bloody tedious.

Nope, I didn't complain, nor weep in a corner, I just realised that some women are absolute bitches, and some are not....and I'm sure the same can be said for some men who behave badly too.

I didn't take her to court...and even if I had, it probably would have been laughed out and we'd both have been told to 'get on'....but hell, had she been a man, and THEN I'd have taken her to court, she/he would have been lambasted with her/his head on Traitor's Gate....

It's tough being a man in this world today.

Sorry, Sisters...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:31 PM

BTW - I think there may have been underlying politcal motives in Moira's appointment. Just as there are in appointing minority races to high ranks in the police and appointing differently abled persons in positions previously denied to them. That does not mean it was wrong or that the person appointed was not the right one. But the attitude of their 'collegues' and some people here would ensure that those appointments could never be made.Which IS wrong.

D

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:39 PM

I can't actually see, in the information provided, anything that would make someone's hair fall out.

Do you have full access to the industraal tribunal records then or are you just going off the heresay of the popular press? The industital tribunal found for her. That should be good enough for most people. Is it any real surprise that the 'losers' in this case put their case outside the law, to the rags? If those affected feel so strongly about it why do they not keep within the law that they strove to uphold for all those years and take their employers to law for defamation of character? I think we all know the answer to that.

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:48 PM

They may well appeal, who knows. I should imagine that their hair is far thinner than Moira's at the moment though.

Gervase, the problem with these sorts of cases is, more often than not, that there is *no* alternative view, in the minds of some people...and *that* is what I find so worrying.

John...

Florence



"Discrimination against women is not confined to the work situation"

Neither is discrimination against men, Emma.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:49 PM

The report from the Daily Mail was incomplete, and the report from the sacked Beefeater is misleading and disingenuous. This was not about socialising outside of the workplace. This was about a sustained campaign of harrassment within it. Many incidents that took place are not in that report. That's why you didn't see anything in the report "that would make someone's hair fall out".

The fact is, a detailed investigation took place. It found these men guilty, and they were sacked. That doesn't happen lightly, because if they had a case for unfair dismissal, they could sue the arses off their employers.

So, regardless of hearsay and innuendo in the Daily Mail, we have a full investigation which found the men guilty. You don't get sacked for not wanting to go out with your colleagues after work, or even for not speaking to them in the hall.

Please don't speak so sneeringly of "poor Moira". To compare her victimisation to the responses to your goading, insulting and often attacking behaviour on this forum is quite unbelievable.



"It's tough being a man in this world today.

Sorry, Sisters..."

It's a hell of a lot tougher being a woman - and you're no sister of mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: jacqui.c
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:50 PM

Women's Hour deals with womens' issues and so would be highlighting the prison sentences from the female point of view. There are a lot of other fora that deal with the general view on prisons.

I have been subjected to workplace harassment by my male boss and I took grievance procedure to stop it. I know, first hand, just how difficult it can be to have to work with people like that day in and day out. It caused a colleague to have a nervous breakdown and I came pretty close. When you go through a nightmare like that you have two options - stop it or leave. I chose not to be driven out, as did Moira.

As I said previously, these tribunals are pretty tough - my father went through one when he was unfairly sacked. Like Moira he kept EVIDENCE to support his case and won it.

anyway, that's my last contribution to this thread - it's clear that Mz Cornish is, as usual, certain that her own view is the only correct one, even when she paints herself right into the corner. As they say - 'Don't wrestle with a pig - you'll get dirty and the pig likes it'.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

Women's Hour also deals with men's issues. Surely if you women want to be included in everything, then we men have a right to expect the same respect?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:57 PM

If they do not appeal or if they do appeal and the appeal is rejected will you say 'Sorry - I was worng'?

Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 04:58 PM

"Gervase, the problem with these sorts of cases is, more often than not, that there is *no* alternative view, in the minds of some people...and *that* is what I find so worrying."


The thing I find so sickening is that in your eagerness to pander to the male sex in general, while simultaneously pillioring any woman with the temerity to have a career, you are willing to take anny opportunity to have a pop at any woman who hasn't made the same choices you have.

I am not unable to see an alternative view, Lizzie, but I DO know a lot more about the facts of this case than you do because I know Moira. I know what a cool woman she is and I know the shit she's been through. For you to be so flippant and sneery about her stress-related hair loss rather shows your true colours once again. You're a nasty piece of work, lady.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:03 PM

'but somehow, my hair managed to stay attached to my head.'

Whatever disapprobation you have invited on this and other forums Lizzie is related to what you have chosen to post.

Someone who is continually harassed in the work place and subjected to daily stress because of their race or gender etc however has no such choice

Stress-induced hair loss is known as alopecia areata, and involves a white blood cell attack on the hair follicles.

With this type of hair loss, the hair also falls out within weeks (usually in patches), but can involve the entire scalp and even body hair.
Hair may grow back on its own, but treatment may also be required.


Although men may undergo substantial emotional effects with hair loss (indication of aging, loss of physical strength etc) it is the women who tend to find it much more difficult to handle hair loss.

From the sort of stuff that you have posted about 'femininity' Lizzie it is all too understandable that tests have shown that women were much more worried about the way they looked than men.
This leads to a deeper psychological investment in the way they look to the public.
With the loss of their hair, women tend to find a loss in self worth and self esteem.

A double whammy!

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:10 PM

"With the loss of their hair, women tend to find a loss in self worth and self esteem."


And you think that men don't feel that too???????

Yeesh!

I'm outta here...

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: GUEST,Emma B
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:15 PM

Lizzie you just never actually read other people's posts do you?

I think you will find I said that 'men undergo substantial emotional effects with hair loss'

but why bother....sigh - when have you ever let what people actually said get in the way of your rants?

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:17 PM

I, for one, do not need anyone to stand up for me, thank you. Particulary someone who constantly complains about harrasment and yet tries to undermine someone who has genuinely suffered it.

And now, I'll leave this thread to The Sisters

I'll believe that, and rejoice, when I see it. Which one of the sisters am I by the way? Ugly one I hope!

:D (eG)

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:22 PM

now for something completely different
animation of a guy and a tower, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI-b9ye4RqY

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:43 PM

Page 2!

:D

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:50 PM

Just so long as the Ravens are still there...
................................

If you bully anyone, anywhere, you don't belong there. Including the Internet.

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Donuel
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 05:55 PM

Mudcat should have FULL MOON ALERTS so that people can get a perspective on the swings in mood, sensitivity and rationality

Subject: RE: BS: Sackings at the Tower
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 01 Dec 09 - 06:03 PM

Is it a full moon, Don? I never nooooooooooooooooooticed...