# Sexual harrassment at DJ's



## basilio (2 August 2010)

Very strong story on a $37 m lawsuit against DJ management and the past CEO Mark McInnes. If what is claimed in the article is accurate then it looks very dim for all concerned.

Very impressed with the fact that if the woman wins the money will go to a fund to help victims of sexual harassment. Very good, very clever. Will go down well with the public and and jury.

I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't solved very quickly.


> *David Jones sex harassment case: publicist sues for $37m*
> BELLINDA KONTOMINAS
> August 2, 2010 - 1:32PM
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...se-publicist-sues-for-37m-20100802-112iw.html


----------



## basilio (2 August 2010)

There is now a good interview with the woman at the centre of this scandal. 

Would not be surprised at all if she ended up being a leading figure in any organisation that was attempting to stop sexual harassment in the workplace. And bringing a big hunk of cash into the place wouldn't hurt.

It's clear she would not get an easy run in the PR industry again so that career is gone.

Go girl !!

http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...se-publicist-sues-for-37m-20100802-112iw.html


----------



## Julia (2 August 2010)

I think it's crazy to expect $37 million for this!  For heaven's sake, he didn't kidnap and rape her:  apparently he tried to kiss her and put his hand up her top.

She has succeeded in having him lose his job and his reputation (though he does appear to be a serial flirt and probably had something coming).   I'd have thought a quiet payment to her of $100K or so would be proportionate to her 'suffering'.

Certainly it's a redeeming feature of her hysteria that if she gets the money she will donate it to the charity.

I just think women  have become a bit precious over this whole sexual harassment thing.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Go girl !!




Gold digger


----------



## Julia (2 August 2010)

I've just done a bit of googling to find out average damages for e.g. paraplegia and quadriplegia as the result of an accident.



> For instance the council of a country town in New South Wales was sued by a cyclist who came off his bike and became a paraplegic - he hit a pothole while conducting a speed trial on his faulty bike. The council was deemed to be 80% responsible for the accident and ordered to pay $2.24 million dollars.
> 
> And another example - a junior basketball referee in North Queensland recently sued her local basketball association for not warning her of the dangers of running backwards - she tripped breaking both wrists and was awarded $80,000.




Various other references.  The highest payout I could find was $4.6 million for quadriplegia following motor cycle accident.

This rather puts the DJ's complainant's suggestion she is deserving of $37 million into perspective.  I absolutely hope she doesn't get anything like that.  It would set a ridiculous precedent where a bloke could be in trouble for making a flirtatious remark.  So silly.


----------



## alwaysLearning (2 August 2010)

The woman in question seems greedy to me. When she spoke, all I could think of was the word greed.


----------



## nunthewiser (2 August 2010)

alwaysLearning said:


> The woman in question seems greedy to me. When she spoke, all I could think of was the word greed.




 I had other thoughts on the matter but i better keep them to myself or she might sue me also


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

> I think it's crazy to expect $37 million for this! For heaven's sake, he didn't kidnap and rape her: apparently he tried to kiss her and put his hand up her top.
> 
> She has succeeded in having him lose his job and his reputation (though he does appear to be a serial flirt and probably had something coming). I'd have thought a quiet payment to her of $100K or so would be proportionate to her 'suffering'.
> 
> ...




It could look a bit precious Julia but it might be worth checking out the links in more detail and perhaps rethinking.

It appears that the CEO was repeatedly propositioning her. Not once not twice but many times. She approached the Board which told her to simply say "No" a bit louder. McInnes  already had serious form and a number of complaints.
*
And all this seemed to be public knowledge.* And there appeared to be no  effective brake on a culture of aggressive predatory bahaviour which started from the top of the company. That is not a good look.

My view on the situation is that the girl with the support of her family has decided to have a real crack to exposing the whole culture of "accepted" sexual harassment in the workplace. By stating that any settlement will go to a fund that will support future sexual harassment cases she is making clear this is not about her but all other people similarly effected.

I suppose I feel strongly about this because on a personal level I have recently seen 2 friends attacked ( one raped at a party, one drugged in a night club).  After dealing with the horror of the situation and making initial statements to the police it became clear that attempting to press charges was going to take far more pain and be far more uncertain than they could take. So like many, many other people in similar situations they have let the situation go. And the perpetuators are free to continue with no comeback.

So when a person has the courage to say "this is wrong and it has to stop " and then has the nous to make it happen I give them full support.

This action is not about some "go away money" intended to shut people up and let things get back to normal. 

Check out the following link for a bigger picture on what has happened at DJ's.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html


----------



## moXJO (3 August 2010)

Sleazy old exec's get their fingers burnt touching the goodies They shouldn’t have broken the golden rule. Full credit to her. I think the 36 million is just to scare a good settlement out of them.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

In case you don't have the opportunity to see the article consider what appears to have happened to the woman.



> Her lawyers claimed a culture of sexual harassment existed within the company and that it knew of at least three other incidents before Mr McInnes's June 18 resignation, in which he had made unwanted sexual advances towards female employees.
> 
> Ms Fraser-Kirk claims when she had complained to the company's public relations general manager, Anne-Maree Kelly, about Mr McInnes, she was told: ''Next time that happens, you just need to be very clear and say, 'No Mark' and he'll back off.''
> 
> ...




One of the interesting aspects of this case is how the media is being allowed to be so explicit in it's descriptions of what has happened. And this is with one of the biggest advertisers in the paper. Just wonder how long this can continue.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/3...ind-eye-claims-exemployee-20100802-113b0.html


----------



## BrightGreenGlow (3 August 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I had other thoughts on the matter but i better keep them to myself or she might sue me also




Yeah a bit of a chop could be on the cards . Hmm yeah 37 mil seems MASSIVE compared to what was alleged. Moral of the story: Don't mess with a girl in any business today. HR will destroy you!


----------



## Logique (3 August 2010)

Very bad publicity for DJs. They are in a very bad position now, and go-away money and quick resolution of the matter is needed, otherwise DJs will lose a lot of clientele.

Looks very bad for the DJs board too. How does a serial offender like him get and retain a senior job? Why did they allow such a toxic culture to develop, despite repeated warnings?

I won't be shopping at DJs from now on, unless they make a genuine attempt to turn the culture around.


----------



## nioka (3 August 2010)

Logique said:


> I won't be shopping at DJs from now on, unless they make a genuine attempt to turn the culture around.




Nor will I be shopping there.

 bBut hang on I never did shop there and that is the reason. If I had though I doubt if I would see reason to stop. The culprit has gone so why punish the rest of the staff and the shareholders for his actions. Pity some of the women didnt just give him a good slap in the face, Or a kick in the #### and maybe it would have been settled earlier.


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

BrightGreenGlow said:


> Yeah a bit of a chop could be on the cards . Hmm yeah 37 mil seems MASSIVE compared to what was alleged. Moral of the story: Don't mess with a girl in any business today. HR will destroy you!




It's a bit sad really. In my hay-day at company functions I was often approached in suggestive ways and touched up by pleasant females, not all of them subordinates, some higher in the hierarchy.

I tolerated it with patient shrug. But in those days we knew that boys would be boys and girls would be girls.

You have only to look at what is happening in the navy. It shows the stupidity of throwing young men and women together on a ship and not expecting hanky-panky.

I had a visit to Flinders Naval Depot recently. (I trained there in my youth). There are notices everywhere encouraging female sailors to report any sexual harassment.


----------



## spooly74 (3 August 2010)

Well, my Mrs shops at DJ's all the time and this certainly won't stop her going.
Clearly, he's a twat, but I've seen and heard much worse go on over the years, and not soley from men.
$37million is a farce for what's purported to have happened. This legal culture of taking compaines and individuals for ridiculous amounts is the only thing that's toxic. I'm reminded of a thread in here about unbelievable lawsuits from the US.

Give her 100 grand and tell her to scram. She'll be lucky imo.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

> It's a bit sad really. In my hay-day at company functions I was often approached in suggestive ways and touched up by pleasant females, not all of them subordinates, some higher in the hierarchy.
> 
> I tolerated it with patient shrug. But in those days we knew that *boys would be boys and girls would be girls*




Not quite sure what you are suggesting with your last comment Calliope.

I suggest there are a number of  bigger pictures in this case that warrant the splash this girl is making.

1) The CEO made repeated passes, touches and comments to her. She kept saying no in the nice ways (deflection, banter) and he kept coming back.

2) This was done in front of senior staff who seemed to accept it !! How wrong is that FFS !!

3) Being the CEO his actions were far more dangerous than simply a fellow staff member . He hires  and fires and who is going to take the side of the  young employee against the CEO ? 

4) The behaviour pattern was clear. There seem to be a number of other people with similar complaints. They just weren't prepared to fully challenge the company so *he got away with it and continued. *

Unfortunately no-one in the commercial world takes you seriously if there arn't big bucks attached to the issue. That is why the $37 m claim is making everyone stand up and take notice. Are there precedents for this. Sure. And perhaps along somewhat similar lines.

Back in the early 70's Ford release a  Ford Pinto car which exploded in flames when hit from the rear. This was because they relocated the petrol tank to the rear of the car to save money and make a bigger boot.

*They knew this would kill many extra people in crashes.* They calculated that in their estimations. When they were finally taken to court the jury decided that there was a case for punitive damages given the cold blooded way Ford had decided to allow the deaths to occur *and their refusal to take simple actions that would have prevented these deaths*

Check out the story to refresh your memory on the business mentality.

http://www.engineering.com/Library/...ype/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx



> Cost-Benefit Analysis
> 
> One of the tools that Ford used to argue for the delay was a "cost-benefit analysis" of altering the fuel tanks. According to Ford's estimates, the unsafe tanks would cause 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles each year. It calculated that it would have to pay $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, and $700 per vehicle, for a total of $49.5 million. However, the cost of saving lives and injuries ran even higher: alterations would cost $11 per car or truck, which added up to $137 million per year. Essentially, Ford argued before the government that it would be cheaper just to let their customers burn!
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Not quite sure what you are suggesting with your last comment Calliope.




I'm not surprised. I think you let a hatred of big business cloud your judgment.


----------



## awg (3 August 2010)

Saw a few sexual harrasment situations at one place I worked.

Senior management cases were always the trickiest, and with the CEO, there is no room to move, but the board was spineless if they had knowledge of this and did not act.

Even though I regard the reported events to be on the mild side, seems clear it does fall into the harrasment category.

imo, the board, or at least other senior management, must have inkling, and probably he had warning his personal conduct was causing trouble, therefore neccesitating his immediate resignation when the poopy hit the fan.

We had an Area manager parachuted in once, a total pants man.

Later found out he had been moved on to us, and the new job involved employing his wife as secretary..to keep an eye on him.

Dont know how good it worked though, as he managed to transfer several females into his ambit, and I thought it was no coincidence that if I had been recruiting on sheer sex appeal alone,  would have picked the same ones.

He also used to give me the evil eye when I chatted to them, like an emperor with his harem. I sincerely wanted to punch him in the face.

My last comment actually revives a funny memory, emanating from a sleazy turd mildly harrasing a girl, until one day her strongly-built boyfriend arrived at the afterwork pub and advised our pencil-necked mate that if there was any further trouble, he would "snap his spine" 

Having said that, I am not at all fond of ambit claims, I think it does a disservice to both males and females who are unfortunate enough to become embroiled in these situations in the workplace, some of which are inevitable, given human nature and sexuality.

Not to mention denigrating those who suffer other workplace injury

Damm lawyers, sure they will get a % success fee


----------



## scanspeak (3 August 2010)

Lets see ... the average Aussie earns $50k per year, so after 8 hrs/day, 5 days a week for 40 years that makes a total of $2 Million.

And she wants $37Million for some tasteless and sleazy propositions from her boss at a function?

Give me a break.

Greed like this actually hurts the sexual harassment cause because it portrays these women as money-hungry and vindictive. As for it going to charity.... yeah right. 

These outlandish sums are a huge motivator for any woman who has been propositioned by a superior at the office party or who has a score to settle. What sort of precedent would this set?

The CEO is gone, the company is red-faced. Give her $37,000 and case-closed.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

> These outlandish sums are a huge motivator for any woman who has been propositioned by a superior at the office party or who has a score to settle. What sort of precedent would this set?




Your right of course.  We can just the $37 m dollar gold diggers lining up for a piece of the action.

This woman is exposing a systemic  sexual harassment problem throughout DJ's which started from CEO and was seen and ignored or covered up by the Board and other senior staff members.

This get's very close to corporate criminal behaviour. In fact that will be one of the arguments the case.

It wasn't just one incident. It was repeated and repeated and despite complaints repeated again. *Just read the transcripts.*

The action as I see it is intended to create such a stink that not only will DJ's ensure this won't happen again for a long long time but other companies will quickly check to see if they have any pants chasers on their staff waiting to cause a similar explosion. And it will be important to make sure that the promise to support a sexual harassment organisation with any net settlement is kept up. (_Perhaps they should name it in honour of DJ and acknowledge they were they sponsors. Maybe DJ's will come to the party willingly before they  get a right bollocking in the media and the courts.._.)

It's interesting how you suggest she should be thrown $37,000 and told to **** off. That would cover a light lunch at a DJ's function and a couple of big night outs for the former CEO.  They would be delighted to get away with a slap from a wet tram ticket.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2010)

basilio said:


> It could look a bit precious Julia but it might be worth checking out the links in more detail and perhaps rethinking.
> 
> It appears that the CEO was repeatedly propositioning her. Not once not twice but many times. She approached the Board which told her to simply say "No" a bit louder. McInnes  already had serious form and a number of complaints.



Basilio, I've read the details and maintain my view expressed earlier.

Clearly, McInnes had an ongoing and rather pathetic need to make sexual conquests, and it also appears that middle management at least failed to act on complaints about him.   However, he'd only have continued his behaviour if  he fairly frequently met with a positive response to his overtures, so let's not let those women off the hook entirely.  ( probably there will be howls of outrage from the sisterhood here!)

So, I'm guessing when he was told politely 'no', his ego and/or his need for another notch on his belt overrode common sense, and he persisted.
I reckon with blokes like this politeness has no place.  If she'd simply kneed him in the appropriate place at the first inappropriate touching, I doubt he'd have had another go.

You'll probably say that she should  not have been put in a position where any overture occurred in the first place, and probably that's right.  But this sort of stuff has been going on literally for ever and women had to deal with it long before we ever heard the term 'sexual harassment'.

Good Lord, if you think what transpired in this instance was sexual  harassment, I'm damned if I know what you'd call some of the approaches I've received in many workplaces.   But if such approaches were unwelcome, they certainly didn't try a second time.



> I suppose I feel strongly about this because on a personal level I have recently seen 2 friends attacked ( one raped at a party, one drugged in a night club).  After dealing with the horror of the situation and making initial statements to the police it became clear that attempting to press charges was going to take far more pain and be far more uncertain than they could take. So like many, many other people in similar situations they have let the situation go. And the perpetuators are free to continue with no comeback.



I'm very sorry to hear about your friends, and you make a good point when you say if there is no penalty, it's effectively offering tacit approval of the behaviour.

However, action was eventually taken:  McInnes was fired, had his payout significantly reduced, has had his reputation (which is everything in business) trashed, and Ms Fraser-Kirk has achieved the publicity she wants.

To compare women being drugged and/or raped with this case is imo to do a great disservice to the victims of the drugging and the rape.

I've been raped and the rapist tried to choke me when I fought back.
That is a life changing experience and induces a sense of powerlessness a woman will never forget.

Ms Fraser-Kirk is imo being extremely precious about some extremely stupid behaviour by someone who should have known better but whom she should have been able to repel by her own very straightforward means.



nioka said:


> Nor will I be shopping there.
> 
> bBut hang on I never did shop there and that is the reason. If I had though I doubt if I would see reason to stop. The culprit has gone so why punish the rest of the staff and the shareholders for his actions. Pity some of the women didnt just give him a good slap in the face, Or a kick in the #### and maybe it would have been settled earlier.



Exactly.



> Unfortunately no-one in the commercial world takes you seriously if there arn't big bucks attached to the issue. That is why the $37 m claim is making everyone stand up and take notice. Are there precedents for this. Sure. And perhaps along somewhat similar lines.
> 
> Back in the early 70's Ford release a  Ford Pinto car which exploded in flames when hit from the rear. This was because they relocated the petrol tank to the rear of the car to save money and make a bigger boot.
> 
> *They knew this would kill many extra people in crashes.* They calculated that in their estimations. When they were finally taken to court the jury decided that there was a case for punitive damages given the cold blooded way Ford had decided to allow the deaths to occur *and their refusal to take simple actions that would have prevented these deaths*



Basilio, I don't know how you can possibly offer the Ford case as remotely comparable.   Ms Fraser-Kirk wasn't physically harmed, let alone killed.
The comparison is ridiculous.

Could you perhaps explain why you think the $37 million is appropriate, bearing in mind what I offered earlier as average payouts for paraplegia and quadriplegia?   As far as I can tell, Ms Fraser-Kirk is well and truly alive, and healthy, and she has the rest of her working life ahead of her, no doubt enhanced by all the publicity she is generating.  Though, on second thoughts, maybe that's quite wrong:  most potential employers will now avoid her at all costs, and understandably.



scanspeak said:


> Lets see ... the average Aussie earns $50k per year, so after 8 hrs/day, 5 days a week for 40 years that makes a total of $2 Million.
> 
> And she wants $37Million for some tasteless and sleazy propositions from her boss at a function?
> 
> ...



That's a really good point about the precedent which would be set.  There are enough hysterical young women already without giving them the added incentive of massive payouts.


I realise my above views will be seen by some as traitorous to my gender, but to me it's an extension of the nanny state phenomenon which is becoming more and more prevalent.   We expect to be protected against everything, to the point where any sense of personal responsibility is simply not going to be valued.


----------



## scanspeak (3 August 2010)

Julia, its good to hear a woman telling it like it is and not playing the woman/victim card. Thats what I call true empowerment.

If she wins $37Million, I suspect a lot of companies would have to be thinking hard about hiring female staff .


----------



## trainspotter (3 August 2010)

A friend of mine hired a young woman who was absolutely hopeless at the job she was hired to do ... basic secretarial work (she had falsified her abilitites on her CV) Could not type 90 wpm nor knew how to operate Excel spreadsheets etc. He gave her a written warning about the lack of productivity she was displaying towards the job. Suddenly she got sick and had to have time off. When she came back to work she was sullen towards the other staff so he gave her another written warning abour her behaviour to staff and to clientelle. She suddenly got sick again and had more time off. When she came back she gave *him* the ultimatum that he "had to stop undressing her with his eyes" or she would file a sexual harrasment suit against him. He dismissed her from the position so she took him for "Wrongful Dismissal" and got a payout of $8,000 for the trouble. 

Something is wrong when it comes to this kind of litigation. 37 million is just out there from the context of what actually went on. Remember this has not gone to court, there has been no judgements made, there has been no motions of discovery. IT IS ALL ALLEGED !


----------



## DocK (3 August 2010)

I think the amount being demanded is ridiculous, however I suspect it has been set so high in order to guarantee media attention (which it certainly has) and not with any expectation of a figure remotely near this being paid out in the end.  I daresay there will be a quiet settlement for an undisclosed sum and both parties will have achieved their aim.

I agree that Ms Fraser-Kirk seems to be a bit "precious", and many of us have managed to fend-off the odd unwelcome advance or grope at office functions over the years without any lasting ill effect - but not generally from the CEO.  In my own experience it's much easier to tell one's immediate superior or colleague to "take a hike" than to slap the face of apply a knee to the groin of someone in such a powerful position of authority. (especially if you're only 25)  I can sympathise if Ms Fraser-Kirk felt too intimidated to be too forceful in her rejections of McInnes and felt she had protected herself by bringing the matter to the attention of her supervisor - clearly her supervisor should have had a quiet word to McInnes instead of brushing her off.

Unfortunately wherever alcohol flows at the workplace or office events, some idiot is going to do or say something inappropriate - (whether it's the boss propositioning the cute admin assistant or vice versa  ), perhaps this media storm will prompt a few more organisations to train their staff on the correct responses to complaints to avoid serial offences.


----------



## awg (3 August 2010)

On the other side of the coin, 

There are probably a few good-looking gals that will be feeling a tad nervous now their "mentor" has departed.

I was always vastly amused that my female colleagues were very quick to highlight the possibility that the (female) job winner had won the job on factors other than capability.

Sure wish I could have ****ed my way to the top

ps Trainspotter..I have given this advice succesfully to a few people.

You dont sack someone, if possible you reduce their hours to part-time, and gradually phase them out. This can overcome some employment law issues.

Also many people make these kind of frivolous threats, the biggest problem is that the employer needs time off to front a hearing or whatever, and give up.
I advice patience and doggedness.

Back to Kristy-Lee or whatever her name is, I say good on her for standing up, she may be precious, but for a MD  or CEO to abuse his position in that manner, I find deplorable. I cannot imagine how someone could be so injudicious, unless well affected by intoxicants 

If I was her partner, I would be very annoyed with Mr Mcguiness and depending on the exact nature of the accusations, I would probably be wanting to seek him out for a word or two myself.

I do agree that innocent until proven guilty should apply, however, in a civil matter, it is balance of probability, I would be very surprised if he was able to contend his actions did not constitute sexual harrasment as it is defined


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

DocK said:


> I think the amount being demanded is ridiculous, however I suspect it has been set so high in order to guarantee media attention (which it certainly has) and not with any expectation of a figure remotely near this being paid out in the end.  I daresay there will be a quiet settlement for an undisclosed sum and both parties will have achieved their aim.




Even if she fails to get a big payout, the publicity will be worth thousands to her (think of Lara Bingle). She's not getting any younger and she has to use her looks before they fade.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

Some great responses to this story and certainly worth discussing.

$37 M for a sexual harassment claim in itself is ridiculous. End of story.  And judging from legal precedent and general discussion somewhere between 20 and 100k is what we might feel is "fair". 

What I'm trying to say however is that this case seems to have a far bigger agenda than simply a relatively isolated harassment or even a continual assault. 

It looks as if the CEO of the company itself is the  chief culprit and despite repeated complaints  little is done. True in this case the Board finally dismisses the CEO. There is argument that he should have been charged with criminal offenses and got off relatively lightly. And there was the question of just how the company would handle future cases. *Was this enough of a shock to ensure that any future incidents would be handled properly ?*

We don't know the full story so it's not reasonable to make that call. But from the woman's perspective she is now trying to challenge the whole system by trying to extract the maximum possible financial damages. In our system money, and only money, talks.

Julia you suggested that the deadly Ford Pinto comparison was ridiculous because no-one got hurt. The comparison I was making was not with the devastation to the people. It was the way the Ford Motor company originally did it's sums. As I noted they knew hundreds of people would be directly burned and maimed by their actions. So they totted up $200,000 a death $67,000 a burn and $700 for the car and balanced it against the $11 a vehicle it would cost them to  prevent these needless deaths.

*And guess what ? It was cheaper to let the  people burn. So they did.*

In court the jury decided that this cold blooded balance between a fiery death and dollars  *deserved to be punished with punitive damages beyond simple compensation*. From that judgment on businesses have to be aware that if your actions are seen as particularly callous or criminal *the legal consequences could be far bigger than just compensation.*

As the way the world works now sex assaults on women whether rape, date drugging, harassment are very hard to bring to justice. The process is difficult, personally traumatic and in the end the victim is destroyed again. And with that realisation most people who have been assaulted suck it up and move on. 

*With that realisation of human nature the sociopaths who understand that they can most likely get away with their behavior just continue,*   It was AWG who gave a particular example of this in his workplace. 

I suggest this case is about making the whole community face the consequences of systematic harassment. It is not about a single incident or a single case. 

I agree that the $37 m claim is exceedingly large. Interestingly enough it was put in the context of the profits of DJ's over the seven years Mr Mcinnes was CEO and the wages of McInnes in that time. It would be a 5% fine. It's interesting that when CEO's give themselves unimaginable remunerations that have no resemblance to normal people - it's seen as the way the marketplace works. But coping a financial consequence on par with that income is somehow obscene ?  The most appropriate settlement( IMO)  would be some restitution for the women with the majority of the settlement directed to supporting an organization that gave sexual assault legislation some teeth.

The issue of malicious or stupid complaints is very real. I think a system that was able to look fairly at what had happened would be the best defense against unwarranted claims.


----------



## Calliope (3 August 2010)

http://media.smh.com.au/lifestyle/f...ched-me-up-designer-1732113.html?from=newsbox



> *I wish McInnes had touched me up: designer *
> At the David Jones summer fashion show today Aussie fashion designer Alannah Hill says she's always had a crush on disgraced former CEO Mark McInnes and the sex harassment case is 'just a glitch'.




This bloke McInnes sounds like another Bill Clinton.


----------



## Ruby (3 August 2010)

Ms Fraser-Kirk has my full support and sympathy.

I don't think she or anyone else expects that she will win $37mill, but sexual harrassment in the work place is something that will not go away, and I think a well-publicised case like this, making a huge damages claim will make the corporate world sit up and take notice, and will claim the undivided attention of the media - also good to further the cause.  It is not the amount of money that is at issue - it is the need to force this out into the public arena which is important.  

Men like Mark McInnes (whose behaviour was not just 'flirtatious' but predatory) think they can behave in this sleazy way with impunity; and the fact that the DJ's board knew and did nothing implies that they condoned his behaviour, or at least, did not condemn it, which is just as bad.

Paying women who suffer in this way a few hundred thousand $$ in 'hush money' and then telling them to go away is not the answer.  It does not punish the perpetrators (what would that sum be to Mark McInnes or DJ's?) and it does nothing to root out this evil culture.

I hope she wins her case or settles for a VERY large sum.   It will be a victory for women who have been the targets of this behaviour everywhere.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2010)

DocK said:


> Unfortunately wherever alcohol flows at the workplace or office events, some idiot is going to do or say something inappropriate - (whether it's the boss propositioning the cute admin assistant or vice versa  ), perhaps this media storm will prompt a few more organisations to train their staff on the correct responses to complaints to avoid serial offences.



Good point about alcohol pretty much inevitably being involved.



Ruby said:


> Ms Fraser-Kirk has my full support and sympathy.
> 
> I don't think she or anyone else expects that she will win $37mill, but sexual harrassment in the work place is something that will not go away, and I think a well-publicised case like this, making a huge damages claim will make the corporate world sit up and take notice, and will claim the undivided attention of the media - also good to further the cause.  It is not the amount of money that is at issue - it is the need to force this out into the public arena which is important.



Have you considered that if this claim is successful it will spark hundreds of cute young things thinking 'wow, if she can get that much (or anything at all for that matter) because she encountered some predatory behaviour at social functions then whacko, why shouldn't I accuse my boss (who continually finds fault with my work/expects me to be on time every day/asks me to make his coffee occasionally etc etc.) of sexual harassment?'
See Trainspotter's example above.

Sure, it would then have to be tested in the courts, but in the meantime, there are huge costs involved and the potential ruin of a person's and a company's reputation.



> Men like Mark McInnes (whose behaviour was not just 'flirtatious' but predatory) think they can behave in this sleazy way with impunity; and the fact that the DJ's board knew and did nothing implies that they condoned his behaviour, or at least, did not condemn it, which is just as bad.



Ruby, where do you get the conviction that the board knew about this and did nothing?   My understanding is that Ms Fraser-whatever complained to her immediate supervisor, that supervisor failing to take her complaint further.
Then when the matter finally came to the attention of the Board, Mr McInness was dismissed and the rest is history.

It seems to me to be pretty unfair to label the whole firm as unacceptable because of the peculiar and crummy behaviour of one individual.



> Paying women who suffer in this way a few hundred thousand $$ in 'hush money' and then telling them to go away is not the answer.  It does not punish the perpetrators (what would that sum be to Mark McInnes or DJ's?) and it does nothing to root out this evil culture.



Goodness, Ruby, you're usually objective and sensible.  The bloke was a serial sexual predator.   He made overtures to multiple young women, allegedly.
They apparently were not up to dealing with it themselves.   I'd say this makes him very stupid, perhaps in need of some therapy to deal with his sexual needs, but hardly 'evil'.   He has been publicly punished by losing his job and, more important, his reputation, and has been significantly financially disadvantaged.
I'd have more concern about the pain and embarrassment he has caused to his ex wife and children, and perhaps his current partner, than many of the other complainants in this tawdry affair.


Dock has mentioned that mostly this sort of rubbish occurs when the alcohol flows freely.  The overtures occurred in these social, party situations in a room full of people.  He didn't drag them by the hair to the stationery room, pin them down on the photocopier and rape them.  He made invitations to them.  Undoubtedly many of these invitations were accepted, so he was rather pathetically encouraged to believe no woman would find his attentions unwelcome.  If this makes him a criminal, then I reckon more than half the male population can be so described.



> I hope she wins her case or settles for a VERY large sum.   It will be a victory for women who have been the targets of this behaviour everywhere.



I believe absolutely the opposite.  If she wins this or any other large sum, it will encourage other young women who feel slighted for whatever reason to make accusations against bosses they don't like.   
And further, if a huge payout is made in a case like this, imo it devalues the experience of e.g. child rape, gang rape, and incest.

These are the real victims.  They are usually too traumatised to even think about making a complaint, or have been so threatened for so long, that they have lost any sense of personal identity.

Most of these people are never heard, but their situations make Ms Fraser-Kirk look very frivolous.


----------



## Julia (3 August 2010)

With apologies for somewhat diverting from the topic, but on the subject of being precious, when Tony Abbott was today asked why he is refusing to accommodate Ms Gillard's request for a further debate, he replied that he had already fixed his campaign schedule on the basis that in her original refusal to have more than one debate, her 'no' meant 'no'.   
Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me.

But in a flash, the Greens, then Labor both jumped all over him, castigating him for an appalling choice of words, because the phrase 'no means no' is frequently used in the context of rape allegations.

Mr Abbott quite reasonably became obviously irritated and said he wasn't going to cop that nonsense, or words to that effect.  

This is the sort of precious nonsense, which doesn't even come under the heading of political correctness, that I'm so against.

It's possible only a few will see the relevance of this bit of nonsense to the current discussion.


----------



## DocK (3 August 2010)

Watched channel 10's 7pm Project tonight and they had a journo on who made some good points.  Apparently the average payout for sexual harrassment is 50 - 100K, with the largest in recent history just over 400k.  She would like to know what is so special about Ms Fraser-Kirk that she feels she's worth so much more.  She made the point that by going after such a huge payout she has effectively fixed the focus of the media and general public to the amount of money involved, rather than the issue itself.  Also made the point that although she says she'll donate all proceeds to charity - the court has no power to ensure she does so once an award is made to her.  How cynical   Food for thought though...., she'd probably have been regarded in a much more positive light and done more for her "cause" if she had sued for much less - if that was actually her real intention


----------



## basilio (3 August 2010)

Nice summary Ruby. (IMO) you picked the eyes of the argument.

I think it's worth realising that anyone can make a sexual harassment claim right now. All those "cute young things" can quite happily take action now if they believe they have been harassed or assaulted or whatever.

But of course only a few ever do because the strain, the stigma, the pressure, the legal costs and everything else would generally make most people just walk away. That is the point that is being made by Ms Fraser-Kirk. She is not doing this for herself but for the whole issue.

Of course there is a range of behaviours from the stupid, drunken office parties to the calculated use of power to get what you want - particularly if it is in a dress. I think this is about the latter cases.

Again I suggest that Julie and others re-read the reports of Mr McInness's public behavior. I thought it was surreal that he should be repeatedly hitting on female staff at public functions and not being pulled up by other management. Should this have been considered acceptable and normal ? And that doesn't even touch the private pushes he made on people. I think we'll hear much about this as the 1800 numbers get rung.

I would really hope that any success achieve in this case highlights all sexual assault victims.


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2010)

Julia said:


> With apologies for somewhat diverting from the topic, but on the subject of being precious, when Tony Abbott was today asked why he is refusing to accommodate Ms Gillard's request for a further debate, he replied that he had already fixed his campaign schedule on the basis that in her original refusal to have more than one debate, her 'no' meant 'no'.
> Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me.
> 
> But in a flash, the Greens, then Labor both jumped all over him, castigating him for an appalling choice of words, because the phrase 'no means no' is frequently used in the context of rape allegations.
> ...




I see the relevance Julia. Your sense of balance despite your experiences is refreshing.

Re the DJ's case: I think it may ultimately be counter-productive. Outrageous ambit claims rarely wins many friends.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (4 August 2010)

The following anecdote is attributed variously to George Bernard Shaw, Winston Churchill, or Mark Twain, take yer pick.



   * GBS: Madam, would you sleep with me for a million pounds?
    * Actress: My goodness, Well, I'd certainly think about it
    * GBS: Would you sleep with me for a pound?
    * Actress: Certainly not! What kind of woman do you think I am?!
    * GBS: Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price.



A million pounds in their day equates just about to $37 million now.



gg


----------



## Ruby (4 August 2010)

Hi Julia,

I respect your views, but we will have to agree to disagree this time.




Julia said:


> Have you considered that if this claim is successful it will spark hundreds of cute young things thinking 'wow, if she can get that much (or anything at all for that matter) because she encountered some predatory behaviour at social functions then whacko, why shouldn't I accuse my boss (who continually finds fault with my work/expects me to be on time every day/asks me to make his coffee occasionally etc etc.) of sexual harassment?'




This has already been happening for years.




Julia said:


> Ruby, where do you get the conviction that the board knew about this and did nothing?




I can't quote I'm afraid, but did read it somewhere.




Julia said:


> Goodness, Ruby, you're usually objective and sensible.  The bloke was a serial sexual predator.   He made overtures to multiple young women, allegedly.
> They apparently were not up to dealing with it themselves.   I'd say this makes him very stupid, perhaps in need of some therapy to deal with his sexual needs, but *hardly 'evil'*.   He has been publicly punished by losing his job and, more important, his reputation, and has been *significantly financially disadvantaged.*.




I did not say he was evil, I called sexual harrassment in the workplace an 'evil culture'.   I would not call a golden handshake of $2m being 'significantly financially disadvantaged.

In my opinion, the point of this case is not about one young woman's unfortunate experience, but to highlight the whole issue of sexual harrassment which is endemic in the workplace.  Making laws and paying victims 'hush money' have done nothing to eradicate it.  It needs the spotlight firmly focused on it, and some shock tactics to make the corporate world realise that it *has to be stopped*; and really big money together with massive adverse publicity are the kind of shock tactics the corporate world will understand.  Just look at the publicity it has received already.  A small monetary compensation of a few $100,000 would be nothing more than a blip on the horizon to a large company or a CEO earning $7m pa, and it would be business as usual afterwards.

In my early years at work I, like most young women at the time, was subjected to unwanted sexual attention.  It was commonplace, not illegal, pointless to complain about it, and we were expected to 'enjoy' it!!  In the intervening years women have gone a long way toward achieving equality and respect in the workplace - except for this one area.   

I would like to acknowledge that men too are subject to sexual harrassment, and my comments can be read to include them where applicable.


----------



## professor_frink (4 August 2010)

What a greedy *****!

Any sympathy I had is long gone. I would say that I don't want to see her get the outcome she wants, but I think she most likely already has


----------



## DocK (4 August 2010)

Ruby said:


> Hi Julia,
> 
> .....snip......
> 
> ...




Ruby, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I still think she has gone overboard with the amount being sought.  Yes, people are certainly talking, but I feel the message re sexual harrassment in the workplace has been lost amongst all the talk of the $$$s being sued for.  I agree that big business will only sit up and take notice if it's made to feel some pain, but I think perhaps 2million would have been a happy balance between making her point and being seen as a greedy gold-digger.  $2million would still be much, much more than had ever been awarded before for a sexual harrassment suit, would make the point that punitive damages would be awarded against a company if complaints were ignored and predatory behaviour condoned, and if she really intends to donate it would go a long way towards helping others.  I still feel that by claiming such a huge amount she has shot herself in the foot as all people are focussed on is the money, and she will be perceived in a much more negative light than if she had been a bit more realistic.


----------



## Logique (4 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Nice summary Ruby. (IMO) you picked the eyes of the argument.
> ......But of course only a few ever do because the strain, the stigma, the pressure, the legal costs and everything else would generally make most people just walk away. That is the point that is being made by Ms Fraser-Kirk. She is not doing this for herself but for the whole issue.
> ......Of course there is a range of behaviours from the stupid, drunken office parties to the calculated use of power to get what you want - particularly if it is in a dress. I think this is about the latter cases.



Yes I think the $37m is symbolic and for publicity. Ms Fraser-Kirk has already said any settlement would be donated back to other victims of harassment. 

Also consider this, the young lady has probably lost her career in PR, ostensibly through no fault of her own. When she asked her superiors at DJs for help, they let her down. I think we're mature enough to admit that in the case of the former CEO, where there's smoke there's probably fire.

Talking real world solutions, an ambitious young staffer is not going to slap the face or knee the groin of the CEO.


----------



## Ruby (4 August 2010)

DocK said:


> Ruby, I agree with the sentiment of your post, but I still think she has gone overboard with the amount being sought.  Yes, people are certainly talking, but *I feel the message re sexual harrassment in the workplace has been lost amongst all the talk of the $$$s being sued for.*  I agree that big business will only sit up and take notice if it's made to feel some pain, but I think perhaps 2million would have been a happy balance between making her point and being seen as a greedy gold-digger.  $2million would still be much, much more than had ever been awarded before for a sexual harrassment suit, would make the point that punitive damages would be awarded against a company if complaints were ignored and predatory behaviour condoned, and if she really intends to donate it would go a long way towards helping others.  I still feel that by claiming such a huge amount she has shot herself in the foot as all people are focussed on is the money, and she will be perceived in a much more negative light than if she had been a bit more realistic.




DocK, I take your point, especially the bit I have highlighted.   It is a ridiculous sum, and as Logique says in the post following yours, it is just symbolic.  I prefaced my comments in my first post by saying I don't think she really expects to get it.  I would have been less sympathetic to her if she had not said she would donate the money to charity.

There was a sexual harassment claim recently (I think the lady was a partner in a law firm, but don't remember the details) for $11m.  It was settled out of court for a rumoured $4m - but again, this was never confirmed.


----------



## basilio (4 August 2010)

> Talking real world solutions, an ambitious young staffer is not going to slap the face or knee the groin of the CEO.




Well in fact the media consensus is that Ms Fraser-Kirk has done exactly that with the eye watering $37m  law suit and the extensive grounds upon which she is claiming damages. Just a far savvier response than the old fashioned kick in the nuts.

                     _________________________________________________

Thought it was bizzare and a bit embarrassing  that Allanah Hill outed herself as the brunette that Mark could have very, very, *VERY* easily taken home from the DJ work function. Had a touch of the stalker about it. Perhaps even a sexual harrassment case ??

Is it possible that was a suite of women who had marked Mark for their bedposts and weren't above putting the hard word on him ?


----------



## Julia (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Talking real world solutions, an ambitious young staffer is not going to slap the face or knee the groin of the CEO.



If that solution is unappealing, there are plenty of alternatives which I can assure you work very well and do not impede career progression.  Women can be assertive and clear about what is and is not acceptable, without getting carried away with themselves.



basilio said:


> Thought it was bizzare and a bit embarrassing  that Allanah Hill outed herself as the brunette that Mark could have very, very, *VERY* easily taken home from the DJ work function. Had a touch of the stalker about it. Perhaps even a sexual harrassment case ??
> 
> Is it possible that was a suite of women who had marked Mark for their bedposts and weren't above putting the hard word on him ?



Of course it's possible.  For all we know, this may have been Ms Fraser-Kirk's initial course of action until she saw an opportunity for huge advantage.
And - before there is a torrent of vituperation in my direction for even remotely considering such an unpleasant possibility - I am not making any allegation that this was so.

But yes, of course women can be and are sexually predatory.


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Of course it's possible.  For all we know, this may have been Ms Fraser-Kirk's initial course of action until she saw an opportunity for huge advantage.




In movie land it's called the casting couch. The reason she's going for $37 million is because DJs can afford it. If it had been her boss at the fish and chip shop it would have been $37 thousand, and she would have been awarded $37 hundred. 

After the case (if it is not settled on confidential terms) she will flog her story to a women's magazine.


----------



## scanspeak (4 August 2010)

If the average pay of a full-time salesperson at DJs is $37,000, then will it mean that 1000 of them will need to be sacked to pay the $37,000,000 ?

The over-riding message companies will take from this is Don't Hire Women, especially pretty ones.


----------



## Ruby (4 August 2010)

scanspeak said:


> The over-riding message companies will take from this is Don't Hire Women, especially pretty ones.




That is rather a blinkered view.  Perhaps some of them might get the over-riding message that sexual harassment in the workplace is just not acceptable!


----------



## wayneL (4 August 2010)

Ruby said:


> That is rather a blinkered view.  Perhaps some of them might get the over-riding message that sexual harassment in the workplace is just not acceptable!




Never forget the law of unintended consequences. Blinkered view or not, our society runs on perceptions. If the perception is that pretty young things could mean trouble, they won't get hired.


----------



## tech/a (4 August 2010)

If she gets close to the payout watch the increase in topless bar maids!

I had a female stalker a few years ago (A client!!) and she was 28 I was 54.---No I didnt start it!
I thought I was lucky!

I wonder if the "offender" wasnt DJ Head Honcho and was ABC Mechanical repairs with a nett worth of $100K wether there would be the same reaction.

Was one here in Adelaide with a prominent builder for $500K.
Seems if they can pay then litigation is more likely!


----------



## Calliope (4 August 2010)

Men like Mark McInnes and Bill Clinton are real charmers and women flock to them. Their problem is that their egos are so big that it doesn't occur to them that women are using them too, until they get the bill.


----------



## DocK (4 August 2010)

From Business Spectator: _* DJs' Lesson on the Lechorous*_
It appears that perhaps some big businesses are taking notice of the "message", and if this was her intention, then she has been successful.



http://www.businessspectator.com.au...er-Kirk-pd20100804-7Z42N?OpenDocument&src=sph



> Whether Kristy Fraser-Kirk and her charity ever see anything approaching the $37 million in compensation and damages she is seeking from David Jones for being sexually harassed by its former chief executive, it is evident that boards and senior executives of other companies are already considering the implications of the affair for their own businesses.




also from the same article:



> ... but the case has also underscored how potentially destructive, reputationally and financially, harassment issues within a workplace can be.
> 
> Companies are already thinking about their processes. If the harasser is the chief executive, what sort of process and what kind of culture encourages staff – senior or junior – to come forward with their allegations and ultimately by-pass their boss and risk their own position and prospects?
> 
> ...


----------



## DB008 (4 August 2010)

$37 million is a little bit on the high side l think. 

But, l do agree with her on the "sexual harassment" front. This is something that should not be occurring at work. But it often does. 

As others has said on this post, telling them to "f**k off" usually does the trick, or a partner who says something along the lines of  "Mate, l'll break your neck if u don't stop".
Staff events where alcohol is involved is also a bad mix, but it happens too. X-Mas in July and end of year events notably. And trust me, I've been at functions where people have gone into the handicap loo, locked the door and done stuff...we had to get security to unlock the door, because there was a disabled person who actually need to use it for the right purpose.


----------



## IFocus (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Yes I think the $37m is symbolic and for publicity. Ms Fraser-Kirk has already said any settlement would be donated back to other victims of harassment.
> 
> Also consider this, the young lady has probably lost her career in PR, ostensibly through no fault of her own. When she asked her superiors at DJs for help, they let her down. I think we're mature enough to admit that in the case of the former CEO, where there's smoke there's probably fire.
> 
> Talking real world solutions, an ambitious young staffer is not going to slap the face or knee the groin of the CEO.




Think you are on the money and given the amount of time and effort I have seen company's go to these days to have everyone complete training  about the very subject its extraordinary DJ's has the problem caused by a CEO.


----------



## Julia (4 August 2010)

Logique said:


> Ms Fraser-Kirk has already said any settlement would be donated back to other victims of harassment.



From today's "Australian":


> Three victims of alleged sexual misconduct referred to in a $37 million legal action brought against David Jones still work for the upmarket department store, having resolved their concerns.





> While the 25 year old has said she would donate any punitive damages to a charity working in the area of sexual harassment and bullying, she will retain any other damages or compensation awarded.  She has so far declined to specify how much would be donated in the event of a settlement.


----------



## scanspeak (5 August 2010)

Looks like she's already backtracked from that outdoor press interview (Aug 4th) where she said ALL of the proceeds would go to charity. Contrast the statements below to those in Julia's post above.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/no-gets-no-firmer-than-a-37-million-lawsuit-20100803-115el.html

"She has pledged to give it all to an as-yet unknown charity for harassment victims, should she win. Her lawyers say they are working pro bono."

If you ask me, $37M is nothing more than extortion.


----------



## Tink (6 August 2010)

IFocus said:


> Think you are on the money and given the amount of time and effort I have seen company's go to these days to have everyone complete training  about the very subject its extraordinary DJ's has the problem caused by a CEO.




Yep I agree

I see he is now flying back to help out the company.


----------



## basilio (7 August 2010)

Well at least the sexual harassment of  Kirsty Fraser-Kirk and the subsequent fall out has well and truly opened up the question about what people should be subjected to in the work place. Leonie Wood writing for The Age  picks up on some salient points.



> *WHAT price for a quick feel? Or how much would it cost to shut you up?* That's where the level of debate seems to be raging over the lawsuit faced by retailer David Jones over Kristy Fraser-Kirk's sexual harassment claims.
> 
> The victim wants $37 million. The perpetrator, Mark McInnes, got $2 million when dumped from David Jones - $445,421 of contractual entitlements plus $1.5 million to ensure the former chief executive doesn't take his retailing skills elsewhere.
> 
> *Eyebrows rose when McInnes's payout was revealed, but then everyone nodded sagely and accepted it as a commercial necessity. But be the unhappy person whom he fumbled and try to exact financial revenge through the courts, and whoahh … don't dare ask for too much*.




Leonie then discusses how this claim would be treated in America and the various court processes she is using in Australia. 



> *Maybe the headline figure of $37 million does exhibit a dramatic touch - and maybe that's a good thing, because whether Fraser-Kirk or her ascribed charities win a penny or not becomes irrelevant. Already it has effected change by shining a light on this extraordinarily complicated area.*
> 
> Simply by filing such a huge claim for behaviour that some people mistakenly consider trivial, and by doing it against such a prominent businessman, Fraser-Kirk has made men (and women) talk openly about sexual harassment.
> 
> ...




Hear hear.


----------



## DocK (7 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Well at least the sexual harassment of  Kirsty Fraser-Kirk and the subsequent fall out has well and truly opened up the question about what people should be subjected to in the work place. Leonie Wood writing for The Age  picks up on some salient points.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Found my head nodding as I read the article, so I must agree with you on this one


----------



## Calliope (7 August 2010)

DocK said:


> Found my head nodding as I read the article, so I must agree with you on this one




Yeah. Me too.



> Will the claim succeed? Definitely not in its current form. Is it a stunt? Probably. Does that make it worthless? No.




It probably is a  *stunt*, and the publicity Fraser-Kirk is getting will be *worth a lot* to her in her next endeavours.


----------



## Logique (7 August 2010)

Hasn't thought of going into politics has she? Doors would open I'd say. She'd make a fearsome advocate.


----------



## basilio (7 August 2010)

> Hasn't thought of going into politics has she? Doors would open I'd say. She'd make a fearsome advocate.




Does look good doesn't she? I think she would be too forthright and probably too moral to stomach the deals that politics appears to require.

Could easily end up campaigning on workplace sexual harassment issues though. Certainly a good fit.

  ________________________________________________________________

Overlooked the URl for The Age story
http://www.theage.com.au/national/h...-light-on-a-complex-issue-20100806-11olv.html


----------



## basilio (7 August 2010)

Another story in The Age expands on what currently is happening with sexual harassment issues and why the current case offers an opportunity to properly review  what is acceptable or not.

 [







> B]Life wasn't meant to be sleazy, especially for women at work[/B]
> August 7, 2010
> 
> *For most women subject to sexual harassment at work, the old rules still apply. They grin and bear it, and when it gets too much they quit.* They work in small business and shops and male-dominated offices, and they lack the confidence to make their complaint public. If it were not for women such as Kristy Fraser-Kirk, who has taken David Jones to court, sexual harassment would remain an abstraction, its sordid details hidden from public view, or buried in secret conciliation sessions behind closed doors.
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/so...ecially-for-women-at-work-20100806-11oec.html


----------



## Ruby (7 August 2010)

Good article.   Some salient points in the last paragraph



> Fraser-Kirk is going to get a hard time, as whistleblowers do. *It should not be left to individuals to rattle the bosses out of complacency*. The sex discrimination commissioner needs new powers to initiate investigations into industries rather than have to wait for individuals to make formal complaints. But until that day, *the power of publicity is a potent agent of change.*


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

And now for the latest installment in the DJ sex saga.. (_ I understand Womens  Weekly  or No Idea  will be doing a serialization of this gripping  tale...)_

Apparently the lawyers at DJ's are putting together a juicy settlement offer  to Ms Kirsty Fraser-Clark. Around $1m but it all goes private, no more talkies, no more court cases, sign up NOW, - basically the normal scenario of "How much will cost to shut this ***** up  and get on with business".

And apparently if the offer is rejected and it goes to court and Kirsty loses - she pays out a fortune in legal fees for both sides.

So does she take the easy way out, take the money  ( _looking  like a gold digger or just being practical ?_) or come back with a counter offer that shows a bit of imagination and cojones.

For example I'd like to see as part of a settlement a DJ's sponsored and funded workplace sexual harassment centre and a meaningful public explanation and apology for the company.

Any thoughts ?



> The effect of the offer is to raise the stakes considerably for Ms Fraser-Kirk. If she rejects it and goes to court but then receives a lesser award she would have to pay legal fees for both sides. That alone would inevitably run into several million dollars.
> 
> A legal source made aware of the rumoured offer said: ''The implications for Kristy are that if she doesn't accept then suddenly she's liable for a huge amount of money if the court doesn't decide in her favour.''




http://www.theage.com.au/national/djs-offers-to-settle-out-of-court-20100807-11pgl.html


----------



## Calliope (8 August 2010)

basilio said:


> So does she take the easy way out, take the money  ( _looking  like a gold digger or just being practical ?_) or come back with a counter offer that shows a bit of imagination and cojones.
> 
> Any thoughts ?




Yes. If she really does have "cojones" it could explain why she wants to get even with McInnes.


----------



## Julia (8 August 2010)

From today's "Sunday Mail":


> Before she worked with David Jones CEO Mark McInnes, Kristy Fraser Kirk filed a harassment complaint against a former boss, a senior officer with the NSW Police Force, where she worked as a civilian.
> 
> The officer was transferred from the Operational Information Agency to highway patrol after Ms Fraser Kirk allegedly claimed he invaded her personal space, sent her inappropriate text messages and made comments about her clothes






> Several of her former police force colleagues are said to still be furious.
> 
> A NSW Police civilian employee, who worked with Ms Fraser Kirk at the time, said the team was all friends until the complaint.  "She tried to make it sound like he was a sleaze to all of us, that he was hitting on all the women in the team.  She tried to get me to complain as well", the employee said.




Seems to align with her including her DJ's colleagues in her current claim, despite their having resolved the issue and continuing to work for DJ's.


----------



## basilio (8 August 2010)

> Quote:
> Before she worked with David Jones CEO Mark McInnes, Kristy Fraser Kirk filed a harassment complaint against a former boss, a senior officer with the NSW Police Force, where she worked as a civilian.
> 
> The officer was transferred from the Operational Information Agency to highway patrol after Ms Fraser Kirk allegedly claimed he invaded her personal space, sent her inappropriate text messages and made comments about her clothes
> ...




Interesting titbits.... Always nice to bring up some juicy gossip when one is trying to destroy an opponent.

I think everyone is on the same page in agreeing that Mark McInnes was repeatedly hitting on Ms Fraser Kirk, that she tried to stop him nicely at first and then received no support from DJ management.  And it also seems clear that this wasn't the first such incident. So maybe we should focus on what happened at DJ.s

The fact that she stood up for herself in her previous employment seems to confirm her courage. It would be interesting to learn more about the last quote.  I'd be very cautious about accepting its validity. 

You know, some people just lie or say whatever they want if it suits their purpose. *And if I was trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks nerve and credibility to kill a $37 million law suit that is exactly what I would do. *


----------



## pixel (9 August 2010)

"Brave New World"
I remember a time when you became foreman, project leader, department head based on your knowledge of the job at hand; a good project leader could give other project team members precise instructions what needed to be done, and if need be, follow up with precise instructions how to go about it. (If the latter was needed too frequently, a team member might be in line for replacement.)

In recent years, thanks to increased squawking by minority groups, the do-good brigades, and politicians' interest in their re-election by marginal groups, it's not enough to be good at the job. You also have to have a degree in psychologgy, be a nursemaid thinking for those you're responsible for, and read their minds to avoid even the hint of a suspicion of someone's feeling offended by a loose word or gesture.

How easy is it now for an employee to cry foul, make accusations, and have the press and public opinion makers turn judge, jury, executioner! Oh - I forgot: There's Millions to be made! And could it be the alleged offense hasn't been stopped by "Management" because they were rather worried about the financial fallout, so preferred to keep the incident(s) hushed-up? Or, just maybe, the complainant was considered a notorious whinger? I'm not saying that was the case at DJ's, I simply don't know enough details about the case to make such a judgment. Today's report about earlier trouble in the Police Department could lead one to thinking that way...

On a more general level, it has been said in an earlier contribution: Compare the amount of accident compensation for loss of eye or limb to the requested Millions of court-sanctioned penalty for a loose gun hitting on an attractive sheila. 

What message will a $1M payout send out to the thousands of office girls, whose main redeeming qualifications to a job as receptionist or PA lie in being "well groomed and of pleasant demeanour"? The mind boggles.


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Interesting titbits.... Always nice to bring up some juicy gossip when one is trying to destroy an opponent.
> 
> The fact that she stood up for herself in her previous employment seems to confirm her courage. It would be interesting to learn more about the last quote.  I'd be very cautious about accepting its validity.
> 
> You know, some people just lie or say whatever they want if it suits their purpose. *And if I was trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks nerve and credibility to kill a $37 million law suit that is exactly what I would do. *



Are you suggesting that by posting the newspaper extract, I am 'trying to destroy an opponent' and/or 'lying or saying whatever I want'?

The previous complaint is obviously fact.  No one is making it up.   Fact also is that she has named colleagues in  her current claim (matches the comment from the police colleagues that she tried to involve them in her complaint as well), while they say they have actually resolved their concerns and are continuing to work at DJ's.


----------



## Calliope (9 August 2010)

It's the right time to invest in Slater and Gordon (SGH). Litigation is a growth industry.


----------



## trainspotter (9 August 2010)

When we put a series of fair questions to Ms Fraser-Kirk's media representative, Anthony McClellan, on Friday he did not respond to telephone calls, instead releasing the information in a press release to all media, publishing the speculation about her previous work history himself.

Ms Fraser-Kirk came to the public eye when she claimed McInnes had acted inappropriately at David Jones functions in late May and early June.

The case, Australia's largest sexual-harassment claim, has sparked a public-relations war.

Mr McClellan, a self-proclaimed spin doctor, has been hired by Ms Fraser-Kirk's law firm, Harmers, to handle the media strategy for her case.

His first move was to time Ms Fraser-Kirk's Monday press conference to dominate the media on the day before, and the day of, David Jones' spring/summer fashion show, one of the company's most important days of the year.

The Sunday Telegraph can also reveal that last month, Mr McClellan asked this newspaper if it would *pay for an interview* with Ms Fraser-Kirk.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...-has-a-past-case/story-e6frewt0-1225902509986

It would appear that she has form on this matter previously. (This is not condoning Mark McInnes actions in any way)


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> Are you suggesting that by posting the newspaper extract, I am 'trying to destroy an opponent' and/or 'lying or saying whatever I want'?




Not you at all Julia.  I was referring to the original story and the fact that this situation is now series of "mind games".  DJ's and their advisors are trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks credibility in the public eye. Obviously they want her to just shut up and go away. 

It's interesting that the extract from Trainspotter (published from The Telegraph) reports the situation as a "public relations war" . Nice way to lose the actual content of the case isn't it ?

I repeat  I am very cautious about accepting what I read in the papers particularly if I believe there is an agenda to "get" people rather than report fairly or accurately.

Part of Ms Fraser -Kirks claim is that there has been a systemic abuse of power at DJ's. That she was not just an isolated incident but part of a pattern.  I understand part of her claim is that the Board either knew about this or should have known but did nothing effective to stop the CEO.

In that context she needs to show evidence of previous widespread harassment. The fact that they were resolved in some way doesn't address the issue of ongoing  problems. It was interesting but directly after the first blow up there was background reporting which said that Mr Mcinnes behavior was an open  secret. 

Also found a story from Miranda Devine which added another element to the picture. It was interesting how almost every friend she spoke to had a story about being harassed. Maybe that is what this case is all about rather than than being snowed by spin doctors trying to undermine the complainant ?

Given how costly the stakes are for DJ's it will be interesting to see how much dirt and ongoing pressure is put on Ms Fraser-Kirk to "settle up and shut up  - or else.."

I believe she should be supported and in the process the overall issue of workplace sexual harassment better addressed

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opi...ty-old-men-need-to-back-off-20100623-yyw7.htm


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> DJ's and their advisors are trying to destroy Ms Fraser Kirks credibility in the public eye. Obviously they want her to just shut up and go away.



What evidence do you have that e.g. the account of her previous allegation of harassment while working for the Police has been 'created' by DJ's?
Isn't it more likely that a journalist, having a look at Ms FK's past has come across this?
You seem very concerned to paint DJ's in the blackest possible light and I wonder why?



> I repeat  I am very cautious about accepting what I read in the papers particularly if I believe there is an agenda to "get" people rather than report fairly or accurately.



The irony of this statement is astonishing.   You are clearly absolutely believing everything Ms FK is saying, including alleging that the Board had been made aware of her complaints, when the Board have categorically stated they only learned of the situation a couple of days before she lodged her claim.



> Given how costly the stakes are for DJ's it will be interesting to see how much dirt and ongoing pressure is put on Ms Fraser-Kirk to "settle up and shut up  - or else.."



The Board sacked McInnes - the CEO who had been so valuable to DJ's in terms of making the company so profitable - and deprived him of some of the financial rewards that had been coming to him.   Imo that's a pretty decisive and tough action the Board took.   And McInnes himself has undoubtedly been significantly damaged in terms of his reputation.  (I'm not at all saying this is in any way undeserved:  he sounds like a pest.)

You don't, of course, have to say, but I'm really interested to know why you are so strongly defending Ms FK?   I don't know if you're male or female, but you seem to have a very personal agenda here.


----------



## Ruby (9 August 2010)

Julia said:


> The Board sacked McInnes - the CEO who had been so valuable to DJ's in terms of making the company so profitable - and deprived him of some of the financial rewards that had been coming to him.   Imo that's a pretty decisive and tough action the Board took.   And McInnes himself has undoubtedly been significantly damaged in terms of his reputation.  (I'm not at all saying this is in any way undeserved:  he sounds like a pest.)




McInnes was not sacked - he resigned.  According to newspaper reports, DJ's sexual harassment code of conduct is written into every employee's contract, which seems to suggest McInnes *broke his contract.*  I don't think too many people who resign before they are pushed, and who have broken their employment contracts, walk away with $2m (a reward).   That, in my view is not being in any way financially deprived.  The board in taking that action, was not *seen *to condemn his behaviour in any way.


----------



## wayneL (9 August 2010)

Ruby said:


> McInnes was not sacked - he resigned.




Yeah but we all know it's the same thing under these types of circumstances.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> You don't, of course, have to say, but I'm really interested to know why you are so strongly defending Ms FK? I don't know if you're male or female, but you seem to have a very personal agenda here.




I think I made it clear why I supported and defended  MS Fk in an earlier post




> It appears that the CEO was repeatedly propositioning her. Not once not twice but many times. She approached the Board which told her to simply say "No" a bit louder. McInnes already had serious form and a number of complaints.
> 
> And all this seemed to be public knowledge. And there appeared to be no effective brake on a culture of aggressive predatory bahaviour which started from the top of the company. That is not a good look.
> 
> ...




The fact that we are now talking about a previous sexual harassment incident experienced by Kirsty should reinforce the widespread nature of harassment and that she was not prepared to stand for it. I thought Miranda Devines story also made it clear that these experiences are far too common and in 99% of the time allowed to pass without action.

DJ's is defending it's brand and it's dollars. The Board is defending it's collective reputation for good governance which would be under severe pressure if it was found to have allowed the CEO to continue with inappropriate behavior when they were told of any previous incidents.

*I don't have to put DJ.s in a bad light.* It is  Ms Fraser-Kirk's allegations that paint DJ's and the board in a very bad light. And the substance of these allegations has been accepted through the CEO's departure as well as independent confirmations. 

The process of attacking the integrity of the accuser when your client is in deep trouble is 101 in PR management or law. That's why I see the  dragging up of a previous harassment case and it's careful presentation to show Ms Fraser-kirk in a poor light as part of a PR response from DJ's to convince her to settle quickly and quietly.

References

Miranda Devine on widespread harrassment.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/flirty-old-men-need-to-back-off-20100623-yyw7.html

Ian Verrender on Mr McInnes form and DJ's action
http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html


----------



## Ruby (9 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> Yeah but we all know it's the same thing under these types of circumstances.




Not the same thing at all.  It is important not only to *do *the right thing, but to be *seen *to be doing the right thing.   If the board had sacked McInnes, it would have been seen by the public as a positive move, standing by their code of conduct.  Their action in not sacking him, AND paying him a large fee as they waved him goodbye, is seen to be spineless and does not condemn his actions.  It renders their much-vaunted code of conduct meaningless.


----------



## DocK (9 August 2010)

basilio said:


> I think I made it clear why I supported and defended  MS Fk in an earlier post
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Apologies in advance for the digression, but the tactic of attacking the character and integrity of the accuser is something I would really like to see disappear from sexual assualt cases.  I don't deny that there are undoubtedly some false accusations made, but having your past sexual history scrutinised and character assassinated is also surely what causes many victims of sexual assault to think twice about laying charges.  I'd prefer to see past history left out of these types of cases - and to be fair, that would be for both accuser and accused.  

Now, back to the case this thread's about - it would seem that there is a pattern of sexually predatory behaviour on the part of the ex-CEO, and also prior history of a complaint of sexual harrassment on the part of Fraser-Kirk (if what we read in various media can be believed).  Perhaps he really is a serial offender and she really was harrassed before, or perhaps he's been a model of CEOness and she's a serial whinger - either way I think this case should be decided on its own merits - any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?


----------



## Julia (9 August 2010)

Ruby said:


> McInnes was not sacked - he resigned.  According to newspaper reports, DJ's sexual harassment code of conduct is written into every employee's contract, which seems to suggest McInnes *broke his contract.*  I don't think too many people who resign before they are pushed, and who have broken their employment contracts, walk away with $2m (a reward).   That, in my view is not being in any way financially deprived.  The board in taking that action, was not *seen *to condemn his behaviour in any way.



He would have been told to resign so effectively he was sacked.  I'd guess part of the deal would have been that he also had to concede his conduct had been inappropriate.
*Sorry, Ruby, but the fact is that he was indeed financially deprived:
*


> David Jones chairman Bob Savage slashed Mr McInnes's payout by at least $4 million, with the former chief getting his statutory pay of $450,000 plus a "mutually agreed" $1.5m.
> 
> According to the terms of his contract, he could have picked up $3.6m in termination pay plus a bonus of $2.5m along with other long term, incentives.




Basilio, your quoted reason of friends who have been drugged and/or seriously assaulted would hardly seem to compare with what Ms Fraser Kirk is complaining about.



DocK said:


> Now, back to the case this thread's about - it would seem that there is a pattern of sexually predatory behaviour on the part of the ex-CEO, and also prior history of a complaint of sexual harrassment on the part of Fraser-Kirk (if what we read in various media can be believed).  Perhaps he really is a serial offender and she really was harrassed before, or perhaps he's been a model of CEOness and she's a serial whinger - either way I think this case should be decided on its own merits - any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?



Good summary, DocK.  If indeed the question of punitive damages depends on when the Board took action, I wonder how this will be established?  They have clearly said that they had not been advised until just before Mr McInnes was fired/resigned.
And it's only the punitive damages which Ms Fraser Kirk has suggested she will donate to some as yet non-existent charity.  She has made no such gestures regarding any general damages awarded.


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> Basilio, your quoted reason of friends who have been drugged and/or seriously assaulted would hardly seem to compare with what Ms Fraser Kirk is complaining about.




It's interesting you should say that and on the surface that may be the case. But perhaps not.

In the two incidents I have seen there was undoubtedly  strong trauma at the time of the incident. But there was excellent support from family and friends and acknowledgment that this was one horrible action. They were also incidents that in a sense were in just one part of the persons life and the rest of their lives went on well and allowed them to cope and heal.

I think having your work life disrupted by a predatory CEO who will not take no for an answer would be a long term very painful stress. It would be something you were facing over an extended period of time. You would have to continually juggle the question of complaining with all the stigma attached to that; giving in or accepting the behaviour and feeling (rightly) as if you are being abused ; or leaving your job and facing the uncertainty of looking for new employment. The last scenario is probably not viable for women with few skills in, for example, the textile industry. I remember there were a number of cases where foremen took advantage of this vulnerability to exploit women workers.

____________________________

The strongest reason most people don't end up pressing charges is realising they will have to go through the whole experience time after time with the lawyers,the police, the courts and the public simply reopening the wounds. And in the end there is every likelihood there will be no justice. Not very appetizing ...


----------



## basilio (9 August 2010)

> ....any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?




What ?  I believe one of the critical points Ms Fraser-Kirk is alleging is that the CEO had a number of documented complaints about his behavior and that the DJ board had chosen to either ignore them or not inform themselves of the the complaints.* In effect they were not implementing a safe workplace for their employees.* That is one of the planks on which Ms Fraser-Kirks lawyers is attacking the company.


----------



## DocK (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> What ?  I believe one of the critical points Ms Fraser-Kirk is alleging is that the CEO had a number of documented complaints about his behavior and that the DJ board had chosen to either ignore them or not inform themselves of the the complaints.* In effect they were not implementing a safe workplace for their employees.* That is one of the planks on which Ms Fraser-Kirks lawyers is attacking the company.




Basilio, I think you've misunderstood my post.  In saying that: 







> any prior actions by either party have no bearing on whether DJ's board knew what was going on in their own company or not, and that seems to be the crux of the punitive damages she's seeking isn't it?



 I was referring to the actions of either McInnes or Fraser-Kirk during prior employment, or since leaving DJ's.  Perhaps I should have made myself clearer.  I had just read the following from the link you quoted above http://www.theage.com.au/business/harassment-will-keep-hounding-houndstooth-20100802-113eb.html



> As the tawdry detail of the disgraced chief executive's behaviour was laid bare yesterday, there were reports McInnes had booked himself into The Meadows, the same clinic that treated fellow ''sex addict'' Tiger Woods.
> 
> If true, this would appear to contradict McInnes's recent denial that he was a serial offender when it came to sexual harassment, *following extensive media reports of other alleged incidents since his dramatic departure.* In that statement, he admitted only to two counts of ''inappropriate behaviour'', for which he was sorry.




and



> McInnes's activities, particularly at post function parties, were legendary. And he seemed unfazed by his lack of discretion.
> 
> The lewd pick-up line reported in the affidavit, urging Fraser-Kirk to try the dessert, describing it ''like a f--- in the mouth'' appears completely in character.
> 
> ...



(my bolds)

The point I was trying to make is that neither his behaviour outside of his role at DJ's, nor her complaint of harrassment at a prior job, answer the question "did the board know what was going on, or not?  And if not, should they have?"



> Within the company, the board is adamant that it had no idea of the increasingly out-of-control behaviour of its chief executive.




To me, and it's only my own opinion, this is the most important point in this matter - did the board turn a blind eye for the good of its bottom line, to the detriment of its employees, or were they really oblivious to what was going on and unaware of prior complaints?  I doubt this will be easy to prove either way unless she had the wit to document her prior complaint and can find other DJ's employees willing to back her up in court - as usual with most sexual harrassment/assualt cases it will come down to "she said/he said" with the media and public taking one side or another.  As on this forum

For the record, I'm really not fussed too much about either McInnes, Fraser-Kirk or DJ's - the best outcome for me would be for attitudes towards sexual harrassment to be challenged, better guidelines put in place to ensure all employers and employees realise what is simply not acceptable, and a clearcut process for complaints.  I do think that all this publicity has made big business sit up and take notice, and left all and sundry aware that there can be very serious consequences for any abuse of power in the workplace, not only for the perpetrator but also for those who failed to protect their staff and "turned a blind eye" -  whether that has actually happened in this case or not.....


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> Basilio, I think you've misunderstood my post. In saying that:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...




Thanks  DocK for the clarification.  I thought as much but it seemed unclear.

Nice job on highlighting the alleged extent of Mr Mcinnes interest in staff and (almost ) any other woman with a pulse.

(Given the above poor Allannah Hill would have felt truly mortified in not being invited back..)

  ________________________________________________

It's interesting to reflect on the larger picture. Obviously Mr McInnes had a huge passion for life, love and woman.  Certainly in some of the newspaper reports there was a lot of warmth displayed towards him from a number of people  because of this passion.  I'm guessing that his highly charged passion was generally a positive driving force in a woman dominated industry. 

On memory I believe at least a couple of the newspaper reports acknowledged that plenty of women responded to his attention. Probably the men (including the board) just thought "What a lucky bastard"  and prayed  nothing went pear shaped. And in the end it looks as if McInnes just couldn't understand how anyone could possibly say no to his offers. 

I wonder if there are any present or ex DJ staffers who are writing up a good juicy story on life around Mark ? Certainly make a good read and no doubt No Idea et al  would love to serialise it.   (and never, *ever*  see a cent of DJ's advertising until hell freezes over.)

But perhaps it would go better as a viral post on the net ?


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

Came across an excellent blog by a lawyer who was reviewing the  DJ's sexual harrassment case.

Offered great personal perspectives as well as an insight to the legal processes around this case. Check it out.

http://skepticlawyer.com.au/2010/08/05/sexual-harassment-and-the-law/

_____________________________________________________________________

Also another blog from someone who counts Mark McInnes as a friend. There is  a particularly interesting comment submitted from someone worked at DJ's and noted just how many young pretty blonde staff were befriended by Mark and scored lots of lovely handbags.  

http://www.mamamia.com.au/weblog/2010/08/kristy-fraser-kirk-sues-david-jones-for-37m.html


----------



## awg (10 August 2010)

I feel suspicious that this lady, for whatever reason, is using the system to maximise her financial gain.

The reason I say this is that she would have been fully and completely familiar with the way sexual harrasment legislation and cases work, if she had been thru a settlement with a government institution such as NSW police.

Govt depts have "led the charge" on sex harrasment for years.

The way her comments and case are stuctured smack to me of a manipulation.

It would seem to me the alleged harrasment she suffered, was at the low end of the scale, but definitely would constitute harrasment as defined.

The settlement she is claiming is out of proportion

When I was a Commonwealth pubic servant, we were extensivly trained in this stuff.

Subsequently, as mentioned in an earlier post, saw many cases.

What I didnt mention, is that there were more "non-cases" that "real" cases

I reckon a settlement is on the cards, as I feel that there is far more to this story than meets the eye, and her reputation will be trashed if it goes to court.

I could be completely wrong, in that she could be an innocent victim, completely harrassed by a monster, who did everything by the book.

However I would say based on observation of a senior manager I once worked with, who was devastatingly handsome, he never bothered the ladies, as it was completely unneccesary. 

As a general rule, he didnt even bother talking to the ladies till the end of the evening, by then, they had been making eyes at him all night, and he would just select the best contender. ( this guy told me he once slept with a different woman every day for a whole year, and it was very believable) 

That, to me, is a very dissonate part of the equation


----------



## Julia (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> I
> 
> I think having your work life disrupted by a predatory CEO who will not take no for an answer would be a long term very painful stress. It would be something you were facing over an extended period of time. You would have to continually juggle the question of complaining with all the stigma attached to that; giving in or accepting the behaviour and feeling (rightly) as if you are being abused ; or leaving your job and facing the uncertainty of looking for new employment. The last scenario is probably not viable for women with few skills in, for example, the textile industry. I remember there were a number of cases where foremen took advantage of this vulnerability to exploit women workers.
> 
> ...



That's a reasonable response, Basilio, thank you.

However, whatever the situation actually turns out to be (if we ever know) between DJ's, Ms FK and Mr McInnes, to me it's all ridiculously disproportionate in terms of general fuss and amount claimed when it's compared with real sexual assault and abuse which happens every day to thousands of women and children, none of whom have the resources and knowledge available to Ms FK.

I can't help thinking that maybe some of Ms FK's ardent supporters could more usefully marshal their passions into doing something toward helping those genuine victims who lack the capacity to stand up for themselves.
The current DJ's situation seems to me somewhat obscene in comparison.


----------



## wayneL (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> However, whatever the situation actually turns out to be (if we ever know) between DJ's, Ms FK and Mr McInnes, to me it's all ridiculously disproportionate in terms of general fuss and amount claimed when it's compared with real sexual assault and abuse which happens every day to thousands of women and children, none of whom have the resources and knowledge available to Ms FK.
> 
> I can't help thinking that maybe some of Ms FK's ardent supporters could more usefully marshal their passions into doing something toward helping those genuine victims who lack the capacity to stand up for themselves.
> The current DJ's situation seems to me somewhat obscene in comparison.



Hear Hear Julia.


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> I can't help thinking that maybe some of Ms FK's ardent supporters could more usefully marshal their passions into doing something toward helping those genuine victims who lack the capacity to stand up for themselves.
> The current DJ's situation seems to me somewhat obscene in comparison.




Fraser-Kirk will regret making this statement over the weekend. She is on a crusade for the sisterhood and wants DJs to make a large donation to the cause. This statement probably rules out punitive damages for her. They will probably give her a million to go away.

And why does she need a publicist? 



> ''As I have already said, I am asking the court to award punitive damages against David Jones, not because of what was done to me, but because of the entrenched culture over time that allowed it to happen, a culture that failed to protect me and other women.''




http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/undeterred-by-media-smear/20100809-11s3x.html


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> That's a reasonable response, Basilio, thank you.
> 
> However, whatever the situation actually turns out to be (if we ever know) between DJ's, Ms FK and Mr McInnes, to me it's all ridiculously disproportionate in terms of general fuss and amount claimed when it's compared with real sexual assault and abuse which happens every day to thousands of women and children, none of whom have the resources and knowledge available to Ms FK.
> 
> ...




I think it has been said many times now by Ms Fraser-Kirk, various commentators and the legal profession.

*This case is being pursed on behalf of all victims of sexual harassment. If there is going to be a pot of money at the end it is going to be donated to a centre that will support victims of sexual harassment and assault.*

No one has agreed that this particular instance while nasty is worth $37 m. or anywhere near it.  It is simply that this is a unique opportunity to  conduct a public high profile case that might fundamentally change how businesses view sexual harassment issues and that if successful to some  degree will provides the resources for others who need support.

  ____________________________________________________________
The Age Editorial



> Rape is a crime and worse than sexual harassment. But Fraser-Kirk's critics - mostly women - are missing the point. Fraser-Kirk is seeking punitive damages; in civil lawsuits, such damages are a means of punishing defendants. The idea is that the interests of society as well as the individual concerned can be met by imposing such damages. Fraser-Kirk has said any punitive damages she is awarded will go to a charity working in the area of sexual harassment and bullying, although she would keep any other money she may receive for general loss and damages.
> 
> The punitive damages claim should be seen as an attempt to influence Australian corporate culture which, despite policies against it, continues to tolerate sexual harassment. For years, women have either put up with it or - if they complained - ended up the loser. ''This is not just about me,'' Fraser-Kirk has said.
> 
> ...


----------



## pixel (10 August 2010)

Julia said:


> That's a reasonable response, Basilio, thank you.
> 
> However, whatever the situation actually turns out to be (if we ever know) between DJ's, Ms FK and Mr McInnes, to me it's all ridiculously disproportionate in terms of general fuss and amount claimed when it's compared with real sexual assault and abuse which happens every day to thousands of women and children, none of whom have the resources and knowledge available to Ms FK.
> 
> ...




That's precisely my concern, Julia;

I was thinking of home invaders, drunk drivers, hit'n'runners... who all leave *real victims* in their wake and get away with a slap on the wrist, while their victims can't even get a penny of compensation out of them. Problem is, those victims aren't "sexy" enough to stir emotions and sell gossip magazines.

There are countless more victims, whose trauma goes immensely deeper than _feeling uncomfortable_ about unwelcome advances. For every Ms FK, who can very effectively and articulately defend herself, there are hundred others who can not. How many of those will start thinking "if she can get Millions, maybe I can try the same..."?

Which gets me back to the "message" that the readers get from those mags: "Never mind the pimply boy next door that touched you up; nothing to gain from taking him to court.* Accuse your boss *and you've got it made."


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

And that's the nub of it basilio; The Age ( The Pravda on the Yarra) newspaper's vendetta against Corporate Australia. 



> We do not know if Fraser-Kirk's audacious claim will succeed, and the $37 million is undoubtedly over the top and won't survive. But we hope that by launching the claim she influences the way corporate Australia acts




Now I know why she has a publicist. Everybody with an axe to grind should have one.



> One media organisation said she had approached it to buy her story, a claim she denied on Sunday.
> "Numerous media have offered to buy my story for an exclusive," she said.
> "I am not asking for money for my story," she said in the statement.
> "I have always believed it is the right of all women to feel safe in the workplace.
> ...




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/business/publicist-wont-back-down/story-e6frfm1i-1225902809739#ixzz0wBOmWtU4


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

xxx


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> And that's the nub of it basilio; The Age ( The Pravda on the Yarra) newspaper's vendetta against Corporate Australia.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...




Please calliope, please. Just rock on down to Pravda on the Yarra and point out how wildly anti-business they are and  tell them to go back to Mother Russia where they truly belong.  

Now, with regard to their hope that the launching of Ms Fraser -Kirks audacious claim will actually influence the way corporate Australia acts.

*I thought that*( regardless of whether the claim was over done, the amount ridiculously high and so on,)  *everyone else has agreed that this incident should make business far more thoughtful about how their employees are treated with regard to sexual harassment issues*

Are you saying DJ's and the rest of the business world shouldn't reconsider any of their practices after this incident and the fallout ?  That this was all okay ?  

Tell me it ain't so Joe...


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

And a view from inside DJ's taken from the Mamma Mia blog site. My bolds



> what?! says:
> August 10, 2010 at 11:01 am
> 
> Ok. I really wasn’t going to comment on this one. Still not sure if I will press submit, however, the views of some people below entirely baffle me.
> ...




http://www.mamamia.com.au/weblog/2010/08/kristy-fraser-kirk-sues-david-jones-for-37m.html


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

If you are going to quote me, do it honestly and don't throw in your added smilies 

More of basilo's verballing:



> Are you saying DJ's and the rest of the business world shouldn't reconsider any of their practices after this incident and the fallout ?  That this was all okay ?




No. Read my post, and try to be honest.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> If you are going to quote me, do it honestly and don't throw in your added smilies
> 
> More of basilo's verballing:
> 
> ...



It's still not clear Calliope. I wasn't trying to verbal you with my question. In fact I was thinking that you didn't really believe that DJ's had done the right thing but that view was lost in the post and you would like to clarify it..


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> It's still not clear Calliope. I wasn't trying to verbal you with my question. In fact I was thinking that you didn't really believe that DJ's had done the right thing but that view was lost in the post and you would like to clarify it..




What pompous nonsense. My advice to you is that if you are going to alter quotes by adding you own bolds or smilies then you are being dishonest. But if you continue this practice you should at least add an adendum that they are *your* bolds, smilies, etc.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> Quote:
> 
> 
> > Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> ...




Calliope can we please get over my addition of the smilies to your quotes. They were intended to reflect my  surprise at the statement rather than your comments.

But my question still remains as I expressed it earlier and for the sake of the conversation I'd like your thoughts and any qualifications you might make.



> I thought that( regardless of whether the claim was over done, the amount ridiculously high and so on,) everyone else has agreed that this incident should make business far more thoughtful about how their employees are treated with regard to sexual harassment issues
> 
> Are you saying DJ's and the rest of the business world shouldn't reconsider any of their practices after this incident and the fallout ? That this was all okay ?


----------



## Calliope (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> Calliope can we please get over my addition of the smilies to your quotes. They were intended to reflect my  surprise at the statement rather than your comments.




You can't weasel out. It was a dishonest attempt to indicate that I was confused and not you. 



> But my question still remains as I expressed it earlier and for the sake of the conversation I'd like your thoughts and any qualifications you might make.




My thoughts are that you are dishonest, and my qualifications are that I can spot a phony a mile off.


----------



## Ruby (10 August 2010)

basilio said:


> No one has agreed that this particular instance while nasty is worth $37 m. or anywhere near it.  It is simply that this is a unique opportunity to  conduct a public high profile case that might fundamentally change how businesses view sexual harassment issues and that if successful to some  degree will provides the resources for others who need support.




This is well put Basilio.  Also good editorial you quoted.


----------



## sam76 (10 August 2010)

If only people sought advice from South Park...


----------



## Julia (10 August 2010)

I'm still waiting for one of you FK supporters to tell me how you intend to advance the cause of the women and children who lack the resources of Ms FK, but who every day experience violent sexual assault and incest.

I guess it's easier not to focus on them.
Way more important to care about a precious little petal and her skills in the publicity field.

If any of you were prepared to spend six months just observing in a domestic violence refuge, you might develop some inkling of the real problems out there.
You'd see not confident, articulate young women able to negotiate with the media in advancing their cause, nursing their silly little grievances, but women, usually with little kids at their feet, who move from town to town in an attempt to evade further violence from an ex-partner against whom they have an AVO, a document which is meant to protect them.  Such documents are a joke.
The men they are fleeing from have sexually, physically and psychologically assaulted them over a sustained period, usually threatening that if the woman leaves, he will kill the children.  Sometimes he does, and the woman as well.

If these abused women ever had any self esteem it has long gone in their struggle just to stay alive.

But hell, who cares?   Much more fascinating to follow the fortunes of a savvy 25 year old whose boss was a tacky sleaze.


----------



## basilio (10 August 2010)

> I'm still waiting for one of you FK supporters to tell me how you intend to advance the cause of the women and children who lack the resources of Ms FK, but who every day experience violent sexual assault and incest.




How are we going to advance these causes? I have no idea Julia.  I'm not even doing anything to advance  Ms Fraser-Kirks case beyond opening the discussion is this forum.

Are they more important than Ms FK ? Totally and absolutely. Far broader, far more damage.

Trouble is it is not the topic we are discussing although it is related. For example to take your case even further we could ask what we are doing about the horrible treatment of Afgan women by the Taliban. Or the stoning of women in Iran and so on. All ugly. All deserving of our support.

This case at least opens the conversation about the abuse of women in the community and the role of power in that abuse. With a bit of luck there will be an obvious connection made between  this particular area of sexual harassment and the broader picture of abused women and children in relationships. And hopefully there will be a fresh emphasis on support for women and children in these situations and consequences for the men who may be responsible.

Certainly worth a go.


----------



## DocK (11 August 2010)

Excellent reply Basilio - I agree that having an opinion on workplace harrassment does not preclude having an opinion on lots of other issues - perhaps even stronger opinions.  If Julia would like to start a thread on the plight of women suffering from domestic abuse I'm sure she'd find plentiful support for them also.  Unfortunately we cannot all give our time to those causes that mean most to us - some of us are busy working , raising families etc, or simply lack the ability.  I suspect many of us already donate funds to organisations that exist to try to help these victims.  I'd also be very surprised if most of those "FK supporters" didn't also have strong feelings about the abuse or victimisation of women in society in general - whatever the circumstances -and would freely acknowledge that *of course* the plight of many women and children is incomparable to that of Fraser-Kirk.  I think it's unfair to imply we only care about a "precious little petal" just because we choose to champion her cause on an internet forum.  I've previously stated that I don't really care at all about Fraser-Kirk herself, it's the issue of sexual harrassment that I'm pleased to see getting attention.

Personally I feel most strongly about abuse involving children, others will have their own causes that mean more to them.  I do however think that any discussion on what is acceptable behaviour and what is not can only help to educate people on the standards expected in our society and promote the message that sexual misconduct will not be tolerated.  If predatory behaviour at work is continued to be deliberately overlooked, condoned or scoffed at - what does that do to shape the attitude towards women that young male employees develop?  If my son were to start work at an organisation where sexual harrassment was overlooked provided you're doing your job well I'd be very concerned that this type of attitude could influence his behaviour towards women in general.  

Will Fraser-Kirk's stunt do anything to help women in far more desperate situations - probably not.  But any discussion that reinforces the message that the abuse of women is simply unacceptable under any circumstances is a discussion worth having imo.  Hopefully, after the amount of attention focussed on this claim, there will be no option but to make the beneficiary of any punitive damages completely transparent - so perhaps a lot of "more deserving" women may benefit as a result.


----------



## Ruby (11 August 2010)

DocK and Basilio - I endorse everything you say.  

I think it is wrong to imply that those who have supported Ms Fraser-Kirk's cause on this forum do not care about other abuse issues.   This thread is about the DJ's sexual harassment case specifically, and about harassment in the workplace in general.  This is why I have confined my comments to this issue and suspect others feel the same.

Whatever anyone may think of Ms Fraser-Kirk, she still has the right to enjoy a safe workplace, and the right to expect her employer to provide it for her.  It is *not *a minor issue.  A couple of years ago (I don't remember the exact timeline, or details) a young woman committed suicide because she had been systematically sexually harassed by three men at work.


----------



## Timmy (11 August 2010)

Ruby said:


> DocK and Basilio - I endorse everything you say.
> 
> I think it is wrong to imply that those who have supported Ms Fraser-Kirk's cause on this forum do not care about other abuse issues.   This thread is about the DJ's sexual harassment case specifically, and about harassment in the workplace in general.  This is why I have confined my comments to this issue and suspect others feel the same.
> 
> Whatever anyone may think of Ms Fraser-Kirk, she still has the right to enjoy a safe workplace, and the right to expect her employer to provide it for her.  It is *not *a minor issue.  A couple of years ago (I don't remember the exact timeline, or details) a young woman committed suicide because she had been systematically sexually harassed by three men at work.




Well said Ruby.

I think the case you refer to may have been a wider issue of bullying?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813468.htm

Sexual harassment and bullying are not OK, nor are they minor issues.


----------



## Ruby (11 August 2010)

Timmy said:


> Well said Ruby.
> 
> I think the case you refer to may have been a wider issue of bullying?
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/08/2813468.htm
> ...




Yes, Timmy, you are correct.  Thank you for recalling it for me.  It was a bullying issue, so I may have been wrong to mention it here.  However, it still comes under the banner of providing a safe workplace.

Ruby


----------



## Julia (11 August 2010)

Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.

I'll try once again.

I feel that attaching a value of $37M to Ms Fraser Kirk's experience, despite DJ's Board having taken action when they became aware of what had occurred, and despite Mr McInnes losing his job and about half the financial benefits due to him, is to *devalue* the ongoing severe abuse of women and children who lack Ms Fraser Kirk's resources.

If you disagree with that, I'd be genuinely appreciative of an explanation as to why, because I just can't see it.

I understand the point made that this thread is specifically about the DJ's issue, and I completely agree that sexual predation/bullying (because it's just a form of bullying) in the workplace is often an issue for women.   But my concern is to do with perspective which I believe is totally lacking here.

And no, I won't be starting a thread on violence against women because fairly obviously there would be minimal interest in it.  It's probably an issue that doesn't intrude into the lives of people running their businesses, looking after their own families etc as pointed out above.   That's just reality, and I understand that.   We're all entitled to choose our causes.


----------



## scanspeak (11 August 2010)

I'm totally in agreement with you Julia.

$37 Million is extortion under the guise of a noble cause. It's also counterproductive to the sexual harrassment issue because it brings the motives of the complainent into question.

A little common sense would go a long way.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.
> 
> I'll try once again.
> 
> ...




Not much more clearer writing than that I have not seen?


----------



## DocK (11 August 2010)

Julia said:


> Perhaps I've been attempting to make my point badly, or perhaps those of you who are objecting to it are choosing not to see it.
> 
> I'll try once again.
> 
> ...




I can see where you're coming from, but I just don't agree with it.  
Firstly I don't think the amount being sought in _punitive damages_, which is the bulk of the 37M, should be attached to Fraser-Kirk's experience but to the lack of action taken by DJ's board to prevent repeated misconduct.  I attach the value to the message.  She'll only be awarded what she is deemed to have lost through lost employment etc as compensation - the rest is punitive and she'll donate it to an associated charity.  If she intended to keep the punitive portion I'd feel quite differently - I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and accepting her stated intention of donating this portion as being genuine - given the media coverage she'll have no option but to do so - and to be seen doing it.

To me it's like comparing apples with oranges.
Workplace harrassment = civil proceedings = money (and yes,how much depends largely upon who you're suing in some cases).
Domestic violence/rape/child abuse = criminal charges = jail time.
How much is a jail sentence worth?  (although I do think most sentences are woefully inadequate - but that's another thread again.)  Would a 5 year jail term have the same impact on an abuser as a fine of 5% of their profits to DJ's?  How do you compare one with the other?  
Did Fraser-Kirk suffer as much as a lot of other victims of sexual abuse - absolutely not!
Are all victims of violence able to seek recompense, either penal or civil? - sadly, no.  Some victims have nobody to stand up for them and cannot stand up for themselves - but does that mean Fraser-Kirk isn't entitled to try to make those responsible for her own situation pay?

Is it all about the money?  Maybe by standing up for herself and saying "this is just not right and I'm going to try to make them suffer a really, really big fine", which is more or less what punitive damages are, she might actually empower some women to take a look at their own situations and feel motivated to do something about them.  Some women will think she's a golddigger and he's been punished enough.  Some will think that if a big company like DJ's can be made to pay out a large amount in damages (and nobody seriously thinks it will be anything like 37M do they?) then the mistreatment of women is actually quite serious and worth taking a stand against, and the law might just be on their side.

I know I'm going to be repetitive here, but I  see the money as secondary to the message being sent.  Just my opinion, and I realise that others will never see things the way I do.  I'm OK with that.


----------



## trainspotter (11 August 2010)

She is suing Mr McInnes for $2 million punitive damages and the David Jones board for $35 million punitive damages. If she wins, it would be the *first time* punitive damages would be awarded for sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace. Most cases are usually settled for around $150,000 as a maximum.

Ms Fraser-Kirk "said" she would donate *any *punitive damages to a charity. I would like to know which charity in particular she has in mind?

She claims she suffered offence, humiliation, distress and anxiety and damage to her personal and professional reputation. Which would have gone unnoticed if she had not engaged a publicity manager??

_The claim directs that the punitive damages be paid to a charity assisting persons in the areas of sexual harassment and bullying. Of course, this is a worthy approach, which will assist other victims of harassment, and it shows Ms Fraser-Kirk is not at all greedy.

However, is this payment to a charity a mechanism for justifying the quantum of the punitive damages?

Interestingly, in the statement of claim, Ms Fraser-Kirk is *seeking the costs of managing the publicity *flowing from her high-profile claim._

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...h-less-travelled/story-e6frg97x-1225901836140

I dunno ..... something is not right here ? If she thought she has suffered humiliation and damage to her professional reputation what chance does she have of being employed ANYWHERE with ANYONE now?? Huh ?

Can't see Myer phoning her for a job as a publicist .. can you? OOoooohhhhhhhh  the penny has just dropped ... she was employed as a publicist ...... look what she has gone and done !! LOL.


----------



## basilio (11 August 2010)

All right. Let's have another go.

Firstly *absolutely no-one *believes that the sexual harassment of Ms Fraser-Kirk is "worth" $37 m.  No commentators, no solicitors, I assume no-one on this forum. It is an out there figure.

This ambit claim was arrived at as 5%of  DJ's profits while Mr Mcinnes was CEO and 5% of Mr Mcinnes salary during that time. In a sense it is trying to say. "*Mr Mcinnes was abusing his position as CEO. The boards either knew and glossed over it or should have known but closed their eyes.  As punitive damages  for this dereliction of duty we think a 5% fine of your profits and salary is a fair figure."*  Of course in the end it won't fly but that is the argument being made.

It has been made clear from the start that this case is not solely about Ms Fraser-Kirk but on behalf of all people who have been harassed or assaulted in the work place. So from the beginning the complainants have stated they will be donating all proceeds from the punitive damages claim to a centre that will represent people who have been harassed. (_Perhaps we should take them at face value for the moment particularly since there is a snowballs chance in hell that anything like this figure will ever be awarded... even if the claim is successful_)

But as I see it the strongest outcome of the case is happening right now outside the courts as businesses re evaluate the potential cost of allowing sexual harassment to occur in their workplace. 

Up until now most businesses had a policy on sexual harassment. Everyone has to have a "policy" of course but if you have been around  most companies  these are are often very hollow. The reality is that harassment happens and most of the time there are few consequences of note because everyone knows we don't really take this seriously - even if we are supposed to. Know what I mean.  _(I could use lots of "inverted commas" here but perhaps our common experience in workplaces should be sufficient to understand what I am saying_.

That is unlikely to happen now. Every company has to re ajust their thinking to realize that if there is a loose cannon in their staff who is hitting on the female staff *they could be in serious trouble*.* Trouble that could cost them a lot of money*. In the real world money is the overriding factor and realistically will be the biggest  motivation to getting things right.  

As far as devaluing the pain and suffering of other victims of abuse. Again the main damages sought in this case are punitive damages not personal  ones.  So there can't be a fair comapriosn made between the headline figure of $37m  and the miserly amount that other people might receive. 

But what this case should do is refocus attention on all abuse. Perhaps there is another excellent test case out their that could be used to clobber  the care offered by a government institution or a Church for example and improve the resources offered to these people.. ( _Consider the situation of the Catholic Church in America which is facing billions of dollars of liabilities for it's role in covering up clergy abuse._)

The fixation on the size of the nominal claim as an example of monstrous excess overlooks a few points.

1) It is only because the claim is so nominally large that there is such a shake up in community  and business thinking.

2) Again it's is only the fear of such a large punitive damages payout that will drive some companies to take the issue seriously. For example I mentioned earlier the case of the Ford motor company producing a disastrous car that exploded in flames on rear impact.  *They knew about this from the beginning and had factored in their estimation of the cost of people lives who would be burnt to death unnecessarily. They went ahead and produced the car anyway because their figures didn't include the punitive damages they ended up paying.*  They would think twice about doing this again.

This is a unique case for many reasons.

1) It involves  multiple offenses from the CEO of a large company which has traditionally presented itself a female friendly. This is not just a fumble from the foreman. In that sense it is about as bad as you could get.

2) There is someone brave enough/ silly enough to make a public complaint with all the loss of face and impact on future employment that entails

3) The case has been taken beyond the narrow confines of a single sexual harassment issue. In that context it would be flea bite to DJ and of little consequence to any other company. But as a case which explores the liability of the company under Safe Workplace acts, Trade Practices acts and so on it has far more potential to change the way workplaces allow staff to be treated.

__________________________________________________________

That was an excellent article from The Australian noted by Trainspotter. Certainly explains why companies will become far more vigilant about stopping any sexual harassment as a result of this case.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...-1225901836140


----------



## awg (11 August 2010)

It would be really fascinating to find out what the story is regarding the other female employees allegedly involved.

That goes to the very heart of the case. If there had been any other complaints, then he is a dead-duck 

I found that the consensus of the women as a group who could most accurately divine what was beyond the pale in terms of workplace sexuality.

This cut both ways, identifying both male sleazebags and also quite ready to make their thoughts known if they thought that the female person concerned was making more of things than warranted.

There was recently a case somewhat similar.

The fellow was a NSW MP, Tony Stewart, I believe

The complainant was his staffer, she was subsequently severely discredited, but the the damage had already been done

females can sexually harrass males too, but theres no sympathy


----------



## Ruby (11 August 2010)

awg said:


> females can sexually harrass males too, but theres no sympathy




I beg your pardon?  How do you know there is no sympathy?  People keep trying to sidetrack this discussion.


----------



## Ruby (11 August 2010)

And another great post from Basilio.    Can't be clearer than that!


----------



## Julia (11 August 2010)

basilio said:


> The boards either knew and glossed over it or should have known but closed their eyes.



This would seem to be central to the whole case.   There has been no denial of the Board's clear statement that they were previously unaware of the series of overtures by Mr McInnes and the complaints by Ms Fraser Kirk to her supervisor, and that they did take action as soon as they were made aware.

So I think you're drawing an unwarranted conclusion in the above statement, and unreasonably maligning the DJ's Board, unless you can provide evidence for your claim.

Ruby, Basilio's message may well be 'clear'.  That doesn't necessarily make it accurate.

Basilio, despite my disagreeing with you, I nonetheless appreciate that we can have this exchange without either of us engaging in personal insults or unfairly attacking each other's character.  I respect that your view is honestly held.


----------



## IFocus (11 August 2010)

Have not read the whole thread so apologies if I cover old ground.

If you accept sexual harassment is a bad thing then forget about the amounts its irrelevant you support Ms Fraser-Kirk action.

Company's carry out training and form policies and procedures based on law to mitigate their risk of prosecution.

This isn't to say they change culture or take action its just good old insurance.

Company's take action and actively change cultures when there are court cases that are successful and clear precedents set and not before. 

Nothing changes a CO or General Mangers attitude faster than the real possibility of their butt being dragged into court seen it personally many many times. 

If Ms Fraser-Kirk is successful what ever the pay out it will irrevocably drive company's culture concerning sexual harassment instantly Australia wide and the spin off is into Australian culture which in my view a excellent result.  

Go Fraser-Kirk and the best of luck what a courageous person you are.


----------



## basilio (16 August 2010)

It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top  private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.  

Well if that is the accepted way of dealing with a  case where personal integrity plays such a large in determining the outcome can we expect that  there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history? 



> SYDNEY'S top private eye Frank Monte is being paid "a substantial amount" to investigate the background and movements of the woman suing David Jones for $37 million, he admitted last night.
> 
> As the retailer's disgraced former CEO Mark McInnes returned to Sydney from the US vowing to "vigorously defend" allegations of unwelcome sexual advances brought by publicist Kristy Fraser-Kirk, Mr Monte revealed he had been asked to investigate the complainant.
> 
> ...



http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...tail-of-djs-girl/story-e6freuy9-1225905588951


----------



## Calliope (16 August 2010)

basilio said:


> ... can we expect that  there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history?




There is nothing to stop Fraser-Kirk's team from putting a private eye on McInnes's tail.


----------



## scanspeak (16 August 2010)

basilio said:


> It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top  private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.
> 
> Well if that is the accepted way of dealing with a  case where personal integrity plays such a large in determining the outcome can we expect that  there will also be an indepth investigation of Mark McInnes movements and personal history?




Why not? I think the character & potential motives of the complainent in any case should be questioned.


----------



## basilio (16 August 2010)

> Re: Sexual harrassment at DJ's
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by basilio View Post
> It appears that Dj's has hired Sydney's top private eye to investigate the background and movements of Ms Fraser-Kirk.
> ...




And in this case there is also every reason to also look at the character, motives and history of the person who allegedly harrassed the complainant..

Trouble is how do we ever actually know what is true in any case? It's hard enough people remembering incidents properly weeks or months later. What happens when someone whose paid to find the most unattractive parts of persons life is let loose on that persons history ?  

In rape cases it is traditional for lawyers to take every opportunity to blacken the womens name. This might have let up recently but I feel this case and the ramifications for DJ's will encourage a very busy hunt to find, construe or construct anything that could reduce Ms Fraser-Kirks credibility.


----------



## trainspotter (16 August 2010)

Does everyone still remember that the allegations are just that .... "allegations". Not one skerrick of proof. Her word against his. Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. Anybody?


----------



## Julia (16 August 2010)

basilio said:


> . What happens when someone whose paid to find the most unattractive parts of persons life is let loose on that persons history ?



They will not be finding what is not there, to state the bleeding obvious.



trainspotter said:


> Does everyone still remember that the allegations are just that .... "allegations". Not one skerrick of proof. Her word against his. Allegedly. Innocent until proven guilty and all that jazz. Anybody?



Quite correct, TS.  However, the fact that Mr McInnes resigned with the acknowledgement that he had behaved inappropriately has clearly been transposed in many people's minds into a confession that he absolutely did everything Ms Fraser Kirk is alleging.  Presumably this is what he has returned to contest.  I doubt we will ever know, and neither do I really care to be honest.


----------



## wayneL (17 August 2010)

basilio said:


> In rape cases it is traditional for lawyers to take every opportunity to blacken the womens name. This might have let up recently but I feel this case and the ramifications for DJ's will encourage a very busy hunt to find, construe or construct anything that could reduce Ms Fraser-Kirks credibility.




I think most reasonable people find that repulsive in the extreme in rape cases. I certainly do.

But that's a non sequitur. This is not a rape case. This is a case of a guy trying to get a women to consent to sex, albeit probably inappropriately. Ergo, the woman's character does become important.

Did she lead him on or not?

Was she known to be promiscuous with execs or not?

Was she giving not verbal cues or not? 

Was she very clear that the advances were unwanted or not?

etc etc

Sexual harassment in the workplace is still unacceptable, but when someone is asking the totally preposterous (and offensive IMO) sum of $37m, these questions must come into play.

The truth will out in the end... hopefully.


----------



## basilio (17 August 2010)

*Role of the Bystander.  Is it right to do nothing when someone else is being bullied ?*

Business writer  Leon Gettler offers  another good perspective on this issue and obviously others like this. He suggests that the heart of this case is the failure of  other staff, management and ultimately the Board at DJ's to stop rather than ignore the bullying behavior.



> * DJs case has implications for corporate Australia*
> August 17, 2010
> 
> A light has been shone on the role of boards as bystanders.
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...s-for-corporate-australia-20100816-1272w.html

______________________________________________________


> I think most reasonable people find that repulsive in the extreme in rape cases. I certainly do.
> 
> But that's a non sequitur. This is not a rape case. This is a case of a guy trying to get a women to consent to sex, albeit probably inappropriately. Ergo, the woman's character does become important   *Wayne L[*




It has been already acknowledged that Mr Mcinnes made repeated public and private passes at Ms Fraser-Kirk that were initially deflected and then discussed with HR. The issue at hand is the repeated nature of these advances, the question about whether other staff had similar confrontations and crucially *what was the rest of DJ's management and board doing to stop the practice.*.

Trying to find or indeed create some question about the character of Ms Fraser-Kirk is just the time honored way to deflect the issue back to the persons who have been abused.


----------



## Ruby (17 August 2010)

Basilio, this is a very good article, and I think your last paragraph is particularly relevant

It reminds me of Edmud Burke's quote:- "Evil flourishes when good men do nothing"


----------



## scanspeak (17 August 2010)

Point of correction Basilio - she has not been abused. Her allegation is that she's been HARASSED.

For every woman that's been harrassed, another woman has flirted with the boss to further her position. I've seen it happen in every job I've worked at. 

For anyone to suggest that the accuser is automatically an innocent victim and the accused is automatically guilty is naive in the extreme. 

Greed, revenge, spite, etc are all possible motivations for pursuing a sexual harrassment case and the accused has every right to question the accuser.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=4967


----------



## basilio (30 August 2010)

Court case is starting between Ms Fraser-Kirk and DJ's/ Mark McInnes.  Looks as if there are a number of women who want to purse sexual harassment claims against DJ's and Mark.  Which goes to  the heart of the accusation that this was not simply a one off situation but an ongoing but ignored problem.

It will be interesting to see how much media comment there is on the situation now that the formal legal processes are in play. I suspect very little. But the blogs will probably tell another story as information starts to  get leaked.

I reckon the potential introduction of numerous other complainants will encourage DJ's to settle this case as quickly as possible.  It wouldn't be surprising if some of the other stories are even more incriminating than Ms Fraser-Kirks.



> * More women set to sue David Jones for sexual harassment, court hears
> Kate Lahey*
> August 30, 2010 - 10:47AM
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/business/m...t-court-hears-20100830-13yj3.html?autostart=1


----------



## trainspotter (30 August 2010)

Sounds like the lawyers are turning the screws to me. I notice in the headlines the magic word _"Her lawyers told the court that another six women from the company *might* become involved in the case."_

Or then again they "might" not. More sabre rattling on the steps of the courthouse IMO. So far - no motion of discovery for information and no pre-trial conference ?? Just give me 37 million dollars ! LOLOL .... no wonder the "other" women are coming out of the woodwork.

Just as McInnes lawyers tried to tarnish her reputation by leaking she has form of this behaviour previously, now her lawyers are forming a phalanx of harrased women to further their case. Usual BS that lawyers do.


----------



## Julia (30 August 2010)

basilio said:


> It will be interesting to see how much media comment there is on the situation now that the formal legal processes are in play. I suspect very little.



I don't think you need to worry too much about this.   It was actually the lead item on "The World Today" on ABC Radio today, and the journalist said there was a large contingent of journalists at the court.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 August 2010)

wayneL said:


> I think most reasonable people find that repulsive in the extreme in rape cases. I certainly do.
> 
> But that's a non sequitur. This is not a rape case. This is a case of a guy trying to get a women to consent to sex, albeit probably inappropriately. Ergo, the woman's character does become important.
> 
> ...




I must state that in 2009 I was being fitted for a suit in David Jones in Queen St. Brisbane, and I felt the young man measuring my waist became uncomfortably close.

I still have nightmares about it.

I am unable to look at a suit hanger.

I have not bought a suit since, severely affecting my negotiations with some quite shady characters in Almaty, Kasakistan.

Should any beaks view this post I would be quite happy to sue  David Jones for $37m give or take a few grand.

I have made a diary entry in a diary i bought in Officeworks yesterday on special for $1.00.

I reckon I have a good case.

gg


----------



## trainspotter (1 September 2010)

Complainant asked for 850k to settle. DJ's baulked on their smoked salmon. I notice these days when the cameras are around Ms Fraser-Kirk, she is not looking down the lens anymore ?


----------



## basilio (11 September 2010)

> *Denying the allegations ...*
> FORMER David Jones boss Mark McInnes fondled his penis in the office and rubbed his crotch against his 19-year-old secretary, according to sensational new allegations.
> 
> The sexual harassment allegedly happened early in his career when he worked for Black & Decker.
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...oss-mark-mcinnes/story-e6freuzi-1225917678697

Makes one wonder  why these situations weren't passed onto new employers. 

But then I suspect most employers are only too glad to flick on serious problems.


----------



## pixel (11 September 2010)

basilio said:


> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...oss-mark-mcinnes/story-e6freuzi-1225917678697
> 
> Makes one wonder  why these situations weren't passed onto new employers.
> 
> But then I suspect most employers are only too glad to flick on serious problems.




It's an ancient trick applied by shysters/ lawyers: Mud-raking character assassination. Something always sticks, even if it's ancient history.
Makes you wonder where they'll find "12 good men (and women)" jurors, who are unbiased and able to assess the case at hand on its merits.

This entire press beat-up stinks - and Ms F-K may well realise it. Could that explain her failure to make eye contact?


----------



## scanspeak (25 September 2010)

In todays Age



> MARK McInnes, the former chief executive of David Jones, only tried to kiss his publicist because she made sexual comments that led him on, according to the defence his lawyers lodged in the Federal Court yesterday.
> 
> Mr McInnes denied other claims against him in the $37 million sexual harassment case brought by Kristy Fraser-Kirk and said he had made no ''unwanted'' sexual advances. He denied that she showed signs the conduct was inappropriate.
> 
> ...


----------



## scanspeak (27 September 2010)

The extortion attempt continues ...

*
DJs sex case: Fraser-Kirk suffers 'psychiatric illness' *

The intrusive media frenzy surrounding the David Jones sexual harassment case has induced a psychiatric illness in complainant Kristy Fraser-Kirk, who now regularly ‘‘checks under her car’’, a court has been told.

Lawyers for the 27-year-old say if other women linked to the case are named, they will be put at similar risk.

The Federal Court continued to hear pre-trial applications in Sydney today in the $37 million-plus claim which Ms Fraser-Kirk has lodged against some directors of David Jones and its former chief executive Mark McInnes.

Her allegations include that Mr McInnes made unwelcome sexual advances to her at a function in early 2010.

She further claims that the retailer had knowledge of Mr McInnes’ behaviour.

In her statement of claim before the court, Ms Fraser-Kirk has outlined alleged behaviour on the part of Mr McInnes towards five other unnamed David Jones employees.

Lawyers for Mr McInnes and David Jones said the women’s identities should be made available so the allegations can be investigated, but Ms Fraser-Kirk’s barrister, Rachel Francois, said that would put the women at risk.

She submits that the names should be made available only to legal practitioners in the case and not to David Jones, its directors, Mr McInnes or the media.

Ms Francois told Federal Court Justice Geoffrey Flick that Ms Fraser-Kirk has developed an ‘‘adjustment disorder’’ as a result of publicity about the case.

‘‘It is my opinion that the onset of her psychiatric illness ... the role of the media has had some impact on her health,’’ she said.

Ms Fraser-Kirk’s partner, her family, friends and colleagues had been approached by the media in relation to the case, and the attention at one point had prompting her to flee Australia, Ms Francois said.

‘‘Should their names be released, (the witnesses) will attract interest of the kind which has contributed to the development of (Ms Fraser-Kirk’s) psychiatric condition,’’ she said.

Media coverage of the case, which stretched to the international stage, was ‘‘unsurprising’’, Ms Francois said, as it involved allegations against a ‘‘high-flying and prominent Australian executive’’.

‘‘It is a classic underdog case - this is one young woman taking on a corporation.’’

Justice Flick accepted that there had been ‘‘a degree of intrusion by the media into at least the lives of (Ms Fraser-Kirk) and (Mr McInnes)’’.

He said he hoped to make a ruling by the end of Monday regarding the identification of the witnesses.


----------



## Julia (27 September 2010)

She didn't anticipate that there just might be a little smidgen of media interest in her $37M claim???
Might be an opening here for a further claim of media-induced psychosis?


----------



## Tink (1 October 2010)

..and it goes on..

*DJs boss sent 'begging' texts over conduct *

http://www.theage.com.au/business/d...-over-conduct-20100930-15zbz.html?autostart=1



> At 6pm that day, Mr McInnes left a voicemail message on Ms Fraser-Kirk's phone, in which he acknowledged he had made a mistake, apologised, and said that the company would pay her compensation.


----------



## basilio (2 October 2010)

Disappointed but not surprised at the scorn of some posters over Ms Fraser-Kirks "media induced psychosis".

As is see it there are supposed to be formal rules in this fight but the main intention of DJ and Mark McInnes is to stop or destroy Ms Fraser-Kirk by whatever means it takes.. If you didn't recognize that reality you wouldn't be living in the real world. 

Of course the legal fiction we are supposed to believe would rule out systematic harassment, intrusion and the creation of false or misleading statements designed to denigrate the complainant.  However since we live in the real world *that is what is happening to her and what will also happen to anyone else courageous enough to reinforce her experience.

* Who remembers the line "Just because I'm paroniod  doesn't mean they are not out to get me" .

As far as Mr Mcinnes assertions that Fraser-Kirk was responsive to his advances or played along ? Well he would say that wouldn't he ..and let's overlook the earlier complaint she made to her boss or any experiences from the other women he leant on. (you certainly wouldn't want anything like that to come out would you ?)

__________________________________________________________

How well do people stand up to psychological pressure ?  There was a spectacular experiment conducted at Stanford University in 1971 which showed how quickly  people can be broken by social pressure and role play.



> The Stanford prison experiment was a study of the psychological  effects of becoming a prisoner or prison guard. The experiment was conducted in 1971 by a team of researchers led by Psychology professor Philip Zimbardo at Stanford University. Twenty-four undergraduates were selected out of over 75 to play the roles of both guards and prisoners and live in a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psychology building. Roles were assigned at random. The participants adapted to their roles well beyond what even Zimbardo himself expected, leading the guards to display authoritarian measures. The experiment even affected Zimbardo himself.
> 
> Five of the prisoners were upset enough by the process to quit the experiment early, and the entire experiment was abruptly stopped after only six days. The experimental process and the results remain controversial. The entire experiment was filmed, with excerpts soon made publicly available, leaving some disturbed by the resulting film. Over 30 years later, Zimbardo found renewed interest in the experiment when the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal occurred.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment


----------



## basilio (2 October 2010)

Point of clarification Re previous post on the legal profession.



> I believe that the legal profession works under strict code of ethics that would preclude any members acting in such a way either directly or through their agents  to intentionally or accidentally cause harm to any complainants in a legal contest in an attempt to ensure a favorable outcome.
> 
> Given that state of affairs, any inference that the legal representation of DJ's and Mr Mcinnes could in any way be responsible directly or indirectly for any alleged harrasment of Ms Fraser-Kirk and any other person who wishes to lay charges against the company cannot be countenanced. Therefore it is clear that Ms Fraser-Kirks charges cannot be correct given the totally ethical and honorable manner the legal companies representing DJ's operate.
> 
> "Basilio"




Off to watch the Grand Finaaal !!!!. Shades of dejavu.


----------



## Julia (16 October 2010)

Apparently Ms Fraser Kirk has billed DJ's for her recent trip to New York to attend a family wedding on the basis she 'needed to get away from the media pressure surrounding the case'. (paraphrasing here.)
http://www.news.com.au/business/dav...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member

Ms Fraser Kirk does not seem like one to miss out on any opportunity.


----------



## JTLP (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Apparently Ms Fraser Kirk has billed DJ's for her recent trip to New York to attend a family wedding on the basis she 'needed to get away from the media pressure surrounding the case'. (paraphrasing here.)
> http://www.news.com.au/business/dav...nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
> 
> Ms Fraser Kirk does not seem like one to miss out on any opportunity.




LOL. 

Apparently she netted something close to the $1M dollar mark and the case is now closed. Media speculation is whether or not her 'charity' will see any of the money.

I personally doubt it - she doesn't look like a clean/honest character


----------



## Julia (17 October 2010)

JTLP said:


> LOL.
> 
> Apparently she netted something close to the $1M dollar mark and the case is now closed. Media speculation is whether or not her 'charity' will see any of the money.
> 
> I personally doubt it - she doesn't look like a clean/honest character



From today's "Sunday Mail":


> NO WINNERS IN DJ's SEX CASE
> She sued David Jones for $37 million but Kristy Fraser-Kirk will walk away from Australia's largest sexual harassment case without a job and up to $300,000 in legal costs.
> 
> The 27 year old publicist will sacrifice a chunk of her $850,000 settlement to pay her lawyers and publicist after agreeing to pay her own court costs in the settlement with David Jones and former chief executive Mark McInnes, 45.
> ...






> But poor PR and legal advice meant Ms Fraser Kirk's case was fraught from the start - the absurdly high claim of $37 million in punitive damages exposed her to public ridicule, and Federal Court judge Geoffrey Flick was highly critical of her team.




So that leaves her with about $550,000.  It will be interesting to see if she keeps her promise to make a donation to charity.  We may never know.


----------



## JTLP (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> From today's "Sunday Mail":
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Knowing Ms Kristy (via the media) I'm sure she won't be shy if she stumps up any amount of cash for her 'charity'!

I wonder why she didn't go for the jugular and really stick it to DJ's? Or why she at least didn't try and get legal costs in the deal? We will never know what happened behind those closed doors - or whether she is as innocent as she seems.

Pretty stupid stunt really - who is going to want to employee her after this little tirade? Potential law suits - you'd rather not chance it.


----------



## Slipperz (17 October 2010)

JTLP said:


> Knowing Ms Kristy (via the media) I'm sure she won't be shy if she stumps up any amount of cash for her 'charity'!
> 
> I wonder why she didn't go for the jugular and really stick it to DJ's? Or why she at least didn't try and get legal costs in the deal? We will never know what happened behind those closed doors - or whether she is as innocent as she seems.
> 
> Pretty stupid stunt really - who is going to want to employee her after this little tirade? Potential law suits - you'd rather not chance it.




Previous Employer: David Jones
Reason For leaving: Instigated sexual harassment claim for 37 million dollars

Yeah right...next! 
:cuckoo:


----------



## lindsayf (17 October 2010)

dont worry I'm sure we'll find out all about it in 'no idea'


----------



## Julia (17 October 2010)

JTLP said:


> K
> 
> I wonder why she didn't go for the jugular and really stick it to DJ's? Or why she at least didn't try and get legal costs in the deal?



Are you seriously suggesting she wouldn't have tried?  We know she tried to bill them for her trip to New York to attend a wedding.
Given the judge's comments I quoted above, it would seem she has been damn lucky to get anything.

She will regret the whole massive publicity that she engineered when she finds she is poison amongst potential employers.

She could have chosen to settle and have kept her job in the early stages.
Instead she decided to grandstand across the media of Australia and she is now wearing the result.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Are you seriously suggesting she wouldn't have tried?  We know she tried to bill them for her trip to New York to attend a wedding.
> Given the judge's comments I quoted above, it would seem she has been damn lucky to get anything.
> 
> She will regret the whole massive publicity that she engineered when she finds she is poison amongst potential employers.
> ...





I myself have been sexually harassed, while being measured for a suit, at DJ's but chose not to pursue it as the lass who harassed me was such a sweet thing. 

All these harassments need to be taken in context.

One person's harassment is another's inside leg.

gg


----------



## Whiskers (18 October 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I myself have been sexually harassed, while being measured for a suit, at DJ's but chose not to pursue it as the lass who harassed me was such a sweet thing.
> 
> All these harassments need to be taken in context.
> 
> ...




I agree gg. If I had a dollar for every time I (a male) was 'propositioned' or given a bit of a rub up, 'saucy' talk and even sat on my lap at work, I'd be quite a bit wealthier. 



Julia said:


> Are you seriously suggesting she wouldn't have tried?  We know she tried to bill them for her trip to New York to attend a wedding.
> Given the judge's comments I quoted above, it would seem she has been damn lucky to get anything.
> 
> She will regret the whole massive publicity that she engineered when she finds she is poison amongst potential employers.
> ...




Totally agree with Julia too.

I think in the unpolitically correct venacular, Ms Kristy seems to be the proverbial Gold digging, pr!ck teaser.   :couch

PS: ...and btw, what a clever 'legality' to sleeze out of donating to charity. What a grandstanding Teaser!


----------



## scanspeak (18 October 2010)

Well it turns out that the statement that all proceeds would go to charity was a complete lie. 
She's not giving a cent. 
Why am I not surprised? What a con job!

http://www.theage.com.au/business/f...lement--money-20101018-16pjd.html?autostart=1


----------



## DB008 (18 October 2010)

scanspeak said:


> Well it turns out that the statement that all proceeds would go to charity was a complete lie.
> She's not giving a cent.
> Why am I not surprised? What a con job!




+1
What a liar!


----------



## professor_frink (18 October 2010)

From the link scanspeak posted earlier:

ROFLMAO

*"Fraser-Kirk to keep David Jones settlement money "*





I'm sure DJS would be quite pleased with the outcome here. No mutli million dollar payout and photos like the one above used in the media when she fails to give a cent to charity.

This would have to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen. She's killed her career, looks like a liar and a gold digger by keeping all the money and for what? A sum of money that won't even by a nice house, let alone support her whilst she tries to find an employer that hasn't seen her in the media for the past few months. 

LOL!


----------



## awg (18 October 2010)

The untold story is what the other female DJ employees who worked with both of them thought. 

Maybe will make it into the gossip media.

Still seems like an attempted workplace conquest that got a bit out of control, and neither party wanted to back down.

On a slightly different, but related note, was recently hearing that, legally, a woman cannot give consent when intoxicated.

This must mean many relationships are based on date rape.

Not just that, but what about Friday night when the wife has had a few glasses of wine ?

What is the definition of intoxicated anyway?


----------



## moXJO (18 October 2010)

awg said:


> What is the definition of intoxicated anyway?




When your wife has had enough to want sex


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2010)

awg said:


> What is the definition of intoxicated anyway?




Try these;

•Pissed
•Legless
•Bladdered
•F**ked
•Tipsy
•Merry
•Three sheets to the wind
•Blind (with "drunk")
•Pickled
•Leathered
•Buzzed
•Lumga - this one is actually the Haida word for drunk (Haida being my tribe from the northwest coast of Canada) 
•Off the wagon - okay this one means drinking in general, but close enough 
•High - as used by Lou Rawls in "Scotch and Soda" 
•Trashed
•On a bender
•Hooped
•Looped/loopy
•Gunned - I heard this one on Larry and Willy this morning, 2006/06/27.

•Sub. by Stumpy 
•Pixilated - I like this one 
•Ripped - If Daffy Duck says it's so, who am I to disagree? 

•Sub. by Cosgrove 
•Sloshed
•Gone
•Done
•Hammered
•Wasted
•Sauced
•Liquored up
•Boozy
•Happy
•Wrecked
•Stiff
•Intoxicated
•Under the Influence

•Sub. by Odysseus 
•Shikker - I've never heard this one 

•Sub. by tdunnie 
•Snockered
•'Faced - along with its profane full-version cousin s**tfaced 
•Plastered
•Lit

•Sub. by marygabucan 
•Crunk - Never heard this one 
•Crinked - nor this one 
•Tore Up
•Magoogled

•Sub. by RosieCotton 
•Inebriated
•Under the Weather
•wobbly
•had a skinful
•on the cuff
•in your cups

•Sub. by baker 
•Smashed
•Messed up
•Blasted

•Sub. by Penny 
•Tight
•Wiggy
•Jazzed
•Spifflicated

•Sub. by Merlin 
•Zonked - though I've usually used this word to mean "tired" 
•Stoned - I've usually heard this in reference to drugs 
•Spiffed

•Sub. by pianoshootis 
•Toe up
•Loaded
•Soused
•Stinko
•Blotto - how could I have forgotten this one? One of my favourite lines from The Simpsons is "My name is Otto, I like to get blotto". 
•Stewed

•Sub. by bertie 
•Tired and emotional - generally used by PR folk 

•Sub. by grandpa chum 
•tanked
•trollied
•bludgeoned by life
•rat-legged
•razzled
•On a campaign
•Merle Haggard I love this one. 
•goosed
•howling
•poisoned

•Sub. by 1922 
•spongy (from Shakespeare's Macbeth) 

•Sub. by russ03
•guttered
•gassed
•blootered
•miraculous - wha? 
•minced
•mingin' - I've always heard this to mean ugly or gross 
•welly'd
•mortal
•hingin'
•buckled
•arsed - in England they also use the expanded form "arseholed" 
•steamin'

•Sub. by sarahinspace 
•Bevvied
•Boozed
•Trolleyed (as in trolley, not the eye of a troll) Smashed
•Sloshed
•Wroughted (a personal favourite)
•Half cut (not sure why we only say 'half' but anyway...)
•Paralytic (can be abbreviated to 'para' or 'paz')
•Sauced
•On the sauce
•On the turps (ie turpentine)
•On the piss
•Off your face
•Off your nut
•Off your tree
•Off your trolley
•Maggotted/Maggotty (pronounced maggot-ed, can be abbreviated to 'maggot'- another fave)
•And my all time favourite,
•Boris Yeltsin.

•Sub. by russa03 
•jaiked up - i'm surprised i forgot this one it's very popular in the west of Scotland
•pished
•mad wi it
•fou/fow/fu (as in 'full-up') - can also relate to food
•stocious
•puggled
•smeekit
•iled up
•scuppered
•miraculous/moroculous - i think these are the same pronounced slightly differently


----------



## tech/a (18 October 2010)

I see one very lonely individual in the not so distant future.


----------



## JTLP (18 October 2010)

Julia said:


> Are you seriously suggesting she wouldn't have tried?  We know she tried to bill them for her trip to New York to attend a wedding.
> Given the judge's comments I quoted above, it would seem she has been damn lucky to get anything.
> 
> She will regret the whole massive publicity that she engineered when she finds she is poison amongst potential employers.
> ...




Haha no Julia - that's why I added the comment at the end! No doubt she tried the whole dog and pony show...baulked at the first offer from DJ's...but when things went south for her - she chomped just to get out of there!

Tech/A is on the money - she'll be a very lonely individual in the future - silly way to isolate yourself just for some publicity.

And isn't that her job? L.o.l


----------



## Julia (18 October 2010)

awg said:


> On a slightly different, but related note, was recently hearing that, legally, a woman cannot give consent when intoxicated.



This probably deserves its own thread.  Makes it pretty hard for a bloke when she says yes, but next day claims rape because she says she had had too much to drink to be responsible for what she said.
Seems completely wrong to me.


----------



## scanspeak (18 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This probably deserves its own thread.  Makes it pretty hard for a bloke when she says yes, but next day claims rape because she says she had had too much to drink to be responsible for what she said.
> Seems completely wrong to me.




Works both ways. What if she's sober and he's intoxicated?
Then HE'S been raped.


----------



## nulla nulla (19 October 2010)

tech/a said:


> I see one very lonely individual in the not so distant future.




Lonely, apart from the family and boyfriend...and all the organisations (charitable or otherwise) that will now come begging for a slice of the payout.


----------



## basilio (19 October 2010)

Well the case is over and some sort of sense prevails.  It would have been over the top for a multimillion dollar settlement to have been awarded. The judge made it  clear he saw this as just another sexual harrassment case with no extra bells and whistles.

Regarding the lack of money to charity ? I understood that Kirsty Fraser-Kirk was going to give some money* from any punitive damages* That was the stuff way above the straight sexual harassment settlement. In fact after she takes out the considerable legal costs and the uprooting of her life and probable loss of future income she'll be lucky to stay even.

It's been interesting to observe the comments of many forum members who have slagged off at Kirsty both during and now after the legal proceedings. I think it has been pretty ordinary and I'm not sure whether it reflects on some people innate natures or how they have been influenced by the media coverage. There was a good (IMO) summing up of the case in The Age today.



> Boys' club still alive and well at top end of town
> 
> .....For the same people who last week were championing women's rights were the ones doing their best to undermine the case of a young woman who had been made the subject of blatant sexual harassment in the workplace.
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/business/b...d-well-at-top-end-of-town-20101018-16qzu.html

Perhaps they only way some our our contributors could recognise accurately what happened with Mark Mcinnes abuse of power and incessant assault on Kirsty would be hearing a similar story from a daughter, partner or close friend. I'd hope so any way.

Cheers


----------



## Mofra (19 October 2010)

Julia said:


> This probably deserves its own thread.  Makes it pretty hard for a bloke when she says yes, but next day claims rape because she says she had had too much to drink to be responsible for what she said.
> Seems completely wrong to me.



Those cases are rare as hens teeth. 
I'd be more concerned with the 85% of sexual assault cases that are never reported to Police.


----------



## tech/a (19 October 2010)

Talk to ANY Barmaid and see how they fair.

On the males side Tradies (The buff ones) get similar treatment to Bar staff.

If she ever loses the boyfriend (and he WILL be feeling the strain) wonder how she will find another bloke!
I can see her in a nightclub!


----------



## Julia (19 October 2010)

Mofra said:


> Those cases are rare as hens teeth.



I wasn't talking about their frequency, but rather the principle involved.



> I'd be more concerned with the 85% of sexual assault cases that are never reported to Police.



Yes, absolutely agree.


----------



## JTLP (19 October 2010)

basilio said:


> Well the case is over and some sort of sense prevails.  It would have been over the top for a multimillion dollar settlement to have been awarded. The judge made it  clear he saw this as just another sexual harrassment case with no extra bells and whistles.
> 
> Regarding the lack of money to charity ? I understood that Kirsty Fraser-Kirk was going to give some money* from any punitive damages* That was the stuff way above the straight sexual harassment settlement. In fact after she takes out the considerable legal costs and the uprooting of her life and probable loss of future income she'll be lucky to stay even.
> 
> ...




Come on Basilio. Her conduct leaves a lot to be desired (in the face of the media). And that article sounds like it was written by somebody bitten by the 'boys club'. Plus it contradicts itself.

The Age. Lol.


----------



## awg (20 October 2010)

Well now I am even more confused than before 

I think these seem ok?

•Tipsy
•Merry
•Sauced
•Jazzed

fairly hard to explain:headshake

•Legless
•Bladdered
•F**ked
•Gone
•Done
•Hammered
•Wasted
•guttered
•gassed

probably best avoided 

•Trashed
•On a bender
•Hooped
•Looped/loopy
•Tore Up
•Magoogled
•bludgeoned by life
•rat-legged
•howling
•poisoned
•Maggotted/Maggotty 

The rest, I would probably need them to sign a PDS or something





Calliope said:


> Try these;
> 
> 
> •Pissed
> ...


----------



## scanspeak (3 November 2010)

I think this sums it up :

"Sexual Harassment and You"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBVuAGFcGKY&feature=player_embedded


----------

