Neither you nor Helena Kennedy have mentioned ham sandwiches in the report or your reply to it. That doesn’t mean either of you think they don’t exist, or have some superiority or inferiority to other things that exist. The same principle applies here.
To me, that paragraph suggests that either Helena Kennedy cannot conceive of a man being the victim of sexual harassment or has chosen, or been instructed, to consider only cases with female victims. That might not have been the impression she intended to convey, but I find it hard to see how it could have been accidental.
How I explain it is that this particular report only pertains to cases with male aggressors and women victims. Therefore Helena has written the report in such a way that pertains only to the cases under advisement.
Except the section in question is one that talks about sexual harassment broadly, not in the specific context of the TSSA.
Where in the report does it say men were sexually harassed at TSSA?
I completely agree that this is a concern on a general level, but is there any evidence and/or suggestion that this may have taken place at TSSA?
That's my point. The possibility that some may have been seems not to have been considered.
The report was put into place because women reported it was an unsafe place to work because of sexual harassment from men!
Maybe any male victims are too frightened to come forward and make a complaint? Or maybe they don't regard being treated in exactly the same way as the female complainants as abuse or harassment?
It fits the stereotype that union bosses are more interested in looking after themselves rather than their members, if not being contemptuous to their members (spending subs on paying off Cortes and work time drinking sessions).
Yes, but there’s no evidence of a culture of women sexually harassing the male members of staff at the TSSA whatsoever. Are you able to provide any?
The bits in bold were not specific to female staff were they?
No, the inquiry didn't look for any so it didn't find any.
Why didn’t it look for it, do you think?
I don't know, but maybe because, as I suggested upthread
I disagree factually. Considering all the interviews that were done and contributions made I would suggest that if men were being sexually discriminated against then it would have been found and reported.
The reason she didn’t interview any witnesses to see if there was a sexual harassment culture from the (minority) of women staff towards the majority of men staff is because there was literally no evidence or complaint that it was the case.
A gender-neutral preamble and a statement that there had been no complaints or evidence of abuse or harassment toward men would have removed any doubt and I would be much happier.
Seriously, I am a long way from woke and your suggestion still sounds really weird to me, and an attempt to discredit the report and avoid confronting the issues.
As I have stated multiple tiimes, I am criticising the section of the report that is talking about sexual harassment etc. generally, not just the incidences of such in the TSSA.
And you’ve said you don’t have faith in the report as a result, and have discredited it.
Nope, not discrediting what the report says (apart from the biased preamble). Just saying it may be incomplete.
That's my point. We don't know whether any men were harassed, and the preamble appears to suggest that the possibility wasn't considered.
Even if you were correct that it wasn't considered are you suggesting Kennedy would have hidden it if it had come up in the interviews?
Was there any suggestions or allegations made of this nature?
because no evidence was presented to the investigation! The report was commissioned to investigate alleged harassment of women by men based upon evidence presented. This is not a report into possibilities. It is a report into specific allegations.
