http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/22090741/north-sydney-mayor-jilly-gibson-seeks-to-use-bullying-laws-against-councillor-jeff-morris/

"The Mayor of North Sydney is using new federal laws to tackle workplace bullying against a fellow councillor.

Mayor Jilly Gibson has lodged an application with the Fair Work Commission seeking relief from the bullying and harassing conduct she says she receives from Councillor Jeff Morris.

Councillor Morris has strenuously denied the Mayor's allegations.

Councillor Gibson's lawyer Michael Hayter says the application has been made under bullying legislation which came into force in January.

"The legislation is very widely drafted and hasn't really been tested," he said.

"Ms Gibson is treated as an employee for the purposes of the legislation, but it certainly will be a test case.

"Today someone from the Fair Work Commission will be contacting North Sydney Council and the person being investigated with a view to discussing the matter with them and serving the claim on them.

"The claim is that there has been bullying and harassment."

Councillor Gibson applied for an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) against Councillor Morris earlier this year.

That matter returns to court next week."

So - any time you are politicking and someone disagr4ees with your views and opposes them - are you then entitled to say that you 'apprehend violence' and that you are 'being bullied'?

Or is this simply a manifestation of 'victim mentality' - and being used as a means to gain an unfair advantage over opponents and silence them?

**awaits with glee the usual 'victim mentality' response**

Politics, discussion, debates,arguments and performance counselling is not bullying or harassment. However people constantly use these forms of communication to harass and bully because put simply they are arseholes with bad communication skills. It is absolutely not an attack on free speech it is attack on bullies and bigots who don't belong in our workplaces.

Of course they can.

And they will be.  >:( >:( >:(

Anti-bullying laws.  http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wanking_small1.gif

Who thinks up this stuff?

If you ever saw a workplace bully at work you will be very happy to see some laws in place to curb it.
Its nasty.

miketrees wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:04pm:

If you ever saw a workplace bully at work you will be very happy to see some laws in place to curb it. Its nasty.

Right.  because everyone knows that the only way to deal with a bully is to dob on them.

... wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:07pm:

miketrees wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:04pm: If you ever saw a workplace bully at work you will be very happy to see some laws in place to curb it. Its nasty. Right.  because everyone knows that the only way to deal with a bully is to dob on them.

How would you deal with a bully in the work place honky.

It depends what nature of bully they were.

But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place. 
Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends.

That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years. 

... wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:28pm:

It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.

Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times.

Rubin wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:57pm:

... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times.

Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof.

Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever.

Wandering off subject here - the issue I am seeking to address is that of using legitimate laws in place to cut back on bullying as a gag to prevent censure and opposition in a political field etc.

Also - a favourite of mine - when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:23pm:

when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card.

So don't set them in play. 

Plenty of bad, but nothing good can come of them.

... wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 7:01pm:

Anti-bullying laws.  http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/wanking_small1.gif Who thinks up this stuff?

You in the parallel universe where I don't check myself at regular intervals. ;)

... wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:31pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:23pm: when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card. So don't set them in play.  Plenty of bad, but nothing good can come of them.

I agree at the end of this discussion - I am canvassing views of others and hoping to derive comment such as yours that show that the imposition of overly general 'laws' that are open to abuse is a dangerous thing.

I refer you back to the 'domestic violence' "laws" that were allegedly set in place to prevent women being beaten to a pulp - these have been blatantly abused and turned into a jihad weapon against men at whim of any accuser over any complaint at all no matter how unfounded in fact - and quite deliberately so.

I will now state, for the record, that this was the intention all along of these "laws' - which you see evidenced clearly today with the ongoing emasculation of men in western society and the ongoing elevation of women there.  This was done in the name of attaining a 'tame' society - one in which 51% (the 51% least capable and least inclined to oppose the very oppression involved and with insufficient experience of the real struggles of the real world to engage in such a contest) are bribed and cosseted and artificially promoted and supported by an endless array of propaganda campaigns - and the other 49% are subjected to a reign of terror over every simple facet of their simply being as they are, in a fashion startlingly reminiscent of the approach to Jews and others under the Nazi** and Russian Communist*** regimes.

Get hold of your real history books, Grasshoppers - it is all there for you to see.

** Under the Nazi regime any crime committed against a Jew by a German was a matter of self-defence, for the simple reason that Jews and Judaism were considered an attack on German culture.

*** the Russian Communists continued the ages-old pogroms or organised assaults on Jews by the instruments of government and perpetuated the ages-old hatred and discrimination against Jews.  Many say the opposite... you judge for yourself.

... wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 8:10pm:

Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever.

What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:45pm:

... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:31pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:23pm: when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card. So don't set them in play.  Plenty of bad, but nothing good can come of them. I agree at the end of this discussion - I am canvassing views of others and hoping to derive comment such as yours that show that the imposition of overly general 'laws' that are open to abuse is a dangerous thing. I refer you back to the 'domestic violence' "laws" thjat were allegedly set in place to prevent women being beaten to a pulp - these have been blatantly abused and turned into a jihad weapon against men at whim of any accuser - and quite deliberately so. I will now state, for the record, that this was the intention all along of these "laws' - which you see evidence clearly today with the ongoing emasculation of men in western society and the ongoing elevation of women there.  this was done in the name of attaining a 'tame' society - one in which 51% (the 51% least capable and least inclined to oppose the very oppression involved) are bribed and cosseted and artificially promoted and supported by an endless array of propaganda campaigns - and the other 49% are subjected to a reign of terror over every simple facet of their simply being as they are, in a fashion startlingly reminiscent of the approach to Jews under the Nazi and Russian Communist regime. Get hold of your real history books, Grasshoppers - it is all there for you to see.

I think you need to take responsibility for the reason some women reject you, rather than blaming external factors.

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:53pm:

... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder?

What I am attempting to discuss here is not such extremes - but a situation in which it appears that one political figure is attempting to silence another through the use of 'laws' that permit the first to claim to be 'afraid' of violence and to label any opposition as 'bullying'.

If we are to permit any robust disagreement and refusal to accept a 'line' to be labeled 'bullying' - then we run the very real risk of allowing any opposition to a person in power to be silenced.

If we were to permit opposition expressed and continued against a policy etc to be cause for claiming to be bullied or for claiming to 'fear' violence of some undefined sort with zero supporting evidence - every politician would not be able to speak to oppose any move of any person in power.

Capisce?

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:55pm:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:45pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:31pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:23pm: when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card. So don't set them in play.  Plenty of bad, but nothing good can come of them. I agree at the end of this discussion - I am canvassing views of others and hoping to derive comment such as yours that show that the imposition of overly general 'laws' that are open to abuse is a dangerous thing. I refer you back to the 'domestic violence' "laws" thjat were allegedly set in place to prevent women being beaten to a pulp - these have been blatantly abused and turned into a jihad weapon against men at whim of any accuser - and quite deliberately so. I will now state, for the record, that this was the intention all along of these "laws' - which you see evidence clearly today with the ongoing emasculation of men in western society and the ongoing elevation of women there.  this was done in the name of attaining a 'tame' society - one in which 51% (the 51% least capable and least inclined to oppose the very oppression involved) are bribed and cosseted and artificially promoted and supported by an endless array of propaganda campaigns - and the other 49% are subjected to a reign of terror over every simple facet of their simply being as they are, in a fashion startlingly reminiscent of the approach to Jews under the Nazi and Russian Communist regime. Get hold of your real history books, Grasshoppers - it is all there for you to see. I think you need to take responsibility for the reason some women reject you, rather than blaming external factors.

You made my point for me..... you have reverted to personal attack rather than pursuing the issues, in the same manner as I am seeking to discuss in raising these very issues - and thus have proven to the world that my stance is a solid one based on fact.

I think you need to take some responsibility for the reason some women accept you........ and do something about it to become a real man who only consorts with real women.

Smith - I seriously wonder why I bother at all to accord to even your sane sounding comments any credibility - it takes but one second for you to show your true colours.

You are small-minded, perverse, and totally unthinking in any real sense, and in accord with all your feminist buddies, you show a total lack of ability to view issues in any dispassionate way without seeking to attack the manhood of the men you attack as your only means of gaining any point.

It is your kind who will destroy this country.

Footnote:-  My current lady, the Federal judge, has no issue such as yours with me - though she sometimes seeks to play Solomon on some issues...

You seriously need to mix with a better class of people - not the educated peasantry you wallow with.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 12:01am:

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:53pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder? What I am attempting to discuss here is not such extremes - but a situation in which it appears that one political figure is attempting to silence another through the use of 'laws' that permit the first to claim to be 'afraid' of violence and to label any opposition as 'bullying'. If we are to permit any robust disagreement and refusal to accept a 'line' to be labeled 'bullying' - then we run the very real risk of allowing any opposition to a person in power to be silenced. If we were to permit opposition expressed and continued against a policy etc to be cause for claiming to be bullied or for claiming to 'fear' violence of some undefined sort with zero supporting evidence - every politician would not be able to speak to oppose any move of any person in power. Capisce?

I agree with your position, I was talking to Honky.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 12:05am:

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:55pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:45pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:31pm: Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:23pm: when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card. So don't set them in play.  Plenty of bad, but nothing good can come of them. I agree at the end of this discussion - I am canvassing views of others and hoping to derive comment such as yours that show that the imposition of overly general 'laws' that are open to abuse is a dangerous thing. I refer you back to the 'domestic violence' "laws" thjat were allegedly set in place to prevent women being beaten to a pulp - these have been blatantly abused and turned into a jihad weapon against men at whim of any accuser - and quite deliberately so. I will now state, for the record, that this was the intention all along of these "laws' - which you see evidence clearly today with the ongoing emasculation of men in western society and the ongoing elevation of women there.  this was done in the name of attaining a 'tame' society - one in which 51% (the 51% least capable and least inclined to oppose the very oppression involved) are bribed and cosseted and artificially promoted and supported by an endless array of propaganda campaigns - and the other 49% are subjected to a reign of terror over every simple facet of their simply being as they are, in a fashion startlingly reminiscent of the approach to Jews under the Nazi and Russian Communist regime. Get hold of your real history books, Grasshoppers - it is all there for you to see. I think you need to take responsibility for the reason some women reject you, rather than blaming external factors. You made my point for me..... you have reverted to personal attack rather than pursuing the issues, in the same manner as I am seeking to discuss in raising these very issues - and thus have proven to the world that my stance is a solid one based on fact. I think you need to take some responsibility for the reason some women accept you........ and do something about it to become a real man who only consorts with real women. Smith - I seriously wonder why I bother at all to accord to even your sane sounding comments any credibility - it takes but one second for you to show your true colours. You are small-minded, perverse, and totally unthinking in any real sense, and in accord with all your feminist buddies, you show a total lack of ability to view issues in any dispassionate way without seeking to attack the manhood of the men you attack as your only means of gaining any point. It is your kind who will destroy this country. Footnote:-  My current lady, the Federal judge, has no issue such as yours with me - though she sometimes seeks to play Solomon on some issues... You seriously need to mix with a better class of people - not the educated peasantry you wallow with.

You clearly have issues with women.

You clearly have women with issues..... I have none such....

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 12:23am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 12:01am: Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:53pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder? What I am attempting to discuss here is not such extremes - but a situation in which it appears that one political figure is attempting to silence another through the use of 'laws' that permit the first to claim to be 'afraid' of violence and to label any opposition as 'bullying'. If we are to permit any robust disagreement and refusal to accept a 'line' to be labeled 'bullying' - then we run the very real risk of allowing any opposition to a person in power to be silenced. If we were to permit opposition expressed and continued against a policy etc to be cause for claiming to be bullied or for claiming to 'fear' violence of some undefined sort with zero supporting evidence - every politician would not be able to speak to oppose any move of any person in power. Capisce? I agree with your position, I was talking to Honky.

Yes - and I was seeking to extend the discussion and push it gently back on track.

Unlike you and Honky - I have genuine detractors - not one of whom would ever face me man to man as they well know (one actually approached me once - and saw - instead of some weedy wimp as expected under the propaganda - a 6'+ 18o odd lb very fit looking older guy who you would not  mess with) - yet they can hide behind the internet and silly false names to rubbish without fact.  This is in an entirely different arena.

Point is - ordinary bullies are easy to deal with - as Honky says.  What is more difficult to deal with is people who exploit the 'system' to bully others... even with a charge of 'bullying'.

I cited the 'domestic violence' "laws" as such an issue since they permit attack and intimidation without proper reason - but only by one 'side' of the question.

It is the "LAWS" and their intent I attack - not women, as my real women know only too well, and they respect me for it.

Now - back on track - are there serious problems within such ostensibly well-intentioned laws - that permit the very thing they are claiming to prevent, i.e. bullying - and is there some hidden agenda behind the imposition (sic) of such "laws"?

THAT is the question for today - not whether or not I am prepared to accept or reject women with issues....  :D

well.. maybe for a short fling.. being the rat chauvinist pig bastard retired XXXXXXX in the XXX that I am.... and a great pursuer of the immortal poon tang....

MAYBE I could... accept a women with issues.... for a time.....

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 10:08am:

So - any time you are politicking and someone disagr4ees with your views and opposes them - are you then entitled to say that you 'apprehend violence' and that you are 'being bullied'? Or is this simply a manifestation of 'victim mentality' - and being used as a means to gain an unfair advantage over opponents and silence them? **awaits with glee the usual 'victim mentality' response**

I'm on her side.

He must be an obnoxious bastard to merit this degree of protest from his targets for abuse.

I hope she wins and he gets kicked off the council.

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:23pm:

Wandering off subject here - the issue I am seeking to address is that of using legitimate laws in place to cut back on bullying as a gag to prevent censure and opposition in a political field etc. Also - a favourite of mine - when such laws are set in play they must be carefully bounded so as to address the issue they were intended to address - not be available for any person to pursue a personal agenda that affects others - such as in the political sphere - to use them to silence opposition or to gain a sympathy card.

On facebook some idiot pmed me @ least 50 pms about his name changing. I replied for him to please stop spamming me. He reported me to facebook for "bullying". They laughed @ him but seriously these laws can be misused.

SOB

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21^st, 2014 at 11:53pm:

... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder?

Then they'll probably commit some more serious crimes along the way than "being mean", for which they will be punished.

But one could then ask, how is a psychopath of that nature going to react to having the law called on them?  I'd have thought that's a sure way to escalate things.  It's not as if nobodys ever been killed by someone with whom they've got a restraining order on.

Complex systems don't need complex laws - in fact, they are harmed by them.

... wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:04am:

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:53pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder? Then they'll probably commit some more serious crimes along the way than "being mean", for which they will be punished. But one could then ask, how is a psychopath of that nature going to react to having the law called on them?  I'd have thought that's a sure way to escalate things.  It's not as if nobodys ever been killed by someone with whom they've got a restraining order on. Complex systems don't need complex laws - in fact, they are harmed by them.

I'm talking about victims.

Shouldn't there be laws to protect the bullies from psychopaths?

No, I've got no issue with bullies getting their comeuppance.  If that psycho should go too far in delivering it, they'll be called to account for it.

... wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 9:04am:

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:53pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder? Then they'll probably commit some more serious crimes along the way than "being mean", for which they will be punished. But one could then ask, how is a psychopath of that nature going to react to having the law called on them?  I'd have thought that's a sure way to escalate things.  It's not as if nobodys ever been killed by someone with whom they've got a restraining order on. Complex systems don't need complex laws - in fact, they are harmed by them.

A very good point - I once approached the NSW Police statistics people and asked if they kept a figure on the number of escalated violence incidents in the DV arena AFTER an 'order' had been set in place.  They keep no such figures - but it is almost 100% of incidents that are reported involving extreme violence that carry with them the tag - 'order was in place'.

Now it seems to me that sometimes the imposition of such an 'order' (italics deliberate) under the current (lack of) standard of proof is in itself a major trigger for a RESPONSE of genuine violence - very often in an extreme manner.

Which indicates clearly to me that there are serious flaws in the way these acts of violence by the courts - i.e. 'orders' - are permitted to be set in place without proper consideration.

I once wrote a small thing that said that these 'laws' as currently in place were deliberately designed to be deeply offensive to men in order to precipitate a response from them in self-defence - thus permitting the State to open fire on them as 'violent' - when without the violence done to them of this imposition itself - they would not be anything of the kind.

Violence begets violence - and when you attack a man through the 'legal' system it is just as much violence as hitting him.  it is a man's instinctual nature to defend self and family - and these 'orders' are very often an attack on those things and not a protective measure in any way.

Now bring on the small-minded haters who have no idea what I'd talking about here.

Winston Smith wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2014 at 10:13am:

... wrote on Mar 22nd, 2014 at 9:04am: Winston Smith wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 11:53pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 8:10pm: Rubin wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:57pm: ... wrote on Mar 21st, 2014 at 7:28pm: It depends what nature of bully they were. But really, I wouldn't be bullied in the first place.  Bullies only exist where there are weaklings.  Develop backbone and character and as if by magic, bullies transform into friends. That's the key.  That's how I've helped literally hundreds of nice people "beat the bullies" over the years.  Yeah neither would I but I'm over six foot tall at 100 kg fit and financially secure. But if I were a woman or young person trying to make ends meet in and area with not much work about , that sought of situation can leave people venerable to a bully in the work place. If they lose their job sticking up for themselves they could hit real hard times. Being big can help, but it's not essential, nor is it foolproof. Whoever they are, they're going to have to learn to live in their own skin some time.  Bureacucracy has no place managing inter-personal relations, and it won't be there to hold their hands forever. What about pyschopaths who will go to extreme lengths to defeat anyone who they percieve to be a threat, including stalking and murder? Then they'll probably commit some more serious crimes along the way than "being mean", for which they will be punished. But one could then ask, how is a psychopath of that nature going to react to having the law called on them?  I'd have thought that's a sure way to escalate things.  It's not as if nobodys ever been killed by someone with whom they've got a restraining order on. Complex systems don't need complex laws - in fact, they are harmed by them. I'm talking about victims. Shouldn't there be laws to protect the bullies from psychopaths?

I think your point is that everyone, including bullies, should be protected from bullying...

Let's dig out the alligators first then drain the swamp... start with bullying by government and its agencies - leadership not compulsion.. when you spend your time pushing a crowd along all you see is their arseholes.....

On the subject of the North Sydney issue - the guy may well be an arsehole - I have no idea - I seek to discuss the issue of whether or not such things should be clearly bounded and delineated before they are turned loose upon an unsuspecting public - or indeed whether they should be wrapped in soft lambswool and then used as bludgeons on that public.