4 ms·

> They have the right to know the contents of the list. Is this true? If you pass along a warning to friends/coworkers does this obligate you to make a public

> They have the right to know the contents of the list. Is this true? If you pass along a warning to friends/coworkers does this obligate you to make a public accusation because other people have a right to that information? Personally I think the confidence threshold for making a public accusation against an individual should be substantially higher than the confidence threshold for passing along private warnings or mentioning the existence of such warnings. And given the number of public accusations against politicians I don't find it particularly surprising that there are additional accusations that have not been made public. To use your metaphor, if 5% of judges have been publicly accused of corruption, would it surprise you to learn that there are rumors (but no public accusations) against an additional 5%?

pjc50 4y ago
It's obviously a nuts claim, that essentially gossip should not exist; that it should be impossible to have such a thing as a private opinion in a subgroup of a social group.
benj111 4y ago
>Personally I think the confidence threshold for making a public accusation against an individual should be substantially higher than the confidence threshold for passing along private warnings. Somebody presumably experienced the alleged behaviour first hand. They could make the accusation. I made reference to Jimmy saville in my first post. He got away with paedophilia for decades because no one would publicly call him out on it. Further it's unfair to the accused. If you make a public accusation, they can at least respond to it. There could be innocent people who have no idea what is being said about them behind their back. I don't think morally there's a higher confidence threshold. If you think someone did something, enough to spread the rumour, then everybody should know, if you aren't that confident, perhaps you shouldn't be spreading the rumour at all. I suppose legally it makes you less exposed to libel, but an MP on the floor isn't exposed to such risks. The point of my metaphor was that you need to trust judges. If 10% of unnamed judges are bent, then you can reasonably question any decision of the judiciary. The judges need to be named and investigated. And in the meantime you can at least have some faith in the remaining 90%. What am I to think of my MP now? Should I recommend people contact him? Should I contact him, not knowing whether he's on the list or not? How should I interpret him not doing anything, like seemingly all the other MPs? How many of these Mps sit on select committees dealing with abuse etc? How many of these MPs are drafting laws on abuse? If one of those laws gets watered down, is that because there's a good reason or because it was drafted by a rapist? Ultimately I don't think public naming and shaming in the first instance is optimal, but if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose. If MPs actually want to sort this out amongst themselves in the investigation phase, that, I think would be best. In the absence of that, publicly announcing the names is the best option.
- asoneth 4y ago
  > if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose I agree. > He got away with paedophilia for decades because no one would publicly call him out on it. His victims made allegations against him as far back as 1963 and were told by the police to "forget about it", "move on", and that they "could be arrested for making such allegations" [1] and he did in fact take legal action against the people who "publicly called him out". A member of the Sex Pistols brought it up during a BBC interview in the 1970s and that part was cut. A stand-up comedian apparently had a bit about him being a pedophile in the 1980s and the recordings were suppressed out of fear of being sued. Given the protection being afforded him by the BBC, police, and English libel law, what more did you expect people to try? > The judges need to be named and investigated. Absolutely. But establishing processes to do so is the responsibility of the judiciary, not the victims. The same is true in other organizations. My experience has been that the vast majority of people default to using the proper channels to resolve issues. It's only after the proper channels have been exhausted or have previously demonstrated their ineffectiveness that individuals resort to things like private warnings and rumors. So if you find that a large number of people in an organization or society are instead choosing to pass along private warnings (for sexual assault, abusive managers, toxic projects, illegal behavior, insider trading, bribery, etc) instead of reporting these things through the proper channels then the most likely explanation is that they are responding rationally to a failed organization. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150

pjc50 4y ago

It's obviously a nuts claim, that essentially gossip should not exist; that it should be impossible to have such a thing as a private opinion in a subgroup of a social group.

benj111 4y ago

>Personally I think the confidence threshold for making a public accusation against an individual should be substantially higher than the confidence threshold for passing along private warnings. Somebody presumably experienced the alleged behaviour first hand. They could make the accusation. I made reference to Jimmy saville in my first post. He got away with paedophilia for decades because no one would publicly call him out on it. Further it's unfair to the accused. If you make a public accusation, they can at least respond to it. There could be innocent people who have no idea what is being said about them behind their back. I don't think morally there's a higher confidence threshold. If you think someone did something, enough to spread the rumour, then everybody should know, if you aren't that confident, perhaps you shouldn't be spreading the rumour at all. I suppose legally it makes you less exposed to libel, but an MP on the floor isn't exposed to such risks. The point of my metaphor was that you need to trust judges. If 10% of unnamed judges are bent, then you can reasonably question any decision of the judiciary. The judges need to be named and investigated. And in the meantime you can at least have some faith in the remaining 90%. What am I to think of my MP now? Should I recommend people contact him? Should I contact him, not knowing whether he's on the list or not? How should I interpret him not doing anything, like seemingly all the other MPs? How many of these Mps sit on select committees dealing with abuse etc? How many of these MPs are drafting laws on abuse? If one of those laws gets watered down, is that because there's a good reason or because it was drafted by a rapist? Ultimately I don't think public naming and shaming in the first instance is optimal, but if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose. If MPs actually want to sort this out amongst themselves in the investigation phase, that, I think would be best. In the absence of that, publicly announcing the names is the best option.

asoneth 4y ago
> if there is a list, then there is a severe failure somewhere, and existing processes aren't fit for purpose I agree. > He got away with paedophilia for decades because no one would publicly call him out on it. His victims made allegations against him as far back as 1963 and were told by the police to "forget about it", "move on", and that they "could be arrested for making such allegations" [1] and he did in fact take legal action against the people who "publicly called him out". A member of the Sex Pistols brought it up during a BBC interview in the 1970s and that part was cut. A stand-up comedian apparently had a bit about him being a pedophile in the 1980s and the recordings were suppressed out of fear of being sued. Given the protection being afforded him by the BBC, police, and English libel law, what more did you expect people to try? > The judges need to be named and investigated. Absolutely. But establishing processes to do so is the responsibility of the judiciary, not the victims. The same is true in other organizations. My experience has been that the vast majority of people default to using the proper channels to resolve issues. It's only after the proper channels have been exhausted or have previously demonstrated their ineffectiveness that individuals resort to things like private warnings and rumors. So if you find that a large number of people in an organization or society are instead choosing to pass along private warnings (for sexual assault, abusive managers, toxic projects, illegal behavior, insider trading, bribery, etc) instead of reporting these things through the proper channels then the most likely explanation is that they are responding rationally to a failed organization. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-21756150