Criminalise Bullying

gozunda

leggo wrote: »

This is happening, though. This is what bullying is!

The difference is that those bullied are made to feel so weak and vulnerable by their initial bully, that the victims tend to lash out on those they perceive as weaker than them. This gives them the sense of empowerment they were missing when picked on.

Just as the following victims lashed out ...


Phoebe Prince - January 2010

Kate Fitzgerald - Aug 2011

Erin Gallagher - October 2012
& her sister December 2012

Shane McEntee - Dec 2012

Such amateur psychology has no place here..

leggo

Please stop using people's suicides to try and score points in a message board discussion.

gozunda

leggo wrote: »

Huh?! ...

Let's leave it, yeah? You seem to be losing the plot a bit now.

As I said previously- Please desist with the snide observations - they do nothing tbh.

leggo wrote: »

Please stop using people's suicides to try and score points in a message board discussion.

What? You mean like this pervious post from you or is their one rule for you and a different one from every one else ?

leggo wrote: »

... I wonder if Erin Gallagher's parents would have said that the scars were obvious to them?

.

leggo

It's not snide. I'm telling you straight out: You are not qualified to give any kind of authoritative stance on this. That's not me saying I'm the only person who is qualified, or anything along those lines, before you twist that. It's that giving opinions then alluding to 'some studies' without actual proof stronger than Wikipedia doesn't help the problem. And I fear you persist down this unhelpful route out of stubbornness and an unwillingness to admit you're wrong.

I'll say it for a third time, let's leave it. You've made your point, I've made mine. Let's let other people make theirs.

monkeypants

syklops wrote: »

One of the messages the late TD got on his facebook went along the lines of "I'll murder you. You deserve to be murdered for your comments". Thats a death threat.

I thought that was already illegal. Not sure why we need another law for that.

If we make being nasty illegal, are we really going to let the courts decide the consequences? The same courts that jail a man for six years for garlic importation without VAT and give another guy four and a half months for sexual assault. I also doubt the state's ability to jail a woman except for the most heinous crime.

gozunda

leggo wrote: »

It's not snide. I'm telling you straight out: You are not qualified to give any kind of authoritative stance on this. That's not me saying I'm the only person who is qualified, or anything along those lines, before you twist that. It's that giving opinions then alluding to 'some studies' without actual proof stronger than Wikipedia doesn't help the problem. And I fear you persist down this unhelpful route out of stubbornness and an unwillingness to admit you're wrong.

I'll say it for a third time, let's leave it. You've made your point, I've made mine. Let's let other people make theirs.

You are telling me?
Yes your comments were snide imo.
So you are 'qualified' because you are an ex Bully?

You do keep going on about the link provided for another poster. What is your problem with another poster asking a valid question?. You also appear to be somewhat obsessed being "right' and anyone else outside your opinion spectrum is somehow 'wrong'. That alone shows the level of your own ' understanding'

But yes you are right about one thing at least any further dialogue is pointless -

gozunda

gozunda wrote: »

Think about the following scenarios in this matter.

Why would a person physically injure another person in an unprovoked attack

Would that victim 'feel inclined' to be a victim of such a crime

Why would a person attempt to rape another

Would that victim attempt 'feel inclined to a victim' of such a crime

Why are the victims of bullying / psychlogical assault / abuse seen as being anymore responsible for the harm that is inflicted upon them than the victims of any other types of actual harm?

We need to make psychological abuse equatable to other similar offences against the person such as that of actual assault. Only then will bullies face the consequences of their actions

Yeah i get what you mean in fairness. The bully wants power and this could be because

1. They are vulnerable
2. They are insecure themselves
3. They get some sort of gratification preying on the other vulnerable and innocent

Fair enough we already know as much but we need to find out what is making them feel like that and discuss the issue and try to come to some sort of solution.

What I'm talking about is prevention instead of cure. Better monitoring in place and provide a platform to tackle the problems head on before they get out of hand.

gozunda

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah i get what you mean in fairness. The bully wants power and this could be because

1. They are vulnerable
2. They are insecure themselves
3. They get some sort of gratification preying on the other vulnerable and innocent

Fair enough we already know as much but we need to find out what is making them feel like that and discuss the issue and try to come to some sort of solution.

What I'm talking about is prevention instead of cure. Better monitoring in place and provide a platform to tackle the problems head on before they get out of hand.

I agree that where possible prevention is a good objective. Monitoring would be certainly a means to this.

Unfortunately human nature means that there will always those who choose to use Violence / abuse whether physical or otherwise towards others.

This then means dealing with bullying in a way that supports the victims of such abuse and at the same time will deal with the perpetrators.

I also believe that the current methodologies applied to bullying prevention unlike other offences against the person are not working in that there is presently no protection against the continuation of such behaviour or any redress for the victim.

gozunda

UCDVet wrote: »

No, I'm not denying that bullying actually happens.
But I am skeptical of the extent to which it exists. Bullying has been getting a lot of media attention lately, but I haven't seen any measures that would suggest it's actually increasing (I found a report from the djei that claims it's increasing, but doesn't explain how it determined that, but it was written back in 05); in fact if you look at teen suicide rates, it would seem it's actually declining.

I'm also skeptical that additional laws would help. If you look at something like Brodie's Law in Australia (http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/home/crime/brodies+law/)

Bullying does exist and in the main is largely unreported. - it is those that take their own lives that sadly make the headlines. What we are seeing are individuals now standing up and demanding that action be taken so that bullies should not get away with such abhorrent behaviour towards others. The issue is finally being discussed. This is for the good.

It is often unreported because it is bizarrely not seen as more than a niusence by many relevant sectors - this is to the benefit of those sectors in that it means they do not have to deal with the very real impact of bullying behaviour on victims lives. Some organisations believe that a softly softly approach will work and treat vicious bullies with kid gloves allowing to continue their behaviour largely without sanction or deterrent. There is also the percuniary angle involved in that no one wishes to actually take responsibility for the behaviour of such absusers on their watch.

But there were already laws that the perpetrates of her 'bullying' violated. It wasn't that it's legal to spit on someone, hold them down, and pour oil on them in Australia. I don't think the problem was a lack of legislation against that behavior.

The links you posted are very interesting - the first actually explains why the brodies law was necessary. The existing laws did not penalise the perpetrators of bullying behaviour that is psychological in nature. Where physical assault is illegal - I have never seen it suggested that a person who is attacked should not be able to bring a case against their attacker and seek redress. However the crime was not a single or isolated incident of spiting on someone etc but a sustained campaign of psychological abuse that resulted in this young woman taking her own life. Unfortunately in Ireland bullying behaviour does not fall under our current criminal law system and bullies act without any fear of prosecution.

And I'm very much against vague laws, as a mater of principal. A law that says what I can or can't do, that's fair enough. But a law that says I can't do something if it makes someone else feel a certain way? That's pretty hard for me to support the potential for abuse is huge.

Anti bullying laws will be as precise as they are enacted. There remains the burden of proof. Pyscholocal abuse is simply not just "making someone feels certain way" - it is the repeated, inappropriate and deliberate abuse of an individual that causes harm. Harm that can be attested through medical opinion. The only potential for abuse is that which we have at present - that allows those who abuse others deliberately get away without sanction.

Seriously? People think this is a good idea?

Yes I do think it is a good idea - seriously.

A number of decades ago it would have been unthinkable to prosecute members of religious organisations for the abuse they inflicted on children

We have now come to the same point with the psychological abuse of both adults and children that is going on unchecked and without sanction. It is time for this to Stop.

Brodies law is the state of Victoria finally taking note of this serious issue. It's about time we developed our own legislation to help the victims of bullying and to act as a deterrent to those that believe that this behaviour is unacceptable.

This is a poster from one of the links

http://www.justice.vic.gov.au/resources/32c40ac4-fd44-4f85-9c3c-c8e7cef12cda/brodieslawposter2.jpg

The sooner we legislate here - the better.

leggo

gozunda wrote: »

It is often unreported because it is bizarrely not seen as more than a niusence by many relevant sectors - this is to the benefit of those sectors in that it means they do not have to deal with the very real impact of bullying behaviour on victims lives. Some organisations believe that a softly softly approach will work and treat vicious bullies with kid gloves allowing to continue their behaviour largely without sanction or deterrent. There is also the percuniary angle involved in that no one wishes to actually take responsibility for the behaviour of such absusers on their watch.

I know I bowed out of this debate, but I genuinely thought gozunda would allow others to have an opinion too if I did so. The spreading of harmful misinformation under the guise of a people-pleasing narrative is annoying me though:

WHERE are your stats for ANY of your opinions gozunda?

I'm demanding you qualify yourself now with some relevant statistics that back up ANYTHING you're saying here?

I want you to back-up the following with FACT, not opinion or simply copying and pasting your list of 5 people who have committed suicide due to bullying (one of whom - that's 20% of your list - didn't live in Ireland so the law wouldn't apply to them). Listing their name without backing up how it would be helpful doesn't prove that these laws would've helped them. It's simply manipulating their deaths to suit your own agenda, which is callous in the extreme.

Please back-up with hard research and stats, immediately, or stop posting this unhelpful bile to suit your agenda. Remember, I want facts, not wishy-washy opinion trying to tug on people's heartstrings:

• That nobody wishes to take responsibility for bullying.
• That Brody's Law has been effective in tackling the problem.
• That there are a large amount of reported cases that don't currently fall within Irish laws, to justify switching current focus away from the problem.
• That the Irish law has the capacity to enact such laws effectively and that it wouldn't be a waste of time, i.e. that the law wouldn't always side with the accused on nuanced cases that are difficult to prove with the conclusiveness needed in criminal trials (this would account for the vast majority on non-physical cases, such is the well-documented, sneaky nature of bullying).
• And, finally, the big one: That a legislation/punishment model would be more pro-active in deterring bullying from happening to begin with than attempting to cut off the problem before it starts through a solid campaign of education.

I want psychological/academic case studies and verifiable statistics to back up your claims.

It's not easy, but that's why you can't change the world just sitting behind your keyboard. It takes work and, quite frankly, while you're entitled to an opinion your point blank refusal to let others have theirs, coupled with your inability to back up your claims, is now most unhelpful. It's offensive to people like myself who DO actually do positive work in the field and have to deal with the stress of unqualified people threatening to destroy any positive steps by coming up with 'solutions' that don't have any basis or actual understanding. They try and change the narrative because they deem themselves self-important enough to be able to solve the world's problems without any actual, hard work put in.

So I'm calling you out. Back up what you're saying or leave it be. If it's being discussed at government level, then what do you have to worry about anyway?

gozunda

Jeeez Lego - do you really have to make this Your personal war of attrition ?

I believe that I am allowed to reply to other posters - or you bizarrely attempting to use such tactics here? I was replying to another poster re Brodies law- what is your problem?

How about you actually take part in the debate? And not just insist you are 'right'

I apologise if I exhibited any sympathy for those that took their own lives - here or abroad (I did not discriminate) as a mark of respect to the lives lost to the scourge of bullying

You keep ranting on about me providing statistics - what are you on about? I don't see you providing any 'statistics' to back up anything you have said. How about you actually provide some psychological/academic case studies and verifiable statistics to back up your claims? Instead of maintaining everyone else is wrong and has no 'understanding'

You have clearly demonstrated and agreed you have a bully centric approach to your personal beliefs. I dont agree with that stance but Thats your belief so but do not use this to attempt to discredit others and to cast dispersions on the link between psychological abuse and suicide.

Tbh I find your ravings of your special 'understanding' as a self declared ex bully to be grossly offensive on the issue of bullying and the victims whose lives it destroys.

Yes as I said to you previously education has its place . but I believe that legislation will be enacted on this issue - and that is a good thing. Not to do so fundementally denies victims of bullying the right of redress and legal protection.

leggo

So you don't have stats to back up your claims, is what you're saying?

Sertus

Looks like this thread has been successfully trolled to death.

gozunda

Sertus wrote: »

Looks like this thread has been successfully trolled to death.

Ironic considering the issue under discussion...


To recap the current situation:

Under Irish Law bullying as a form of assault on the person remains largely outside prosecution.

Those that are bullied and suffer harm from the activities of bullies - online or actual remain powerless to stop or initiate legal action against the perpetrator(s) for the harm that has been inflicted upon them.

The end result is that many who are bullied feel they have no recourse to reporting and stopping such bullying and a proportion of these sadly go on to take their own lives.

In the wake of a number of recent high-profile teen suicides linked to online abuse, the Minister for Justice Alan Shatter said laws existed to punish those behind such harassment.
Mr Shatter has admitted that there were some problems in bringing successful prosecutions against bullies under present legislation, the Non-fatal Offences against the Person Act.
The difficulties involved proving that the harassment was persistent. Mr Shatter has asked the Law Reform Commission to look at the difficulties and make suggestions for improving the use of the current laws.

Source:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/fallout-from-budget-and-cyber-abuse-troubled-late-minister-3334469.html

Bullying as defined by repeated, deliberate and inappropriate behaviour that has caused actual attested harm whether physical or psychological.

Bullying is not defined by any singular incident or behaviour and under current guidelines and must form a pattern of such behaviour

Like all offences the burden of proof will remain with the prosecution in any case brought to trial.

Whilst education may provide some suggested behaviour modification it remains that psychological assault like physical assault remains a significant threat to the lives and health of both adults and children.

A number of countries have already legislated and enacted anti bullying legislation that carry possible criminal convictions including
parts of the US and Australia.

There would appear to an element against the enactment of such legislation however it has been observed that such legislation will only seek to vindicate the rights of those who can prove beyond any reasonable doubt that they have suffered bullying / psychological assault. This legislation would also act as an deterrent against those who choose to use such behaviour against others.

Those that do not engage in bullying will not be in any way affected by such legislation in that psychological assault like physical assault would require the determination of the severity of the offence. Hence for example as the touching an individual on the arm is generally not considered physical assault - neither would a casual or once off gesture or conversation be considered bullying.

What remains is to provide for the right of individuals for redress against serious and harmful bullying behaviour. The tragic number of recent suicides that have occurred following a number of high profile cases has unfortunately highlighted the urgent need for individuals to be able to report and have such bullying stopped.
Under the current status quo this remains impossible to enforce.

ITS_A_BADGER

I really do hope they sort this out, but i dont think our goverment ministers understand social media and the internet and see it as a young persons gig. Therefore not giving a fcuk about what they do to solve the problem and sign some sort of law censoring the internet,opinions on the internet or monitoring internet users or something like that. that being said i do indeed hope they can make some decent solution to sort out bullying

leggo

You're saying the exact same thing as before, though. All you've added is the link to Alan Shatter saying he's discussing the possibility of legislation.

gozunda, for the record I don't have a personal problem with you or what you're trying to do. I'm sorry if it comes across that way, but this is a subject close to my heart so to see it mishandled or misunderstood like this by anyone naturally makes my blood boil.

The reality is, though, we get your side of the story. Everyone who has read the thread gets mine as well. But this is how debating works: if you make contentious points and state them as fact, eventually you will get asked to back them up. You're not doing so with any kind of hard, reputable and verifiable information. So until such a time as you do so, all you're stating is your opinion. You're entitled to it, of course, but you've stated it so much (as have I) that it doesn't need to be stated anymore unless you've anything significant to add.

I don't wish to deny anyone justice, as I've said already, just offer a solution that is helpful to potential bullying victims in the future. And to do so while it is a hot topic and the government may be forced to act (because you don't know when they will revisit the matter; so if they get it wrong - and this way IS the wrong way - we could be waiting a while to sing the same song and dance despite the info already being there. I don't want any more people to have to take unthinkable measures in the meantime because the government made a balls of another decision. The nature of bullying and denial that a bully goes through during it means the laws won't act as a deterrent for them and, thus, victims aren't protected. Both teens and adults could still turn to suicide in spite of these proposed laws. It's very simple).

Over the next while, I'll be working not to fight legislation specifically, but to make sure there's a proper understanding of how to treat the bullying issue effectively. I hope people recognise this and can get behind a solution that may not sound conventional, and IS radical, but simply hardening conventional solutions hasn't been and isn't working. Experts in the field that I've worked with (and who've worked in the field for much longer than I) recognise that this way is different but very possible.

Anyway, hopefully we can put this to bed. No hard feelings. Like I said, we both want the same things, just believe in different measures of achieving it.

gozunda

As stated It is a Recap. The link to Alan Shatter was posted in my very first post

This is an issue I feel passionate about - hence why I started the thread. I believe that no-one who contributes to the discussion in a positive manner no matter what their opinion in my view can be accused of either mishandling or misunderstanding anything.

As I said this issue is currently under discussion at government level - I am hopeful that this will further this issue and bring forward legislation similar to that enacted in other countries.

Edit: due to the sensitive nature of this subject and in respect of those who have been subjected to the horrific effects of bullying both past and present I would like to suggest that blatant attempts to disrail or continually disrupt the topic under discussion are not in any way useful. The forum is a big place...

leggo

Well this thread won't. I don't think the government has much time for boards somehow :pac:. But it's interesting for drumming up public discussion anyway.

franktheplank

Our libel laws should protect us from many forms of bullying.

The problem is it's hugely expensive to take a case and for those without vast reserves of money to pay for lawyers it's impossible as it's not covered by free legal aid.

In fact because a libel case is so expensive our system facilitates wealthy people bullying the poor.

gozunda

franktheplank wrote: »

Our libel laws should protect us from many forms of bullying.

The problem is it's hugely expensive to take a case and for those without vast reserves of money to pay for lawyers it's impossible as it's not covered by free legal aid.

In fact because a libel case is so expensive our system facilitates wealthy people bullying the poor.

I agree in a way

There are some laws but none that actually deal with bullying as a form of assault and an offence against the person.

Libel laws are quite specific and would not include most forms of bullying / psychological assault.

You are right about the current system being prohibitively expensive for the victims of bullying behaviour

gozunda

This is an extract from the IT on this issue that gives some more detail

Mr Shatter told the Dáil bullying was a form of harassment and, as such, fell within the provision of the non-fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997. However, he had been made aware of difficulties in bringing successful prosecutions, especially relating to the need to demonstrate persistence in the harassment.

“I have asked the Law Reform Commission to examine this difficulty,” he said. “I understand that the issue has already been examined elsewhere, including in Scotland and Australia, and I hope that we can learn from other jurisdictions.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html


It is of note that the application of such laws in other jurisdictions are also being examined and looked at.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

This is an extract from the IT on this issue that gives some more detail




http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1108/1224326308706.html


It is of note that the application of such laws in other jurisdictions are also being examined and looked at.

I would have thought the difficulty in proving harassment would be in proving that the offender knew of the effects of their actions. In the case of cyber bullying there is the additional obstacle of proving beyond reasonable doubt who it actually is behind the online profile.

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

I would have thought the difficulty in proving harassment would be in proving that the offender knew of the effects of their actions. In the case of cyber bullying there is the additional obstacle of proving beyond reasonable doubt who it actually is behind the online profile.

Harassment relating to emploment is a very specific legal area and is covered under 9 listed grounds including age, race, sexual orientation etc

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=13887&ecategory=13890&doclistid=17594&sectionpage=10339&language=EN&page=&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are&urlcode=

Some forms of cyber bullying can be dealth with under the Act that deals with stalking etc but only when the individual is not in regular contact with the person undertaking such behaviour and must be proved to be persistent

Unfortunately that leaves Bullying itself as an form of assault that is not dealt currently with under any direct legal provision

I believe this is where Alan Shatter is referring to the non fatal offences against the person act

However if it is proved that a person took their own live as an direct or even indirect result of bullying I am unsure how this would apply

The mechanics of digital forensics are I believe already quite advanced. There was a fairly recent case of cyber bullying where the perpetrator was tracked back to an Internet cafe.

Lone Stone

Lone Stone wrote: »

so basically what this wold be used for is arresting people for posting their opinions on a politicians facebook page.

Well, yeah.

Does them being a politician change the rules?

If I oppose something boards.ie is doing, does that mean I can post shedloads of shyte about it here?

Why is being a politician different?

What if it's a politician you support who's getting the same treatment from people who oppose him/her? Is it fair game or is it different rule depending on whether you agree with the posts being written?

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

Harassment relating to emploment is a very specific legal area and is covered under 9 listed grounds including age, race, sexual orientation etc

http://www.basis.ie/home/home.jsp?pcategory=13887&ecategory=13890&doclistid=17594&sectionpage=10339&language=EN&page=&link=link001&doc=11969&logname=The%209%20Grounds%20on%20which%20Discrimination%20is%20Unlawful%20are&urlcode=

That doesn't cover harassment. It covers discrimination. And while discrimination can form part of harassment it may not be present in workplace harassment at all. Discrimination legislation should not be considered anti bullying legislation.

gozunda wrote: »

Some forms of cyber bullying can be dealth with under the Act that deals with stalking etc but only when the individual is not in regular contact with the person undertaking such behaviour and must be proved to be persistent

gozunda wrote: »

Unfortunately that leaves Bullying itself as an form of assault that is not dealt currently with under any direct legal provision

I believe this is where Alan Shatter is referring to the non fatal offences against the person act

I suppose it depends on your definition of bullyin bit I can't see why the legal definition of harassment would not cover a bullying situation.

gozunda wrote: »

However if it is proved that a person took their own live as an direct or even indirect result of bullying I am unsure how this would apply

I'm not sure how you think such a causal link could be proven. It couldnt be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

gozunda wrote: »

The mechanics of digital forensics are I believe already quite advanced. There was a fairly recent case of cyber bullying where the perpetrator was tracked back to an Internet cafe.

You can trace it to an internet cafe but how do you tell who was actually at the keyboard. What if three people were using a computer together or it is registered to a family home. How do you prove who was actually using it?

gozunda

MagicSean wrote: »

That doesn't cover harassment. It covers discrimination. And while discrimination can form part of harassment it may not be present in workplace harassment at all. Discrimination legislation should not be considered anti bullying legislation.

No it is is referred to harassment based on those grounds

See also


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/harassment_at_work.html?set_language=en

I suppose it depends on your definition of bullyin bit I can't see why the legal definition of harassment would not cover a bullying situation.

There is a standard definition of bullying used for example in the HSA guidelines that has been used in personal injury cases.


There are many instances of bullying that don't fit with the nine reasons given

I'm not sure how you think such a causal link could be proven. It couldnt be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony
But yes it is an area that is not directly dealt with - medical evidence would be perhaps sought

You can trace it to an internet cafe but how do you tell who was actually at the keyboard. What if three people were using a computer together or it is registered to a family home. How do you prove who was actually using it?

There was several link backs including staff, CCTV and account registration . Quite straightforward in this instance.

Obviously every case will be different

leggo

gozunda wrote: »

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony

There is no 'normal' evidence criteria though: very few bullying cases that aren't physical (in which case it would fall under the law for assault) are straightforward enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That's why this would be a pointless law...most cases would have to be struck out because of the nuances involved.

You cannot legally prove the difference between slagging (having a laugh) and bullying, because it all rests with how the victim takes the abuse themselves. I asked you to do so and you couldn't without throwing your generic, catch-all definition back at me. And you can't hold the accused responsible for their victim's sensitivity level. That's not to say that they aren't bullying them or that it's the victim's fault, they quite possibly are getting bullied, but it's impossible to prove and completely subjective when put down on paper (one witness could say the bully was doing it; the next could see the exact same events and say the victim was being too sensitive etc). The bully will have completely plausible deniability, which is enough to get someone off the hook in court.

It's why the problem is so difficult to tackle. This is what I'm trying to explain to you and what you're failing to grasp.

gozunda

leggo wrote: »

There is no 'normal' evidence criteria though: very few bullying cases that aren't physical (in which case it would fall under the law for assault) are straightforward enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt. That's why this would be a pointless law...most cases would have to be struck out because of the nuances involved.

Lego - this is an open forum. I have refrained from replying to some of your earlier unhelpful and misdirected posts as I really do not wish to enter into useless argument. I know your opinion on this issue and it would appear that no matter what is said you will disregard it. I take it you have not changed your methodology. However for the benefit of clarity I will attempt once more to explain again.

Such evidence is used regularly in personal injury cases with regard to bullying and findings based on that evidence is both used an accepted by the courts. There is no 'pointless law' as you have pointed out - the laws have yet to be enacted. They will be as useful to the victims of bullying as they will provide for recourse to victims to stop bullying behavior by those you use such methods ito destroy others lives. There are no 'nuances' as you refer to them that will stop bullies facing charges under such legislation where such legislation is enacted correctly

Yes there will be a burden of proof on the prosecution that is how it works. I would not advocate for change to this tbh. - that is how such cases work.

You cannot legally prove the difference between slagging (having a laugh) and bullying, because it all rests with how the victim takes the abuse themselves. I asked you to do so and you couldn't without throwing your generic, catch-all definition back at me. And you can't hold the accused responsible for their victim's sensitivity level. That's not to say that they aren't bullying them or that it's the victim's fault, they quite possibly are getting bullied, but it's impossible to prove and completely subjective when put down on paper (one witness could say the bully was doing it; the next could see the exact same events and say the victim was being too sensitive etc). The bully will have completely plausible deniability, which is enough to get someone off the hook in court.

This has already been explained. It is possible to prove.
Such laws have already been enacted elsewhere
Bullying is Repeated, deliberate and Inappropriate behaviour that causes actual attested harm whether physical or psychological to the individual. The definition of bullying used in legal cases and guidelines is quite clear. what is not bullying is also quite clear. It already has been quoted here several times - I refer you again to this.
The evidence of witnesses is often contradictory - that is as is.
Bullying behavior is already provable by independent investigation, EAT and personal injury cases. This is not going to change just because you don't believe it.

The law does not presume the victim is responsible or contributed for an offense committed against them. In the case of rape or assault offenders could try and claim that the victim let then do it and couldn't stand up to them. your opinion on this fails at the first hurdle

It's why the problem is so difficult to tackle. This is what I'm trying to explain to you and what you're failing to grasp.

lego - I have already explained I have been involved with this area for some time and have extensive experiences of bullying and its impacts.
I will accept you have different opinions which I do not agree with. I will not "grasp" them because my experience and knowledge of the issues at hand.

If and when such legislation does provide protection for those subjected to bullying behavior by others will you continue to deny that it will be of use to those individuals?

tbh I find your intransigence in this whole issue disturbing tbh - you appear to have little wish to provide legal protection for individuals against such behavior.

As I said education will have its part to play - but bullying where it does happen must be stopped and addressed for what it is - an offense against the person. I am at least in agreement with the Minister for Justice if not yourself on this.

MagicSean

gozunda wrote: »

No it is is referred to harassment based on those grounds

See also


http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/employment/equality_in_work/harassment_at_work.html?set_language=en





There is a standard definition of bullying used for example in the HSA guidelines that has been used in personal injury cases.


There are many instances of bullying that don't fit with the nine reasons given

You are confusing a number of different concepts. Discrimination is unfavourably treating people based on the nine grounds set out in law. Harassment is the act of persistently putting someone in fear or distress. This would be the same as bullying and can include discrimination. I can't see what kind of bullying would not be covered under the legal definition of harassment.

gozunda wrote: »

As per Normal evidence criteria - witnesses, evidence and testimony
But yes it is an area that is not directly dealt with - medical evidence would be perhaps sought

What medical evidence? How can an autopsy tell you that a person killed themself because they were called fat or ugly? The only evidence you could possibly have would be a note left blaming someone. That in itself poses a problem in that it is something the accused would be fundamentally unable to argue. And how can it be considered reliable if it was written by someone who was clearly in an emotional, illogical and unreasonable frame of mind.

gozunda wrote: »

There was several link backs including staff, CCTV and account registration . Quite straightforward in this instance.

Obviously every case will be different

Read the story of Megan Meier. All evidence pointed at a classmate as the bully. It was actually the classmates mother. And it was only discovered because she blabbed.

leggo

gozunda wrote: »

I have already explained I have been involved with this area for some time and have extensive experiences of bullying and its impacts.

BS. Absolute BS. You've been offered numerous opportunities to qualify yourself, if not by name or position then by backing up anything you've claimed with verifiable fact, and have refused to do so time and again. You've also displayed a horrible, black-and-white misunderstanding of the issue that even an inexperienced school teacher would be able to see through. Go on, I'll give you one more chance to qualify anything you've said. Anything...

You've also started referring to yourself as if you were a minister or lawmaker now, "I would ensure that this would be carried out..." etc. Unless you're Alan Shatter himself, then the fact you'd say something like that is laughable.

I really am starting to believe we're being trolled...