National Museum staff member who admitted fantasising after seeing "tall schoolgirls"

Atlantic Dawn

The not so ideal member of staff you want in a state run Museum...

A member of staff at the National Museum who sexually harassed a colleague has been allowed to keep his job despite concerns about his behaviour towards female staff.

An investigation commissioned by the museum concluded the man kissed a woman and touched her buttocks on a number of occasions in the workplace.

During the course of the investigation the man admitted he had "problems with inappropriate use of the internet" and had developed "an obsession with tall women".

He also admitted fantasising after seeing "tall schoolgirls" in the museum café one day.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-keeps-job-at-museum-despite-sexually-harassing-colleague-35455704.html

Arcade_Tryer

National Museum staff member who admitted fantasising after seeing "tall schoolgirls"

That's fine.

An investigation commissioned by the museum concluded the man kissed a woman and touched her buttocks on a number of occasions in the workplace.

That's probably not fine.

Atlantic Dawn

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

That's fine.


That's probably not fine.

I'd say the union says Yes so to speak.

Canis Lupus

Bit of a weird one alright.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Curious to know why he admitted fantasizing about schoolgirls in the first place. The sexual touching, though - unless it was consentual - should be enough for a dismissal at least, i would have right.

Atlantic Dawn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Curious to know why he admitted fantasizing about schoolgirls in the first place. The sexual touching, though, should be enough for a dismissal in the first place.

His union would have more power than common sense, they could close every musuem in the country over a sacking of him.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

His union would have more power than common sense.

Oh come on! This isnt a case of ineptitude, this is full on creepy behavior. Or are you just having a quick dig at unions in general? (I notice you've mentioned them twice, now... )

Atlantic Dawn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Oh come on! This isnt a case of ineptitude, this is full on creepy behavior. Or are you just having a quick dig at unions in general? (I notice you've mentioned them twice, now... )

Whoy else would a person so clearly out and out fooked up be still employed in normal land with no union backing behind them?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

Whoy else would a person so clearly out and out fooked up be still employed in normal land?

So yes... cheap dig at unions, then.

Atlantic Dawn

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

So yes... cheap dig at unions, then.

When you can confirm they are not in a union get back to me.

Realt Dearg Sec

*Opens thread that doesn't look like yet another pointless lefty bashing thread.*

*Sees pointless lefty bashing*

*Closes thread*

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

When you can confirm they are not in a union get back to me.

Eh... that's not the way debate works. YOUR theory. YOU brought it up. And until YOU confirm it, it looks when more bogus. I dont know what goes on inside your head.

Good night.

Arghus

Let me grab my flaming pitchfork.

Peregrinus

Atlantic Dawn clearly hasn't read (or possibly has read but hasn't understood) the report in the Independent.

The woman complained and the museum conducted an internal investigation, but did not institute disciplinary proceedings. While it moved the man involved to other duties, it did not tell him the reason why he was being moved.

In other words, it doesn't appear that the museum's handling of this matter ever reached the level of formality in which the man would have been represented or advised by a union. Plus, he was never at risk of dismissal because no disciplinary proceedings were ever instituted. The notion that he kept his job due to advocacy by the union seems to be a complete invention of Atlantic Dawn's.

(If he had been dismissed, I think he would possibly have succeeded in an unfair dismissal suit - not because his actions couldn't have justified dismissal (as reported, they certainly could) but because the employer hadn't followed proper investigative and disciplinary processes.)

gctest50

Typical these days, they'll just wait till Joseph Fritzl jr. there kidnaps some tall kid cos he wants to prolong his fantasties :

The man told investigators he had developed an obsession with tall women and when he saw some tall schoolgirls in the museum one day he wanted to "prolong the fantasy"


http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-keeps-job-at-museum-despite-sexually-harassing-colleague-35455704.html

Mena Mitty

Any 'naturally touchy feely' fkr's I've met in life I've always greeted with a kick in the blx or a nice bite. No person man or woman should have to put up with this sh*t.

Your Face

They moved him instead of properly dealing with him.
Ive read that in some report before...

You can imagine the fantasies...unclipping the Tara Brooch, her cloak slipped from her body...she poured the Ardagh Chalice of mead onto her thighs...

CIARAN_BOYLE

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Curious to know why he admitted fantasizing about schoolgirls in the first place. The sexual touching, though - unless it was consentual - should be enough for a dismissal at least, i would have right.

Maybe the inappropriate Internet usage involved googling sexy tall schoolgirls or something that his workstation

currants

Typically the woman's contract wasn't renewed but he was left, undisciplined and unchallenged, to perve away on schoolgirls. If you're on a contract there's really no point in making a complaint against a permanent staff member. You'd be better off dealing with it as Mena said, either that or carry a rape alarm and set it off if you are assaulted.
The report said she was encouraged by a senior member of staff to make a formal complaint so at least somebody wanted him disciplined. I really don't think a union is to blame here, he was probably being protected by management or, more usually, was the type to be straight onto his solicitor if anyone said boo to him. If I was that woman I'd be dialling my solicitor now, that report would be a goldmine in court. There is a terrible management culture there judging by the volume of bullying complaints and the fact that gross misconduct went unpunished. A clear out at the top and a change of the HR guard would sort it out, of course that's not going to happen.

re_shaft

The woman did not make a criminal complaint and has not pursued civil proceedings against the museum.

She should take them to the cleaners.


A boycott of the museum might make these jokers in charge sit up and take notice.

currants

currants wrote: »

I really don't think a union is to blame here, he was probably being protected by management

Exactly.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/report-national-museum-staff-at-risk-of-depression-because-of-bullies-and-perverts-776383.html

An unpublished report reveals that staff in the National Museum of Ireland have complained of "bullies" and "perverts". The findings are contained in 'The Work Positive Profile Management Report', which was completed last November, and details claims by employees that "excessive drinking, bullies and perverts" are endangering their welfare.

The report also explains that the concerns of a psycotherapist around workplace bullying at the institution were ignored.

The results found:

• More than 40% of employees at the institutions are deemed to be at risk of developing anxiety or depression; as measured by an index supplied by the World Health Organisation.
• One in five employees at the institution are "often" or "always" subjected to bullying.
• 20% are "sometimes" the victims of bullying, while one employee complained of having to deal with "bullies and perverts".
• Almost 70% of respondents feel employee morale is poor to very poor- with poor communication and a lack of trust at the Museum.
• Seven in 10 employees want mental health support to help deal with stress and depression.
• Staff contentedness at NMI is in the bottom 20% of Irish companies.

That place is messed up and the dead fish stinks from the head.

tritium

re_shaft wrote: »

She should take them to the cleaners.


A boycott of the museum might make these jokers in charge sit up and take notice.

At the moment all we have is some details from an internal investigation of unknown quality or scope. In the absence of knowing all the relevant details including the process followed and full sequence of events we have no idea as to whether there is any liability

whisky_galore

re_shaft wrote: »

A boycott of the museum might make these jokers in charge sit up and take notice.

The museum is free, not sure how useful a boycott would be...unless you stay out of the gift shop??

re_shaft

whisky_galore wrote: »

The museum is free, not sure how useful a boycott would be...unless you stay out of the gift shop??

Fair point, I was hoping that it being empty would do the trick. Perhaps some protestors outside with placards saying "This museum supports sexism and bullying" etc.

Hard to believe that a person who openly admitted to fantasizing about schoolchildren on the premises is allowed to stay in a job where school tours make up a great deal of weekday business, without censure or even proper investigation. It's like nothing was learned from the past, at all.

At the very least, his harassment of a female co worker should have resulted in an official warning and noting on his record.

There should be a very transparent investigation into the work culture in that place in light of this, and the incident(s) investigated thoroughly for not only the benefit of the harassed person, but possibly the person who admitted it also.

Stigura

• Seven in 10 employees want mental health support to help deal with stress and depression.

Jesus f**king wept!!! :eek: I'll bet ye wouldn't find anything like that level amongst prison inmates!

Candie

Candie wrote: »

There should be a very transparent investigation into the work culture in that place in light of this, and the incident(s) investigated thoroughly for not only the benefit of the harassed person, but possibly the person who admitted it also.

I tend to agree:

During the course of the investigation the man admitted he had "problems with inappropriate use of the internet" and had developed "an obsession with tall women".

He also admitted fantasising after seeing "tall schoolgirls" in the museum café one day.

The man denied knowingly sexually harassing his work colleague, claiming if he had realised his behaviour was inappropriate, he would have stopped.
But this was rejected by an investigation team.

However, he admitted his work colleague had been "a foil for his fantasies".

The man said he had been guilty of "unhealthy thoughts" while working with the woman and that his behaviour at times had been "out of order".

Whatever about having these thoughts (and not acting on them), talking about them candidly to an investigative team is very strange.

Arcade_Tryer

Candie wrote: »

Hard to believe that a person who openly admitted to fantasizing about schoolchildren on the premises is allowed to stay in a job where school tours make up a great deal of weekday business, without censure or even proper investigation. It's like nothing was learned from the past, at all.

There is no law against fantasising about tall schoolgirls. We haven't entered the realm of thought crime quite yet in Western society thankfully.

Arcade_Tryer

Deleted User wrote: »

I tend to agree:

Whatever about having these thoughts (and not acting on them), talking about them candidly to an investigative team is very strange.

Or incredibly honest.

Or maybe simply an indicator of a lack of social awareness.

ClovenHoof

Reminds me of a Carry On movie.

"Ooooh I say, I wouldn't mind overseeing a dig in her trench!"

Satriale

Are the Indo lifting stories from Waterford Whispers now?

newacc2015

Candie wrote: »

Hard to believe that a person who openly admitted to fantasizing about schoolchildren on the premises is allowed to stay in a job where school tours make up a great deal of weekday business, without censure or even proper investigation. It's like nothing was learned from the past, at all.

There is a big difference between thinking about something and acting on something. If some says "God, I would love to smack the manager for pissing me off". Should they be handed the P45 for their thoughts?

I sure this employee was garda vetted before his employment

Wanderer2010

Why on earth CANT you be sacked in the public sector? I just don't get it. If you are paid to do a job and you screw up, are always late or you steal then surely you should, after you follow the procedures, be able to sack someone. I work in the private sector and there have been people fired at my job but every single procedure had been followed and the person given a chance to change.

Is the public sector handbook so deliberately confusing and muddled that it prevents anyone from getting the sack or what is the reason? Are other countries this precious with their public sector workers? That guy is a weirdo and shouldn't still have his job. Moving to other duties is a big cop out.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is a big difference between thinking about something and acting on something. If some says "God, I would love to smack the manager for pissing me off". Should they be handed the P45 for their thoughts?

I sure this employee was garda vetted before his employment

I completely agree, there is a difference. This man has already sexually harassed someone, and that's also a difference.

Few people would think its wise to have someone who admits to fantasizing about schoolchildren working in a place that brings them into regular contact with schoolchildren. Particularly someone who's already admitted inappropriate sexual behaviour by harassing a colleague.

I'm not sure museum workers need garda clearance.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is a big difference between thinking about something and acting on something.

I agree absolutely but, if it's true, this situation stinks to high heaven.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-keeps-job-at-museum-despite-sexually-harassing-colleague-35455704.html

An investigation commissioned by the museum concluded the man kissed a woman and touched her buttocks on a number of occasions in the workplace.

The man denied knowingly sexually harassing his work colleague ... However, he admitted his work colleague had been "a foil for his fantasies".

when the woman initially made an informal complaint about the harassment, the man was given other duties. But he was not told the real reason at the time.

Some time after the investigation was completed the woman left the museum when her contract was not renewed. The man was then allowed to resume his earlier role.

When questioned by the consultants, the man claimed he was a "naturally touchy feely" person and had not realised the woman's discomfort at his behaviour. He said he was told he was being reassigned due to increased workload.

While there had been "a chat" with a more senior colleague at the time about his misuse of the internet and his behaviour with female staff, no names were mentioned.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

There is no law against fantasising about tall schoolgirls. We haven't entered the realm of thought crime quite yet in Western society thankfully.

No, he acted out and assaulted a colleague after noticing - and lets call a spade a spade - schoolchildren in the cafe. Minors, tall or otherwise.

That behaviour is concerning, especially in someone who comes into regular contact with schoolkids.He didn't think about sexually touching a colleague, he did it. And he did it after fantasizing about schoolkids, as he admits.

I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about that.

Arcade_Tryer

Candie wrote: »

Few people would think its wise to have someone who admits to fantasizing about schoolchildren working in a place that brings them into regular contact with schoolchildren. Particularly someone who's already admitted inappropriate sexual behaviour by harassing a colleague.

I think you underestimate the amount of people who fantasise about tall schoolgirls. They are doctors, accountants, lawyers, Guards, Teachers, Office workers and so on. It's either ok to fantasise, or it's not. Admitting it is simply speaking the truth. And a person should not be punished simply for telling the truth, when they have not committed any actual crime.

Arcade_Tryer

Candie wrote: »

No, he acted out and assaulted a colleague after noticing - and lets call a spade a spade - schoolchildren in the cafe. Minors, tall or otherwise
.

Ah, that's a separate issue however in the context in which you originally said it. Assaulting a colleague is a crime. Fantasising about tall schoolgirls is not. And the latter should not automatically be a cause for concern. That's my point.

Arcade_Tryer

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

I think you underestimate the amount of people who fantasise about tall schoolgirls. They are doctors, accountants, lawyers, Guards, Teachers, Office workers and so on. It's either ok to fantasise, or it's not. Admitting it is simply speaking the truth. And a person should not be punished simply for telling the truth, when they have not committed any actual crime.

I don't think many men fantasize about schoolkids.

They might fantasize about adult women dressed as schoolgirls, but this guy didn't say that.

Arcade_Tryer

Candie wrote: »

I don't think many men fantasize about schoolkids.

They might fantasize about adult women dressed as schoolgirls, but this guy didn't say that.

That's a fair point. But you'd be surprised at how many men rarely miss an opportunity to have a nice stare at a schoolgirl walking along while driving and so on. It's human nature. I'm sure there are male teachers who have fantasies about some of their female students also. That's life. That's why we create laws on sexual consent. And civilise ourselves in accordance with those laws.

anitaca

Candie wrote: »

I don't think many men fantasize about schoolkids.

They might fantasize about adult women dressed as schoolgirls, but this guy didn't say that.

And if the article is anything to go by he never claimed to fantasize about schoolkids.

wakka12

newacc2015 wrote: »

There is a big difference between thinking about something and acting on something. If some says "God, I would love to smack the manager for pissing me off". Should they be handed the P45 for their thoughts?

I sure this employee was garda vetted before his employment

You're right, but fantasising about minors (presumably...?) means he is a possible danger to the public. Thinking about hitting somebody when you're angry is more natural thought..and also I think it would not go well if that person was open about the fact they wanted to hit their manager, even if they didnt act on it.

Summer wind

Nobody should have to or be expected to put up with this behaviour in their place of work. He should have been sacked.

Arcade_Tryer

wakka12 wrote: »

You're right, but fantasising about minors (presumably...?) means he is a possible danger to the public. Thinking about hitting somebody when you're angry is more natural thought..and also I think it would not go well if that person was open about the fact they wanted to hit their manager, even if they didnt act on it.

That's a very dangerous presumption to make. Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality.

Many people have rape fantasies. Does that mean they are more of a danger to the public than those who don't? And further, should they be reprimanded simply for having those fantasies?

RayCun

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

His union would have more power than common sense, they could close every musuem in the country over a sacking of him.

You assume he is in a union. What about the woman he groped? Is she not in the same union?

Galway_Old_Man

Fuc(ker should be locked up. Disgrace.

Realt Dearg Sec

Galway_Old_Man wrote: »

Fuc(ker should be locked up. Disgrace.

If everyone who grabs a woman's ar$e is to be locked up then you could pretty much put half the male population in the clink tomorrow.

_Whimsical_

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

That's a very dangerous presumption to make. Fantasy is fantasy. Reality is reality.

Many people have rape fantasies. Does that mean they are more of a danger to the public than those who don't? And further, should they be reprimanded simply for having those fantasies?

Those whose sexual fantasies involve minors or children who happen to work somewhere that they are mixing with minors and who have demonstrated a problem with sexual impulse control should definitely not be let continue working in situations where they encounter children.

Do you leave your child with someone who's told you they fantastise about raping your child? Do you say "hey , it's only a fantasy buddy!" and clap them on the back?
If there's a definitive line it's where children are concerned, you don't take the chance if you know for an absolute fact that someone is that way inclined.

Realt Dearg Sec

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Those whose sexual fantasies involve minors or children who happen to work somewhere that they are mixing with minors and who have demonstrated a problem with sexual impulse control should definitely not be let continue working in situations where they encounter children.

Do you leave your child with someone who's told you they fantastise about raping your child? Do you say "hey , it's only a fantasy buddy!" and clap them on the back?
If there's a definitive line it's where children are concerned, you don't take the chance if you know for an absolute fact that someone is that way inclined.

You're right, the best thing would be for people like that to be encouraged not to tell anyone about those fantasies. That's that problem solved. Now, what about this Garda whistleblower thing.

JupiterKid

It's one thing to fantasise, another to sexually assault someone (in this case, a co-worker). The guy in question sounds like a perve and a creep to me. He should at the very least be disciplined - yes, and perhaps lose his job over this.