Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain Harassment Story

ThewhiteJesus

Yurt what’s a sook ?

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me the fact that it has happened in one of our largest universities, a place where we are sending out youth for further education, for starters.

But there is a litany of subject matter.

How many women working for a big 4 Accounting firm or a large solicitor firm are dealing with the same torment? Not as easy to challenge harassment in the private sector?

Would you like any more bones of contention, I have all afternoon?

So, there is nothing in what she reported that was contentious.

Only a fool couldn't see that her target was UCD HR's and Senior positions. The private/public sector bull**** you are trying to introduce makes no difference. Continue to invent bones of contention in your head.

ThewhiteJesus

MrStuffins wrote: »

It's pretty clear you've made a fool of yourself here sweetheart

Not me love, just a couple of empty headed keyboard warriors in a love in, very modern

IAMAMORON

StackSteevens wrote: »

None of the above whataboutery can in any way justify your use of the word 'contentious".

Please try harder.

That list was suggestive and certainly not exhaustive.

My question is, what was her prerogative for approaching the Irish times and volunteering her story?

If you are happy to go public you should be happy and prepared to face the publics' perception?

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That list was suggestive and certainly not exhaustive.

My question is, what was her prerogative for approaching the Irish times and volunteering her story?

If you are happy to go public you should be happy and prepared to face the publics' perception?

And the public's perception has been supportive, other than edgelords and assholes.

walshb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Fair enough, this would explain a lot.

No one is " slating " anyone here either.

I know you weren’t slating her.

It was something I added.

IAMAMORON

Morgans wrote: »

So, there is nothing in what she reported that was contentious.

Only a fool couldn't see that her target was UCD HR's and Senior positions. The private/public sector bull**** you are trying to introduce makes no difference. Continue to invent bones of contention in your head.

Ah ah , no way. Lots of women out there going through similar crap in the private sector and cannot do a thing about it for fear of negating career prospects. You do not get that issue in the public sector.

For example if her harasser was a leading fee earner? Very easy for private companies to turn a blind eye then. In fact if you went to the media it is highly plausible you could get dismissed for bringing the company name into disrepute.

Just saying.

Kaybaykwah

Morgans wrote: »

What's contentious about this case?

Well, I think that if she complained to the proper channels at the University, and can prove they had overlooked or dismisssed her complaints for harassment, in this day and age, there is liability there. Opening to the media doesn't make the case any less appalling, just more blatant. University HR and other instances need to be accountable for these events, and in particular, since they should be in the forefront in addressing personal rights abuses where they arise.

LiquidZeb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

That list was suggestive and certainly not exhaustive.

My question is, what was her prerogative for approaching the Irish times and volunteering her story?

If you are happy to go public you should be happy and prepared to face the publics' perception?

I really don't understand how this can be perceived other than a woman being harassed relentlessly by a man in a position of power. Seeing all the scrutiny, criticism and locker room talk she's gotten on here I can see why men get away with it.

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ah ah , no way. Lots of women out there going through similar crap in the private sector and cannot do a thing about it for fear of negating career prospects. You do not get that issue in the public sector.

For example if her harasser was a leading fee earner? Very easy for private companies to turn a blind eye then. In fact if you went to the media it is highly plausible you could get dismissed for bringing the company name into disrepute.

Just saying.

You just don't have a clue what you are talking about. I say that having working in UCD and in private institutions. Not a clue.

Morgans

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Well, I think that if she complained to the proper channels at the University, and can prove they had overlooked or dismisssed her complaints for harassment, in this day and age, there is liability there. Opening to the media doesn't make the case any less appalling, just more blatant. University HR and other instances need to be accountable for these events, and in particular, since they should be in the forefront in addressing personal rights abuses where they arise.

And its why Deeks sent a PR release apologising before making contact with Aoibhinn. In any normal organisation, she would have a very strong case against her employer. She is choosing not to go down that route and highlighting the issue. Others wth less high profile might be encouraged to take action against their employer following this. Or UCD could do something about their HR practices to deal with issues like this.

Again, not sure why her harrassment case would be qualified as contentious. Are ye mistaking contentious and controversial?

IAMAMORON

LiquidZeb wrote: »

I really don't understand how this can be perceived other than a woman being harassed relentlessly by a man in a position of power. Seeing all the scrutiny, criticism and locker room talk she's gotten on here I can see why men get away with it.

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Courting the media by doing a Physics PHD. Gas. Trust me not all opinions deserve airtime.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

My question is, what was her prerogative for approaching the Irish times and volunteering her story?

Her doing so has highlighted that despite going through the correct channels and bringing it to the attention of the University, they did absolutely nothing about it. Which is wrong!

Even after her court case had concluded, she still hadn't heard from University on the matter.

Only after going public are they now apologising to her and, if they learn from this appropriately, will try their best to not make the same mistakes again.

Honestly, I'd have thought this was obvious.

LiquidZeb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Well yes it can. In particular in this case. She has been courting the media since 2006.

Don't include me in any locker room talk either please. I am only raising the question on many peoples lips. Given her media savvy she has had the opportunity to pull the trigger on this issue, not every victim of harassment would.

It is a big story and a lot of people are reading it. That being the case there will be a variety of opinions, they all deserve the airtime. She had the option of winning her case and getting on with her life. She chose to have a double spread in the Irish Times, you can put down the paper but when you pick it back up the story is still there, for ever.

Just come out altogether and say she was asking for it.

IAMAMORON

Morgans wrote: »

You just don't have a clue what you are talking about. I say that having working in UCD and in private institutions. Not a clue.

Ok thanks for your insight, my teachers used to come out with the same mantra. The odd lecturer too.

But this is not about me, it about what people think about her harassment story?

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

IAMAMORON

LiquidZeb wrote: »

Just come out altogether and say she was asking for it.

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

Why do you get to say you aren't Mr Bad Guy? If you cant process what has been repeated several times in the last 20 mins on why she 'went public' there is no point.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I haven't seen your opinion though. You're just asking a hypothetical question.

You tell us, what do YOU think her motivations were?

LiquidZeb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I just fail to see what her career in the media has to do with her ordeal. I hope things like this get much more press regardless of the status of the victim or perpetrator

irishblessing

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok thanks for your insight, my teachers used to come out with the same mantra. The odd lecturer too.

But this is not about me, it about what people think about her harassment story?

Just because I have raised an eyebrow over things does not make me Mr Bad Guy either. But the question remains, why did she feel the need to go so public about her ordeal?

Can I ask whether you have an opinion for keeping it quiet rather than speaking up? I can see some positive change and support needed from speaking up, but keeping quiet only protects the harasser. And why on balance would that be justified?

IAMAMORON

Morgans wrote: »

Why do you get to say you aren't Mr Bad Guy? If you cant process what has been repeated several times in the last 20 mins on why she 'went public' there is no point.

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

walshb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

I never insinuated this and it is unfair of you to say that I have.

This is a discussion and not an excuse for you to corner posters over their opinion on something.

I'd like to hear your take on it...

On why she went public?

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

I posted it here in the last 10/15 minutes. It is pretty obvious to everyone.

Tork

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Ok so , why do you feel she went public over the matter?

Just in case you've missed the question, why do you feel she went public over the matter?

Kaybaykwah

Morgans wrote: »

And its why Deeks sent a PR release apologising before making contact with Aoibhinn. In any normal organisation, she would have a very strong case against her employer. She is choosing not to go down that route and highlighting the issue. Others wth less high profile might be encouraged to take action against their employer following this. Or UCD could do something about their HR practices to deal with issues like this.

Again, not sure why her harrassment case would be qualified as contentious. Are ye mistaking contentious and controversial?

No, I think you are right there, I meant controversial. If she followed a reasonable pattern of complaints and the lack of interest from the higher ups reveals that she was improperly dealt with, there is no contention with opening up to media.

IAMAMORON

walshb wrote: »

I'd like to hear your take on it...

On why she went public?

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better off shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

MrStuffins

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

That's good. It came across like you were accusing her of doing it for selfish, self promotional, reasons.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

And good thing we ARE having this conversation and this has all gone public. It might mean that the next person who is the victim of something similar will be afforded some protection

Morgans

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better off shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

Clueless.

walshb

IAMAMORON wrote: »

For me I initially assumed she did so to reinforce her case against UCD, not that she needed to, but sometimes big institutions can be daunting and the fact that everyone now knows her plight she does not give UCD the opportunity to blackball her or ostracise her ( even unofficially ). Her career is still now safe. That might not be the same for women in other companies or workplaces.

I never thought she was doing it to pioneer womens' rights or any metoo nonsense, but maybe she was?

The fact that she has been working with the media since 2006 is glaring, that is not her fault, but it will automatically raise a few eyebrows ( as it has ). She will have to swallow that one and it is regrettable that victims need to suffer more even after their ordeal is over.

Put it this way, if she buries it and gets on with her life this conversation is not even happening.

I just genuinely feel sorry for anyone out there being bullied or harassed in their workplace who don't get the opportunity to have their case scooping the front pages. As I said, I witnessed plenty of instances in private firms where victims are better of shutting up and putting up. That is not right either. Not everyone can bring their story to the media, in fact if they did their careers would be totally over.

Well explained and presented, and seems very logical

Regarding others not having her profile, or even clout; I wouldn't conflate here. It's life....some people have more clout, influence, "power" than others.

They are just people, and if someone can use their name and who they know and all that, to help themselves, sure of course they can, and should.

No different really to having access to money and resources to help yourself...No point in having it if you aren't going to use it, or can't use it

Not directed at you, but I never liked the kind of begrudgery' from people against people who have influence and clout and power and money, that allows them to live a certain way....we all can't be equal, and shouldn't be.