PC Madness
Posted by: Rich Conroy on 03 October 2005
A work colleague has just informed me that in the USA you no longer can compliment someone on their clothes, shoes etc. or this will constitute "sexual harrassment". Is this true?
Rich.
Rich.
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Stephen B
Rich,
Hey, that's a nice name.
Hey, that's a nice name.
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Steve Toy
I read of a case a few years ago being upheld when a woman claimed sexual harassment against a guy who said to her,
"You look nice today."
Apparently the problem was the word today. It suggested that on all other days she must have looked like a bag of shit.
The paranoia associated with PC witch hunts and an added dose of opportunistic litigation make what most would regard as normal social interactions to brighten a dull day, impossible.
Instances like this and the fact that the inhabitants of the US of Eh have twice chosen to be led by a chimp give me no desire to visit the place.
"You look nice today."
Apparently the problem was the word today. It suggested that on all other days she must have looked like a bag of shit.
The paranoia associated with PC witch hunts and an added dose of opportunistic litigation make what most would regard as normal social interactions to brighten a dull day, impossible.
Instances like this and the fact that the inhabitants of the US of Eh have twice chosen to be led by a chimp give me no desire to visit the place.
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Rich Conroy:
A work colleague has just informed me that in the USA you no longer can compliment someone on their clothes, shoes etc. or this will constitute "sexual harrassment". Is this true?
Rich.
Does it sound true?
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by graham55
Well, they are a very strange bunch of people, with lawyers as abundant as cockroaches, so I wouldn't rule anything out.
Graham
Graham
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Deane F
De minimis non curat lex.
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Kevin-W
In the vast majority of cases, these "rumours" turn out not to be true. Usually they're the result of an over-zealous official or employee, a hack or paper or public official with an agenda or just the result of someone looking for news on a quiet news day. Did your friend/informer give any names, places etc? If he can't point to a specific example, or a specific statement by a person or boday at a particular time, chances are it's a pile of shit.
As ever, remaining skeptical is your best bet. I wouldn't worry about it.
K
As ever, remaining skeptical is your best bet. I wouldn't worry about it.
K
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by JamieWednesday
Perhaps Americans will have to resort to their '2nd language' and allow themselves to take PC on a bit...e.g.
¿usted tiene gusto a jiggy-jiggy?
Not p.c. but it sounds better...
¿usted tiene gusto a jiggy-jiggy?
Not p.c. but it sounds better...
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Mark Dunn
Hi all,
Someone in HR in the USA once said:
"By 2010 there will be more lawyers in the US than people"
Best Regards,
Mark Dunn
Someone in HR in the USA once said:
"By 2010 there will be more lawyers in the US than people"
Best Regards,
Mark Dunn
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Deane F
Lawyers give advice.
Clients give instructions.
Therefore clients do the harm.
Clients give instructions.
Therefore clients do the harm.
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Steve Toy
Lawyers take money. Clients may make a bit too. Lawyers make more.
Lawyers cannot (or at least they do) assume the role of concentration camp guard by obeying orders...
Lawyers cannot (or at least they do) assume the role of concentration camp guard by obeying orders...
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Lawyers take money. Clients may make a bit too. Lawyers make more.
Lawyers cannot (or at least they do) assume the role of concentration camp guard by obeying orders...
Steve
A lawyer's first duty is to the court. Your summation is as simple as it is erroneous.
Not only that, but if a lawyer is approached to represent that person on a justiciable matter, and the area of law is within that lawyer's specialty, and there is no conflict of interest, then it is not possible for that lawyer to turn the business away. This is based upon the principle of access to justice and the lawyer's responsibility to the greater good.
Deane
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Steve Toy
And then lawyers advertise their litigious expertise...
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Deane F
Steve
Ever heard of maintenance and champerty...
Ever heard of maintenance and champerty...
Posted on: 03 October 2005 by Nime
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
Steve
Ever heard of maintenance and champerty...
I doubt it. But he has probably heard of question marks.
Posted on: 04 October 2005 by MichaelC
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
A lawyer's first duty is to the court. Your summation is as simple as it is erroneous.
Not only that, but if a lawyer is approached to represent that person on a justiciable matter, and the area of law is within that lawyer's specialty, and there is no conflict of interest, then it is not possible for that lawyer to turn the business away. This is based upon the principle of access to justice and the lawyer's responsibility to the greater good.
Deane
Meanwhile in the real world the lawyer's first duty is to himself.
Posted on: 04 October 2005 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by MichaelC:
Meanwhile in the real world the lawyer's first duty is to himself.
Your reasons for this certainty?
(I'm sure such a bald and confident statement couldn't be mere prejudice.)
Posted on: 04 October 2005 by MichaelC
Have you dealt with lawyers?
Hence my comment.
Don't take the comment too seriously because there are good lawyers out there but equally there are lawyers who, shall we say, don't deserve the same respect. It's the sanme in each profession.
I was recently involved in a divorce case (not my own I hasten to add) and quite frankly my views of the lawyers became somewhat dim. All I could see was two sets of lawyers arguing over fact that was so utterly immaterial to the big picture but had the effect of drawing out procedures by months on end. I saw lawyers putting together hopelessly flawed documents in order to argue their case. Some of what was going on was quite frankly disgraceful in my view.
There are too many ambulance chasers out there too. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth? I do not subscribe to this compensation culture growing all around us. Who drives that?
Mmm - closer to home we have the human bleeding rights brigade.
Must take the pills, the blood pressure is rising ...
Hence my comment.
Don't take the comment too seriously because there are good lawyers out there but equally there are lawyers who, shall we say, don't deserve the same respect. It's the sanme in each profession.
I was recently involved in a divorce case (not my own I hasten to add) and quite frankly my views of the lawyers became somewhat dim. All I could see was two sets of lawyers arguing over fact that was so utterly immaterial to the big picture but had the effect of drawing out procedures by months on end. I saw lawyers putting together hopelessly flawed documents in order to argue their case. Some of what was going on was quite frankly disgraceful in my view.
There are too many ambulance chasers out there too. Leaves a bad taste in the mouth? I do not subscribe to this compensation culture growing all around us. Who drives that?
Mmm - closer to home we have the human bleeding rights brigade.
Must take the pills, the blood pressure is rising ...
Posted on: 04 October 2005 by Deane F
MichaelC
I take your points, certainly, but how would you have the world? For instance, what specifically would you change about the way divorce cases were argued?
Deane
I take your points, certainly, but how would you have the world? For instance, what specifically would you change about the way divorce cases were argued?
Deane
Posted on: 04 October 2005 by MichaelC
Deane
Good question. Very good question.
Let's take the divorce case in question. I have been involved in others too. And please do not read anything into that! But at the very least I can draw in other first hand experiences.
The case in question involved a reasonably substantial "family estate". What was not an issue was the distribution of the estate or the future distribution of income (in this case commuted to a capital sum). There were two issues a) agreeing on value comprising the estate and b) agreeing on source and destination of funds over an eighteen month time period.
It was the way one particular lawyer (lawyer A)handled themselves relative to the two issues which riled me in particular.
The court had (in my view quite sensibly) laid down a rigid framework governing the valuation of the estate. This did not stop the lawyer A from repeatedly ignoring deadlines laid down by the court, repeatedly raising questions the day before a deadline (and those questions from first being reasonable became wholly unreasonable in my view), repeatedly attempting to coach third party valuers appointed on court instructions.
As far as attempting to agree sources and destinations of funds is concerned this had to be entered into because there were allegations of funds being misappropriated. Fair enough to make the allegation if it has basis. But the evidence for the allegations was based upon schedules drawn up by lawyer A which were fundamentally flawed. They then studiously ignored me whenever this issued was raised.
I would love to have been physically present in court during the hearings but lawyer A called me as a witness to fact which meant I was not allowed in the courtroom or to talk to those concerned.
This was an instance where the lawyers allowed matters to drift. I felt that lawyer B failed repeatedly to challenge the goings on of lawyer B.
How do you legislate for that? I simply do not know. But I believe that the conduct of the lawyers fell to varying degrees way below what should reasonably have been expected of them.
Good question. Very good question.
Let's take the divorce case in question. I have been involved in others too. And please do not read anything into that! But at the very least I can draw in other first hand experiences.
The case in question involved a reasonably substantial "family estate". What was not an issue was the distribution of the estate or the future distribution of income (in this case commuted to a capital sum). There were two issues a) agreeing on value comprising the estate and b) agreeing on source and destination of funds over an eighteen month time period.
It was the way one particular lawyer (lawyer A)handled themselves relative to the two issues which riled me in particular.
The court had (in my view quite sensibly) laid down a rigid framework governing the valuation of the estate. This did not stop the lawyer A from repeatedly ignoring deadlines laid down by the court, repeatedly raising questions the day before a deadline (and those questions from first being reasonable became wholly unreasonable in my view), repeatedly attempting to coach third party valuers appointed on court instructions.
As far as attempting to agree sources and destinations of funds is concerned this had to be entered into because there were allegations of funds being misappropriated. Fair enough to make the allegation if it has basis. But the evidence for the allegations was based upon schedules drawn up by lawyer A which were fundamentally flawed. They then studiously ignored me whenever this issued was raised.
I would love to have been physically present in court during the hearings but lawyer A called me as a witness to fact which meant I was not allowed in the courtroom or to talk to those concerned.
This was an instance where the lawyers allowed matters to drift. I felt that lawyer B failed repeatedly to challenge the goings on of lawyer B.
How do you legislate for that? I simply do not know. But I believe that the conduct of the lawyers fell to varying degrees way below what should reasonably have been expected of them.