A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She is neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She is neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She is >neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal >proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:55:55 -0000 (UTC), RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >> boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She is
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
Assault can include psychological harm as well as physical harm, but case law[1] cited in the CPS guidelines on assault is that psychological harm
must be "psychiatric injury where this is proved by medical evidence", and "more than mere emotions such as fear, distress or panic". The CPS guidance goes on to state that
"Any allegation of actual bodily harm based on psychiatric injury, which
was not admitted by the defence, should be supported by appropriate expert
evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the question of whether an
assault had occasioned psychiatric injury should not be left to the jury
and there should be no reference to the victim's mental state following
the assault unless it was relevant to some other aspect of the case."
https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/offences-against-person-incorporating-charging-standard
So, unless your friend has sought medical treatment for the psychological harm caused by the exchange, and can provide evidence of that to the court, then no, the exchange was not assault.
[1] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/1993/1.html
Mark
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She is neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
On 17/04/2024 16:55, RJH wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great dealIs asking after someone's health a crime these days?
- her
boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back.
She is
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
On 18 Apr 2024 at 10:20:55 BST, "Jeff" <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2024 16:55, RJH wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >>> boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She isWith the proviso of not knowing the actual words said and the intent
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
with which they were said, I am absolutely speechless that anyone could
come anywhere close to considering this an assault!!
if we as a society can consider this seriously we are all doomed.
I assume that there must be some back story and ulterior motives at work.
Jeff
It depends on the nature of the assault. He might for instance have no right to know that it had happened, and it might have been the kind of assault which
any normal person should know would have been deeply painful to discuss. While I don't necessarily support the idea it could constitute assault, it was
not necessarily an innocent question either.
Consider: "Are getting over being raped last Thursday?" as coffee-time question in the staff room.
On 17/04/2024 16:55, RJH wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >> boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She isWith the proviso of not knowing the actual words said and the intent
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
with which they were said, I am absolutely speechless that anyone could
come anywhere close to considering this an assault!!
if we as a society can consider this seriously we are all doomed.
I assume that there must be some back story and ulterior motives at work.
Jeff
It depends on the nature of the assault. He might for instance have no right to know that it had happened, and it might have been the kind of assault which
any normal person should know would have been deeply painful to discuss. While I don't necessarily support the idea it could constitute assault, it was
not necessarily an innocent question either.
On 17/04/2024 16:55, RJH wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >> boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She isWith the proviso of not knowing the actual words said and the intent
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
with which they were said, I am absolutely speechless that anyone could
come anywhere close to considering this an assault!!
if we as a society can consider this seriously we are all doomed.
I assume that there must be some back story and ulterior motives at work.
On 18/04/2024 13:02, Roger Hayter wrote:
It depends on the nature of the assault. He might for instance have no
right
to know that it had happened, and it might have been the kind of
assault which
any normal person should know would have been deeply painful to discuss.
While I don't necessarily support the idea it could constitute
assault, it was
not necessarily an innocent question either.
As the OP hasn't given details, let's construct a scenario that is
plausible:
Suppose the boss knows that his employee was attacked in a particular
area of town some years ago.
Suppose the firm is about to take on some work that will require that particular employee to go to the same area.
So, the boss asks the employee whether she is okay to go there.
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 10:20:55 +0100, Jeff <jeff@ukra.com> wrote:
On 17/04/2024 16:55, RJH wrote:
A friend was telling me about an incident that upset her a great deal - her >>> boss asked her if she had 'got over' a serious attack some years back. She isWith the proviso of not knowing the actual words said and the intent
neurodivergent, and this has compounded her distress.
She has been advised that this could constitute assault, and criminal
proceedings against her boss could follow if taken to the police.
Is this sound advice?
with which they were said, I am absolutely speechless that anyone could
come anywhere close to considering this an assault!!
I suspect that the source of the advice was someone who knows a little, but not quite enough, of the law is aware that assault can include psychological harm, but isn't aware of the specifics of that.
While I'm pretty certain it wasn't a ciminal offence, it could be a
workplace disciplinary matter if the boss was aware (or should have been aware) that the issue was a particularly difficult one for the colleague concerned. People are not expected to walk on eggshells around their work colleagues, but they are expected to have reasonable consideration for their feelings, particularly when discussing highly personal matters.
if we as a society can consider this seriously we are all doomed.
I assume that there must be some back story and ulterior motives at work.
That's entirely possible, too.
Mark
On 18/04/2024 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I'm pretty certain it wasn't a ciminal offence, it could be a
workplace disciplinary matter if the boss was aware (or should have been
aware) that the issue was a particularly difficult one for the colleague
concerned. People are not expected to walk on eggshells around their work
colleagues, but they are expected to have reasonable consideration for their >> feelings, particularly when discussing highly personal matters.
I think the fact that the person is neurodivergent probably requires a
lot more care than usual. It may even qualify her as disabled for the >purposes of the Equalities Act and therefore legally require suitable >accommodation for her needs.
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:11:55 +0100, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I'm pretty certain it wasn't a ciminal offence, it could be a
workplace disciplinary matter if the boss was aware (or should have been >>> aware) that the issue was a particularly difficult one for the colleague >>> concerned. People are not expected to walk on eggshells around their work >>> colleagues, but they are expected to have reasonable consideration for their
feelings, particularly when discussing highly personal matters.
I think the fact that the person is neurodivergent probably requires a
lot more care than usual. It may even qualify her as disabled for the
purposes of the Equalities Act and therefore legally require suitable
accommodation for her needs.
The question of whether neurodivergency is a disability is a matter of debate, even among those who identify as neurodivergent. In some cases it clearly is, but there are a lot of neurodivergent people who would consider themselves different rather than disabled, and are quite keen to make that distinction.
That doesn't mean that the person's neurodivergency is irrelevant. An important aspect of having reasonable consideration for other people is to treat them as individuals, taking account of their personality, attributes and circumstances rather than blindly behaving in the same way to everyone. So disregarding someone's neurodivergency would be unreasonable, even if it does not amount to a disability in the legal sense.
Mark
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:11:55 +0100, Colin Bignell <cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I'm pretty certain it wasn't a ciminal offence, it could be a
workplace disciplinary matter if the boss was aware (or should have been >>> aware) that the issue was a particularly difficult one for the colleague >>> concerned. People are not expected to walk on eggshells around their work >>> colleagues, but they are expected to have reasonable consideration for their
feelings, particularly when discussing highly personal matters.
I think the fact that the person is neurodivergent probably requires a
lot more care than usual. It may even qualify her as disabled for the
purposes of the Equalities Act and therefore legally require suitable
accommodation for her needs.
The question of whether neurodivergency is a disability is a matter of debate, even among those who identify as neurodivergent. In some cases it clearly is, but there are a lot of neurodivergent people who would consider themselves different rather than disabled, and are quite keen to make that distinction.
That doesn't mean that the person's neurodivergency is irrelevant. An important aspect of having reasonable consideration for other people is to treat them as individuals, taking account of their personality, attributes and circumstances rather than blindly behaving in the same way to everyone. So disregarding someone's neurodivergency would be unreasonable, even if it does not amount to a disability in the legal sense.
Mark
On 19 Apr 2024 at 20:24:45 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:11:55 +0100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
On 18/04/2024 17:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
While I'm pretty certain it wasn't a ciminal offence, it could be a
workplace disciplinary matter if the boss was aware (or should have been >>>> aware) that the issue was a particularly difficult one for the colleague >>>> concerned. People are not expected to walk on eggshells around their work >>>> colleagues, but they are expected to have reasonable consideration for their
feelings, particularly when discussing highly personal matters.
I think the fact that the person is neurodivergent probably requires a
lot more care than usual. It may even qualify her as disabled for the
purposes of the Equalities Act and therefore legally require suitable
accommodation for her needs.
The question of whether neurodivergency is a disability is a matter of
debate, even among those who identify as neurodivergent. In some cases it
clearly is, but there are a lot of neurodivergent people who would consider >> themselves different rather than disabled, and are quite keen to make that >> distinction.
That doesn't mean that the person's neurodivergency is irrelevant. An
important aspect of having reasonable consideration for other people is to >> treat them as individuals, taking account of their personality, attributes >> and circumstances rather than blindly behaving in the same way to everyone. >> So disregarding someone's neurodivergency would be unreasonable, even if it >> does not amount to a disability in the legal sense.
Mark
I do wonder whether the manager is neurodivergent, if he actually used the words attributed to him. No-one (well there could be exceptions) ever "gets over" a serious assault. They may return to normal functioning, but the physical or mental after effects stay with them. To ask how someone is getting
on after such an event is invasive but at least rational, but "have you got over" such an assault is pretty crass whatever the victim's personality.
On 19-Apr-24 21:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 19 Apr 2024 at 20:24:45 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 19 Apr 2024 19:11:55 +0100, Colin Bignell
<cpb@bignellREMOVETHIS.me.uk> wrote:
I think the fact that the person is neurodivergent probably requires a >>>> lot more care than usual. It may even qualify her as disabled for the
purposes of the Equalities Act and therefore legally require suitable
accommodation for her needs.
The question of whether neurodivergency is a disability is a matter of
debate, even among those who identify as neurodivergent. In some
cases it
clearly is, but there are a lot of neurodivergent people who would
consider
themselves different rather than disabled, and are quite keen to make
that
distinction.
That doesn't mean that the person's neurodivergency is irrelevant. An
important aspect of having reasonable consideration for other people
is to
treat them as individuals, taking account of their personality,
attributes
and circumstances rather than blindly behaving in the same way to
everyone.
So disregarding someone's neurodivergency would be unreasonable, even
if it
does not amount to a disability in the legal sense.
I do wonder whether the manager is neurodivergent, if he actually usedPerhaps the manager _is_ neurodivergent.
the
words attributed to him. No-one (well there could be exceptions) ever
"gets
over" a serious assault. They may return to normal functioning, but the
physical or mental after effects stay with them. To ask how someone is
getting
on after such an event is invasive but at least rational, but "have
you got
over" such an assault is pretty crass whatever the victim's personality.
If some action (either workplace disciplinary or legal) is taken against them, would they in turn have grounds to challenge their treatment?
I've certainly come across 'bosses' who seemed utterly indifferent to
the impact of their behaviour on the people working for them.
Is it possible to assert that this was _not_ some form of neurodiversity?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 38:59:00 |
| Calls: | 6,708 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,241 |
| Messages: | 5,353,638 |