Re: Torchwood--So do they not have ***ual harrassment laws across the pond?

In article <mZuPj.9656$aq4.7104@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 peachy a****e passion <exquisitepeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> 
> > In article <Al9Pj.11031$Zk5.7702@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  peachy a****e passion <exquisitepeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>   Terribly sorry that the new laws make some folks uncomfortable, but

> >>women voting isn't the end of the world, gay marriage doesn't make it 
> >>okay to marry your dog, and laws against actual inappropriate ***ual 
> >>harrassment doesn't mean that anything anyone ever says or does is 
> >>illegal just if a woman decides so on a whim.
> > 
> > 
> > Actually we just had our annual ***ual harassment PC indoctrination 
> > class and in the federal government, a woman can indeed decide that 
> > something is retroactive harassment-- even if she explicitly invited
the 
> > behavior at the time.
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>     I strongly suggest that this is not what they intended you to take 
> away from your training.
> 
>    After all, your position sugests that you may as well do any damn 
> thing you want, because there is absolutely nothing you can do that is
safe.
> 
>    In fact, I've been through the federal government training, and 
> that's not what they teach.
> 
>    It is, however, inevitably what some folks took away from it, when 
> they went into it with the mindset that the whole thing was stupid to 
> start with.

No, they took away what the training taught, because that's how the 
definition works.  We agree it's ludicrous, but it's how it is.

-- 
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
http://www.disneysub.com/board/noshat.jpg