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

In article <481789A3.58A5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Thanatos wrote:
> > 
> > In article <4815F75D.6E59@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> >  Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > 
> > > Thanatos wrote:
> > > >
> > > > In article <4810C297.7F0B@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > >  Beowulf Bolt <abd.al-hazred@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In article <3dPPj.5847$Ux4.530@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> > > > > >  peachy a****e passion <exquisitepeach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The question is, should anyone ever have to put up with a
> > > > > > > horrific situation at their place of employment?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which false harassment claims cause as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > And the day that false harrassment claims occur within
> > > > > an order of magnitude of frequency from valid harrassment
> > > > > claims, that might actually be valid.
> > > >
> > > > How do you know they don't?
> > >
> > >   I follow the news.
> > 
> > How do you know all (or even most) false harassment
> > claims make the news?
> 
>  I don't expect that they do.  
> 
>  Then again, I expect that valid harassment claims are even *more*
> underre****ted.  

Why? If someone makes a valid harassment claim, it's a matter of public 
record.

> There's more reasons to ignore harassment (starting with
> not wanting to expose ones humiliation to the public and/or
> lose one's job)

What you describe is not a valid harassment claim. It's not any kind of 
claim at all.

> Again I point out that your argument applies equally well against
> criminalizing rape.

If you go back and look carefully at the attributions, I think you'll 
find that what you're describing is not my argument at all. It's 
Anim8rFSK's. I merely asked how you know that valid harassment claims 
occur with far greater frequency than false harassment claims.