If You're Accusing or Exposing - Make Sure It's the Correct Person!

PROMINENT writer and radio broadcaster Marieke Hardy has issued an apology to a Melbourne man she incorrectly accused of authoring a hate blog against her.

In early November Ms Hardy, a regular panelist on the ABC’s First Tuesday Book Club, drew media attention for naming Joshua Meggitt as the alleged author behind a long running campaign of online harassment against her.

Pointing the finger at Mr Meggitt even sparked a Twitter campaign under the hashtag #mencallmethings, in which many female tweeters and bloggers reposted some of the worst online comments that had been made about themselves.

In the December 23 post on her blog, Ms Hardy issued a formal apology, saying: “For over five years I have been the victim of a hate blog against me. On 9 November 2011 I incorrectly identified Joshua Meggitt on this site as the man responsible for writing that blog.

“I accept that Joshua is not the writer and I sincerely apologise to him and his family for any upset caused.”

According to The Sydney Morning Herald, Ms Hardy is believed to have paid Mr Meggitt a legal settlement of $13,000.

original article found here

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU ACCUSE OTHERS OF DOING ONLINE

Have you accused someone of doing something on the internet you only 'know' about through internet searches?

Have you accused someone of hacking, spamming or running a website that someone else told you and you don't REALLY know for sure?

Have you accused someone of watching porn, online shopping or online postings just through checking their IP or by assuming?

Are you really sure?

BE CAREFUL AND THINK AGAIN!

• Elaine Buckley, 50, was fired from her £19,000-a-year job for using the internet for personal use at work
• Her employer accused her of watching hard-core porn but she denied the claims and tried to appeal
• She was unsuccessful and so took her case to the employment tribunal
• No evidence was found to suggest that Mrs Buckley had viewed porn
• The court heard that sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or by other people
• Mrs Buckley went through a ‘dark time’ and had to receive counselling

By Sarah Johnson

A churchgoing mother has won a £20,000 unfair dismissal case after she was wrongfully accused of viewing hardcore porn at work.

Elaine Buckley, 50, has been married for almost 30 years and regularly fundraises in her local community. But in 2010 the finance manager was called into her boss’s office to explain why she had been looking at porn sites during working hours.

She strenuously denied the claims but her employers at Waters Edge Ceramics, a dental laboratory in Oldham, fired her for gross misconduct.

The mother-of-two said: ‘The whole experience has been so humiliating. I was just horrified when they first told me of the allegations. I am a normal 50-year-old mum. I like walking my dog, spending time with my children and friends and generally being a mum - not looking at pornography. I believe that what happens between a woman and a man or a man and a man or two women in their bedroom should be kept private between them.'

Mrs Buckley said that in November 2010 the company announced that redundancies would take place. A week later she exchanged cross words with Gemma Taylor, her boss’s daughter, who had been brought in as her line manager after finishing university.

The next day she was invited for a disciplinary meeting at which it was revealed that her computer had been used to view hardcore pornography. IT consultant Paul Burton printed off a report of her computer use - which revealed that the machine had been used to view hard-core pornography. Elaine said: ‘They kept using the words "obscene" and "pornographic" websites.

‘If it was a cooking website then that might make sense because I could be looking up a recipe for a colleague but not a pornography site. I kept denying it. I couldn’t understand why they thought I had been on the sites. I had been working with the company for ten years, they knew me. My computer was used by other people too and the site could have been a pop up site where the cookies saved to the machine. But they didn’t believe me. It was such a dark, dark time for me.’

On November 11, Elaine was handed with two letters announcing her suspension. On 17 December, she was sacked from her role by a further letter. It stated that she had ‘accessed inappropriate and obscene websites’, spent a ‘wholly unacceptable’ amount of time on personal sites and failed to follow an order not to do so. Elaine tried to appeal within the company but was unsuccessful and so took Waters Edge Ceramics to employment tribunal in February 2011.

Manchester Alexandra House heard that the sites could have been accessed by pop-up sites that Elaine did not know were there or other people who used the computer. The hearing was told the company had no evidence that Elaine had viewed pornography.

On November 2, 2011, Employment Judge Diana Kloss recorded that Mrs Buckley was ‘unfairly dismissed’ under section 98(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Mrs Buckley, who has undergone counselling as a result of the ordeal, said: ‘Going to the tribunal was nerve wracking. After I had taken to the stand, I was literally shaking all over.

‘I never drink but my husband took me to a pub just down the road and ordered me a Grand Marnier on the rocks. The court accepted that I wasn’t to blame and I was innocent. But my boss has never apologised, he fought it to the death. The money was not an apology, it was for a loss of earnings. I had to have counselling for eight months, up to three times a week.’

Elaine now works as a book keeper for the RSPCA, earning £8.50 an hour.

original article found here

DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor
is the mind of the oppressed."
- Stephen Biko



DO THEY EVER ADMIT THEY ARE LYING OR TWISTED THE FACTS?

from this group

(EOPC believes Cyberpathy is an expression of Narcissism and other Cluster B disorders)

We work to try to understand the essence of the [cyberpath]. When I was trying to explain the N to a friend, she understood an N as someone not "able to face the pain of imagining they did something wrong". I wasn't sure about this so did a quick internet search on narcissists and admitting wrong and accepting fault, and got these quotes:

- The [cyberpath] often notices that something is wrong with him and with his life -- but he never admits it.

- ... the [cyberpath] is incapable of admitting that something is wrong with HIM

- They will never admit fault, they will never say they are sorry. If something goes wrong, they will play the victim. They will blame others.

- Remember they will never admit they are wrong, they will never debase themselves with an apology. They will never laugh at themselves.

"[I suspect my husband is a narcissist]. Last night we got into an argument over our daughters homework and he was absolutely livid because he was wrong and he knew he was wrong but could not admit it. He try's to place blame on anyone and everyone but himself."

- Narcissistic Cyberpaths adore themselves. They live for themselves, they think they can do no wrong and will not admit to wrongdoing [re: traits common to 6 year olds and adult narcissists] They are not suffering from 'low self-esteem'

- [For the cyberpath] to admit to one failing, to acknowledge a mistake, even a simple human error of judgement, would be to open the door to the deep internal lack within. The illusion of perfection, maintained by projecting faults onto someone else, is a barrier to be constantly tended, mended and shored up. To admit any feelings of deficiency would be the equivalent of poking a hole in the dyke, an event to be feared as a total disaster.

[Cyberpaths] blame all problems on the "all-bad." It's never the cyberpath's fault; it's always someone else's.

The last paragraph speaks truly from a cyberpath's perspective. It's the victim's fault.

If the two of you have a conflict, he'll tweak the facts as much as he has to to make it all your fault.

His perverse way of turning everything into my fault and his blaming left me battered and exhausted.

Cyberpaths who were children of entitlement:
Externalization of Blame -- The child cannot allow the bad feelings of being at fault for anything. He/she/they/YOU are the problem! He avoids feeling vulnerable by blaming others. The fragile self esteem cannot be punctured by taking responsibility for behavior. His script is "Do not expose me to those intolerable feelings inside. I can't handle it."

Since the false self is grandiose and perfect, relationship problems are never the fault of the narcissist.

For making a change (whether great or small) implies that the narcissist has been two things they "cannot stand": imperfect (something is actually wrong with "them") and at fault ("they" actually were wrong, weak, or inferior somehow).

It can't be HIS fault - he is perfect.

The cyberpath says in effect, "Something doesn't feel right. I'm too special to be the cause, therefore it must be your fault."