Search results

Well said! Riskydave seems to see the world through 🤑 tinted glasses 💱 and have zero understanding of victim-survivor dynamics.

You were not there. Don't make assumptions. None of us can accurately say what we would have done or not done under similar circumstances.

I agree with everything you say bar the last sentence. If he is found guilty then punish him according to the law. That's enough. What's more crucial is providing lasting therapy for the victim-survivors, and not just the token six sessions, extendable to ten. It needs to be realistic and...

Even so-called single-use bags - pre the pay-for-bags era - had multiple uses. They were great for a multitude of home tasks and were never wasted!

1. This is not news. It's been known for a month or more. Why are you pretending this has somehow just become known? 2. Jones was never a "monarch of talk back radio." He was a drivelling, snivelling, opinionated guttersnipe who had enough ascribed power to bully even NSW Premiers into doing...

True dat. They are good and long- lasting.

BTW, on a fixed income, even $2 is a crucial sum of money.

Overpriced.

Your claims to support peace and the marginalised don't match with the callous disregard for the young woman who was bullied at Aus Post. If you really cared about DV victim-survivors, for instance, you would recognise bullying behaviour and know exactly why referring to a young woman as a...

Workplace bullying: three postal workers sacked after posting cruel parcel. #FixedIt

You're kidding, right? Your minimisation of the bullying helps you totally miss the point and side-step the real issue. It has nothing to do with the sweets - "candies" is American; we're in Australia - and everything to do with the perpetrators' attitude and intentions. They were bullies and...

Language matters. Calling the bullies "pranksters" and describing what they did as a "prank" minimises their very serious misbehaviour. It wasn't a prank - it was deliberate, targeted bullying. They were dealt with accordingly.

You're kidding, right? I don't think they thought the young woman would find the smut funny- they damn-well knew she would be offended. That was their intention. It's nothing less than #WorkplaceBullying.

Same.

It's offensive to refer to a woman as a "girl," for a start. If she genuinely found the sex shop and its products distasteful, what's it to anyone else? The young woman did not deserve to be disrespected and bullied. Full stop I wish more companies and organisations would do likewise!

It's offensive to refer to a woman as a "girl," for a start. If she genuinely found the sex shop and its products distasteful, what's it to anyone else? The young woman did not deserve to be disrespected and bullied. Full stop.

Seems awfully close to #WorkplaceBullying, too. But I have to ask: if men had performed such a wilfully insensitive act, would they have lost their jobs, or simply been slapped on the wrist and told not to be "naughty boys"?

Evidence?

She's right in a sense, but I don't think Madonna has a very profound understanding of "disturbing the peace." Artists, I believe, are here, first, to stimulate our thinking, and second, to subvert apathy and the thoughtless status quo. Being deliberately provocative is not subversion...

I'm sure Madonna is quite a lot more than sugary confectionery.