Hello,

Ok recently I asked some questions about assault and so on. I have included
the original problem below (to save you folks scrolling around looking for
it). If this turns out to be assault how long can I let it go and still act
on it. I mean if I lose my job in six months time can I still get them for
assault. Especially as I might be able to claim I couldn't do this at the
time out of fear of losing employment.

For example can I wait six months and still present a case for assault.

It should be noted for those who are a bit slow in the head, and we all know
who they are. You do not know what work was being done at the time. You
have no idea what other supervisors monitored the work load for the day and
may or may not have confirmed the amount of work performed by each employee
(hint). You also have no idea of the paper work trail which shows (in black
and white) the amount of work performed by each worker. We are not talking
about a pat on the back presented in good spirit. We are talking about an
act of assault being conducted deliberately to push someone around. There
is a BIG difference between a pat on the back (which can be argued to still
be assault though it is usually just seen as good fun) and what happened
here.

It should also be noted that quite frankly this employer is just one of
about a zillion places where I could work so I have very little fear of
losing my job. Quite frankly I don't have to put up with this crap. I had
about three similar jobs within about two months prior to getting this one
so I KNOW I can get another job.

---original problem---
I work as a casual employee for a business and a question about a particular
event which occured to me yesterday.

I was working at my desk and another worker started talking to me. So being
polite I answered them and had a few
minutes of conversation. The work we were both doing was very tedious and
very basic. We were both still performing our duties at full speed (maybe
even a bit quicker as we were not fallling asleep doing the work ;p). I
actually timed the work afterwards and paid attention to the workers around
me. I was actually finsihed more items on my desk than others around me so
I know for a fact I was at least keeping up with the NORM.

The supervisor comes over stating "I am warning both of you to stop
talking." I answered "Ok sorry I will go back to work". However the
supervisor then grabbed the back of my chair placed a hand on my back swung
me around to face my desk and said "This is your desk face it". I grumbled
"Now I am warning you to never touch me again, ever."

Is this kind of behaviour from the supervisor illegal? Obviously if I did
hit the little grunt I would have broken the law myself but I did nothing
but ask them to never touch me again. I am thinking the supervisor actually
conducted harrassment and assault in this situation. I could probably claim
some form of discrimination as the whole incident could easily be put down
to race or family ties where I was treated unfairly. The supervisor did not
treat all parties involved with the same treament.

I should point out that the other work is a relative of the supervisor and
was not treated in such a manner in fact the supervisor hardly even looked
at him when they issued the warning. If the supervisor was being fair they
should have also swung the other worker around in their chair and addressed
them in the same manner.

Thanks for your help (in advance).

From:	Phil Allison
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:10:00 +1100

"Squeaky Clean"
>
> The supervisor comes over stating "I am warning both of you to stop
> talking." I answered "Ok sorry I will go back to work". However the
> supervisor then grabbed the back of my chair placed a hand on my back
> swung
> me around to face my desk and said "This is your desk face it".

** That hand placed on your back was there to PREVENT harm or injury to YOU
when the chair was swivelled - he was taking care of you not assaulting
you.

You may have felt frightened and/or annoyed but the action was not done to
cause you fear - so not an assault.

............ Phil

From:	Sylvia Else
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:23:07 +1100

Phil Allison wrote:

> You may have felt frightened and/or annoyed but the action was not done to
> cause you fear - so not an assault.

Using force to cause someone to do something is not assault?

Sylvia.

From:	Horace Wachope
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:07:53 +1030

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:23:07 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

>
>
>Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> You may have felt frightened and/or annoyed but the action was not done to
>> cause you fear - so not an assault.
>
>Using force to cause someone to do something is not assault?

Not necessarily. And I think some people are confusing assault with
battery (and vice versa).

From:	Sylvia Else
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100

Horace Wachope wrote:

> Not necessarily. And I think some people are confusing assault with
> battery (and vice versa).

I gave up worrying about that distinction years ago. Do even the courts
care now?

Sylvia.

From:	Horace Wachope
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:33:51 +1030

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100, Sylvia Else
wrote:

> Do even the courts care now?

Yes.

From:	Seppo Renfors
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:20:28 GMT

Horace Wachope wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
> > Do even the courts care now?
>
> Yes.

The Yank's law dictionary define it as follows:
assault and battery
n. the combination of the two crimes of threat (assault) and ...
battery
n. the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to ..

I know they tend to often be on a different planet, but still......

The OED defines it as follows:
BATTERY - Law: the infliction of unlawful personal violence on another
person, even where the contact does no physical harm

.....but they suggest looking up "assault and battery" that is defined
thus:

ASSAULT and BATTERY - noun [mass noun] Law: the action of threatening
a person together with the action of making physical contact with
them.

So, if one is to go by those definitions then "assault" is the
threatening and "battery" is the contact part. Both are covered by the
term "assault" today in our courts.

Other aspects NOT covered by the dictionaries, but are essential - it
is the genuine fear that actual harm was about to be perpetrated on
the "victim", or that the perpetrator had INTENT to cause actual harm.
Both of those two components are totally missing in this case.
Therefor neither "assault" nor "battery" took place.

I find it curious that there are people who would consider a demand to
perform the work a person has been employed to do as "assault" - which
in my view, is an assault on the intelligence of people!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Heretic
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:38:31 +1100

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 04:20:28 +0000, Seppo Renfors wrote:

>
> Horace Wachope wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Do even the courts care now?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> The Yank's law dictionary define it as follows: assault and battery n.
> the combination of the two crimes of threat (assault) and ... battery n.
> the actual intentional striking of someone, with intent to ..
>
> I know they tend to often be on a different planet, but still......
>
> The OED defines it as follows:
> BATTERY - Law: the infliction of unlawful personal violence on another
> person, even where the contact does no physical harm
>
> ....but they suggest looking up "assault and battery" that is defined
> thus:
>
> ASSAULT and BATTERY - noun [mass noun] Law: the action of threatening a
> person together with the action of making physical contact with them.
>
> So, if one is to go by those definitions then "assault" is the
> threatening and "battery" is the contact part. Both are covered by the
> term "assault" today in our courts.
>
Where the victim was unaware of what was happening, it is legally possible
to argue that there was no assault until the physical contact was made. On
that contact, and the slightest unlawful contact is enough, there is a
criminal assault. This assumes a deliberate contact, but that is given in
this case. Clearly there was a technical criminal assault, but it is
unlikely that the victim would pursue that aspect.

> I find it ... an assault on the intelligence of people!

You are that assault. Off to the sin-bin.

From:	Sylvia Else
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 15:24:22 +1100

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> I find it curious that there are people who would consider a demand to
> perform the work a person has been employed to do as "assault" - which
> in my view, is an assault on the intelligence of people!

It is not the demand that constitutes the assault, but the physical act
associated with it.

If the employee refused to get on with his work, would the employer be
justified in using force?

Sylvia.

From:	Seppo Renfors
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 07:17:02 GMT

Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Seppo Renfors wrote:
>
> > I find it curious that there are people who would consider a demand to
> > perform the work a person has been employed to do as "assault" - which
> > in my view, is an assault on the intelligence of people!
>
> It is not the demand that constitutes the assault, but the physical act
> associated with it.

Only problem is that according to your version of "assault", shaking
hands saying "G'day" would amount to assault, the grabbing someone,
preventing them from falling under a train would amount to "assault"!
Clearly that is patently wrong.

> If the employee refused to get on with his work, would the employer be
> justified in using force?

Nobody "forced" anyone to do anything - turning a chair around to face
the correct direction isn't "using force" in order to get the employee
to "get on with his work" as you suggest. You have heard the saying
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" - the
same with work - the only thing one CAN do is sack the bum.

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

From:	Sylvia Else
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 18:59:01 +1100

Seppo Renfors wrote:

> Nobody "forced" anyone to do anything - turning a chair around to face
> the correct direction isn't "using force" in order to get the employee
> to "get on with his work" as you suggest. You have heard the saying
> "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink" - the
> same with work - the only thing one CAN do is sack the bum.

In the context of the discussion the employer had with the employee,
it's clear that getting the employee back to work was the intent behind
the action. The mere fact that it was, or could be, unsuccessful,
doesn't alter things.

Sylvia.

From:	Sylvia Else
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:31:35 +1100

Horace Wachope wrote:

> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>
>
>>Do even the courts care now?
>
>
> Yes.

The NSW Crimes Act does not even use the word "battery". Either the
intent is that it is included in "assault", or battery its own is not an
offence, or the Common Law offence of battery has to be used.

It seems strange that the offence should be ommitted from the Act, so
although the distinction maybe preserved in tort law, I think the word
"assault" includes battery under the Crimes Act.

Note section 59

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s59.html

"Whosoever assaults any person, and thereby occasions actual bodily
harm, shall be liable to imprisonment for five years."

I'm construing "occasions" to approximate to "causes".

Hard to see how something consisting of the old legal concept of assualt
would be capable of causing bodily harm.

Sylvia.

From:	Heretic
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:27:16 +1100

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:31:35 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

>
> Horace Wachope wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 12:53:44 +1100, Sylvia Else
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Do even the courts care now?
>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> The NSW Crimes Act does not even use the word "battery". Either the
> intent is that it is included in "assault", or battery its own is not an
> offence, or the Common Law offence of battery has to be used.
>
> It seems strange that the offence should be ommitted from the Act, so
> although the distinction maybe preserved in tort law, I think the word
> "assault" includes battery under the Crimes Act.
>
> Note section 59
>
> http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s59.html
>
> "Whosoever assaults any person, and thereby occasions actual bodily
> harm, shall be liable to imprisonment for five years."
>
> I'm construing "occasions" to approximate to "causes".
>
> Hard to see how something consisting of the old legal concept of assualt
> would be capable of causing bodily harm.

In most cases, it is possible to use assault in its popular sense to
include the actual application of force as well as the threat or attempt
to do so.

There are still some technical differences between the Code jurisdictions
and the common law jurisdictions, however. And the common law has not
wholly moved to a complete abolition of the notion of battery. In most
cases these gaps are not crucial, but it should not be automatically
assumed that assault is now a broad enough term to cover every assault and
battery.

From:	Phil Allison
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 11:53:32 +1100

"Sylvia Else"
>
> Phil Allison wrote:
>
>> You may have felt frightened and/or annoyed but the action was not done
>> to cause you fear - so not an assault.
>
> Using force to cause someone to do something is not assault?

** Piss off troll.

............... Phil

From:	Rod Speed
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Mon, 24 Jan 2005 05:38:57 +1100

Squeaky Clean wrote in message
news:10v7lu78i8enrdc@news.supernews.com...

> Ok recently I asked some questions about assault and so on.

This is the silly little wanker that got told to get back to work.

> I have included the original problem below (to save you folks
> scrolling around looking for it). If this turns out to be assault

No chance whatever.

> how long can I let it go and still act on it.

You're fucked now already.

> I mean if I lose my job in six months time

Its when you lose your job. Its a certainty with your attitude problem.

> can I still get them for assault.

You cant even if you had done something that day.

> Especially as I might be able to claim I couldn't do
> this at the time out of fear of losing employment.

Cuts no mustard.

> For example can I wait six months and still present a case for assault.

It'd get flushed where it belongs, just like it would have if
you had done that on the same day. There was no assault.

> It should be noted for those who are a bit slow in the head, and
> we all know who they are. You do not know what work was
> being done at the time. You have no idea what other supervisors
> monitored the work load for the day and may or may not have
> confirmed the amount of work performed by each employee (hint).
> You also have no idea of the paper work trail which shows (in
> black and white) the amount of work performed by each worker.

Wota fucking wanker. Everyone knows you were bludging.

> We are not talking about a pat on the back presented
> in good spirit. We are talking about an act of assault

There was no assault, you are lying.

> being conducted deliberately to push someone around.

Still not assault.

> There is a BIG difference between a pat on the
> back (which can be argued to still be assault

Only by silly little pig ignorant shits like you.

> though it is usually just seen as good fun)

Wota fucking wanker.

> and what happened here.

> It should also be noted that quite frankly this employer
> is just one of about a zillion places where I could work
> so I have very little fear of losing my job.

Then quit if you dont like how they do thing, fuckwit.

> Quite frankly I don't have to put up with this crap.

Yes you do.

> I had about three similar jobs within about two months
> prior to getting this one so I KNOW I can get another job.

Then fuck off you silly little fuckwit.

> ---original problem---
> I work as a casual employee for a business and a question about a particular
> event which occured to me yesterday.
>
> I was working at my desk and another worker started talking to me. So being
> polite I answered them and had a few
> minutes of conversation. The work we were both doing was very tedious and
> very basic. We were both still performing our duties at full speed (maybe
> even a bit quicker as we were not fallling asleep doing the work ;p). I
> actually timed the work aterwards and paid attention to the workers around
> me. I was actually finsihed more items on my desk than others around me so
> I know for a fact I was at least keeping up with the NORM.
>
> The supervisor comes over stating "I am warning both of you to stop
> talking." I answered "Ok sorry I will go back to work". However the
> supervisor then grabbed the back of my chair placed a hand on my back swung
> me around to face my desk and said "This is your desk face it". I grumbled
> "Now I am warning you to never touch me again, ever."
>
> Is this kind of behaviour from the supervisor illegal? Obviously if I did
> hit the little grunt I would have broken the law myself but I did nothing
> but ask them to never touch me again. I am thinking the supervisor actually
> conducted harrassment and assault in this situation. I could probably claim
> some form of discrimination as the whole incident could easily be put down
> to race or family ties where I was treated unfairly. The supervisor did not
> treat all parties involved with the same treament.
>
> I should point out that the other work is a relative of the supervisor and
> was not treated in such a manner in fact the supervisor hardly even looked
> at him when they issued the warning. If the supervisor was being fair they
> should have also swung the other worker around in their chair and addressed
> them in the same manner.
>
> Thanks for your help (in advance).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From:	Seppo Renfors
Subject:	Re: Harrassment (continued)
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:53:52 GMT

Squeaky Clean wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Ok recently I asked some questions about assault and so on. I have included
> the original problem below (to save you folks scrolling around looking for
> it). If this turns out to be assault how long can I let it go and still act
> on it. I mean if I lose my job in six months time can I still get them for
> assault. Especially as I might be able to claim I couldn't do this at the
> time out of fear of losing employment.
>
> For example can I wait six months and still present a case for assault.

Get it straight - THERE WAS NO ASSAULT. Secondly *IF* there had been
an "assault" (and there wasn't), the time to act is IMMEDIATELY after
the so called "assault" - it can't be used as a form of leverage to
blackmail the supervisor with.

[..]

> It should also be noted that quite frankly this employer is just one of
> about a zillion places where I could work so I have very little fear of
> losing my job. Quite frankly I don't have to put up with this crap. I had
> about three similar jobs within about two months prior to getting this one
> so I KNOW I can get another job.

This confirms what has been said before - you suffer from a serious
attitude problem. You are not able to hold down a job - it matters not
if you have been sacked or walked out yourself, it remains the case.
Your most urgent NEED is to sort yourself out - go seek help with
that!

--
SIR - Philosopher unauthorised
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is
misled.
-----------------------------------------------------------------