Aoibheann Ni Shuilleabhain Harassment Story

Wombatman

Zarco wrote: »

I'd say the ratio would be like 100 to 1 female to male

Will ya stop with that nonsense.

One in five women reported experiencing sexual harassment in their workplace, compared to just 12pc of men.

https://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/revealed-one-in-five-women-is-harassed-in-workplace-37614713.html

1641

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

The sole purpose of HR is to protect the company. Anything to do with employee welfare is merely incidental.

The two are far from mutually exclusive. Ignoring employee welfare can lead to the labour court, industrial action, extended sick leave, etc. etc. That is before even getting to productivity. How effectively any HR dept performs its role is another matter.

Zarco

Wombatman wrote: »

Will ya stop with that nonsense.



https://www.independent.ie/business/in-the-workplace/revealed-one-in-five-women-is-harassed-in-workplace-37614713.html

I meant the incidences of harassment

Sorry should have made that clear

Errashareesh

Wombatman wrote: »

Reading this thread you would think the problem is exclusively a 'women's issue'.

Why? Nobody is implying that. This thread is about a woman being harassed. Discussion of this and the situation in general for other women is not a lack of acknowledgement that men can get harassed also.

CageWager

Wombatman wrote: »

Reading this thread you would think the problem is exclusively a 'women's issue'.

There is always going to be a difference between a man stalking a woman and a woman stalking a man.

If I worked in UCD and some female lecturer kept making unwanted advances, following me around and generally being a creep, I would find it annoying and I would potentially report it but I would not feel any fear because she is highly unlikely/incapable of doing me any physical harm.

If I was a women working in UCD and some weirdo knew my car/where I lived etc. I would be terrified. IMO its not just some kind of nuisance behaviour - its psychological abuse.

StevenToast

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

-10 points. You can't use the same joke twice in the one thread.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114542296&postcount=50

Well policed.....

Man Vs ManUre

Why didn’t Tubridy give your’ man a good beating??

IAMAMORON

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Why didn’t Tubridy give your’ man a good beating??

Been thinking that myself.

Lightweight altogether.

Tork

Why would Tubridy have gone to beat up his ex girlfriend's stalker? They were broken up before any of this started.

Errashareesh

I don't particularly like Ryan Tubridy as a broadcaster much of the time but what's the bad mouthing him here for?

Tork

Errashareesh wrote: »

I don't particularly like Ryan Tubridy as a broadcaster much of the time but what's the bad mouthing him here for?

It's an excuse to badmouth him, isn't it? (I'm not a fan of his either btw)

IAMAMORON

Tork wrote: »

Why would Tubridy have gone to beat up his ex girlfriend's stalker? They were broken up before any of this started.

Errashareesh wrote: »

I don't particularly like Ryan Tubridy as a broadcaster much of the time but what's the bad mouthing him here for?

We are ripping the piss in all fairness.

I doubt he would be jeopardising his RTE pension by heading over across the N11 for a straightener.... all things considered.

Realt Dearg Sec

Anyone who has worked at UCD and dealt with their absolutely farcical HR department will be completely unsurprised by this story. A greater bastion of hole-scratching indifference you'll never find. It's actually pretty difficult to decipher what they even do. This story answers the question emphatically: nothing. Another arm of the bloated bureaucracy of that institution.

For the record: I did my PhD there, and worked as a visiting assistant professor. In so very many ways out was the worst place I worked in my academic career. But this story is a step beyond anything I witnessed by far.

Zarco

Why didn't tubridy deal with this at the outset

Man to man and put a stop to it?

eviltwin

Zarco wrote: »

Why didn't tubridy deal with this at the outset

Man to man and put a stop to it?

Not sure her husband would have been okay with that

paw patrol

IAMAMORON wrote: »

We are ripping the piss in all fairness.

I doubt he would be jeopardising his RTE pension by heading over across the N11 for a straightener.... all things considered.

He doesn't have an RTE pension cos he isn't RTE staff - he doesn't actually work for RTE ...he has a pension (assume he has one) from his own company.


his salary however....

BattleCorp

It's not much of a penalty for harrassing someone for two years.

He has to stay away from her for 5 years and then he's free to make contact again?

Zarco

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's not much of a penalty for harrassing someone for two years.

He has to stay away from her for 5 years and then he's free to make contact again?

In 5 yrs time he will prob have forgotten about her

irishblessing

Zarco wrote: »

In 5 yrs time he will prob have forgotten about her

Doubtful. The whole country knows what he done now and will haunt him for at least the rest of his career. She was very brave to speak up.

BattleCorp

irishblessing wrote: »

Doubtful. The whole country knows what he done now and will haunt him for at least the rest of his career. She was very brave to speak up.

Sometimes when I see celebs claiming harrassment, mental health issues etc. I'm very sceptical but looking at what she went through, I've a lot of respect for her now.

Hopefully it does haunt him for the rest of his career.

Shocking that UCD didn't seem to get the finger out and sort it out pronto.

walshb

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sometimes when I see celebs claiming harrassment, mental health issues etc. I'm very sceptical but looking at what she went through, I've a lot of respect for her now.

Hopefully it does haunt him for the rest of his career.

Shocking that UCD didn't seem to get the finger out and sort it out pronto.

I made a similar point earlier. There are just so many these Z list trash celebs that would sell their fooking mother for the limelight..

Aoibheann is not remotely like this..She’s a well educated lady.

Zarco

walshb wrote: »

I made a similar point earlier. There are just so many these Z list trash celebs that would sell their fooking mother for the limelight..

Aoibheann is not remotely like this..She’s a well educated lady.

And neither are you Walshb

Trashy ? Never

StevenToast

Errashareesh wrote: »

I don't particularly like Ryan Tubridy as a broadcaster much of the time but what's the bad mouthing him here for?

Unfortunately for Aoibheann, being an ex of Tubs will hang around her like a UCD professor for a long time....

skooterblue2

smurgen wrote: »

Didn't realize that. He's still currently linked as professor on LinkedIn.

Linkedin Profile is gone.

Tork

skooterblue2 wrote: »

Linkedin Profile is gone.

He's ruined. Time to move abroad to a country where they're not too fussed about harassment of women.

BattleCorp

Tork wrote: »

He's ruined. Time to move abroad to a country where they're not too fussed about harassment of women.

T'will be hard for him to stay around here for sure.

bureau2009

Carefully note that Aoibheann only got an apology from the President of UCD *after* the Irish Times write-up.

Zarco

bureau2009 wrote: »

Carefully note that Aoibheann only got an apology from the President of UCD *after* the Irish Times write-up.

That's a sickener doubly

1. For him to apologize after it went public

2. And for him to announce the apology before contacting her

skooterblue2

Tork wrote: »

He's ruined. Time to move abroad to a country where they're not too fussed about harassment of women.

He will get work again but maybe not in Europe. Or he could working for private industry.

Realt Dearg Sec

Zarco wrote: »

That's a sickener doubly

1. For him to apologize after it went public

2. And for him to announce the apology before contacting her

It is revealing of their priorities: he's only apologising as PR damage limitation, so it makes perfect sense that the first port of call is the media and the actual person who is owed an apology comes considerably later.

That, in fact, is UCD in a nutshell. Earlier this year I was on LinkedIn and saw UCD were touting the fact that they had returned to the top 100 in the works University rankings. Those rankings are an absolute cod that privilege nonsense like branding over academic integrity, reward high profile PR accomplishments over consistent research support, and directly fuel administrative bloating while front line teaching is gutted. Which I mentioned in reply. Within minutes I had an army of people with absurd titles like vice assistant provost for student life, and academic director of embiggening research development, all having a look at my profile. Plenty of time on their hands.

My point being these kinds of vultures are everywhere in UCD, and their intentions have nothing to do with protecting professors and ensuring their position is valued, and everything to do with advancing the University as a brand. This story is the logical conclusion of how business is done at UCD.

Charles Babbage

StevenToast wrote: »

Unfortunately for Aoibheann, being an ex of Tubs will hang around her like a UCD professor for a long time....

Because of people such as those on this forum who go on about Tubridy, who is in no way connected or relevant to this thread.

I think I have been known to post here about Tubridy as a broadcaster, but this discussion of his relationship in this thread is not helpful and says a lot about those who think this the most relevant thing to post about.

My point being these kinds of vultures are everywhere in UCD, and their intentions have nothing to do with protecting professors and ensuring their position is valued, and everything to do with advancing the University as a brand. This story is the logical conclusion of how business is done at UCD.

Ah yes, that would be the "UCD Dublin" brand, thought up no doubt by those responsible for AIB Bank and with management with equal public responsibility.

hamburgham

paw patrol wrote: »

He doesn't have an RTE pension cos he isn't RTE staff - he doesn't actually work for RTE ...he has a pension (assume he has one) from his own company.


his salary however....

Actually he does work for RTE, exclusively as far as I can see and in what other industry would Revenue allow this blatant self employment farce. He cannot provide his service without the RTE infrastructure behind him so how on earth cam he claim to be self employed.

hamburgham

skooterblue2 wrote: »

He will get work again but maybe not in Europe. Or he could working for private industry.

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he's still on the UCD payroll on sick leave or some type of long term leave arrangement.


Remember David Norris was on paid sick leave from Trinity for years while he was busy pontificating on the airwaves, in the Seanad and anywhere else that would indulge him.

hamburgham

hamburgham wrote: »

I wouldn't be one bit surprised if he's still on the UCD payroll on sick leave or some type of long term leave arrangement.


Remember David Norris was on paid sick leave from Trinity for years while he was busy pontificating on the airwaves, in the Seanad and anywhere else that would indulge him.

In fact, I’d put money on it that he’s still on the payroll on long term leave. Nothing to indicate that UCD grasped the nettle.

An Ri rua

irishblessing wrote: »

People not directly involved/have no experience in something like this often talk a similar big game. However in reality most people are not willing to get involved, think you should sweep it under the carpet, think you're overreacting, think you've "misunderstood" the situation, and worst of all- think it's something women have always gone through and can just keep enduring. They think ruining a man's career or reputation is always a step too far instead of holding him accountable for his own behaviour and consequences.
Beating the guy up wouldn't have made her feel any better about coming into work the following day. May even escalate things. Of course she'd be worried about retaliation. These kinds of comments, no offence, are short sighted.

No offence, but I've more experience of same than you'll ever know. Which won't be detailed here. If you were inadequate in a past situation, as I was in my youth, then I'm sorry for your trauma and shame. I hope you've made amends directly or indirectly since then.
Why would you beat someone when you could look them in the eye and tell them the next steps? A beating, which by the way, you have suggested, my post did not, could be counter-productive and is advocating violence, which Boards would frown on. . Fear and uncertainty are elements of conversation and are within the perception of the recipient. Harassed harasser, stalked stalker. Bullied bully. It's not rocket science at all.

You clearly have little experience with snuffing out issues. The victim is never told anything in these situations. Why would you do that??? And cause them more distress and fear of the future? Unless one's motives are alterior. You clearly have not danced the dance much, my friend and are the one talking the talk.

People act, problem goes away. A few people act, most don't. I'll grant you that. I'm still surprised that no one in her circle could arrive at an understanding with the man. As I say, people have got soft. Come down the country and see how it's done. Or at least been done before, allegedly. Barring orders, proof, etc, all of that is right and proper. But it's good to talk...

Realt Dearg Sec

An Ri rua wrote: »

No offence, but I've more experience of same than you'll ever know. Which won't be detailed here. If you were inadequate in a past situation, as I was in my youth, then I'm sorry for your trauma and shame. I hope you've made amends directly or indirectly since then.
Why would you beat someone when you could look them in the eye and tell them the next steps? A beating, which by the way, you have suggested, my post did not, could be counter-productive and is advocating violence, which Boards would frown on. . Fear and uncertainty are elements of conversation and are within the perception of the recipient. Harassed harasser, stalked stalker. Bullied bully. It's not rocket science at all.

You clearly have little experience with snuffing out issues. The victim is never told anything in these situations. Why would you do that??? And cause them more distress and fear of the future? Unless one's motives are alterior. You clearly have not danced the dance much, my friend and are the one talking the talk.

People act, problem goes away. A few people act, most don't. I'll grant you that. I'm still surprised that no one in her circle could arrive at an understanding with the man. As I say, people have got soft. Come down the country and see how it's done. Or at least been done before, allegedly. Barring orders, proof, etc, all of that is right and proper. But it's good to talk...

That was the creepiest message I've read in a while.

An Ri rua

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

That was the creepiest message I've read in a while.

I grant you that perspective.

When you've seen bullies, victims, barring orders, Gardaí in homes, you develop a clear perspective. Some break, some toughen (but break effectively as they were gentler souls), some see no evil. All get damaged, including the aggressor, the longer sh1t goes on. They get emboldened. Meet fear with fear or have someone else do it.

To any girls or women reading, or anyone who's a victim, don't be scared. Don't be scared of tomorrow, of retaliation, or of harm coming to the person you tell. Don't be scared. So many kids ring Childline and can't get through. But tell people you trust. Tell them early and ask them to observe. Don't tell a hothead, as hotheads are full of fear. Hotheads rough a person up, if at all. This effect is temporary. Instead, tell someone who is always carrying out their word. Someone who says less. They will guide you out of harm and hopefully maybe the aggressor too. Non-violence is more scary than violence. Unless you're dealing with hardened criminals.
I feel very sorry for this man's family, if he has any, and relations tonight.
Hard conversations, harder than a Garda can have (though I've seen them have frank words to very good effect) early in the day might have quietened this man. For the good of all. It's just a terrible pity for all concerned, including UCD. But it would appear that the organisation's corporate governance has a lot of questions to answer. It appears that they may cause her as much heartache over the next 2 years as this cretin did previously.

Wishing her peace and security.

Ps I recall reading, when I was awarded my first degree, that should you bring the college into disrepute by your public actions, your academic award could technically be rescinded. Wouldn't it be fantastic if such lofty notions were applied to the teaching faculty also? Would seem basic gross misconduct activity in this day and age.

ILoveYourVibes

hamburgham wrote: »

Remember David Norris was on paid sick leave from Trinity for years while he was busy pontificating on the airwaves, in the Seanad and anywhere else that would indulge him.

He had cancer for many years.

Kaybaykwah

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Why didn’t Tubridy give your’ man a good beating??

Actually, why wouldn't any man in her entourage just confront the guy?

Why didn't one of UCD higher ups not just
go talk to the futzer and tell him to buzz off after the first alarming situations? There are plenty of children told off for bullying, but when it comes to adults, it's another story...

hamburgham

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

He had cancer for many years.

This predated the cancer. I think the cancer was relatively recently, after his presidential bid. The paid sick leave from Trinity predated this.

tobefrank321

hamburgham wrote: »

This predated the cancer. I think the cancer was relatively recently, after his presidential bid. The paid sick leave from Trinity predated this.

From memory, I believe he picked up some illness when travelling abroad that left him severely fatigued most of the time. Strange that he was able to attend the Seanad though during that time. Indicates he wasn't too fatigued or else the Seanad is a bit of a doss.

tobefrank321

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Actually, why wouldn't any man in her entourage just confront the guy?

Why didn't one of UCD higher ups not just
go talk to the futzer and tell him to buzz off after the first alarming situations? There are plenty of children told off for bullying, but when it comes to adults, it's another story...

Very tricky situation.
If a male friend confronted him, it might make the situation even worse. She'd be accused of encouraging something or other, or he'd make a complaint.
I'd say she hoped to keep the thing quiet, hope he'd go away by himself and HR would do something about it.

Standman

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

Actually, why wouldn't any man in her entourage just confront the guy?

Why didn't one of UCD higher ups not just
go talk to the futzer and tell him to buzz off after the first alarming situations? There are plenty of children told off for bullying, but when it comes to adults, it's another story...

He was escorted out of a hotel twice by the guards, safe to say he doesn't care/was incapable of listening to reason.

BattleCorp

There is no way that the HR department should have let things get as bad as they did.

Here's how it should normally be handled.

1. Aoibheann complains to HR.
2. Someone from HR has a word with yer man about the complaint and warns him to stay away or else he'll be in trouble.
3. Yer man keeps up contact.
4. HR initiate formal proceedings against yer man.
5. Yer man keeps up contact.
6. UCD kick yer man to the kerb.

I think that''s a fair process that might even be cut short at step 4.

But as was mentioned already, he didn't pay any attention to the Gardai dragging him out of the hotel so he probably wouldn't have paid much attention to HR warnings etc.

IAMAMORON

Does anyone think she elected to involve the media for fear of any backlash from within UCD? I get the feeling she went so public about the matter to highlight the issue but to also ensure she has a positive future within UCD?

Could she have had other motivations for involving the press?

Before you jump down my throat here, I think it is fair to point out. There are a lot of women who have gone through hell and back with their harassment stories and not involved the media. So I think it is a relevant point? Why did she chose to go actively public with the matter? Is it a journalist "scoop" or was she hoping to reinforce herself against any negativity within UCD down the line?

irishblessing

An Ri rua wrote: »

No offence, but I've more experience of same than you'll ever know. Which won't be detailed here. If you were inadequate in a past situation, as I was in my youth, then I'm sorry for your trauma and shame. I hope you've made amends directly or indirectly since then.
Why would you beat someone when you could look them in the eye and tell them the next steps? A beating, which by the way, you have suggested, my post did not, could be counter-productive and is advocating violence, which Boards would frown on. . Fear and uncertainty are elements of conversation and are within the perception of the recipient. Harassed harasser, stalked stalker. Bullied bully. It's not rocket science at all.

You clearly have little experience with snuffing out issues. The victim is never told anything in these situations. Why would you do that??? And cause them more distress and fear of the future? Unless one's motives are alterior. You clearly have not danced the dance much, my friend and are the one talking the talk.

People act, problem goes away. A few people act, most don't. I'll grant you that. I'm still surprised that no one in her circle could arrive at an understanding with the man. As I say, people have got soft. Come down the country and see how it's done. Or at least been done before, allegedly. Barring orders, proof, etc, all of that is right and proper. But it's good to talk...

What the F....?! You've somehow completely read that the wrong way around, absolutely baffling. I literally said the opposite to what you're jumping down my throat about. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
And you've overstepped yourself with your assumptions so far you've just fallen over the cliff. May I remind you that you've no clue who you're talking to. I've taken a harassment/assault claim successfully through the courts so take a f-g seat. Thanks.

KaneToad

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Does anyone think she elected to involve the media for fear of any backlash from within UCD? I get the feeling she went so public about the matter to highlight the issue but to also ensure she has a positive future within UCD?

Could she have had other motivations for involving the press?

Before you jump down my throat here, I think it is fair to point out. There are a lot of women who have gone through hell and back with their harassment stories and not involved the media. So I think it is a relevant point? Why did she chose to go actively public with the matter? Is it a journalist "scoop" or was she hoping to reinforce herself against any negativity within UCD down the line?

Another woman going to the media wouldn't have got the same coverage. Dr. Ní Shúilleabháin's public profile has made this more newsworthy for media outlets, unfortunately.

I doubt she is under any threat from UCD.

Harrassment is more common than you might think - it should be publicised more. I had similar in a workplace. Persistent romantic propositions, from an individual in authority, that I had to repeatedly rebuff. 'Wouldn't take no for an answer' type stuff.

irishblessing

An Ri rua wrote: »

No offence, but I've more experience of same than you'll ever know. Which won't be detailed here. If you were inadequate in a past situation, as I was in my youth, then I'm sorry for your trauma and shame. I hope you've made amends directly or indirectly since then.
Why would you beat someone when you could look them in the eye and tell them the next steps? A beating, which by the way, you have suggested, my post did not, could be counter-productive and is advocating violence, which Boards would frown on. . Fear and uncertainty are elements of conversation and are within the perception of the recipient. Harassed harasser, stalked stalker. Bullied bully. It's not rocket science at all.

You clearly have little experience with snuffing out issues. The victim is never told anything in these situations. Why would you do that??? And cause them more distress and fear of the future? Unless one's motives are alterior. You clearly have not danced the dance much, my friend and are the one talking the talk.

People act, problem goes away. A few people act, most don't. I'll grant you that. I'm still surprised that no one in her circle could arrive at an understanding with the man. As I say, people have got soft. Come down the country and see how it's done. Or at least been done before, allegedly. Barring orders, proof, etc, all of that is right and proper. But it's good to talk...

Actually, you owe me a huge apology. I literally said threatening a beating on harassers is NOT the answer. And you respond to me like that? It's actually insane how wrongly you took that up. Telling me to make amends directly or indirectly for what exactly? I looked my harasser straight in the f-g eyes in court and held my own. I set an example to him and my children. F YOU actually.

ThewhiteJesus

IAMAMORON wrote: »

Does anyone think she elected to involve the media for fear of any backlash from within UCD? I get the feeling she went so public about the matter to highlight the issue but to also ensure she has a positive future within UCD?

Could she have had other motivations for involving the press?

Before you jump down my throat here, I think it is fair to point out. There are a lot of women who have gone through hell and back with their harassment stories and not involved the media. So I think it is a relevant point? Why did she chose to go actively public with the matter? Is it a journalist "scoop" or was she hoping to reinforce herself against any negativity within UCD down the line?

100% agree with you but i got called all sorts of names for having the same opinion so good luck !

IAMAMORON

ThewhiteJesus wrote: »

100% agree with you but i got called all sorts of names for having the same opinion so good luck !

You need a thick neck to throw stones around glasshouses.

But I will be honest and think that there is certain amount of a "media lead" going on here.

No fluke it is in the weekend edition of our leading broadsheet either.

If someone accuses you of being cynical around harassment issues it is because they prefer the drama to discussing the problem, IMO. A lot of drama types like chastising opinion. Which is worse?

If you question victims' prerogative about going public on their plight you open yourself up to the accusation of not having empathy or even worse being an advocate for harassment. You can very quickly become the pound of flesh some off the more militant posters will want to corner and throw mud at.