Who Killed Russell Joslin ?
by fortytwo6x7
When we wish understand how seriously society judges any incident, a good starting point is the sanctions placed upon the perpetrator. This idea of action and consequences runs through any legal system. It is something we grow up with, both in the home and at school. It governs what is found as acceptable behavior. We understand the difference between our parents “grounding” us for a week and or a month, and rightly would expect these two punishments to be incurred for vastly different offenses. We rightly expect society to ensure the punishment fits the crime. We would expect accidentally braking a test tube or a glass at school to be punished roughly the same (as they are both accidents of carelessness) perhaps with detention. We would expect willfully braking a window to incur a much more serious reprisal (as it is a deliberate act) for example suspension or possibly being expelled from the school. These are things we expect children to understand from the age of six or seven. Then we expect these children to bring these principles into the adult world and the workplace.
Given that we all understand this, what conclusions can we draw from two “incidents” that occurred, at roughly the same time involving female presenters at BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire in 2006/7.
There are two incidents around that time.
Case A resulted in a
A swift and rigorous investigation involving the Director General
The Perpetrator received a lengthy suspension.
The Perpetrator being named and shamed.
The BBC changing protocols.
The BBC was fined £115,000
Weeks of national headlines and saturation coverage.
The presenter herself stating “Everything I’d worked for for 20 years, my reputation was in tatters.”
Case B resulted in
A botched inquiry at local level.
The perpetrator continuing to work for the BBC.
The perpetrator had there identity concealed.
The BBC defending there processes.
The media coverage has been scant.
The Perpetrator is rumored to have said “there was no complaint about me”
There is no doubt the sanctions placed on Case A far outweigh those of Case B, therefore society sees Case A as more serious. We would then expect the effects on the victim to more serious in Case A than Case B would we not ? They are as follows.
In one of these cases a show was recorded and then broadcast as “live” This meant members of the public sent text messages and phoned the studio to enter contests they had no chance of winning, because a member of the production staff had perviously “won” the contest in a recorded phone call. Doubtless this caused a small cost to the people who entered, disappointment at not winning and perhaps some embarrassment when the truth came to light.
In the other case a presenter made sexual advances to a reporter. The reporter rebuffed these advances and the presenter continued with knowingly unwanted advances. The presenter told the reporter they should be “flattered” by the attention. It was common knowledge in the studio this was happening. The reporter complained to there superior. The reporter received a text message from Cath Hearne, BBC West Midlands’ head of programs, intended for the person conducting the investigation. This text apparently told the investigator not to contact the victim. Voice messages were played to the staff describing the victim as “flakey” or a “looser”. The victim suffered continued harassment, leading to them having to take time off work. The victim asked to be moved to a different location, and were told this would not be possible as they were not working “normal hours” despite the BBC knowing the reduced hours were a direct result of the sexual harassment they were suffering. The reporter eventually committed suicide.
Now, just to be clear on this, there are laws about this type of workplace harassment. Under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 any form of bullying/harassment must be treated as any other hazard. A risk assessment must be carried out under the guidelines set out in the Management of Health and Safety at work regulations 1999. There must be suitable and sufficient control measures put in place, these can include (but are not limited to) replacing the dangerous with the non dangerous/less dangerous, developing a coherent overall prevention strategy, which covers organisation of the work, working conditions and social relationships and the influencing factors and giving appropriate instructions to all employees.
These measures are Absolute Duties of Care, the Employer Must do these things, legally they have no choice. It would seam the BBC totally disregarded its duty of care in Case B.
In Case A Liz Kershaw had her name and face splashed across the media for what amounts to a scam that the producer, and probably people above her connived, consented and condoned.
While at the same time, in the same studios, a as yet unnamed female presenter who still works for the BBC and apparently has a high profile, continues to go unpunished to driving a person to there death.
I believe the punishment does not fit the crime. I believe one of the main reasons a experienced reporter could not make his voice heard or have the situation rectified is because he was a MAN. A person that should be “flattered” by the attention of a female. If we go back to my first point. When we wish understand how seriously society judges any incident, a good starting point is the sanctions placed upon the perpetrator. It would seam that society is perfectly happy to have women harass, bully, victimize men by whatever means they choose. I would say to all those that campaign for sexual equality, the starting point should be the one issue that has been left untouched. Equality in the consequences of actions !
One final question, apart from Liz Kershaw, who was the high profile female presenter at BBC Radio Coventry and Warwickshire in 2006/7 that continues to work at the BBC ?
Dedicated to Russell Joslin, and every other victim of abuse.
source material
guardian.co.uk
mirror.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
I don’t think you can equate these. The main difference here appears to be one of evidence. There was plenty of evidence that many recorded programmes were being passed off as ‘live’ when they were recorded. Subsequent investigations found that this common practice was used in programmes presented by Russell Brand, Jo Whiley, Tony Blackburn, Clare McDonnell and Dermot O’Leary among others (and none of this as far as I am aware happened at BBC C&W). Anyone who has worked in radio for the last 50 years can probably tell similar tales.
In the second case though, if you actually read the report, http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/howwework/reports/pdf/bbc_report_lesleygranger_russelljoslin.pdf there doesn’t seem to be any evidence of bullying and/or harassment.
For instance, an e-mail which he “found inappropriate” and described as a ‘snotogram’ reads in full:
“Hiya,
Could you please let me know one way or rather if you are coming on Thursday.
Thanks.”
If that is harassment, bullying or even “snotty” then I’m a banana.
The messages (were they texts or voicemails? I have seen conflicting reports) are certainly angry, unpleasant even, but don’t contain any threats, except for the withdrawal of friendship and return to a strictly working relationship. I wonder if he actually provided them to the BBC at any time? We do not know what happened to provoke these messages, and without that context it is hard to judge their significance. If they are evidence of anything they would seem to indicate that there had been quite an argument previously. What was it about? Nobody knows.
Perhaps his managers should have formalised his complaints sooner, but it looks to me as though he was unsure of how he wanted to proceed until two weeks before his death, and I don’t envy his managers’ task having to listen to what he actually said at the time (over half of his allegations were never mentioned contemporaneously) and understand exactly what it was that he wished them to do.
Ps: Given that also the report clearly states:
“The BBC has undertaken a separate internal fact finding investigation into whether bullying and harassment took place. We can confirm that the investigation has found that there are no grounds for proceeding with an allegation of sexual harassment and/or bullying.” (foreword) and
“It is absolutely vital that where this report documents allegations made by individuals against others such statements are not seen to be, by virtue of their inclusion in this report or in notes of interviews, proven allegations. The allegations may be true, partly true or indeed they may be completely false: they are untested allegations.” (page 3 of the report proper)
I don’t think it is appropriate to comment as though his allegations are proven facts; they clearly are not, and may indeed (as you appear to be dropping strong hints as to the identities) be libellous.
The enquiry by the BBC has been described as “flawed” the person who compiled the report you referred to stated they had a very narrow remit in which to operate. The family have stated the events caused a serious change in Mr Joslin’s health. The Head of programs sent a text by mistake to Mr Joslin, intended for the person doing the investigation telling then not to speak to him. One would question how the BBC conducted the enquiry. We are told in cases of harassment the main concern is the effect on the victim, basically if they feel harassed they are harassed. The duty of care is exactly the same for physical and phycological injures. I see no mention in any of this of a risk assessment, unless the employer correctly evaluates the risk they have no possible method to guard against it. There are voice messages and texts, defiantly curt, however bullying/harassment is a continuing series of actions designed to remove a persons feeling of self worth. The voice messages being played to the studio describing Mr Joslin as “flakey” and a “looser” are prime examples. Staff have apparently said in the BBC investigation (not made public) they felt speaking out would put there jobs in jeopardy. I would have referenced the BBC report had it been available, perhaps that would present a more balanced argument. I present what i find. As to the question of this being libellous, I have two solutions to that 1. every thing I brought is covered in the source links, nothing new, added or invented, all i did was bring the facts (as presented) together and ask a question or two, free speech allows me to do that. 2. I have just escaped a 25 year abusive relationship, they can sue all they want, I have nothing !
Glad you have got out of an abusive relationship, well done you.
There is quite a bit of stuff you mention that I cannot see in the sources you cite (guardian, mirror, bbc). For instance voice messages “played to the studio”. But maybe I have missed that and the others. But describing all the stuff in your original post as “facts” is a stretch.
I do agree with you that (as it turns out) this was not handled well, and I don’t think that the managers or the healthcare providers took enough account of his mental state when originally speaking to him about this. It is true that in workplaces generally more notice is taken of people with unsound limbs than of people who are struggling with mental health issues. And had the issues been put to the alleged perpetrators while he was still alive perhaps a better resolution could have been reached. Well it couldn’t have been much worse.
On the potential libel front, do what you want, it just seems to me you are on dodgy ground there and it is a crime, even if you’re skint!
thank you, point taken, there were a few articles in the guardian, possibly the independent as well, however I will look at putting Mr Joslin claimed in at some point, that should cover it. IF they look at my poem version they will throw me in jail as it accuses everyone, I’m not sure how far poetic licence stretches. A “good” bully know exactly how far they can go with texts and voicemail, that is how they get away with it. There were things I left out as the connotations were too strong, ill look up the links to the articles i read, I was trying not to have a series of links so just used the generic ones. anyway, on a brighter note you are my first cementer and I would like to thank you for your insights and welcome you properly, I should have done that first but I just jumped in……a bad trait that. Thanks again and ill post the links later
Regards
Forty
well, it would seam im off the hook, i just got there before the papers
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301817/Revealed-Suicide-row-DJ-Liz-Kershaw-mystery-broadcaster-sparked-new-Commons-probe-Savile
is that what they call a scoop ? YE HA
No, check the date on that piece. There was something else in the mail on Sunday last November too, so no scoop, sorry! But still the point stands- if you are repeating allegations and accusing someone of a crime it is still libel unless you can prove it YOURSELF. Ask Alan Davies and Sally Bercow.
That’s a few days old though!
as is this, and had it been there you would have found it on your way to the doc you quoted. the two lines about Russell do not fit very well with the rest of the story (a odd inclusion, but I’m a cinic) and i don’t see the world clamouring for justice or a enquiry, and that is my main point. There should be enough public in interest in this to get a proper investigation more media coverage. Whatever the name involved you have a man claiming to be bullied/harassed/abused by a woman and the world is looking the other way