Grey areas let people like DLT go a touch too far

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/28/grey-areas-dave-lee-travis-touch-too-far

Version 0 of 1.

Dave Lee Travis has been given a three-month suspended sentence for one of the charges brought against him – the indecent assault of a woman in 1995 during the making of a TV programme. Moving on from the Dave Lee Travis case – and who wouldn’t want to do that? – this started me thinking about the perennial issue of how to navigate relations in workplaces. I was pondering in particular what are often described as “grey areas” but are really nothing of the kind.

I’m referring to the bizarre groping and/or intimidation, covert or in public view, which could end up being casually misrepresented as acceptable. To the point that there springs up a kind of toxic sexualised shadow-workplace, where anything goes – and you’ve got to be cool, grown up, relaxed, not worry or complain. Don’t be a drip, a bore, or, god forbid, humourless about it.

Note how slyly the pressure is placed on the person dealing with the unsuitable behaviour, when all the time it isn’t remotely normal and the so-called grey areas are as black and white as you could get.

This is the dark side of “tactile”. Most of us, on both sides of the gender divide, would have encountered normal levels of rough and tumble in workplaces. People are spending a lot of time together. Stuff happens. Everything from crushes, flings, full-blown romances to mistakes, wrong signals, and illusions.

Most of us have been there to some degree, perhaps had their delusional bubbles punctured. (“You mean I’ve been standing here photocopying in the slinkiest way imaginable, but you still insist on not finding me sexually attractive!”)

However, even as these things happen, there’s a tacit understanding that it’s all on a level and both parties are fine about it, or at least couldn’t care less. This is when grey works well – when no one is trying to play abuser and no one is forced to play victim.

When grey doesn’t work is when one of the parties involved ends up feeling cornered, unsettled, demoralised or even scared or offended. This is when grey isn’t allowed to be grey any more – it instantly separates back into black and white, or, indeed, right and wrong. The parties are no longer complicit – one of them has done something the other is uncomfortable about.

This is the point where things become skewed. Everything important about the situation has changed, but the abuser is determined to maintain the illusion that what’s happening is still a regular workplace grey area and the victim is overreacting. The hand placed on the shoulder for far too long. The banter that strays too deeply into innuendo. Perhaps worse – brushing or pressing against buttocks or chests or aggressive sexual remarks. All those grotesquely casual invasions of personal space that suddenly make the air unbreathable.

And while, of course, this happens to some men, at the hands of women, let’s face it, it’s usually the other way around. How many women have we heard of having their bodies in some way lunged at or touched suggestively in the workplace? How many men could seriously claim the same?

Whoever is doing (or enduring) the touching, perhaps we should all try to resist giving credence to one of the greatest workplace fallacies of modern times – that it’s the people who object to and complain about such treatment who are the “problem”, who are transforming workplaces into politically correct gulags where no one is able to have a joke, a flirt, or a laugh.

In truth, it’s those who cynically exploit the vagueness of normal grey areas who are ruining it for everyone. Male or female, it’s the workplace gropers, not gropees, who are at fault. The chief thing to remember about the dark side of tactile is that it’s never an accident.

Why Tony Blair is deservedly in the pink

Gay Times magazine has recognised Tony Blair as one of the foremost gay icons of the past 30 years. Really? I suppose if you dimmed the lights, he gave you his best cheeky smile, wore something figure-hugging but age-appropriate, perhaps brought along a bottle of prosecco…

On a serious note, Gay Times argues that it is acknowledging the fact that during Blair’s tenure there were significant breakthroughs for the LGBT community, including lowering of the gay age of consent, abolition of Section 28, the introduction of civil partnerships and making homophobia a hate crime. Gay Times editor Darren Scott said that, wherever one stood politically, Blair helped “pave the way” for advances for the community.

It’s interesting that Gay Times did this when, so frequently these days, mentioning Blair’s name usually requires simultaneously spitting on the ground. Obviously it’s a highly polarised, LGBT-centric attitude, ignoring other things Blair was involved in, but then, the magazine is called Gay Times. Moreover, arguably one could say the same “polarised” accusation could be made of people who refuse to talk about Blair or New Labour in any other context bar, say, Iraq.

This also throws a shaft of light on to why the pink vote is so assiduously courted by politicians these days. It is not just that it is a powerful voting force, although it is. This isn’t just about the voters of today, but also about the voters of the future. Voters who will remember the politicians who actively enabled LGBT legislation, and how this may affect the way they vote.

I’m not suggesting that LGBT voters would only vote for these reasons. However, it does seem as though they could be the elephants of the electoral system – as in, they never forget.

Stephen Fry is having his coke and eating it

In his new autobiography, More Fool Me, Stephen Fry writes about how, when he was a drug user, he took cocaine at a variety of establishments, including royal residences, television studios and (ahem) newspaper offices. (Don’t look at me – I’ve never met the guy.)

Fry takes the opportunity to apologise unreservedly to the people who own these establishments for using their “available polished surfaces”.

He writes: “I have brought, you might say, gorgeous palaces, noble properties and elegant, honest establishments into squalid disrepute.” He adds that he wouldn’t recommend cocaine to his worst enemy.

Do I detect just a little hint of humble bragging here? That is, the thing people do when they’re professing to find a situation appalling and shameful, but secretly rather enjoying the telling of it. In Fry’s case, he’s admitting to terrible behaviour, in splendid locations, but with an element of “Look at how naughty I was – not to mention where!”

And there’s a book to sell. This isn’t to imply that Fry’s apology and remorse aren’t genuine, but that these are juicy anecdotes and he’d have to be a saint not to want to tell them.