Bottom-Touching.

[Khandro]

Diplomat awarded £300,000 following accusations of inappropriate behaviour
A former diplomat has won £320,000 from the government after he was accused of behaving “inappropriately” to wards a senior politician’s wife.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10099483/Diplomat-awarded-300000-following-accusations-of-inappropriate-behaviour.html
Given that "from the government" means "from UK taxpayers," is this sum proportionate for, or not for, touching someone else's bottom ?

[shoota]

It's a bum deal alright...

[Milvus]

It's for being falsely accused. Such sexual accusations seem to stick right or wrong. Personally the accuser should pay, but if not then the judicial system remains to protect us all

[douglas9401]

He did nothing wrong, no butts about it.
Loss of earnings and suffering need to be addressed.

[hc4361]

It isn't for touching a bottom, though, is it? It is for being falsely accused, suspended and ultimately sacked from a high ranking, highly regarded position and causing huge anguish to him and his family.

[Jeza]

Yer aving a laff.

[jno]

the FCO needs to obey the law, same as anyone else.

[FredPuli43]

This false accusation , of a minor assault , effectively ended the man's career and involved him in a long and expensive fight to refute what the employers finally admitted was untrue. He got most of his costs, but £320k seems pretty modest in the circumstances.

[Connemmara]

If I was to mention how many time I was inappropriately touched - I would be a millionaire. For Gow'd's sake how many wolf whistled at you at the windows and building suites - I loved it - "when I could hear it" - my sister included - it was part and parcel of the 70s and 80s. No harm done - and don't get me wrong if somebody was genuinely raped my sympathies - but believe me I got myself into very seriously situations - and you know what - MY FAULT.

[ummmm]

Conn...you've got the complete wrong end of the stick.

Fred said - This false accusation , of a minor assault , effectively ended the man's career and involved him in a long and expensive fight to refute what the employers finally admitted was untrue. He got most of his costs, but £320k seems pretty modest in the circumstances.

If it ended his career his loss of earnings could have been higher than that figure. Also take into account his reputation, his wife and family and the tensions it would have caused.

Most of all - He didn't do it, he was innocent.

[ummmm]

So it can't be compared with being wolf whistled and having some half cut bloke pinching your bum in a pub!

[Connemmara]

hi ummmmm - sometimes I get tired reading of all - so probably a bit of assumption - sorry.

[Sir Alec]

I was voted 'Best Bum' in two pubs I used to visit. Moved to Sheffield, shouted out by a DJ, I was the best bum in the pub, embarrassed, but flattered, that doesn't often happen to the likes of me.
An old man retiring from a pub, asked me if he could just touch my bum, as it was one of his wishes. I let him and he was most grateful. No problem.
If someone touches your bum without asking and it is not appreciated, complain!

[Spoonboy]

Mud has a habit of sticking where it should not!

[Anngel]

So, why shouldn't the senior politician's wife (who presumably made the accusation) be sued for the money? Oh wait...that would be because it probably costs more than the amount to creak through our ridiculously expensive court system! Is there any detail of who paid costs?

[FredPuli43]

He got £150,000 towards his costs. That woulld be payable by his employers viz. us.

[Khandro]

But why should the taxpayers meet the bill, if it's a fact that he was wrongly accused, then shouldn't the accuser pay?

[jomifl]

The accuser was not his employer who it seems sacked him to placate a foreign power.

[pixie373]

The trouble is, being found "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent". I'm not saying he's not innocent in this case, but rape has a low conviction rate and would we ask the accusers to pay, if their rapist was not "found guilty"?

[FredPuli43]

Some problems with that Khandro 1) the people responsible for suspending him were his employers. It is doubtful whether that was appropriate for such a minor matter 2) "not true" amounts, in law and practice, to "not provable to the required standard"; the complainant might maintain that it was true still. 3) it is not the practice to claim costs of incidental litigation from witnesses who give rise to it; only from the opposing litigant. You'd have to sue the witness for malicious prosecution or libel or slander 3) there could be diplomatic problems from trying any such thing