"Now if he is irritating only you, what can be the reasons? Just a point to ponder....
I do not encourage this line from ANYONE for many reasons. Why does a stalker choose a certain girl and not others? Are you going to talk to an eve-teasing victim about the dress she wore?
I have a problem with a mindset that focuses on the victim and not the real troublemaker! Where is the sense of right priorities!
If you want to understand criminals and other forms of troublemakers like bullies, teasers, feel free to consult anyone qualified or any good work on the subject... You will hurt suffering victims with this line of questioning, and I doubt many people in a foul mood would even reply politely! Maybe that was not always the intention (sometimes it is, as I quoted above)... but it can easily come off as offensive.
Criminals and harassers in their society may have their perception of weak and vulnerable targets, and it's not necessarily rational or accurate. Sometimes driven by pure greed or some other emotion or just opportunity. There are plenty of victims every day.
Are troublemakers scientists proceeding in a scientific way?
And when you are the affected party, I doubt you are going to like it one bit.
"Was it because if he does, it works in your favor, isn't it."
True if he is more of a bumbling fool... but I hope you remember the troublemakers are also equally aware not to leave any evidence, and some of them are good at what they do.
My life experience says unsavory people often wear a mask, are subtle, manipulative, and no one says, "come see my bad qualities."
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I do not encourage this line from ANYONE for many reasons. Why does a stalker choose a certain girl and not others? Are you going to talk to an eve-teasing victim about the dress she wore?
I have a problem with a mindset that focuses on the victim and not the real troublemaker! Where is the sense of right priorities!
If you want to understand criminals and other forms of troublemakers like bullies, teasers, feel free to consult anyone qualified or any good work on the subject... You will hurt suffering victims with this line of questioning, and I doubt many people in a foul mood would even reply politely! Maybe that was not always the intention (sometimes it is, as I quoted above)... but it can easily come off as offensive.
Criminals and harassers in their society may have their perception of weak and vulnerable targets, and it's not necessarily rational or accurate. Sometimes driven by pure greed or some other emotion or just opportunity. There are plenty of victims every day.
Are troublemakers scientists proceeding in a scientific way?
And when you are the affected party, I doubt you are going to like it one bit.
"Was it because if he does, it works in your favor, isn't it."
True if he is more of a bumbling fool... but I hope you remember the troublemakers are also equally aware not to leave any evidence, and some of them are good at what they do.
My life experience says unsavory people often wear a mask, are subtle, manipulative, and no one says, "come see my bad qualities."
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
@NathRao, Fair enough that you say there are two sides to the story and you haven't heard one side. As an investigative officer or judge, this would be the right approach. However, the complaining party strongly feels wronged and unprovoked, and this line of questioning by others may come across badly in a time like this.
I have much more information about what happened, and you don't. Hence, there will be gaps in perspective. However, I call into question any notion that "even if he does not offend others, he must have reasons" (I am not suggesting that's the intention).
1. If I did good things for 100 people, for a few people, I may have done things I am not proud of.
2. There are one-time wrongdoers for reasons like opportunity and temptation, but still, their wrongdoing has to be taken into account.
3. People's dislikes are often shaped by irrational factors like personality, way of talking, etc., or by factors like differing viewpoints/ideology, not necessarily because someone did wrong to them or made any effort to disturb them. Public figures have haters who have never met them!
There is one guy in my team whose views I can't stand. Why not others? I do not know the security guy or even his name, but I care about the facts of my case.
For a third person, this is not a major case because they are dispassionate from the situation, true. But for me in my shoes, the strain of having to put up with these comments, the fact that the supervisors have not got him in line, and also that justice is getting delayed and well below what I wanted, is taking its toll.
Nowhere was it suggested that the standard of evidence has to be lower, but I would have loved the same standard demanded from the supervising agency.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have much more information about what happened, and you don't. Hence, there will be gaps in perspective. However, I call into question any notion that "even if he does not offend others, he must have reasons" (I am not suggesting that's the intention).
1. If I did good things for 100 people, for a few people, I may have done things I am not proud of.
2. There are one-time wrongdoers for reasons like opportunity and temptation, but still, their wrongdoing has to be taken into account.
3. People's dislikes are often shaped by irrational factors like personality, way of talking, etc., or by factors like differing viewpoints/ideology, not necessarily because someone did wrong to them or made any effort to disturb them. Public figures have haters who have never met them!
There is one guy in my team whose views I can't stand. Why not others? I do not know the security guy or even his name, but I care about the facts of my case.
For a third person, this is not a major case because they are dispassionate from the situation, true. But for me in my shoes, the strain of having to put up with these comments, the fact that the supervisors have not got him in line, and also that justice is getting delayed and well below what I wanted, is taking its toll.
Nowhere was it suggested that the standard of evidence has to be lower, but I would have loved the same standard demanded from the supervising agency.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"However, the complaining party strongly feels wronged and unprovoked, and this line of questioning by others may come across badly in a time like this.
No one is asking questions. All angles are being checked out so that the right advice, from my understanding and experience, can be given. I, for one, clearly do not support the security person being intrusive for no reason. Security should never be intrusive. After all, your interaction with him would be a maximum of 30 seconds when you pass by him at the office. The way out would probably be to put up a written complaint about behaviour and your attempts to talk to the Security agency, etc., and that no action has taken place."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No one is asking questions. All angles are being checked out so that the right advice, from my understanding and experience, can be given. I, for one, clearly do not support the security person being intrusive for no reason. Security should never be intrusive. After all, your interaction with him would be a maximum of 30 seconds when you pass by him at the office. The way out would probably be to put up a written complaint about behaviour and your attempts to talk to the Security agency, etc., and that no action has taken place."
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The biggest problem experts face at this site is the lack of complete information that the questioner has, as rightly recognized by Chnemp: "I have much more information about what happened and you don't, hence there will be gaps in perspective." Therefore, some will ask questions to get the situation clarified, and others will give advice based on their perceptions of the situation.
I have also faced similar frustrating situations in life and have had sleepless nights. Now, after coming across lectures by Swami Anubhavananda and Swami Parthasarathi on YouTube, I have less stress in my life. Kindly watch the lecture on "Stress from whom" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky9pAWGjzKE, as it might help reduce the stress until your management takes action on the erring security person.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have also faced similar frustrating situations in life and have had sleepless nights. Now, after coming across lectures by Swami Anubhavananda and Swami Parthasarathi on YouTube, I have less stress in my life. Kindly watch the lecture on "Stress from whom" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky9pAWGjzKE, as it might help reduce the stress until your management takes action on the erring security person.
From United Kingdom
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"Security should never be intrusive."
That's precisely the point. He was initiating unsolicited chats time and again, annoyed me sometimes with repeated questions, or sometimes too intrusive. I answered purely because I could not say, "you are annoying me, please stop."
If there was one-sided interest, it was not going to end well. He cannot insult me or demand that I talk to him with the same interest. He was connected to the company in the opposing block, not even attached to my company, not even supposed to ask me anything.
"The way out would probably be to put up a written complaint about behavior and your attempts to talk to the Security agency, etc., and that no action has taken place."
I am planning to talk to the supervisor tomorrow. If I am not happy, I will send them an email detailing incidents and complaints. I will ask the question, "What steps were taken for each of the complaints, and was there any plan to track the guy?"
I also phoned a lawyer who said, "if no satisfactory action is taken, lodge a police complaint naming both the guard and the agency. The police will likely call them for warnings."
But that's not a step I am looking forward to. I hope the security agency management gets a serious push to end it right here.
Thanks for your inputs, NASHBRAMHALL.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
That's precisely the point. He was initiating unsolicited chats time and again, annoyed me sometimes with repeated questions, or sometimes too intrusive. I answered purely because I could not say, "you are annoying me, please stop."
If there was one-sided interest, it was not going to end well. He cannot insult me or demand that I talk to him with the same interest. He was connected to the company in the opposing block, not even attached to my company, not even supposed to ask me anything.
"The way out would probably be to put up a written complaint about behavior and your attempts to talk to the Security agency, etc., and that no action has taken place."
I am planning to talk to the supervisor tomorrow. If I am not happy, I will send them an email detailing incidents and complaints. I will ask the question, "What steps were taken for each of the complaints, and was there any plan to track the guy?"
I also phoned a lawyer who said, "if no satisfactory action is taken, lodge a police complaint naming both the guard and the agency. The police will likely call them for warnings."
But that's not a step I am looking forward to. I hope the security agency management gets a serious push to end it right here.
Thanks for your inputs, NASHBRAMHALL.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Agreed that security guards should not be intrusive.
In that case, you could have opted not to answer his smallest and safest questions and could have simply, in a good term, asked him not to have that practice with you.
Secondly, in your reply to my post:
Only if you can calm down and re-read your post, it seems you were offended by my words, so apologies, didn't mean to.
Secondly, would like to say just based on my judgment or someone's judgment a senior authority can't make a decision. I gave you an example where I mentioned that say, for example, the security guard alleges that you, in fact, chastised him, which led to those comments, and based on his words, if they penalize you, you will again make an issue. This, you will say, is not acceptable to you only because some security guard was trusted upon. It doesn't work that way. How will you prove your point? Mark my words, my friend, when I am speaking something, I can modify the words anytime, but with evidence, I am bound to construct the truth.
Agreed you can't be carrying a video cam, but there can be something, some colleague who witnessed this who can strengthen your case.
Another thing that I wish to say is - Education is reflected in actions. That security guard is not as educated as you are. He has misbehaved. But we are smart enough to let go of certain things. You mentioned in your next post about eve-teasing. Being a girl, I face many leeches each day. Knowing how our system works, I can't go and complain about each bit about anybody. But I keep those things in my head; they are affecting my work, my sanity, my health. What do those eve teasers get penalized for? Nothing. Even if I would complain, by law, are they going to get punished? No. What's the point? That's my funda to deal with situations. Yours seems to be a completely different opinion. Respect that and wish you luck in your battle.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Agreed that security guards should not be intrusive.
In that case, you could have opted not to answer his smallest and safest questions and could have simply, in a good term, asked him not to have that practice with you.
Secondly, in your reply to my post:
Only if you can calm down and re-read your post, it seems you were offended by my words, so apologies, didn't mean to.
Secondly, would like to say just based on my judgment or someone's judgment a senior authority can't make a decision. I gave you an example where I mentioned that say, for example, the security guard alleges that you, in fact, chastised him, which led to those comments, and based on his words, if they penalize you, you will again make an issue. This, you will say, is not acceptable to you only because some security guard was trusted upon. It doesn't work that way. How will you prove your point? Mark my words, my friend, when I am speaking something, I can modify the words anytime, but with evidence, I am bound to construct the truth.
Agreed you can't be carrying a video cam, but there can be something, some colleague who witnessed this who can strengthen your case.
Another thing that I wish to say is - Education is reflected in actions. That security guard is not as educated as you are. He has misbehaved. But we are smart enough to let go of certain things. You mentioned in your next post about eve-teasing. Being a girl, I face many leeches each day. Knowing how our system works, I can't go and complain about each bit about anybody. But I keep those things in my head; they are affecting my work, my sanity, my health. What do those eve teasers get penalized for? Nothing. Even if I would complain, by law, are they going to get punished? No. What's the point? That's my funda to deal with situations. Yours seems to be a completely different opinion. Respect that and wish you luck in your battle.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
MW-Jan-June'18- Security.pdf
The National Security Act 2009.doc