[quote FannyCann]There was a thread about this on Twitter last week.
I'm in two minds about posting due to it having identifying information but the police released this and I'm shocked that they would do so.
twitter.com/wearefaircop/status/1399756274837954563?s=21[/quote]
I followed the Daily Mail link from that thread. I've every sympathy for the couple at the heart of it who were being abused about their child.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9629921/Couple-software-firm-boss-said-transgender-son-evil-awarded-damages.html
Ms Forman's engineer husband Stuart Forman, 60, who was also company director of the firm, also harassed the couple by not intervening when the comments were made in October 2018.
…
Employment Judge Michael Ord said in the panel's judgement published today: 'Both claimants [Vicky and Keith Brett] were the victims of direct discrimination on the protected characteristic of gender reassignment when they were told by Kate Forman that their transgender son was evil and going to hell that they were going to hell for supporting him.
'At the same time, they were harassed by Mr Forman through his conduct when he was silent and did not seek to intervene when Mrs Forman - an employee of the respondent [Khi-Ro] - was abusing the first and second claimants in that way.'
Nonetheless, I was taken aback to discover that not intervening is also an indication of harassment. I can think of a number of couples who know what might ratchet up their partner's behaviour and wouldn't intervene - I don't know the people involved but I'm particularly thinking of people whose partners have intermittent explosive disorder and are cowed into silence when this happens.
It would be interesting to know if there's a general public duty to intervene when abuse is in progress or if this is specifically limited to settings like this within a company. And, to be clear, partner or not, I'd expect the silent partner to apologise after the incident was over if they'd chosen a non-escalation strategy.