"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"

Not a complex idea. It's very simple. Seriously simple.

"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT" 

How is this almost age old concept not just lost, it's opposed. And if anyone says stop, let's reserve judgement, put it through the proper process & look at this slowly first with the fuller facts they are attacked.
This is the part where I should say "I'm sorry but..." however there is no sorry from me. I'm not sorry. I'm defending the proper principles of a proper society, not a weird arse part of deranged corner of the animal kingdom.

Know the process, stick to the process and don't use emotion or side door false logic or lies to distract people to get a social conviction outside the law, due process & proper investigation.

I make no apology, "Believe the woman" or "Believe the victim" is not defence or valid logic foundation. Its a meant as a guilt heavy battle cry to drop the proper process.
That is a BIG NO. ALWAYS A BIG NO.
Its one of the main reasons I strongly oppose the #metoo/ustoo movement whilst opposing mistreatment of our fellow human beings. Destroying due process is also mistreatment of our fellow human beings & for a possibly small but definitely unknown percentage of cases it's mistreatment of some of our fellow human beings due to weaponising potentially false claims or a declaration of guilt WITHOUT the due process, without people remaining innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Beyond reasonable doubt in some claims has been replaced by unreasonable guilt which is applied to all people who do not accept the conviction in the public square.
Claims must go through the proper process & they must not be used on social media or the public to damage a person's reputation without fair trial.

In the case of some of the Parliament House behaviour that has been recently called out, if its even half true, its dispicable & must be rectified. It is however apprearing some of this is a Human Resources matter &/or a Criminal Matter. That being the case, the only thing the media should be centred on is the results of the HR inquiry or the Court Case result. 

Many claims have been sensationalised & turned into a wrongful Media Fodder item. One complaint was made within one organisation, confidentially with (we were told) the complainants disclaimer that "this is not an official complaint" 

You either make an official complaint or you don't. You do not lodge an unofficial complaint for the organisation to deal with. The very concept that a person can lodge an "unofficial complaint" that can damage or potentially end another person's career & it the complainant & the complaint will remain totally secret is at best the msuings of the niave & the plan of a complete fool...or someone who was used as a simple pawn in an internal power struggle.

It was leaked to the public/press & apparently not to the complainant's nor the accused's benefit, hopes & attempts. All went sideways for the complainant & the accused. Nothing went to court, no procedural justice was done, but reputational damage was done.

Was the complainant a liar? I don't know
Was the complaint 100% true, partly false or 100% false I don't know
Was the matter handled properly within a proper process. I'd contend no, not even close
Was the matter one that should have been referred to the criminal court & was it? I don't know but no it was not referred to the police.
Did anyone benefit from this, was anyone damaged from this? I think all were largely damaged from this, there were no winners & aside from the complainant & the alleged accused, it was shown one organisation had no proper process in place at the time & due to deplorable lack of understanding of "beyond reasonable doubt", the "right to be regarded innocent until being reasonably proven otherwise", due to the distinct lack of proper governance it was mishandled from the moment the first words of complaint were uttered. The organisation was appalling & I'm yet to determine one person (in any organisation/s) involved in this issue to be capable or equipped to have any involvement with such matters. To the point I would say, if a person suffered any sort of abuse within that organisation at any level & they confided in me, I would say go to either the police or to a trusted lawyer expereinced in the field. The organisation is intent on covering itself in glory or distancing itself from wrong doing or anyone accused (innocent or guilty), they have people within who will weaponise this against other people within and there are then those from rival organisations who will weaponise it against the accused that the organisation he/she is a member of. There are too many anti process thugs who wish to weaponise your misfortune. You have to go via the authorities & the police. 
(* See below, the issue of victims dropping it altogether & guilty potentially getting away with it)

Now here's the thing...I do not know whether it went public BEFORE or AFTER the organisation had completed it's internal investigation. My understanding is it was declared it could not establish if wrong was done or not. It appears (I don't know) that it ended up one person's word against another.

I firmly belive must of it was odd & infuriating but due to the following it was all very wrong, that it was I have never been so appalled at an organisation's niave shortfall in that...

1) An official unofficial complaint was made. THAT should never have happened

2) That the organisation at the timedecided to not say this or something similar...

"If you're not lodging an official complainant, there is nothing we can actually do. We do care, we are very concerned and we are keen to be as supportive as possible however we cannot depart from the law nor the reasonable person test within the set process. With great respect we urge you, if you feel its the thing to pursue, to lodge an official complaint. It can be kept confidential but if someone needs to be charged or needs to be dismissed it will probably go public as we cannot pursue a matter completely behind closed doors. We have to pursue the matter fully & properly. Both parties have to be treated fairly & respectfully until a decision is determined and at that point the matter may be referred to the authorities & it will have to be reported to all members of the organisation. We currently have no process or procedure for a complaint that is unofficial. Our legal advice is we cannot legally be a party to an "unofficial complaint" without potentiially breaking the law & creating exposure to potential defamation & unfair reputational damage. Legally that has dangerous legal precidents. We could be regarded by a court to being a willing party to creating defamation. We can offer all the support possible within the legal process but we cannot take accusations in private & act on them in secret outside legal process & fairness. We urge you to take legal advice & lodge an official complaint if you feel it warranted. We will support you with an official complaint but we cannot accept an "unofficial complaint". That would be unlawful for us to pursue."

Ok maybe not that long winded, but along those lines AND in writing.
The problem here was compounded by several things. A small committee or committees & some individuals steered the entire process they decided upon. They did not report this to the organisation's board until it hit the fan & hit the fan badly. Even after that happened, pursuing it via any reasonable process that resembled due process was lost.
Some people spoke publicly, some people fanned the fire & it got worse.
The complainant became named with people being split between supporting the complainant & damning the accused. Some people who didn't like the accused piled on. Some who didn't like the accused or the organisation piled on. It was a mess for all involved & sadly the mishandlers of it all got off Scott Free. I'm not sure, but amongst them may have been people with wider agendas

The complainant was used, denied proper advice, denied proper process & by some was vilified.

The accused was used, denied proper advice, denied proper process & by some was vilified.

As stated before...

"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"

Not sure what part of that doesn't stack up but it was avoided by all and sundry & it shouldn't be the fall back position, proper due process should be the only process. 

Now if any person is assaulted, attacked, threatened or in any way treated outside the bounds of good common decency then they should be fully supported by any organisation that may be handling any possible complaint. They should not be encouraged or discouraged from laying a complaint, they must be properly, impartially & fully supported as they decide for themselves what to do.
BUT THERE MUST BE A FULL PROPER PROCESS...AND IF THERE ISN'T IT SHOULD BE HANDLED PROPERLY, SENSITIVELY, RESPECTFULLY BUT WITH PROPER FAIRNESS TO BOTH PARTIES. 

Where this court of public opinion, court of social media can and sadly probably will go wrong is one day some complainants will be charged with defamation they may not the resources to beat in court. That may mean a genuinely attacked, assaulted victim may go the Court of Public Opinion and lose a defamation case. Thats added onto of the other horror they may have already had to go through. The attack & the worst possible humiliation. 
The Court of Public Opinion must never replace the proper legal process & blind justice.

Or worse still, a person may as a jilted lover, angered ex employee, or someone with some other axe to grief can damage or destroy the innocent person they have accused.

Don't go for "Believe the Victim"
Go solely for "Believe the Tested Evidence via the correct process"

I really don't know why its that easy to get this wrong. In one prominent case, the CEO, the Board, the Chairman of the Board all got it wrong. Plus some high profile senior staff also failed by putting aside the chance of any due process. In this day & age, if an organisation gets such a very basic, widely known & understood legal process wrong, or ignores it or wilfully side steps it...
Well expect that organisation is probably going to be rotten to the core on other matters. 

If you're a member/shareholder, get out, sell your shares, do buisness deals with others, resign if you're an employee. And if you're in a business relationship with them, well think what you should do. I would tell them your concerns in brief & if you get no clear signs they're going to adhere to proper legal due process...open no new contracts or deals. Get the hell away from them.
They are an instituitional of bad process & probably wilful side steppers of the law 

In the case of this organisation I'm having trouble thinking of any company that has a worse corporate governance structure nor such an ingrained opposition to improving it.
I'll watch from afar to see what they fix or if they fall in the bin altogether. Those that were at the helm during that entire burnign dumpster fire, not all but most are still at the helm.
I won't take too much notice. They apparently have had at least 3 official complainsts since that were 'set aside' & the complainants were told "its been decided to draw a line in the sand & move forward"
I was told the complainants were not told who decided to disimiss their complaints without inquiry or any report to the board. 

* Then the matter of what about a victim who cannot report it, cannot go public. I do not know what to say. This is not a new thing, this will never be ok. But justice must be blind, it must be applied equally to all & all parties MUST be be given the benefit of the doubt & no justice can be served without proper process of inquiry without fear nor favour. This sadly means, sometimes bad people get away with it.
But we cannot open the door to false claims either.
This proper process doesn't just go back to the origins of Western Judiciary, it goes back to Biblical examples that the modern judiciary is modelled on.

We all have no real choice. Full proper due & fair process. No exceptions. Ever.
"If You Won't Write It, Sign It & Stand Behind It In Court DO NOT SAY IT"