Feeling safe in the workplace

By facilitating a session where the harmer could apologise, we helped a London Pub Manager felt safe at work again. 

The Offence:

In April 2017 a woman in her twenties was arrested for the offence of common assault following at altercation with the manager of the pub near Cannon Street Station.

The harmer had some after work drinks with work colleagues. She left colleagues and made her way to the station, but when her train was cancelled she decided to go to a nearby pub.

She had already consumed a large amount of alcohol when the pub manager started to observe her behaviour. The manager refused to serve the harmer anymore alcohol and asked her to leave the premises. The harmer became aggressive and used abusive language towards both the security and the manager.

While leaving the premises, the harmer pushed the security guard and slapped the manager with the back of her hand across her face. This lead to the harmer being arrested and detained by British Transport Police.

Indirect Facilitation:

The harmer was remorseful upon reflection of what she had done. She agreed to take part in the restorative justice process and apologise to the harmed by letter. After having a meeting with restorative justice facilitators she decided it might be more appropriate to apologise face to face, especially as she had limited recollection of the events of the evening she was arrested.

A meeting took place with the harmed who gave her account of what happened on the evening of the assault. She expressed how she felt when she was assaulted, then explained that since the offence, she had considered transferring or leaving her job. She has had difficulty trying to forget the incident or find closure. The harmed also mentioned the she could not tell her husband about the assault through fear that he is protective of her and would ask her to leave her job.

The harmed agreed to engage with the harmer. After careful planning and liaising between both parties we arranged a facilitated face to face meeting.

Facilitated Meeting:

The meeting took place at a British Transport Police office. The harmer expressed remorse and started off the meeting by accepting responsibility for her actions and explained what she recalls happened on that day. She explained that her actions were totally out of character and described what action she has taken to prevent anything like this happening again.

The harmed accepted the harmer’s apology and described the actions and abusive language that was used by the harmer on that day. She explained the affects the assault had on her and that she had no right to assault her, in the many years of working as a Pub Manager she had never been assaulted like that before which made her feel angry.

Outcome:

The harmer sincerely apologised for her actions and ensured the harmed this would not happen again. It was agreed the harmer would refrain from going into the pub where the harmed works. Both parties were happy to have taken part in the restorative justice process.

 

 

 

The impact of a tweet

Challenging hate speech on social media and helping an individual to see how their words hurt a whole community.

Case Background:

The case was referred to us by Community Security Trust (CST), who advise and support people surrounding anti-Semitic incidents. The case surrounded an offensive anti-Semitic tweet sent by the harmer. The tweet made reference to Tottenham Hotspur Football Club in an anti-Semitic manner, and the harmers employer told CST that they were keen to educate the harmer on why this was wrong. Restore:London asked a person representing the community (community victim) from football charity Kick it Out to participate as a community victim. Both the harmer and community victim agreed to meet in a facilitated restorative conference. R:L coordinators shared the restorative questions with the harmer and harmed during separate  pre conference visits.  Both harmer and community victim agreed to take part in a restorative process.

Facilitated Conference:

Both the harmer and harmed were asked the open ended restorative questions. These questions were asked by the R:L co facilitators  from a place that was free from blame and punishment. They were designed to have the recipients open up and share feelings / thoughts that occurred at the time of the harm and since. They also afforded recipients the opportunity to express what they expected moving forward and their anticipated roles in that process.

The harmer shared that he saw the offensive tweet as ‘football banter’. He expressed feelings of fear and anxiety he had experienced since learning how his tweet had been interpreted. The community victim shared that even if the comment was intended as banter, it was still anti-Semitic language and people were offended by it. The community victim proceeded to share visual examples of anti-Semitic slurs in football.  These pictures with their powerful accompanying stories of racist comments and anti-Semitic slurs impacted all present at the conference. She explained the good work done by CST and Kick It Out in their respective effort to fight anti-Semitism and racism in football and wider society. The harmer had been unaware of both organisations and their good work. The harmer apologised for the harm his remarks had caused and took all of the CST and Kick it Out resources offered by the community victim.

Post Conference Follow Up:

The community victim shared how welcome and at ease she was made to feel when she arrived at R:L  for the restorative conference. The community victim appreciated the harmer’s apology. She believed the restorative conference caused him to rethink his actions, the harm caused and how to avoid possibility of causing similar harm moving forward. The community victim had initially been concerned about the harmer’s inability to make eye contact with her as she began to explain and share examples of hate and racism in football. This concern dissipated as the conference process witnessed engagement that made her feel the harmer was really remorseful. She felt she was able to leave the harmer understanding the need for both CST and Kick It Out and that she had been really heard. The harmer’s ensuing apology where he expressed being really sorry for the harm his tweet caused left the community victim feeling certain that he was remorseful.

The harmer expressed that he had experienced much anxiety and fear since his tweet. He appreciated that the conference had left him feeling that he had been provided with the opportunity to ‘express himself not defend himself’. He also appreciated the opportunity to express and bring forward the clarity of intention behind his tweets. The harmer felt that the community victim had done a great job of explaining her work with CST and Kick It Out. He felt the resources she shared were good and he would definitely review them. The harmer said he had completely understood the community victim’s views and why she and those she represented were so concerned about his actions. He said it was nice to hear the community victim’s words at the conference and he felt good that he was able to apologise to her.

Outcome:

The community victim concluded that the restorative conference and post conference conversation with the harmer left her feeling that she and the harmer had ‘more in common than that dividing them.’