iti said...
take responsability
I thought I made myself clear. I take shared responsibility within the Australian legal system as I understand it. The percentages are not material. They are a debating point.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Prove me wrong with evidence and I'll concede.
I'm involved in culture change. It is not easy.
On a 1:1 basis (individual to individual level) I'll simply express my views and seek to understand the responses.
However, where there is a company, organisation or group representation response then I'll suggest they need to be more careful in what is said. They have greater responsibility to ensure all their staff and customers and members etc know where they stand at law in respect to risk. Not what is a good idea, rather what is fact. To do otherwise may be a criminal offense depending on OH&S regulations etc that apply in that locality.
I was not going to offer analysis until the end of this case-study. But I will say this much: all this effort to protect a person is in fact, at the more general level, effort to protect an emerging profession of 'trainers' and a group culture that is at risk of serious public backlash -- and more importantly seems unable to take constructive feedback.
The level of risk ignorance and denial exhibited here is informative. I hope the various Associations that claim to represent good governance take note and adjust their codes and public advice statements on
shared risk (and responsibility) accordingly. Then at least their staff/contractors will be more aware of the boundaries and complexities -- and they will then, one would assume, pass it on to new and old participants. Then there will be productive systemic culture change.