It is absolutely 100% indisputable that the post-shooshing, actions of Martin, as described by Tracy, are unacceptable.
Notwithstanding that, I have three main queries/concerns:
Firstly, the point of my original post, is the immediacy of the passing of judgement by a court of public opinion that has been overrun by wowsers and holier than though do-gooders in this new age of the internet and social media and the increasing use of those mediums by revenge seekers whereby the price paid by the accused are not commensurate with the alleged crime/conduct/error of judgement. I think this is becoming a major societal issue that needs addressing.
Secondly, I question why the dealing with the “loud and boisterous” conduct was not done so in a more appropriate and safer manner, I am not victim blaming if I choose to question the purity of her motives in taking the action that she took or seeking clarification on how she went about it in terms of her tone, language etc.
Finally, I originally thought this whole issue was brought to light through the print media and did not realise it was a story on Ch7. Did Ch7 mention that she was their employee at the time? The usual MO in these instances is to gather further reports from other people in attendance, why have Ch7 chosen not to do this on this occasion?
The last two points are legitimate questions that would be explored in any court of law prior to the passing of judgement and taken into account in the delivery of punishment. Social media trolling wowsers (trowsers?) do not allow this, and that’s wrong. As a result I tend to stubbornly support the accused as being innocent until proven guilty, and I concede this may not always be the right thing to do.
