Saturday, January 31, 2026

Once We Repaired Things - Relationships and Values - Part 1

Anonymous Italian text reflecting on dignity, repair, and the “throwaway” culture.

This passage is not really about poverty.

For me, it is about relational values. It is commitment, repair, endurance, and responsibility. It is about staying when things are hard. About recognising the value of what — and who — is in front of you, instead of walking away when it becomes inconvenient.


When I place it alongside my own experience of relationships — the withdrawal, the disposability, the emotional abandonment — the parallel is confronting.


Once, we repaired things.

Now, we replace them.

And I have been expected to absorb the cost.


That is the emotional truth I am sitting with.


I grew up believing relationships were repaired, not discarded.

That belief has cost me more than I ever expected.


As I write about my last experience, I will also weave in other dating experiences retrospectively in each post, and align it with what was unfolding in parallel during that time.


I despise online dating. As a woman, I find it risky and unsafe. It feels superficial, isolating, and strangely pretentious — a marketplace that strips people of context and reduces connection to curated fragments.


The world has changed, and that change scares me. It not only scares me in how people meet and date, but in the values that now seem to underpin those interactions.


I grew up believing you met someone in person — at social gatherings, through introductions by friends, through shared interests and real interpersonal interaction. There was a sense of grounding and accountability in that. You were seen in three dimensions, not reduced to a profile.


I did not want to go anywhere near online dating apps. But if you choose not to participate, you quickly discover how few options remain.


Despite the overwhelming number of people on those apps, I found myself searching for a needle in a haystack. Or should I say, the unique hay among the stack of needles. 


And for a moment, I thought I had found one.


His name was Paul.


His profile looked normal. He sounded normal. He came across as a decent, down-to-earth man — not polished or performative.


In the week before we met, we spoke on the phone most nights.


The conversations were genuinely good. They weren’t superficial or rushed. They had substance.


During one of those early phone conversations, before we had met in person, he spoke of learning more about his father when he returned to Italy, to the place where his father had grown up. That stayed with me because it touched something personal.


My father grew up in a remote village in the mountains of Arcadia, in the Peloponnese. He was raised in similar historical circumstances, shaped by the same kinds of hardship and endurance our ancestors lived through. There is something grounding about walking the land your parents came from — about understanding where they were formed, and what they carried forward.


There was another parallel I didn’t name at the time. We had both lost our fathers. Paul lost his dad to dementia. I lost mine to suicide. Different endings, but a shared absence. A shared understanding of grief that doesn’t announce itself, but lives quietly beneath the surface.


During the time of meeting Paul, I still had to speak to a few other men on the phone. Some were unsettling. Some were simply strange. None progressed to a first date. The only one who stood out — the only one who, to me, felt safe, grounded, and genuinely human — was Paul.


Not only were our phone conversations thoughtful and easy, but that first date was unexpectedly perfect. Just a cup of tea — a guy of Italian descent who doesn’t drink coffee, which I found intriguing — and a walk through a nearby park. No performance. No pressure. Just conversation. Simple. Memorable.


For the first time in a long time, I felt like I might finally be onto something good.


The man I encountered before Paul represented the risk women fear most about online dating. I’ve always trusted my instincts, but I was still naïve enough to say yes politely, even when something felt off. In situations like that, I would always note the nearest exit, just in case.


In January 2016, I went on a date I already felt uneasy about from the phone conversation alone. He was full of himself, but not in a harmless way — there was something unsettling and performative about it. I looked up the restaurant beforehand and saw how outrageously expensive it was. That should have been my cue to cancel.


I didn’t.


He arrived with flowers, which in hindsight felt less like a gesture and more like a signal. Early in the evening, near the bar where it was loud, he made a comment I initially thought I’d misheard: that he had seen me from a distance and decided I was attractive enough to approach — otherwise, he would have walked away. At the time, I told myself I must have misunderstood. If I hadn’t, I would have walked out then and there.


I got through the dinner. He made a number of insulting comments, the kind that are delivered casually but land sharply. At one point, he flashed a physical wad of cash — another red flag — paid the bill, and I left as quickly as I could.


I remember thinking afterward that something in me had to change. Politeness had kept me in situations I should never have tolerated. My instincts had been right. I just hadn’t listened to them soon enough.


Several months later, in September 2016, I was recovering from pneumonia and staying at my mother’s due to the seriousness of my condition. While resting, I happened to see a television news segment previewed that evening. The main story featured a man whose face I instantly recognised — the same man I had gone on a date with months earlier at an expensive restaurant.


For a moment, I couldn’t place him. Then it came back. I started coughing so hard I could barely breathe.


If I hadn’t been sick, I would have been at work and none the wiser. What followed wasn’t normal. He was exposed as a fraudster who had swindled money from prominent people and others. His former fiancée spoke anonymously, warning others to stay away. He later went to jail.


That was my history immediately before meeting Paul the following month.


By that point in my life, I wasn’t losing hope. I had already lost it. Years of narcissism. Years of disrespect. Years where dignity felt optional rather than fundamental. I had spent my life hoping to meet one decent man and build a family of my own. Family meant everything to me.


Like Paul, I was afraid of ending up alone. But for me, the fear went deeper. I couldn’t take any more of this reality — a culture where risk to women is normalised, where harm is trivialised, where exhaustion is expected.


Meeting Paul felt like relief, like proof that good men still exist. For me, it felt like my last hope — and for the first time in a long time, I could finally breathe.


To be continued…

Wednesday, January 28, 2026

Honesty Is Tested When It Matters Most

The University Code of Conduct describes honesty and integrity as fundamental principles of the University — not as ideals, but as behavioural obligations owed to every person within its community.

I believed that.


I believed honesty meant being told the truth about what was happening to me. I believed it meant transparency in processes, clarity in decisions, and genuine dialogue — especially when health, safety, dignity, and livelihood were at stake. I believed honesty would guide conduct when things became difficult, not disappear when it became inconvenient.


That belief was tested.

—-


When Transparency Is Promised but Not Practised


The Code defines honesty as being truthful and sinceretransparent in rules, policies, procedures and day-to-day dealings, and acting lawfully and with integrity.


In my experience, what I encountered instead was prolonged opacity.


Information relevant to my situation was withheld. Processes that directly affected my health, income, and professional standing were not explained clearly or consistently. Decisions were made without disclosure of critical facts, and silence replaced transparency at moments where honesty was most needed.


Honesty, as written in the Code, requires openness. What I experienced was confusion. It shifts power, erodes trust, and leaves people unprotected.

—-


Accountability Cannot Be Selective


The Code states that staff must be accountable in all work, act with authenticity, sincerity and truthfulness, and disclose all relevant information required to perform their role effectively.


Accountability is not a burden placed only on those with the least power. It applies most strongly to those with authority, discretion, and control over systems.


In my case, accountability often flowed in one direction only. I was expected to comply, respond, explain, document, and justify — while those making decisions about me were not required to do the same in a transparent or timely way. Questions went unanswered. Requests for clarification were deflected. Errors were not acknowledged.


Honesty requires reciprocity. Without it, accountability becomes performative rather than real.

—-


Honesty and the Use of Power


One of the clearest commitments in the Honesty section of the Code is the requirement to exercise positional and supervisory power properly, respecting the dignity, rights and entitlements of staff and students.


Power exercised without honesty is not neutral. It creates fear. It silences. It destabilises.


My experience taught me that when transparency is absent, power fills the gap. Decisions are made behind closed doors. Narratives are controlled. People affected by those decisions are left guessing — and guessing is exhausting when you are already unwell, vulnerable, or isolated.


Honesty would have meant clear communication, lawful process, and acknowledgment of impact.

—-


Silence Is Not Honest


The Code commits to a workplace where matters can be raised without fear of retribution, and where staff are supported to speak up.


In practice, silence became the dominant response.


Silence in response to evidence.

Silence in response to distress.

Silence where explanation, correction, or care should have occurred.


Silence is often framed as neutrality. It is not. Silence is a decision. And when silence replaces honesty, it compounds harm.

—-


What Honesty Would Have Looked Like


Honesty would have looked like:


clear explanations of processes as they unfolded;

timely disclosure of information that affected my rights and wellbeing;

acknowledgment of mistakes rather than denial or deflection;

genuine dialogue rather than managed communication;

decisions grounded in law, policy, and human dignity — not convenience.

The Code of Conduct already articulates this standard. The failure was not the absence of guidance. It was the absence of practice.

—-

Why Honesty Still Matters


I am writing this not because honesty is abstract, but because its absence has real consequences.


Honesty protects people.

Honesty prevents harm.

Honesty sustains trust.

Honesty is what allows institutions to claim integrity without irony.


If a Code of Conduct is to mean anything, it must apply precisely when it is hardest to uphold — when power is imbalanced, when scrutiny is uncomfortable, and when telling the truth carries risk.


That is when honesty is no longer a value statement.


It becomes a moral obligation.

Monday, January 26, 2026

Discrimination and Harassment Adviser #1 - March 2021

“Actions speak louder than words. Let your words teach and your actions speak.”

 St. Anthony of Padua


I made contact in March 2021.

At that point, I was already experiencing serious workplace harm. I did what institutions tell staff to do: I contacted a campus Discrimination and Harassment Adviser through the internal pathway designed to provide guidance, information, and early intervention.


I left a voicemail.

I followed up with a message in writing via my academia.edu account. 


There was no response.


No acknowledgment.

No referral.

No information about options, protections, or process.


Just silence.


Silence Is Not a Neutral Outcome


A discrimination and harassment adviser is not required to investigate or determine outcomes. Their role is far more basic — and far more important.


It is to interrupt risk, provide procedural guidance, and ensure a person is not left exposed to foreseeable harm.


Silence does the opposite.


Silence leaves the individual exactly where the risk already exists — isolated, unsupported, and without information that could reduce harm.


This was not a missed email.

It was a failure of function.


When Silence Is Followed by Promotion


In January 2024, that same adviser was promoted to Campus Dean.


This raises an important governance question.


How does an institution progress individuals into senior leadership roles while unresolved failures in internal safety or advisory pathways remain unaddressed?


How does silence in a discrimination and harassment advisory role sit alongside advancement into positions of greater authority, without any visible process of review, learning, or remediation?


Promotion does not resolve earlier silence.

It changes the level of responsibility attached to it.


When Knowledge Enters the Picture


In January 2024, this person viewed my LinkedIn profile.


This is not conjecture. It is a factual record.


At that point, they were on notice of my identity and professional history. The situation was no longer abstract or anonymous.


And yet, there was still no contact.

No acknowledgment of the earlier outreach.

No attempt to close the loop.


Silence continued — now from a position of greater institutional authority.


This Is a Governance Question, Not a Personal One


I am not speculating about motive or intent.


I am asking about structure, accountability, and decision-making.


What governance considerations inform the promotion of individuals into senior campus leadership roles when prior failures in internal advisory pathways remain unresolved?


What due diligence occurs before such appointments?


And how are leaders supported — or directed — to act when doing so may place them in tension with WHS statutory obligations, the responsibilities inherent in discrimination and harassment advisory roles, and the institution’s stated Identity and Mission?


At what point does procedural compliance override the duty to intervene in known risk?


Silence Creates Foreseeable Risk


Under WHS frameworks, known risk that is not addressed remains a live issue.


When risk is foreseeable, inaction is itself a decision — one that carries consequences for individuals and for institutions.


A system that allows silence to persist, and then advances individuals into more senior roles without visible accountability, sends an internal signal:


That safety is negotiable.

That unresolved harm can be absorbed.

That speaking up does not guarantee response.


Why I Am Writing This


I am writing this because silence thrives when it remains private.


I am writing this because internal advisory pathways lose credibility when their failure carries no consequence.


And I am writing this because leadership without accountability is not leadership — it is institutional drift.


This account focuses on process, governance, and documented chronology, not personal intent or character.


This is not about one individual.


It is about what the system rewards —

and what it quietly permits to continue.


Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 162

—-


Further reading


Shaw, S.M. (2022, 26 July). ‘Institutional betrayal, institutional courage and the church.’ Baptist News Global. [Online]: https://baptistnews.com/article/institutional-betrayal-institutional-courage-and-the-church/#.Y38fayXZXDv 

Sunday, January 25, 2026

My letter for Pastoral Care - March 2021

“No act of kindness, no matter how small, is ever wasted.” Aesop.

There comes a point when formal processes fail so completely that the only thing left is to write as a human being.

Not as a complainant.

Not as a case number.

Not as an “issue to be managed.”


As a person.


In March 2021, I wrote a letter to a friend and colleague whose work centred on values, ethics, and care. This is a part of the institution associated with dignity, mission, and responsibility to those experiencing vulnerability.


I wrote because I was no longer safe — and because silence and isolation had become unbearable.

—-


Why I Wrote the Letter


By that point, formal channels had become procedural and difficult to navigate. Policies “existed”, but they were not translating into practical protection for me. Processes were being “followed”, while my sense of safety continued to decline.


I wrote because I believed — and still believe — that institutions are ultimately made of people.


And that someone whose work is grounded in care, ethics, and mission would want to understand the human impact of what was occurring.

—-


The Letter Was Answered


The letter was acknowledged.


It was met with humanity.


For a brief period, I experienced something close to the pastoral care I had been seeking. I felt heard. I felt taken seriously. There was a sense — careful and tentative — that the seriousness of my situation was understood.


That moment mattered deeply.


It demonstrated that compassion was possible, and that a human response could exist alongside formal “processes”.

—-


When Contact Was Discontinued


That connection did not continue.


Following further internal direction, contact ceased and my colleagues were wrongfully advised that matters should be left to established processes. But established and lawful “processes” were never followed.


From my perspective, the pastoral support that had briefly been available was no longer accessible.


What followed felt like an absence rather than a resolution.


A human response was replaced by alleged “procedure”.

Personal concern gave way to “formal distance”.

*Care was deferred to alleged “process”.

—-


What This Revealed to Me


This experience left a lasting impression.


It showed how easily individual compassion can be constrained once matters are reframed as procedural. It highlighted how care, even when initially offered, may be withdrawn when it is perceived to sit outside defined “roles” or “processes”.


And it revealed how “no contact,” when applied in circumstances involving distress, can feel profoundly isolating — regardless of intent.

—-


Why I Am Writing About This Now


I am writing about this letter because it marked a turning point for me.


Not because care was absent, but because it was briefly present and then no longer available.


That distinction matters.


It shows that compassion was possible.

That concern existed.

And that ultimately, those controlling “process” took precedence. The perpetrators of harm took over once more. 


Senior leaders must answer: 

How does this align to the Identity and Mission?

—-


This Is About More Than One Letter


It is about how systems can limit the ability of people to respond humanely, even when they want to.


About how procedural boundaries can override ethical instincts.


And about how people experiencing harm can be left to carry it alone after coming close to care.


I wrote that letter because I believed in the values that were spoken about.


I am writing this now because care should not depend on timing, permission, or procedural comfort — especially when someone is already struggling.


It is not the Identity and Mission.

—-


* NOTE: It is also not process. It is ostracism. 


See http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/2024/10/ostracism-as-adverse-action-2019.html


In reading the prior post, please be mindful of my premise - http://mystory-myvoice.blogspot.com/p/the-premise-of-this-blog.html

Saturday, January 24, 2026

When Distress Is Put in Writing - March 2021 - Part 1

“Psychological safety at its core is about permission for candor.” – Amy C. Edmondson

There are moments when distress is no longer something experienced privately — it becomes something that must be documentedexplained, and defended.

This is one of those moments.


On 14 March 2021, I documented my distress because the systems responsible for protecting me had failed to do so. I was not writing for attention or advocacy. I was writing because I was experiencing escalating psychological harm and no longer felt safe engaging without clear boundaries.


“I’m distressed, traumatised and living with fear.”

Those words were written in the early hours of the morning, at a time when sleep was impossible and fear had become constant. They were not rhetorical. They were factual.

At that point, I had already raised serious concerns through formal channels. I was requesting — explicitly and in writing — that contact cease from certain parties and that my treating practitioners not be approached without consent. These were safety requests, not strategic ones.


Fear Is Not Irrational When Harm Is Ongoing


Distress is often dismissed as emotional or subjective. But distress becomes objectively relevant when it arises in response to ongoing conduct, power imbalance, and the absence of effective safeguards.


In my correspondence, I described repeated contact that I experienced as intimidating and destabilising. I asked that it stop.


“I demand no contact… I’m suffering worse trauma and injury now.”

This was not an accusation. It was a boundary.

It is important to understand what this represents: when a person is forced to assert boundaries in writing, repeatedly, it is usually because earlier verbal and procedural safeguards have failed.


When Medical Forms Become Evidence


Shortly after, I was required to complete medico-legal telehealth documentation. These forms are designed to capture clinical information. In my case, they also became a contemporaneous record of harm.


I documented symptoms including:


heart palpitations

shaking

avoidance of email communication

elevated blood pressure

trauma-related distress

These symptoms were not abstract. They were described in direct connection with ongoing workplace and system interactions.

“Avoiding triggers eg emails due to HR harassment…”

This is not emotive language. It is clinical language, recorded for medical purposes.


Consent, Privacy, and Written Boundaries


On the informed consent documentation, I made clear handwritten annotations:


“Do not provide my information to staff at my employer.”

These statements exist because consent had previously not been respected. They reflect an attempt to regain control over personal medical information in circumstances where trust had already been eroded.

When someone must assert consent this explicitly, it indicates a system failure — not an overreaction.


When Life Contracts Under Systemic Pressure


By the time I completed the section on daily activities, the impact had spread well beyond work.


“My days are consumed by reporting negligence of insurer and employer…”

This sentence captures something rarely acknowledged: the invisible labour injured people perform when systems fail to operate as designed.

Distress does not arise in isolation. It is often the cumulative result of silence, delay, deflection, and the absence of protective intervention.


This Is What Silence Produces


This record does not show instability. It shows distress under sustained pressure.


It shows what happens when:


communication breaks down

safeguards are not activated

consent is not respected

and the injured person is left to manage risk alone

Distress, when ignored, does not resolve. It deepens. It embeds. It becomes injury.

I am sharing this because the record matters — and because no one should have to prove their suffering this way simply to be safe. 

Source: contemporaneous record of events, 14 - 22 March 2021 - Document 161

——

Further reading - the regulators should be regulating the insurers

Han, B. (n.d.). ‘Be Afraid’. Insurance News. [Online]: https://in-magazine.com.au/be-afraid/