Raise the Hammer

The policy is flawed. If a slap on the back of a hand is considered violence, then we have a problem with the basic definition of the word and therefore the policy itself.

I support zero tolerance for violence. It is indefensible in any environment. But is this "violence"? Certainly, it may not be the best way to endear yourself to your customers, but that's Tilly's choice to make.

Tilly's age is irrelevant. So too is her gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, education, status, awards, etc. If a 90 year old man we'd never heard of really smacked a kid hard on the back of the head, he shouldn't be cut any slack because he's old, any more than young people caught doing something wrong should be penalized more severely to "teach" them a lesson.

Tilly's hand slap may be the focus, but unless she used a hammer to deliver the slap I say revise the policy immediately. And this doesn't even get into the whole issue of a procedure that does not allow the accused to defend him or herself before a judgment is implemented.

I'd like to think Tilly could take the high road (perhaps easy for me to say) and graciously accept the City's apology instead of threatening to sue regardless of the fact that the City admits it may have been a bit heavy handed :).

She won in the court of public opinion. The City blinked. The policy will be revisited and hopefully revised. Otherwise, I fear Tilly may come across as opportunistic and bitter, neither of which is admirable.

For the City to have a zero tolerance policy that 75% of Councillors don't support makes it impossible for staff to do the right thing. I don't blame the Councillors or staff. Nor do I blame Tilly. The root cause of this whole unfortunate incident is a seriously flawed policy. This is a city-wide policy, not just a market stall holder policy, so the implications are far-reaching. All the more reason to address it immediately.