80 replies to this topic

[dirac]

Quiggin writes:

Quote

When the Murdoch story first broke, the Times seemed not to know how to treat it, fell back into their personality-news bias and framed it in terms of "what will this do to James Murdoch's career?"

Not to send the thread off topic, but in the beginning it didn’t seem as if this affair would do much more than cost some people their jobs and possibly affect James Murdoch’s place in the line of succession. Even people who’ve been following Murdoch for a long time seem to have been taken aback by the way this thing has snowballed, not least Rupert himself. Amazing story.

Quote

She interviewed 55 members of the company, as well as several "external business partners" of the company and the consensus was that the cocaine problem was pervasive and growing: Jyllands-Posten, a legitimate newspaper, also interviewed many members of the company and reached the same conclusion. In other words, this is not a case of four sour dancers. According to the report, numerous attempts had been made to approach the board about the situation before the report was released, but those doing so were either not taken seriously or told they would have to approach Hubbe himself.

I think the Post story said that Jacobsen had “oriented” the board as to the report’s contents, but the board didn’t actually see the report until Heine sent it to them direct, and then after what appears to be a cursory investigation, they sat on it. Most definitely, this doesn’t look good for the board.

Quote

"Seen from outside, it could seem like this man is totally out of balance," says the ballet's administrative head, Henrik Sten Pedersen,

Thanks for posting, KayDenmark. I’m sure that makes for a pleasant working environment.

[Simon G]

canbelto, on 14 July 2011 - 12:00 PM, said:

Anonymous sources are part of academic studies. All clinical trials are anonymous, in fact, any study that features the medical statuses of subjects must be anonymous because of the issues of medical privacy. In this study it seems as if there was an investigation that would concern the medical status of several of the dancers, so therefore, the dancers in question would have to remain anonymous. That shouldn't be a reason to dismiss the claims of the dancers.

I'm not dismissing the claims. I said they may very well be true. And yes anonymous sources are used in reports, tabloid journalism, studies and areas of medical privacy. But what we're talking about here is people wanting a full proceedural report and investigation which could lead to criminal charges, sackings and the destruction of people's reputation.

So if you do want a legally legitimate investigation the "anonymous" and indeed "anonymous reporting on alleged actions by anonymous" won't do. It certainly wouldn't stand up in a court of law, unless Hubbe was to say it was all true and give names.

So, if those dancers felt like they were forced to do drugs and that it was a power trip on the part of a semi-psychotic AD, then they will have to come forward and make it official. Anything else is just gossip and very bad tabloid level journalism.

[Simon G]

dirac, on 14 July 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

Not to send the thread off topic, but in the beginning it didn’t seem as if this affair would do much more than cost some people their jobs and possibly affect James Murdoch’s place in the line of succession. Even people who’ve been following Murdoch for a long time seem to have been taken aback by the way this thing has snowballed, not least Rupert himself. Amazing story.

Dirac

The real reason for this is because Murdoch was part of the central Illuminati Cabal establishing a New World Order, but he broke away from his brethren wanting total world domination of the media and looked close to achieving this. So the other Leaders of the Illuminati, sensing one of their own was about to destroy the balance of power by becoming greater than any of them, engineered his downfall along with the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Lucis Society, UN, Rothschilds, the Vatican and coven of Baphomet.

[dirac]

Quote

I don't think there should be an investigation because I don't think that doing drugs is that big of a deal and I have absolutely no problem with dancers or anyone else doing drugs - unlike the cabal here who think a full lynch mob/roasting/witch hunt is in order. Especially not in dance companies where believe me it's rife. I actually object to the moral umbrage expressed here which equates coke with a Gelsey Kirkland style horror fest.

Respectfully, Simon, I know of no one here who is baying for anyone’s blood. Some people here take a poorer view of cocaine use/abuse than you seem to do, specifically in the workplace, and some also think that a more thorough investigation of the allegations in the report seems desirable, given what we currently know.

Regarding rules of evidence and "innocent until proven guilty" - leonid, this is a discussion board, not a court. We can express opinions and speculate within bounds. In any case, no one here has rushed to judgment against Hubbe.

Edited by dirac, 14 July 2011 - 12:29 PM.
Original post amended - bolded text added

[dirac]

Simon G, on 14 July 2011 - 12:13 PM, said:

dirac, on 14 July 2011 - 12:05 PM, said:

Not to send the thread off topic, but in the beginning it didn’t seem as if this affair would do much more than cost some people their jobs and possibly affect James Murdoch’s place in the line of succession. Even people who’ve been following Murdoch for a long time seem to have been taken aback by the way this thing has snowballed, not least Rupert himself. Amazing story.

Dirac

The real reason for this is because Murdoch was part of the central Illuminati Cabal establishing a New World Order, but he broke away from his brethren wanting total world domination of the media and looked close to achieving this. So the other Leaders of the Illuminati, sensing one of their own was about to destroy the balance of power by becoming greater than any of them, engineered his downfall along with the Masons, the Bilderberg Group, the Lucis Society, UN, Rothschilds, the Vatican and coven of Baphomet.

You left out the Trilateral Commission!

[KayDenmark]

Simon G, on 14 July 2011 - 11:58 AM, said:

KayDenmark, on 14 July 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

Hubbe and the dancers pay tax too, which also funds the Ballet. How they spend their money is none of your business. And do you truly believe that the way all public service officials, civil servants, armed forces, doctors etc use their wages for wholly wholesome things? Our taxes also bailed out massive merchant banks when they screwed up with our money and those dudes are some of the biggest drug abusers out there.

And do you truly think that drugs didn't exist within the RDB before Hubbe?

As some of the other posters mention, this is less about drugs specifically and more about a hostile work environment.  But yes, how public servants act on public property is the public's business.   Particularly if they are breaking the law.

[kfw]

Quote

"Seen from outside, it could seem like this man is totally out of balance," says the ballet's administrative head, Henrik Sten Pedersen, to the Berlingske Tidende, a New York Times type of newspaper. "But that's because he has great artistic sense and great artistic temperament. His behaviour doesn't reflect any kind of management theorey."

Sheesh. The old, "because he's an artist he can behave badly" defense.

Quote

My point is that those poor little darlings who snorted coke (allegedly) with Hubbe did so of their own free will. No one made them do it and it's a bit rich to cry shenanigans after the fact, anonymously and claim any kind of credibility.

Were the dancers in Hubbe's office that night the ones who complained? And if they were, they may have felt pressured to partake - not partaking could have been read as disapproval, which for obvious reasons they wouldn't want to show. Or perhaps you're right and some are hypocrites. My point is that we can't know that, and it's unfair to presume the worst about them.

Quote

To my mind the press coverage has undermined and possibly influenced the processes of future investigation which may therefore be abandoned.

Where is the evidence for that? If anything, it's the press coverage that will finally force the investigation Jacobsen and the board didn't want.

Quote

So, if those dancers felt like they were forced to do drugs and that it was a power trip on the part of a semi-psychotic AD, then they will have to come forward and make it official. Anything else is just gossip and very bad tabloid level journalism.

As has been pointed out, those dancers are dependent on Hubbe for their jobs. Answering questions in an internal investigation isn't gossiping, and reporting the results of investigations is reporting news.

[Simon G]

kfw, on 14 July 2011 - 12:27 PM, said:

As has been pointed out, those dancers are dependent on Hubbe for their jobs. Answering questions in an internal investigation isn't gossiping, and reporting the results of investigations is reporting news.

Well, I reckon those jobs are in jeopardy anyway, if it did indeed take place the anonymous cat is out of the bag. Since the report makes anonymous third party allegations it is gossip, not news.

If those dancers have legitimate grievances then it's highly unlikely Hubbe would keep his job - those are serious allegations, so those dancers have to decide whether or not they want to exercise that kind of power, or even if they want to complain. After all this is third party gossip, they may have had a high old time, if it happened. And what were the motives for the third parties who decided to gossip? The original parties apparently wanted to keep it to themselves.

And yes, there may be an element of fear for their jobs, but unless they do come forward and complain directly nothing can come of this. You can't sack someone  or bring criminal proceedings against someone on heresay and third party gossip. So until they do it doesn't matter what anyone here may think or want to see happen.

[checkwriter]

What troubles me is the way that 'downstream' press sources feed off of the original stories in Jyllands-Posten and then completely ignore what few facts those stories provide.  Even JP is not contending that cocaine abuse is "rampant" in the RDB.  But that doesn't stop many other publications from using that word, or similar words.  

The press is lazy; I've seen it time and time again, where reporters and press reports don't bother to get the facts straight.  It's not just this situation.  But in this case, these irresponsible third- and fourth-hand news stories are completely unfair to the many, many dancers who work their butts off to push themselves - through pain, injury, and long rehearsals - to do what they love, to better themselves, and to bring some beauty to the world.

Here's a (Google translated) quote from a recent JP article interview with a former Royal theater communications director: "In my time I have known for several employees who had a substance abuse problem. It was something we talked very openly about, and actually I think we had fewer problems with cocaine than anywhere else in the world of culture, because we were good to address it," says Kresten Schultz Jørgensen.  So where are the headlines touting "Fewer Cocaine Abuse Problems at Royal Theater than Elsewhere; Care and Attention to Blame"?  

For those interested, here is a link to a listing of the 16 or so articles that Jylland-Posten has published on the topic.

[Helene]

[Admin beanie on]

Our policy is that if anyone believes a post violates Ballet Alert! policy, he or she should hit the "Report" button in the bottom left corner of the post.  The moderators will review it and decide whether or not to take action.

Discussing the discussion, or whether the discussion should be allowed in the first place, is against Ballet Alert! policy.

If a post has been removed or edited, it is because it didn't follow policy.

Please say what you have to say and avoid characterizing other posters.  There are enough opinions to which to respond.

[Admin beanie off]

[kfw]

Simon G, on 14 July 2011 - 01:53 PM, said:

Since the report makes anonymous third party allegations it is gossip, not news.

A newspaper citing unnamed sources of its own could be gossip in some circumstances. A newspaper reporting on serious allegations made anonymously by necessity is news in my book.

Quote

If those dancers have legitimate grievances then it's highly unlikely Hubbe would keep his job - those are serious allegations, so those dancers have to decide whether or not they want to exercise that kind of power, or even if they want to complain.

Perhaps our Danish posters have a good feel for the politics here, but given that Hubbe is given high marks for revitalizing the company, it would surprise me if he lost his job - note, for example, the excuses made by company administrator Pederson - and surprise me if the dancers, who for all we know may be mere corps members, would think they could bring him down.

Quote

And what were the motives for the third parties who decided to gossip? The original parties apparently wanted to keep it to themselves.

Gossip is talking about people in order to make them look bad. It is malicious. But dancers who don't do drugs and think they're harmful would have a good motive - concern for the company and even the dancers doing drugs - to report drug use when asked to report problems in the company.

[dirac]

Quote

And what were the motives for the third parties who decided to gossip? The original parties apparently wanted to keep it to themselves.

We don't know what their motives were, but to say that they could have been motivated by a concern for the company is at least as legitimate as implying, by repeated use of the word “gossip” that they are up to no good.
  

Quote

You can't sack someone or bring criminal proceedings against someone on heresay and third party gossip.

I don't think anyone has called for sackings or the pressing of criminal charges. The goal of an investigation, I should think, would be to address any problems in the working life of the company, not necessarily to produce someone’s head on a platter. It's true that such things do happen, not always justly. But by the same token a thorough inquiry could resolve any questions in a positive way to the benefit of all, or most, concerned.  The company above all.

Thanks for those links, checkwriter.

[bart]

A lot of people are being put through the wringer on this one:  Hubbe, the Company, the dancers, the "anonymous" whistleblowers, the Danish taxpayers, even the poor Queen.  

I agree with Helene that, at this point, an investigation is the only way to proceed.  

Let's hope it will be transparent, fair-minded, and thorough.  To achieve this the investigators should be careful to collect the relevant facts and stick to those facts when it comes to drawing conclusions-- avoiding large-scale pontificating about the cultural impact of drug use/abuse;  the differences between American v. Danish value systems;  the decline (or not) of the mass media; and any one expert's thoughts about competing management styles..

[Simon G]

dirac, on 14 July 2011 - 04:08 PM, said:

I don't think anyone has called for sackings or the pressing of criminal charges. The goal of an investigation, I should think, would be to address any problems in the working life of the company, not necessarily to produce someone’s head on a platter. It's true that such things do happen, not always justly. But by the same token a thorough inquiry could resolve any questions in a positive way to the benefit of all, or most, concerned.  The company above all.

I know. But if it is proven beyond all reasonable doubt that the Artistic Head of an arts organisation, a public servant of an organisation with strong links to the Danish Royal family and funded mainly by taxpayer's money has been sharing/forcing cocaine upon his employees, who in some cases may be teenagers, does anyone here think that he'll keep his job?

If the parties all come forward and it be proven, it will be news, it will be investigated by the police who may very well decide to press charges given how high profile the case is.

I mean we can debate the whole gossip vs legitimate news and internal report as opposed to public inquiry thing - but the stakes are pretty high for all concerned.

The real problem is that there's a vast gulf between cocaine use and true addiction, by demonising and making something essentially in house so stigmatised, public and scandalous it will stop dancers who may have real problems coming forward to get the help they may desperately want and need.

[Helene]

bart, on 14 July 2011 - 04:20 PM, said:

I agree with Helene that, at this point, an investigation is the only way to proceed.  

I think you meant to cite someone else, since I haven't weighed in yet.

I do think that Kay Denmark made most points best, and also that if the board swept internal reports under the rug when they indicated that further investigation was necessary, the focus should be on the board.

I don't have a problem with personal use of drugs; however if they do become a workplace issue, an employer should act.