Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 2826
- 8 Comments
Sanction Porn and the need for RMAs to know?
It is always the small things that get you into trouble.
One of our colleagues finds himself in trouble and is the subject of a caution for a period of 6 months. We do not intend naming this agent nor posting the sanction from the OMARA website. If an agent wishes to do this personally about themselves, then they can set themselves up as a blogger and write about it, as has occurred in the past.
The details of the conduct of an RMA with a sanction are of course relevant to the OMARA’s decision, but the overall message that comes from this case is that it is always the small stuff that gets you into trouble.
Being the subject of a complaint is a very intimidating and frightening experience. The RMA will naturally feel anxious and panicky. Imagine a situation where someone (the OMARA) is looking over your shoulder and running through your files looking for a breach of the code of conduct.
Poor file management etc will inevitably see an RMA get into trouble.
The take home message here is that we are all human, we all make mistakes, we all exercise poor judgement. The experience of our colleagues even those who are the subject of a caution must, out of necessity, excite our compassion and concern but at the same time serve as an object lesson.
The endless recital of what may have happened in the past and the airing of the sanction decision as emailed “news” all compound the shame and regret for the sanctioned RMA.
Remember this. We are all the subject of a complaint from time to time.
The secret to dealing with complaints is to seek advice and the assistance of your colleagues at the earliest opportunity, no useful purpose is served by engaging in what amounts to “sanction porn” in news articles emailed to the profession. What benefit is there by us being fed endless ventilations and recitals of past conduct of RMAs direct to our screens?
This is especially difficult to digest if the writers of news articles aim to make money out of the “news” by way of subscription fees. Asking agents to pay a fee so that we can read the “full story” about one of our colleague’s sanctions, and the mistakes that led to their sanction is not exactly uplifting “news” for the profession. It makes me wonder “who will be the next RMA for this news?”
Finally, the OMARA decisions are written in full and are easy to understand. They are available directly from the OMARA website. We don’t need detailed sanction information cut and pasted from the OMARA website and fed to us via emails as “news”.
If you have a complaint against you from the OMARA please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. and we will assist you. There are lawyers in the profession that have a long track record of helping agents through the complaints process.
Comments
-
Thursday, 23 May 2019I have today unsubscribed from "the writer"'s emails. These are the emails where the immigration lawyer refers to himself all the time as "the writer" in the third person.
"The writer" who just yesterday sent his subscribers yet another email threatening to send ANOTHER email out about the sanctioning of an agent and a summary of what that agent did wrong. It is poor form.
"The writer" should not threaten to release private emails of another agent online to attempt to be right, win, points score or shame the other agent in some way.
"The writer" won't make himself relevant in the profession by going around acting like a pompous RMA. Don't forget to check closely who his team members are. They are also among us. I no longer trust any of them. Birds of a feather flock together. One of his team members sat by whilst "the writer" threatened another agent online two nights ago. He was there as he responded to something. He did nothing.
Vote with your feet. Unsubscribe from "the writer's" news. That will teach him to stop naming and shaming agents who have been sanctioned, feeding off their misery for money. -
Friday, 24 May 2019
Shy Guest! Is that really you, or one of your business partners? "The writer"? Shy Guest? Same person?
-
Friday, 24 May 2019
Dear Shy Agent,
I am without a doubt a hypocrite and I agree that the use of the word porn in the heading of my article was specifically intended to attract attention to what I was doing....I think it is called a "teaser".
However, if we need to know what conduct is acceptable or unacceptable and what conduct may lead to a breach of the Code of Conduct then that is relevant and may even be newsworthy. That being the case why don't we just refer to the conduct and not concern ourselves with who may be the RMA who is the subject of the sanction.
My specific concern ( this may explain your shyness) is that the internet never forgets so every time we mention a persons name not only do we ensure that their misconduct or alleged misconduct ( assuming that there is an appeal on foot) we in effect punish that individual over and over again. That is simply not fair! -
Saturday, 25 May 2019
As I said, I support your intent, but I wonder if the result is what you desire ... or if you are also unintentionally perpetuating the "punishment". Clearly the commenters here know the case you are speaking of and are rightly angered about it. That anger is even being extended to me, for daring to challenge your method, while supporting your goal. Thus, (you are correct) I think it wise to maintain anonymity. The court of public shaming is unforgiving and often illogical. "Shamers" usually fare better than "shamees". In response to other commenters therefore : I am not the "writer" and I don't even know who that is. "We are all hypocrites" is not a good excuse for being hypocritical. Noting possible hypocrisy does not make one a "total" hypocrite. I believe it is possible to not be a hypocrite. This is a very popular blog and website. The majority of readers know the case you are talking about. Thus, I think it reasonable to say that, this blog is now perpetuating the punishment to the "agent" for the sake of shaming this "writer" for perpetuating the punishment. I humbly suggest that if your goal was to protect the agent from further public scrutiny and embarrassment ... then this post was not a good method. Simply not mentioning the name is insufficient, if identity is easily established. I can see that you disagree, and if you feel that this post has had the desired result, then all to the good. I continue to wish you very well
I raise the issue as a shy colleague supportive of you and the agent in question. -
Friday, 24 May 2019
I guess we are all hypocrites in the end. If we say someone else is a hypocrite, knowing that the starting point is that we are all actually hypocrites, that makes the person saying it, a TOTAL hypocrite.
-
Friday, 24 May 2019
I just got another email from the same lawyer, I think, who is talking about a sanction of someone OUTSIDE the migration agent profession.
With this email, he also sent multiple pieces of evidence that other people overwhelmingly support him writing news about the sanctions, and proceeds to provide testimonials from others saying it is a good thing.
Honestly, if "the writer" needs to get other lawyers or agents to come forward and validate him writing news about agent sanctions, then perhaps he could invite others who do not agree with him doing so (100+ so far by my count in the online forum) then publish the "against" testimonials as well.
Its all very well grabbing a few mates and asking them if you can publish positive reinforcement about you.
Grab the people who are not your mates and ask them for their opinion and then publish that. That's called fair reporting of the news and its also called being impartial and not biased towards oneself. -
Sunday, 26 May 2019
Dear Shy guest,
I simply do not accept that I have, by referring to the OMARA and the "it is the small things that get you into trouble", is in any way going to perpetuate any harm. I have no idea what case you are referring to and I do not agree with your assertion that the majority of the readers know who I am talking about. I am not talking about any specific case. There are no other details. If you want to justify naming and shaming then go ahead. If you think I am being hypocritical then no problems. The facts speak for themselves. I am not a victim because people disagree with me, neither are you. My concern is for my colleagues. I support and help RMAs if that makes me a "shamer" and you feel victimised that is your gig.
If you are shy then that is your problem.
If you disagree with what I say...no sweat.
If you think that you speak for the majority of readers then I guess you speak for the "silent majority".
I have expressed my opinion, agree or disagree, I really don't care.
If you want to be a troll and be "shy" go ahead.
Immigration blog
I value your apparent intention here Christopher, ie advising RMAs how to deal with complaints, advising careful record keeping and advocating for sympathy to harrassed agents. But (I bet you saw that "but" coming :P) I think it's a bit undercut by some possible hypocrisy. The other point you make, and I suspect the motivation for you writing, is that complaints against RMAs should not be treated as a salacious news story for profit. (I assume you are responding to a news story about this particular sanction that I haven't read.) I feel like you might inadvertantly be doing the same thing. ie. using the word "porn" attracts attention to this news story (your own) making it sound juicy, the details of the caution provided make it very easy to look up and see who you are talking about (while you making a point of saying you are not revealing their identity), and that is exactly what people will be motivated to do by your news story. I think unfortunately this story will do exactly what you are deriding ie. compound the shame and regret for the sanctioned RMA. I appreciate your news generally, but I wonder "what benefit is there by us being fed" this "ventilation" of your distaste for what I assume is a news story from a competing organisation. Did your distaste of their behaviour make you lose sight of your good intent? Just some thoughts