Moral dilemma - dropping a friend in it?

[Castiel]

The organisation has everything to do with it, unless you're just looking for quoted examples on awkward social situations from the internet. Or unless you wanted to look cool, being part of a secret club.

No it doesn't. The situation is what is important, the organisation has nothing to do with it.

Rainmaker has a situation and he want advice on whether his chosen course of action is acceptable or whether anyone has any other ideas of how to deal with it.

Where it happened is irrelevant.

 

[Rainmaker]

My course of action wins, speak to the person at the top.

However I will point out I'm not a political person and speak my mind.

KaHn

Did I mention that the person at the top is a very honest, transparent and decent person?... who also happens to be married to the person spreading the rumour? .... As I said, I bloody hate politics.

No it doesn't. The situation is what is important, the organisation has nothing to do with it.

Rainmaker has a situation and he want advice on whether his chosen course of action is acceptable or whether anyone has any other ideas of how to deal with it.

Where it happened is irrelevant.

Thank you very much my friend, your posts have confirmed what I thought and - along with a couple of others above - have given me clarity I badly needed. I'm honestly not built for all this he-said/she-said back-biting politics. I'm (perhaps too) open and honest and my heart is on my sleeve. When things like this happen I'm just taken aback and don't know quite what to do. It's not in my nature so I tend not to understand when others do it.

I feel very badly for my friend, as they have done nothing wrong and between us one is damned if the other isn't. We could just walk away with our heads held high but I'm not one to run away. It now turns out that the person who told my friend this may have received the information from yet another source... The fun never ends.

The person would still, in my eyes, have been wrong for further propagating it. However all this 'who started it?' nonsense is, in my eyes, all the more reason to open it up to a more public flooring - even if it is kept to a 'committee only' basis. At the end of the day even if we never get to the bottom of it my heart, my conscience, and ultimately my reputation would be in the clear. Hopefully my friend wouldn't take any grief for doing the right thing and everyone would be a winner.

 

[Temi_D]

If it's damned if you do, damned if you don't, it might just be better for you to find another organisation

 

[Efour]

Confront

 

[Jambo]

I think you should quit NAMBLA.

 

[Castiel]

Thank you very much my friend, your posts have confirmed what I thought and - along with a couple of others above - have given me clarity I badly needed. I'm honestly not built for all this he-said/she-said back-biting politics. I'm (perhaps too) open and honest and my heart is on my sleeve. When things like this happen I'm just taken aback and don't know quite what to do. It's not in my nature so I tend not to understand when others do it.

You should never have to compromise your honour and integrity to suit another's shortcomings Rainmaker. Unfortunately people can be nasty, belligerent and underhanded to get what they think they want, or to denigrate someone who reminds them of their own shortcomings, which is what I suspect is the motivation for whoever began this nonsense.

I feel very badly for my friend, as they have done nothing wrong and between us one is damned if the other isn't. We could just walk away with our heads held high but I'm not one to run away. It now turns out that the person who told my friend this may have received the information from yet another source... The fun never ends.

You friend has done nothing wrong. He is under no obligation to keep a confidence that compromises his integrity or honesty and he was right to come to you with his concerns, something the person he heard it from should have done if they are not the instigator of the rumour originally.

The person would still, in my eyes, have been wrong for further propagating it. However all this 'who started it?' nonsense is, in my eyes, all the more reason to open it up to a more public flooring - even if it is kept to a 'committee only' basis. At the end of the day even if we never get to the bottom of it my heart, my conscience, and ultimately my reputation would be in the clear. Hopefully my friend wouldn't take any grief for doing the right thing and everyone would be a winner.

You are a better man than I, I would have gone bat****, confronted the person directly regardless of the consequences and would have found out who the instigator was, one way or the other. I would have regretted it probably at a latter date, but unless the wife happened to be there at the time I would have over-reacted to be sure.

 

[Pudney]

No it doesn't. The situation is what is important, the organisation has nothing to do with it.

It is kinda important though. If it's something like volunteering at a charity then yes, I think the OP should confront the senior person about this, although I would add the first thing to do would be to warn his friend, don't want to make him feel you've broken his confidence.

If on the other hand this is the local yachting club and purely a social thing then I'd say sod it, not worth risking a friendship over a gossiper.

 

[Rainmaker]

It is kinda important though. If it's something like volunteering at a charity then yes, I think the OP should confront the senior person about this, although I would add the first thing to do would be to warn his friend, don't want to make him feel you've broken his confidence.

If on the other hand this is the local yachting club and purely a social thing then I'd say sod it, not worth risking a friendship over a gossiper.

It would be closer to your first example. It isn't a case of being able to ignore it and get on, because by the nature of the place I am now literally offering for free my services and a significant portion of my life to a place in part run by someone who is idly gossiping about things I *didn't* do behind my back.

I can't in good conscience continue to attend and provide my time, money and services knowing this is brewing in the background. Every time someone's looked twice at me this week my first thought has been 'Do they know - or rather think they do?'... Hardly conducive to good relations and a harmonious community.

I've a strong feeling the person will deny this and pass the buck, saying 'so-and-so outside of our place told me'. This will allow me to take it up with then, and at least clear the air and restore order at our place. However, no matter what happens my mate is going to be 'outed' which he is loathe to do. He's said he'll stand by me out of respect and (for want of a better term) honour, but he's not happy I'm effectively forcing his hand. Which is fair enough.

 

[Castiel]

It is kinda important though. If it's something like volunteering at a charity then yes, I think the OP should confront the senior person about this, although I would add the first thing to do would be to warn his friend, don't want to make him feel you've broken his confidence.

If on the other hand this is the local yachting club and purely a social thing then I'd say sod it, not worth risking a friendship over a gossiper.

I see no difference between either example, this is about the situation not the organisation. Whether it be a charity, boat club, church or work people are entitled to their dignity and not to have untrue malicious gossip spread about them, not to make judgements here, but none of my friends would expect me to keep a confidence over something like this, they would know that I would confront whoever was responsible and I suspect that Rainmakers friend feels the same albeit anxious all the same.

Either way, it is the people involved and the situation who are important for the purposes of this thread, not divulging the organisation in which it occurred.

 

[Pudney]

Well then it's probably best to get it sorted then. Although you may want to not go in all guns blazing, it is entirely possible that this senior person believes what he said about you and wasn't lying or spreading malicious lies.

Is it a commune?

 

[Pudney]

I see no difference between either example, this is about the situation not the organisation. Whether it be a charity, boat club, church or work people are entitled to their dignity and not to have untrue malicious gossip spread about them, not to make judgements here, but none of my friends would expect me to keep a confidence over something like this, they would know that I would confront whoever was responsible and I suspect that Rainmakers friend feels the same albeit anxious all the same.

Either way, it is the people involved and the situation who are important for the purposes of this thread, not divulging the organisation in which it occurred.

Well in this I disagree, something which is similar to a working relationship the issue should be confronted. Something which is social in nature probably isn't worth damaging the friendship, because ultimately that is what's going to happen by the sounds of it.

And I'm not saying the organisation itself needs to be divulged, just the nature of it, be it charity, club, religious hideaway or whatever.

 

[Emjeadea]

Id run it past your friend (who told you this) if he would mind his name being dragged through the mud in "private" which will probably turn public.

KaHn

yeah couldnt agree more run it by your friend and see what he has to say obviously hes going to be a little hesitant but explain its for the good, or you could just confront the **** and have it out the last thing on his mind will be who as he will be more concerned about who is listening to your conversation at this time, and if he should as you can just tell him you overheard it

 

[2StepSteve]

I was once in the Beavers too.

 

[Castiel]

Well in this I disagree, something which is similar to a working relationship the issue should be confronted. Something which is social in nature probably isn't worth damaging the friendship, because ultimately that is what's going to happen by the sounds of it.

And I'm not saying the organisation itself needs to be divulged, just the nature of it, be it charity, club, religious hideaway or whatever.

That would depend entirely on the importance Rainmaker places the social aspect of his life against that of his professional one. I would be more inclined to confront someone messing about with my life outside of work than within it as I place more value on my relationships outside of work than that of my employment. I can always get another job.

We also have to consider the importance Rainmakers friend puts on his friendship, if he cannot or will not support Rainmaker in clearing his name and in doing so effectively supporting the gossip mongers I would question the level to which I would place that kind of friendship.

I will admit I am a little confused over what concerns Rainmakers friend has exactly, as this rumour could have gotten to Rainmaker from any number of sources as the very nature of gossip means there will be more than a single person who has heard it, and in any event, it is untrue and malicious so he has no moral obligation to honour a confidence that requires him to compromise his ethics or integrity.

It seems to me that some people in this thread are more interested in what Rainmaker is doing, rather than what he is asking. If it really is as important as you think, then all that needs be said is whether Rainmaker has a professional or social relationship to the organisation, what that organisation does or the specific nature of it, is immaterial.

 

[Pudney]

That would depend entirely on the importance Rainmaker places the social aspect of his life against that of his professional one. I would be more inclined to confront someone messing about with my life outside of work than within it as I place more value on my relationships outside of work than that of my employment. I can always get another job.

We also have to consider the importance Rainmakers friend puts on his friendship, if he cannot or will not support Rainmaker in clearing his name and in doing so effectively supporting the gossip mongers I would question the level to which I would place that kind of friendship.

I will admit I am a little confused over what concerns Rainmakers friend has exactly, as this rumour could have gotten to Rainmaker from any number of sources as the very nature of gossip means there will be more than a single person who has heard it, and in any event, it is untrue and malicious so he has no moral obligation to honour a confidence that requires him to compromise his ethics or integrity.


It seems to me that some people in this thread are more interested in what Rainmaker is doing, rather than what he is asking. If it really is as important as you think, then all that needs be said is whether it is a professional or social organisation, what that organisation does or the specific nature of it, is immaterial.

To me socially I wouldn't care about such gossip, all those whose opinions matter to me would know me well enough to know and ignore such gossip and I can quite happily not have anything to do with the gossiper. Working together however requires a certain amount of interaction that would be made more difficult with simmering undertones going on.

The fact that Rainmaker wants his friend to be with him when he has this meeting prevents there being any doubt where he heard it from. And I'd also add that whilst what has been said may be incorrect, it's entirely another matter to say it's a "lie" and "malicious". It's a very important distinction in this situation.

As for the last bit, Rainmaker has already said it's akin to a volunteer organisation which is enough detail for my opinion on the action to take.

 

[Rainmaker]

Castiel from what I gather this friend was told over the phone 'in strictest confidence' by the person concerned. As such, provided they are telling the truth(!) he is the only other person to know. How true that is is anyone's guess.

I also agree that the place itself is irrelevant. The place and organisation has no input in this whole sorry episode and I'll be damned if I'm going to drag them into it on a forum.

 

[Rainmaker]

To me socially I wouldn't care about such gossip, all those whose opinions matter to me would know me well enough to know and ignore such gossip and I can quite happily not have anything to do with the gossiper. Working together however requires a certain amount of interaction that would be made more difficult with simmering undertones going on.

The fact that Rainmaker wants his friend to be with him when he has this meeting prevents there being any doubt where he heard it from. And I'd also add that whilst what has been said may be incorrect, it's entirely another matter to say it's a "lie" and "malicious". It's a very important distinction in this situation.

As for the last bit, Rainmaker has already said it's akin to a volunteer organisation which is enough detail for my opinion on the action to take.

My point was that by bypassing me entirely and talking behind my back to others, the one accusing me indirectly of malicious gossip was themselves partaking of malicious gossip. The whole episode is based upon an untruth, or if you prefer, a lie. Namely that I was forced to leave a similar place due to bad conduct and spreading malicious gossip.

It's a whole sorry mess, but unfortunately one that I feel now more than ever needs airing out and rooting to the bottom. I can't in good conscience continue to turn up and smile while I pour time, effort and money into something where I feel I am being so victimised. Even I'm not that stupid.

Hopefully we can sort it out like grown ups, the person involved can accept/admit they have jumped the gun, and we can put it all behind us and continue to work together in our mutual cause with no animosity. Somehow I feel it's not going to be that simple; life never is!

I'd better head off for some kip, I have an early start. I'll let you know what happens tomorrow. Thanks to all those who provided genuine input.

 

[Castiel]

Castiel from what I gather this friend was told over the phone 'in strictest confidence' by the person concerned. As such, provided they are telling the truth(!) he is the only other person to know. How true that is is anyone's guess.

I also agree that the place itself is irrelevant. The place and organisation has no input in this whole sorry episode and I'll be damned if I'm going to drag them into it on a forum.

I suspect, given the nature of gossip, that neither your friend or his informant are the only people with knowledge of this. I still don't quite grasp why he/she would be overly concerned with breaking a confidence that requires him/her to compromise their own ethics and integrity as being a party to such gossip implies. surely his/her obligation to you as their friend outweighs their obligation to a confidence given probably without knowing the nature of the information beforehand.

If I was your friend I would be as inclined to confront the instigator as you are, in fact I would have told the informant of my intention to tell you what was being said at the time anyway thus negating any obligation to that informant.

 

[jumpy]

People are often rubbish... my rule of thumb; if you can't ask or say it to my face, shut your damn mouth.

 

[barkingboy]

Is it possible that this is a trap for your friend?

The first guy wants to find out if your friend is spreading gossip - by seeing if you find out....